Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Atheist revolution. Perhaps not as logical as first thought?

2

Comments

  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    Yes, bad thoughts attract bad things.

    Yes, animals do converse by sound but also by intuition, or thought.
    Are you saying animals are psychic?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    Are you saying animals are psychic?

    Yes. Like humans.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    Yes. Like humans.
    Based on...?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    So Glad wrote:
    Yes, bad thoughts attract bad things.
    How can bad electrical signals attract something bad that doesn't give out any electrical signal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    Based on...?

    Observing animal habits.

    About an hour or more before the tsunami in Asia almost every animal ran for the hills, they knew a tsunami was coming. Thats why there are no corpses of animals from the tsunami. Plus there are many storyies of animals detecting natural disasters before they happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Ciaran500 wrote:
    How can bad electrical signals attract something bad that doesn't give out any electrical signal.

    Opposite human beings.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview1-16-05.htm
    http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0110-25.htm

    If we go by such links, keener senses do not mean animals are psychic.
    And if humans were also psychic, there wouldn't be human corpses at the disasters, now would there?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview1-16-05.htm
    http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0110-25.htm

    If we go by such links, keener senses do not mean animals are psychic.
    And if humans were also psychic, there wouldn't be human corpses at the disasters, now would there?

    Only a small number of humans consider themselves to be truly psychic. And how do you know someone didn't predict it?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    Only a small number of humans consider themselves to be truly psychic. And how do you know someone didn't predict it?
    How do you know someone did? Is there any evidence to suggest it?
    Any pre-emptive announcements?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    So Glad wrote:
    Nope, I meant both of us don't know. As far as we know, I am wrong and so are the atheists, I'm just trying to prove a point.

    What point are you trying to prove? If its that, at heart, agnosticism is the only logical position, then you'll generally find that agnostics will agree with you and those who believe somethign else don't.

    On the other hand, you mentioned on the CT forum :
    I have spent days arguing to my friends proving God exists

    so clearly you're not trying to prove that we don't know. Note - you didn't say that you spent days trying to prove that God exists, or proving that God could or might exist....nope...you apparently believe you were proving that God exists.

    How can you prove Gods existence, and still argue that as far as you know, you're wrong.
    Although, as I have said, God could be the mathematical constants that form our gravity, symmetry and universal laws.
    Once you reduce the definition of God to a vague concept which can be reworded as "whatever it is that brought all this about", then you can easily argue that if the the universe was created as a random event from chaos, then randomness and chaos is God.

    In other words, you've defined the existence of the universe as a trait of God, then gone on to conclude this proves God's existence, but precludes knowing anything about what God actually is!

    So you can reword the argument as "something caused the universe to exist, even if it was just randomness....and I define that something as God....thus I have proven that God exists".

    No-one can argue with that....except to point out that to prove Gods existence, you've had to utterly redefine God and all you can attribute to God is the universe's existence.
    If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once."
    With respect...I think you should let the atheists answer for themselves rather then tell them what their answer is.

    Personally, although I'm not an atheist, I would say that the following comment from wikipedia is a much more accurate answer:

    Energy is so fundamental that it is not easily defined in terms of anything more fundamental. It is possible to define energy precisely, although the details will be of interest only to specialists.

    As for the concepts of "never destroyed nor created", it should be pointed out that these concepts only hold within our frame of reference - i.e. our universe. The common mistake of so many who wish to set themselves somehow at odds with the scientific view of the universe is that they fail to recognise the concept of applicability and frames of reference.

    Causality (cause-and-effect) is something we believe holds true within our universe. The inability to create/destroy energy is something we believe holds true within our uiniverse. Time is something the definition of which only has relevance within our universe.

    So...when we come to the "ultimate" question of how did all this come about, we have to discard every single one of those concepts when it comes to arguing our case. What does that leave us with? Not a hell of a lot really....which is why this particular debate has raged for centuries.

    The short answer is that we have no frame of reference within which to answer the question of how the universe came about. Thus, we cannot meaningfully address the question using logic, science, or anythign else because all of these mechanisms have the universe itself as a frame of reference. None of them necessarily apply once you go outside that frame of reference. They may do....or they may not.

    So the long and the short is that you can't prove God's existence, no more than you can prove God's non-existence. You can believe in either (or neither), but should never mistake belief and proof. THe only way you can "prove" God's existence is to define that existence into your base assumptions, but hide it so that its not apparent....

    - the universe exists
    - that existence may have been deliberate or random in origin.
    - I define that deliberate or random origin as God or the work of God.
    - ergo god exists!!!!

    See the problem? If you define God as part of your assumptions, then of course you'll conclude that God exists. But you haven't proven anything, other than that you assume God exists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    How do you know someone did? Is there any evidence to suggest it?
    Any pre-emptive announcements?

    I don't, I am just saying the media doesn't have everyones say, so someone who probably had predicted it didn't get their say.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    I don't, I am just saying the media doesn't have everyones say, so someone who probably had predicted it didn't get their say.
    So why did you earlier claim that humans are psychic and that animals are too?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bonkey wrote:
    What point are you trying to prove? If its that, at heart, agnosticism is the only logical position, then you'll generally find that agnostics will agree with you and those who believe somethign else don't.

    On the other hand, you mentioned on the CT forum :



    so clearly you're not trying to prove that we don't know. Note - you didn't say that you spent days trying to prove that God exists, or proving that God could or might exist....nope...you apparently believe you were proving that God exists.

    How can you prove Gods existence, and still argue that as far as you know, you're wrong.


    Once you reduce the definition of God to a vague concept which can be reworded as "whatever it is that brought all this about", then you can easily argue that if the the universe was created as a random event from chaos, then randomness and chaos is God.

    In other words, you've defined the existence of the universe as a trait of God, then gone on to conclude this proves God's existence, but precludes knowing anything about what God actually is!

    So you can reword the argument as "something caused the universe to exist, even if it was just randomness....and I define that something as God....thus I have proven that God exists".

    No-one can argue with that....except to point out that to prove Gods existence, you've had to utterly redefine God and all you can attribute to God is the universe's existence.


    With respect...I think you should let the atheists answer for themselves rather then tell them what their answer is.

    Personally, although I'm not an atheist, I would say that the following comment from wikipedia is a much more accurate answer:

    Energy is so fundamental that it is not easily defined in terms of anything more fundamental. It is possible to define energy precisely, although the details will be of interest only to specialists.

    As for the concepts of "never destroyed nor created", it should be pointed out that these concepts only hold within our frame of reference - i.e. our universe. The common mistake of so many who wish to set themselves somehow at odds with the scientific view of the universe is that they fail to recognise the concept of applicability and frames of reference.

    Causality (cause-and-effect) is something we believe holds true within our universe. THe inability to create/destroy energy is something we believe holds true within our uiniverse. Time is something who's definition only has relevance withing our universe.

    So...when we come to the "ultimate" question of how did all this come about, we have to discard every single one of those concepts, as well as everything else.

    The short answer is that we have no frame of reference within which to answer the question of how the universe came about. Thus, we cannot meaningfully address the question using logic, science, or anythign else because all of these mechanisms have the universe itself as a frame of reference. None of them necessarily apply once you go outside that frame of reference. They may do....or they may not.

    So the long and the short is that you can't prove God's existence, no more than you can prove God's non-existence. You can believe in either (or neither), but should never mistake belief and proof. THe only way you can "prove" God's existence is to define that existence into your base assumptions, but hide it so that its not apparent....

    - the universe exists
    - that existence may have been deliberate or random in origin.
    - I define that deliberate or random origin as God or the work of God.
    - ergo god exists!!!!

    See the problem? If you define God as part of your assumptions, then of course you'll conclude that God exists. But you haven't proven anything, other than that you assume God exists.

    Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    Beruthiel wrote:
    we have decided to wait for a logical answer.

    It's strange the choice of words you use. Why not say, "we've decided that we don't know"?

    I think a lot of atheists think like this, it's hard to imagine a world that we cannot understand (either by using God or "Logic") they take comfort in the fact that, "we might not know now, but we will know sometime".

    To me this is just as crazy as believing in a God.

    A big problem with this thread is how do you define consciousness...
    No one on this thread can, if So Glad sees the patterns in interacting atoms as consciousness, who are we to argue.

    Personally, I don't know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    havaianas20top20flip20fqg3.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o
    Assuming god exists doesn't prove god exists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Ciaran500 wrote:
    havaianas20top20flip20fqg3.jpg

    I stand corrected.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    Assuming god exists doesn't prove god exists.

    I didn't come into this assuming, I gave arguments that pointed to such things. Please don't warp my words.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    So Glad wrote:
    Observing animal habits.

    About an hour or more before the tsunami in Asia almost every animal ran for the hills, they knew a tsunami was coming.
    Which doesn't require psychic ability, but rather the sensitivity to low-level earth-tremors and vibrations below the human audioble range (subsonics).
    Thats why there are no corpses of animals from the tsunami.
    You mean thats your belief why.
    Plus there are many storyies of animals detecting natural disasters before they happen.
    Particularly earthquakes, right?

    These are another case where vibrations/subsonics have been identified as a precursor.

    Indeed, it ws studies done into identifying why animals seemed to have this sixth sense which led to the discovery of this particular technique of identifying/predicting earthquakes.

    Nothing magical or mystical there.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    I didn't come into this assuming, I gave arguments that pointed to such things. Please don't warp my words.

    Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions.

    ...?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    So Glad wrote:
    My assumptions are my arguments.

    You're assuming god exists to argue that god exists,
    but you didn't come into this assuming anything,
    but your assumptions are your arguments.

    I see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    ...?

    My assumptions are my arguments.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    So Glad wrote:
    Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o

    And as I've argued, one of those assumptions is that God is whatever created the universe.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    I wish boards would stop messing up the order of reply...
    SG, my reply is above your last post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bonkey wrote:
    And as I've argued, one of those assumptions is that God is whatever created the universe.

    Which is what this thread is about. Your catching up!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    from the original post....
    How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

    Go read the thread about the infinite monkeys.

    In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

    In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

    Thats how.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bonkey wrote:
    from the original post....



    Go read the thread about the infinite monkeys.

    In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

    In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

    Thats how.

    True, but how does the universe dictate a constant force throughout the universe?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    So Glad wrote:
    Which is what this thread is about. Your catching up!
    Ah...so you're not trying to prove Gods existence? You're trying to explain your belief as to what God is???

    In that case...why the agnostics and atheists forum? What you are describing is your spiritual belief.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    bonkey wrote:

    In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

    In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

    Thats how.
    There's a pretty gaping hole in that argument too...

    Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bonkey wrote:
    Ah...so you're not trying to prove Gods existence? You're trying to explain your belief as to what God is???

    In that case...why the agnostics and atheists forum? What you are describing is your spiritual belief.

    True, maybe it is the wrong forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    There's a pretty gaping hole in that argument too...

    Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?
    Because it currently exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    So Glad wrote:
    True, but how does the universe dictate a constant force throughout the universe?
    Its not dictated. All the forces come from the interaction of particles, all particles were created in the same place at nearly the same time and then expanded into the universe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Ciaran500 wrote:
    Its not dictated. All the forces come from the interaction of particles, all particles were created in the same place at nearly the same time and then expanded into the universe.

    Exactly, so do you not think that the blueprint is surprisingly convenient?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    bluewolf wrote:
    Because it currently exists.

    Ahh....

    Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

    It's not a good argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Convenient?

    An unfathomable explosions that scatters particles out over billions of light years is convenient?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Ciaran500 wrote:
    Convenient?

    An unfathomable explosions that scatters particles out over billions of light years is convenient?

    Are you complaining?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    So Glad wrote:
    Are you complaining?
    Complaining about what?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    Ahh....

    Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

    It's not a good argument.
    It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
    It's been a while since I studied probability though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    Ciaran500 wrote:
    Complaining about what?

    Nothing, nothing at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭So Glad


    bluewolf wrote:
    It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
    It's been a while since I studied probability though.

    Hmm, sounds bollox to me. The probability is 1 because our current observation of the universe, I'm talking about pre-big bang here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    There's no point talking pre big bang. Its something we know not about at all and we can't accurately theorise about since we have no laws or rules to base it on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Ahh....

    Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

    It's not a good argument.

    Its a great argument, once you remove the circular reference and go back to what I was pointing out.

    The universe exists. We can take that as a base assumption given that what we want to explain is why it exists.

    What I was pointing out is that despite So Glad's aversion to the possibility that it could all be just from randomness, there is absolutely no reason why randomness cannot produce the universe.

    I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibilty, and arguments about how convenient, unlikely, complex, or whatever simply do not figure into it because infinities get around that problem.

    For any given explanation of the universe, an infinite, unbounded randomness must be capable of producing the same effect. This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

    Ultimately, all explanations of the universe come to rely on an infinite. We can dress them up nicely, but inside each and every explanation is at least one infinity just waiting to get out.

    God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    bluewolf wrote:
    It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
    It's been a while since I studied probability though.

    I don't argue with the fact that the universe exists, or has a probability of 1 of existing, it's just that using that argument, doesn't really prove anything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    bonkey wrote:
    This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

    Ok, well explained... thank you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭Crucifix


    Ok, I'm not going to be able to keep up with this thread, but I'm just popping in to say:
    Opposites attract


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

    Because it exists.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Little Muddy


    robindch wrote:
    > Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

    Because it exists.
    I tried that, they didn't listen =(
    I don't argue with the fact that the universe exists, or has a probability of 1 of existing, it's just that using that argument, doesn't really prove anything.
    It proves that it has a non-zero chance of existing, which was the original point


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,564 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    What I find great about this thread is bluewolf's sig popping up all over it - and summing it up every time for me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    bluewolf wrote:
    It proves that it has a non-zero chance of existing, which was the original point

    bonkey has explained it has a non-zero probability of coming into existence.

    Which I can see now, kind of makes sense, if you come at it from a purely mathematical point of view...

    But then you've got to start believing in things like infinity and truly random processes...
    Like bonkey said:
    bonkey wrote:
    God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.

    I think I'd prefer God.

    /edit... made a little clearer

    and just a quick question to bonkey...

    How would we be able to define a zero probability event in your above argument?
    The argument seems lacking if you can't!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    bonkey wrote:
    I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibilty, and arguments about how convenient, unlikely, complex, or whatever simply do not figure into it because infinities get around that problem.

    For any given explanation of the universe, an infinite, unbounded randomness must be capable of producing the same effect. This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

    God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.

    Infinite time x infinitesimal possibility = 1

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
Advertisement