The Anti-theist Thread

[afro-elf]

Say rather that science is supposed to operate in an unbiased fashion, but sometimes suffers from the same human failings, and you'll be on the mark.

alas the nit picker cometh

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


A scientist that believes despite new facts has become a believer.

Unfortunately he is still often identified as a scientist.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...as for "random" please see chaos theory

Yep, however there's more complete stuff here where I work.

"Random" is the term people apply to unpredictable.

However, that doesn't mean that it's not predictible given enough information.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf


alas the nit picker cometh

You've got Nits?

Then you should be happy someone's willing to pick them.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Hmmp. And people said we'd never walk on the moon either.

Eyes? bah. What you actually need is a sensitive field detector, coupled with an accurate enough model to simulate the actions of the particles.

Then you just need enough calculation power.

Difficult? Yes.

Insurmountable? Not really.

Yes, if you are the mythical god and are omniscient. Do you believe it will ever be possible to track the path of a nitrogen molecule in a hurricane? It would require tracking every molecule it might come in contact, and so on an so on, including the tides, the sun's activity as our solar system swirls through the galaxy, blah, blah, blah. And some people still believe no one when to the moon. Again, beliefs are subjective and what "some people" thought is irrelevant. The trip to the moon was well within the the technology of recent times. The sensor you speak of would need to adsorb energy to provide a response, hence, uncertainty. It would be made of matter, would it not? This is speculative, anyway, so we are deep into the subjective in this scenario.

Forget viewing that sensr thing, I want my flying space car!

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Yes, if you are the mythical god and are omniscient. Do you believe it will ever be possible to track the path of a nitrogen molecule in a hurricane? It would require tracking every molecule it might come in contact, and so on an so on, including the tides, the sun's activity as our solar system swirls through the galaxy, blah, blah, blah. And some people still believe no one when to the moon. Again, beliefs are subjective and what "some people" thought is irrelevant. The trip to the moon was well within the the technology of recent times. The sensor you speak of would need to adsorb energy to provide a response, hence, uncertainty. It would be made of matter, would it not? This is speculative, anyway, so we are deep into the subjective in this scenario.

Forget viewing that sensr thing, I want my flying space car!

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of mass particle simulations. The number of atoms making up the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^49 to 10^50.

It will be a few years before our number crunching capability is up to that. For smaller areas however, we are already getting close.

As for a detector, there are way to detect masses that do not absorb a large amount of energy, such as a very sensitive gravity detector. Furthermore, you don't rely on a single measurement for a simulation, you take a number of measurements, in which case you might take half your sample in vectors, the other half in positions.

No, it's not speculative, it's just currently beyond our capabilities. But that's a long ways from insurmountable.

Which brings the discussion back to the point that, if there are no random, or (ultimately) unpredictable interactions, what impact does this have on the epistemology of metaphysics? At what point does the ability to "know" something become problematic?

And what impact does this have on metaphysical discussions about the nature of the universe?

[Rána Eressëa]

Here's something funny, and the moment I think about it, it actually makes perfect sense: "Here Comes Trouble".

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of mass particle simulations. The number of atoms making up the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^49 to 10^50.

It will be a few years before our number crunching capability is up to that. For smaller areas however, we are already getting close.

As for a detector, there are way to detect masses that do not absorb a large amount of energy, such as a very sensitive gravity detector. Furthermore, you don't rely on a single measurement for a simulation, you take a number of measurements, in which case you might take half your sample in vectors, the other half in positions.

No, it's not speculative, it's just currently beyond our capabilities. But that's a long ways from insurmountable.

Which brings the discussion back to the point that, if there are no random, or (ultimately) unpredictable interactions, what impact does this have on the epistemology of metaphysics? At what point does the ability to "know" something become problematic?

And what impact does this have on metaphysical discussions about the nature of the universe?

that there are limits to our ability (not potential) to determine, through philosophical discussions, the truth of the origin and nature of human knowledge regarding the nature of the universe, and, what is the first causation.

The logical conclusion of the finite causality view is teleology, or the conclusion that there is a designer, or creator - god . This conclusion negates the critical "free will" argument of the theists. If we are merely following the only possible course of action under a given set of circumstances (causations), then we live in under the delusion that we think or choose anything.

Living organisms don't always function strictly on a stimulus/response basis. The more complex the life form, the less predictable it's behavioral response to a given stimulus. The same set of causes can be shown to elicit different responses. Again the inability to identify every event thread which intersects another makes the theory useless unless the subject operates within a closed system (with regard to cognizance).

The inevitability is that at some point assumptions must be made. This is the point when finding where the "puzzle is missing a piece" is as important as finding all the pieces. This is why there is a distinct division in this thread. True science seeks the best possible theory to describe what may be, while the theist seeks the comfort of the mystical and immutable answer of "god".

While science continues to uncover more facts and evidence as to the nature of the universe, there will always be unanswered questions. One aspect of the practice of science is the single source theory. My favorite, having been trained as a geologist, is the asteroid extinction theory.

When it first can up I thought it was too easy. It's not that I don't think it occurred, but the fact that the supercontinents just happen to be breaking up at the same tims. Why couldn't the increased volcanism and the change in climate due to continental drift and the change of the circulation of the ocean have been a factor in weakening the dominate macro-species. Had their long reign of dominance lead to a lesser ability to adapt? Was the asteroid the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". This is again where causation is important and yet unable to reach the "ultimate truth". Variation, intensity, and duration of events add too many variables to reach an absolute conclusion. Yet evidence for a mass extinction coincident with a period of hghly active volcanism and continental drift at the end of the cretaceous is abundant. Is it even useful or productive to examine the event with an expectation of determining all, and finally, the ultimate causal threads?

As to the ultimate causation... what reason is there to think that this is required. Isn't it just as possible to say that the universe is the product of more that one cause? Is there a need to think that the universe (or any possible system in which the universe might only be a part) has a beginning or an end? Even the big bang theory time distortion as one extrapolates to it's initiation reaches an asymtotic barrier with respect to time. I need to check my Hawking again on that one. I'll get back to you.


post too long-must do something productive

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
Here's something funny that's quite a thing to think about: "Here Comes Trouble".

Haha! I'm going to show it to all my atheist friends....

Okay: "random" is a horrible word, I don't like it, never have. Unpredictable is better word usuage.

I *still* don't think that evolution can be considered directional...

Evolution does display a trend towards a direction. Organisms which are able to adapt more quickly to their environment, and more efficiently utilize the resources within the environment to produce more copies are favored. That's a direction.

Hmmm.... But you can not predict the rate in which it happens, nor the direction in which the adaptation can take; I still stand by some causative direction, towards a non-directed product [adaptation to natural selection; survival; best fitness, etc.] "Direction" implies a sense of design; a series of predictable steps, towards a finished product. Evolution can hardly be equated with this analogy.

Could you please give me your defination of "free will"? Who is it applicable to? Just hominids?

[Edit: If the world is actually a multi(omni?)verse, in which all possibilities exist at once (ref particle collapsing theory: in which all possibilities collide into one, because the human mind can not perceive more than one possibility), then you could almost argue that there is no free will.]

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]

that there are limits to our ability (not potential) to determine, through philosophical discussions, the truth of the origin and nature of human knowledge regarding the nature of the universe, and, what is the first causation.

Which changes basically nothing. It's always been that way. And likely always will be, even if we plotted the complete interaction of every single particle from t0 to tn. Because of the nature of knowledge. That's the point. There are questions that science will always be unable to answer. But because they can't be answered empirically, does that mean they shouldn't be asked? Of course not.

The logical conclusion of the finite causality view is teleology, or the conclusion that there is a designer, or creator - god . This conclusion negates the critical "free will" argument of the theists. If we are merely following the only possible course of action under a given set of circumstances (causations), then we live in under the delusion that we think or choose anything.

umm, teleology isn't the logical conclusion of finite causality. It requires adding elements, which is in the opposite direction of reduction towards a single cause.

If you start finding irreducible complexity at the "core" THEN you have to start re-evaluating.

Living organisms don't always function strictly on a stimulus/response basis. The more complex the life form, the less predictable it's behavioral response to a given stimulus. The same set of causes can be shown to elicit different responses. Again the inability to identify every event thread which intersects another makes the theory useless unless the subject operates within a closed system (with regard to cognizance).

Errr, living organisms do function stricly on a stimulus response basis. Even, and especially the more complex ones. Most of the stimuli for complex behaviors are internal.

Fortunately for our sanity we do operate within a "closed system". Acculturation, society, and other factors such as physical capability determine the range of behaviors we can select in response to a stimuli. In fact, it's been proposed that the more knowledgeable an entity is about it's environment, the simpler it's behavior is to predict. There's more a greater likelihood of "selecting" the most efficient behavior. An entity with "perfect" knowledge would be rather constrained in it's responses.

The inevitability is that at some point assumptions must be made. This is the point when finding where the "puzzle is missing a piece" is as important as finding all the pieces. This is why there is a distinct division in this thread. True science seeks the best possible theory to describe what may be, while the theist seeks the comfort of the mystical and immutable answer of "god".

Well of course, this is the root problem with skepticism. Eventually you are forced to doubt everything. Which is why you are all just a pack of playing cards. Reality isn't.

As to the ultimate causation... what reason is there to think that this is required. Isn't it just as possible to say that the universe is the product of more that one cause? Is there a need to think that the universe (or any possible system in which the universe might only be a part) has a beginning or an end? Even the big bang theory time distortion as one extrapolates to it's initiation reaches an asymtotic barrier with respect to time. I need to check my Hawking again on that one. I'll get back to you.

If there's more than a single cause, then that's the point at which we run into an irreducible complexity. Which means that ultimately, the very questions we seek to answer are unanswerable, and the only benefit of science is monkey comfort and to satisfy monkey curiousity. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets my knickers in a wad when people make the same mistake as any other believer, and fall into the trap of worshiping science. It's a tool, and frankly, I'd have more respect for someone who worshiped their Television.

At least it talks to them

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hmmm.... But you can not predict the rate in which it happens, nor the direction in which the adaptation can take; I still stand by some causative direction, towards a non-directed product [adaptation to natural selection; survival; best fitness, etc.] "Direction" implies a sense of design; a series of predictable steps, towards a finished product. Evolution can hardly be equated with this analogy.

Can't predict the rate? Oops- better tell that to all those fellows doing speciation estimations. They are basing some of their dates on estimated number of species.

Direction doesn't imply directed. Anymore than water seeking the lowest level imply's little demons pulling the molecules closer to the center of the earth. Down is a direction, but it's not directed.

Lets see... OK- what do you expect to see in an area where evolution has proceded unhindered by "unpredictable" forces?

Well, like a coral reef, or a rainforest, you expect to see a wide diversification of species, using all the available resources as efficiently as possible. Symbiotic relationships are another interesting parrallel, as they are efficient as using resources.

The Direction is mandated by the process. Organic Von Neuman machines. hose that are most efficent at making copies of themselves do so, until a sort of stasis is reached. Similar results happen in AL programs. Of course, in the real world, some "unpredictable" event usually happens, and changes the playing feild, and the process starts over.

[quote]
Could you please give me your defination of "free will"? Who is it applicable to? Just hominids?
/quote]

My definition?? Wow, that would take a bit. But briefly, the ability to choose between a range of possible actions. To do so requires that the entity be unaware of the ultimate outcome of their actions, otherwise the choice would be mandated. Of course, you COULD also include willfull stupidity as a form of free will, but that gets too complicated for a brief discussion.

[Edit: If the world is actually a multi(omni?)verse, in which all possibilities exist at once (ref particle collapsing theory: in which all possibilities collide into one, because the human mind can not perceive more than one possibility), then you could almost argue that there is no free will.] [/B]

Ahh contraire. I'm familar with the "many worlds" theory, and one alternate explination is, we choose which "world" we are going to live in, by the actions we take. Your "other self" made the opposite choice. As long as a choice was made, even if all the choices were made, free will is a possibility.

[BeardofPants]

Can't predict the rate? Oops- better tell that to all those fellows doing speciation estimations. They are basing some of their dates on estimated number of species.

Speciation is but one small part of adaptation, and punctuated equlilibrium.

Direction doesn't imply directed. Anymore than water seeking the lowest level imply's little demons pulling the molecules closer to the center of the earth. Down is a direction, but it's not directed.

True.

Well, like a coral reef, or a rainforest, you expect to see a wide diversification of species, using all the available resources as efficiently as possible. Symbiotic relationships are another interesting parrallel, as they are efficient as using resources.

Yes, as is competition.

The Direction is mandated by the process. .... a sort of stasis is reached. Similar results happen in AL programs. Of course, in the real world, some "unpredictable" event usually happens, and changes the playing feild, and the process starts over.

Catastrophism. It does play a small part, yes. Again, punctuated equilibrium - periods of growth & static.

Not much further I can say honestly, on the topic, as it's probably a little out of my league.

[Andúril]

I was wondering if anybody could clear this up for me.

Take a look at the passage in Luke, chapter 1, verse 1-10. Hold on, let me type it out...

Luke 7:1-10

[1] Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. [2] And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. [3] And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. [4] And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: [5] For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. [6] Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: [7] Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come to thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. [8] For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. [9] When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. [10] And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

The message that the elders relayed was in third-person (…That he was worthy for whom he should do this: For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.), while the friends relayed their message in first-person (…Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come to thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.).

As peculiar as it looks, the account of the messages may still be coherent, if one assumes the following scenario: The elders were sent to request the help of Jesus, and not to relay any particular information, other than the status of the servant. The elders then spoke of the centurion, on there own accord, in third-person, which is unproblematic.. When the friends met with Jesus, they relayed the message that they were sent to give, and spoke as if reading off a written message, thereby making the first-person unproblematic as well.

However, this assumption brings with it additional problems, when examining verse 9: “When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel”. If we take the first few words, up to “him”, the verse is unproblematic, because it is compatible with the rest of the passage up to this point. Then verse 9 continues with “and turned him about”. Reading the passage up to this point, we are aware that the friends were with Jesus, relaying the message that the centurion had sent. The centurion himself was not physically there, he was still at the house. So who was the “him” that Jesus turned around? Verse 6 states that “friends” were sent; not just one friend. So we can’t say that Jesus was met by one person, who he turned around. After Jesus turns the man around, he speaks to the people who are following him, and tells them that he has not found such a great faith in Israel that can compare. Is he talking about the faith of the centurion? He must be, the faith of the friends and elders have no mention in this passage. Who, then, is this man that Jesus has turned around to face the crowd? From verse 9 on its own, one would think it was the centurion himself who was with Jesus. If this is true, does it follow from the previous verses (we must take the last two verses, because they together relay the message)? Yes, because the message has been relayed in first-person, which shows that the centurion could have relayed the message himself. Now does that follow from verse 6? No, because it says “…the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him…”.

It seems that the account of Luke is incoherent, because of the lack of certainty regarding the person referred to in verse 9. It could not have been the centurion himself. Since Jesus turned only one person around, and proceeded to compliment the faith of that person, it could not have been any one of the friends, because there is no mention of faith regarding the friends.

Anybody that can explain this one?

[afro-elf]

Is it just MY computer or did some of the posts vanish?

were they deleted on purpose?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Is it just MY computer or did some of the posts vanish?

were they deleted on purpose?

No, I can't see any missing on this page. Were you thinking of any in particular?

[afro-elf]

It must have been a temporary glitch everything is back to normal

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Speciation is but one small part of adaptation, and punctuated equlilibrium.

Yes. Which is why I find dates arrived at by estimation of speciation, and even to a certain extent changes in mitochondrial DNA, suspect, to a degree.

We don't have all the information yet, and I feel better when things are dated by several competing methods. Especially when they yeild similar results.

[Cirdan]

umm, teleology isn't the logical conclusion of finite causality. It requires adding elements, which is in the opposite direction of reduction towards a single cause.

If you start finding irreducible complexity at the "core" THEN you have to start re-evaluating.

telology - the doctrine that final causes exist.

[Cirdan]

Fortunately for our sanity we do operate within a "closed system". Acculturation, society, and other factors such as physical capability determine the range of behaviors we can select in response to a stimuli. In fact, it's been proposed that the more knowledgeable an entity is about it's environment, the simpler it's behavior is to predict. There's more a greater likelihood of "selecting" the most efficient behavior. An entity with "perfect" knowledge would be rather constrained in it's responses.

There is a good deal of extrapolation here. What is the boundary of the closed system?

Factors limit choices, they do not determine them. The proposed idea that greater awareness limits choices opposes that factor greater awareness of other possibilities would come with greater knowledge. Factors that exist influence a choice, but until the choice is made it is only a possible factor. How would one know what conscious and sub-conscious factors will be deterministic? Pointing to an influencing factor after the choice is made is fairly convenient. The greater knowledge an entity has about its environment the more complex and indeterminant the entity would be. There would need to be an overwhelming reason to choose the most "efficient" behavior over something that satisfies some other desire. The perfect knowledge thing is a theorectical paradox, anyway. This has been hammered out pretty well in this thread already. If you have time to read the whole thing, good luck!

[afro-elf]

the teleological argument is also know as the argument from design

the

cosmalogically argument= first cuase


and the ontological argument from being