Question for believers in a God

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

I'll bite.

At some point in the timeline after the big bang, the fine tuning (exact tuning) would untune and we as humans would not exist. When in the timeline, I could not answer.

This is incorrectly phrased.
In an infinite number of universes, following the big bang, the post-Planck time would be inimical to carbon-based life, but another infinity of universes (one of which we just happen to inhabit) would be positively favourable to carbon-based life, and we just happen to inhabit one such universe. (As do an infinite number of ourselves in an infinity of other universes, an infinity of which are identical, and an infinity of which are not.)
Consequently, the idea that there is something "special", and hence mystical, about life is a nonsense. In a multiverse, that an infinite number of universes permit life is inevitable.
The existence of religion makes me seriously doubt there's a cosmic puppet master, however...

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

This is incorrectly phrased.
In an infinite number of universes, following the big bang, the post-Planck time would be inimical to carbon-based life, but another infinity of universes (one of which we just happen to inhabit) would be positively favourable to carbon-based life, and we just happen to inhabit one such universe. (As do an infinite number of ourselves in an infinity of other universes, an infinity of which are identical, and an infinity of which are not.)
Consequently, the idea that there is something "special", and hence mystical, about life is a nonsense. In a multiverse, that an infinite number of universes permit life is inevitable.
The existence of religion makes me seriously doubt there's a cosmic puppet master, however...

Yes, this multiverse idea has become popular with skeptics lately. The reason is obvious, it counters the scientific fact that this universe is absolutely so well tuned. If it were only this one and this alone, it opens the door for the posibility of that puppet master...

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

Yes, this multiverse idea has become popular with skeptics lately. The reason is obvious, it counters the scientific fact that this universe is absolutely so well tuned. If it were only this one and this alone, it opens the door for the posibility of that puppet master...

You misunderstand. If the multiverse does NOT exist, please explain quantum computing...

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

You misunderstand. If the multiverse does NOT exist, please explain quantum computing...

How about a few sentences on the meaning/implications of "quantum computing" as you understand it?

 

[Kitty Chan]

Suppose there were a parallel universe identical to our's in every detail and respect with the single exception that there is no God. In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own? Or another question - what does it mean for there to be a "God" is "God" is undetectable?

In your parallel universe if its the same as ours but no God or gods as if undetectable therefore do not exist.

People would be lying, cheating, stealing, killing, war and taking over because human nature is the pits.

Now lets think if that old human nature caused by the fall did not happen.

Then that universe would not be like ours at all.

 

[c4ts]

Suppose there were a parallel universe identical to our's in every detail and respect with the single exception that there is no God. In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own?

Uh... you've already answered your own question.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

How about a few sentences on the meaning/implications of "quantum computing" as you understand it?

Quantum computing, using intereactions between subatomic particles, is a reality. MIT and Cambridge are both researching its implications. The thing is, whereare the interacting particles, if not in other universes?
Thus spake David Deutch.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

People would be lying, cheating, stealing, killing, war and taking over because human nature is the pits.

People ARE lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.

I think H'ethetheth was correct in saying that this thread got disrailed.

The original question seemed to be along the lines of "how do we know that God is affecting anything in the universe". It boils down to the question "how do we know there is a God", but atempts to get around the complications of creation, etc.

A different hypothetical might be: What if God went on vacation and stopped caring about or meddling in the lives of humans. How would we know? What if God's vacation began about 1800 years ago? A "God on vacation" would be like a "God that in undetectable" or a "God that doesn't exist".

A different hypothetical might be: Let's say God created two identical universes. For one of the universes God remains actively involved in. For the other universe God eventually ceased involvment and just let it go its merry way. In which universe do we live?

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Just as there is inadequate justification in this case; you're claiming that we are too stupid to understand god's will.

Absolutely, positively not.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It's not that we're stupid, it's that God and the universe are separate things, and as such, we can't perceive God any more than a molecule of clay inside the pot can perceive the potter.

It is this concept of separateness that provides ample justification to make the special-pleading not be a fallacy.

First, however, you would have to prove that there is a god, and that this god did indeed create the multiverse. Only then will you be in a position to make your original claim.

You are obviously not reading what I am writing.

I can't prove there's a God because I believe that God is unprovable. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. You go ahead and believe that He doesn't exist if you want to; no skin off my nose. But you need to realize (and live with the fact) that your belief is just as unfounded in factual evidence as mine is.

But your analogy is fundamentally flawed. A pot is incapable of cogitation, and hence of reasoning. I, however, am capable of both.

You have not demonstrated that this difference makes my analogy useless.

A pot is not in a position to understand its potter because it cannot think; as I can think I am indeed in a position to understand my origins.

You can only understand something if data regarding it is given to you. We have no such data; we never will have any such data; therefore we are not in a position to understand our origins.

This is not an insult. You're not stupid, you're just uninformed. We all are. So we each go on what we choose to believe.





And for the rest of you boneheads bickering about the Oxford comma: it's a great grammatical device, and I for one would use it even if my parents were Ayn Rand and God.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Absolutely, positively not.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It's not that we're stupid, it's that God and the universe are separate things, and as such, we can't perceive God any more than a molecule of clay inside the pot can perceive the potter.

False analogy; we are sentient; a pot is not.
Consequently, intelligence has EVERYTHING to do with it.

It is this concept of separateness that provides ample justification to make the special-pleading not be a fallacy.

Wrong; special pleading is de facto a fallacy. You just shot yourself in the foot. You admit to special pleasding.

You are obviously not reading what I am writing.

...Or you're not expressing yourself clearly.

I can't prove there's a God because I believe that God is unprovable. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. You go ahead and believe that He doesn't exist if you want to; no skin off my nose. But you need to realize (and live with the fact) that your belief is just as unfounded in factual evidence as mine is.

Wrong again. Disbelief in something is not the same as belief. Not collecting stamps does not make me a hobbyist.
Besides, if gods existed, their existence would very much be provable; the Xpian god can come and talk to me right now....
Nope, didn't happen. I wonder why...?
A better question is, why do you believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and no need? After all, it's not like you need a god to explain the multiverse, or life, or anything (the original reasons for belief in gods).

You have not demonstrated that this difference makes my analogy useless.

Wrong YET AGAIN! I have done exactly that.

You can only understand something if data regarding it is given to you. We have no such data; we never will have any such data; therefore we are not in a position to understand our origins.

How can you possibly know that we will "never have such data"? Are you omniscient?!
We are very much in a position to understand out origins; in what way does Darwin NOT supply an answer to our origins?

This is not an insult. You're not stupid, you're just uninformed. We all are. So we each go on what we choose to believe.

Better informed than you, evidently. And I don't "choose" to believe; I am led to the conclusion by the evidence. Or, in this case, the total absence of evidence. Not all ideas are of equal merit, and the supernatural is completely bankrupt. Consequently, I am led to the inevitable, logical conclusion that the supernatural does not exist.

And for the rest of you boneheads bickering about the Oxford comma: it's a great grammatical device, and I for one would use it even if my parents were Ayn Rand and God.

But would you use it correctly...?

 

[H'ethetheth]

... Not collecting stamps does not make me a hobbyist...

This quote says it all really.

 

[hammegk]

Quantum computing, using intereactions between subatomic particles, is a reality. MIT and Cambridge are both researching its implications.

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

The thing is, whereare the interacting particles, if not in other universes?
Thus spake David Deutch.

Mr. Deutsch could be correct, but the Anthropic Principle in a 10 or 11 D single-verse could also suffice.


Neither idea addresses the question of g_d.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

False analogy; we are sentient; a pot is not.
Consequently, intelligence has EVERYTHING to do with it.

You keep saying this but not showing why it is true.

Wrong; special pleading is de facto a fallacy. You just shot yourself in the foot. You admit to special pleasding.

...Or you're not expressing yourself clearly.

I know I am taking these two quotes out of context, but it's rather amazing how the second part also addresses the first part.

I'm not using the fallacy of special pleading because of the reason I gave earlier. The reason I gave earlier applies because of the reason I gave in my last post.

Wrong again. Disbelief in something is not the same as belief. Not collecting stamps does not make me a hobbyist.

Inapplicable. Do you believe stamps do not exist?

Besides, if gods existed, their existence would very much be provable;

Why do you believe that? How is this different from a blind man saying "if rainbows existed, their existence would very much be provable"?

We are very much in a position to understand out origins; in what way does Darwin NOT supply an answer to our origins?

Rule 1 of evolution:
Evolution is not abiogenesis.

What happened before the Big Bang?

I don't "choose" to believe; I am led to the conclusion by the evidence. Or, in this case, the total absence of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am led to the inevitable, logical conclusion that the supernatural does not exist.

Based on what evidence? If you are reacing a conclusion, you must have some evidence. Otherwise it's just a belief.

But would you use it correctly...?

Every single time. Unless it's way past my bedtime.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Based on what evidence? If you are reacing a conclusion, you must have some evidence. Otherwise it's just a belief.

First, and (I believe) Kimpatsu will subscribe to this notion,
absense of belief does not constitute belief of absense.

However, there is no evidence for cookies in my cookie jar. I believe there are no cookies in my cookie jar, in fact I assume there are no cookies in my cookie jar.

Why would I assume otherwise?

 

[BillyJoe]

Kimp,

You don't think the Oxford comma exists? Then what of the following sentence?
"To my parents, Ayn Rand and god".
You can read the definition of the Oxford Comma here. If you pull your head out of your arse.

Okay, that use of the comma was explained to me some time ago on this forum and I have been using it ever since. I was, however, not told that it had a name. So, I guess some stuff-shirt has named it after his university.

Nevertheless, I was not referring to the "Oxford" comma, in my post. See if you can spot it.....

Unfortunately, most politicians, and many parents and school administrators, only care if children score well on tests.

Also the "only" is misplaced.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Who the hell's an American, ya bloody colonial?!

You're a bloody Pommie bastard then???

And I'm a comedian because compared to me, you're a clown.

I have to believe you're a comedian, because the alternative is too sad for me to bear.

And if you think I'm a woman, you're in for one hell of a shock on our wedding night.

I will pin you down and call the dogs to feast on your genitals and roast you alive on a spit with an apple in your mouth to muffle the screams.

BillyJoe

 

[Mr Clingford]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

First, and (I believe) Kimpatsu will subscribe to this notion,
absense of belief does not constitute belief of absense.

However, there is no evidence for cookies in my cookie jar. I believe there are no cookies in my cookie jar, in fact I assume there are no cookies in my cookie jar.

Why would I assume otherwise?

What if someone put cookies in the jar when you weren't looking!?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

What if someone put cookies in the jar when you weren't looking!?

But should I allways assume there are cookies, only because the chocolate-chip-fairy might sneak in some cookies every once in a while, when I'm not looking?

Think about my coffee break.

The horror....

the horror!

 

[Kimpatsu]

Mr. Deutsch could be correct, but the Anthropic Principle in a 10 or 11 D single-verse could also suffice.

Not for quantum computing, Hamm. Quantum entanglement is an all-or-nothing deal, because if there are an infinite number of universes whose subatomic particles interact with ours, then de facto there must also be an infinite number of universes too unlike ours for interaction to take place.
Read Deutch's The Fabric of Reality for details. It's a great book.

 

[hammegk]

Deutsch has his ideas, others have theirs -- multi-verse vs. mono-verse .... ?????

Back to the OP ....

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=


And, what is more real than math/logic? In turn, what *is* math/logic?