Dawkins - FISH!!!

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you need me to pick, I'll give you a couple:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

But please feel free to pick whichever ones you like.


[/ QUOTE ]

No that's fine. These will serve to answer others who've asked the same.

The first one. Very simple. What we would expect if there was no design is absolute chaos, complete disorder, total irrationality.




[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that high falootin philosphical rebuttal. I don't know if it is sound or not but there is, I think, a much better one. One that ironically comes from modern science. I wrote about it in another thread and I will repeat it here. While Dawkins may be right that the properties of ANIMALS follow from blind indifference, the same cannot be said, at least as of now, about the the constitutents of those animals. In other words 100 varieties of subatomic particles is certainly NOT what should be expected from blind pitiless indifference.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, this universe could be born by another one, which is eternal Or by an immortal being in another universe who does not fit a definition of God. Or in black holes Ad Infinitum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're allowing the argument to go back far enough. Everything you described requires "existence" to exist. It really doesn't matter how far back you trace a chain of causation, eventually you get to a point where it's appropriate to ask if existence began to exist out of nothingness. The "cause" the argument refers to is existence itself - that functions more as a supportive cause than a temporal relationship.

I know the argument from contingency can appear pretty silly and ill-founded, but it does have merit when you get deep enough into it. We cannot reach a point in science where we're dealing with absolute nothingness - in the realm of science - nothing cannot exist. At it's essence the argument deals with the philosophical concept of "nothing," and if or how existence came into existence from nothingness.

[ QUOTE ]
Taking one step further back, I would hope that the more intelligent theists are able to see that you can't prove the existence of a supernatural super entity by reason alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can prove it at all, at least through objective methods, and very few theologians claim you can.

[Phil153]

Peter,

you're simply mangling words. You're calling something God that is not, by any reasonable or religious definition of the word, God. See my Weetbix example.

[ QUOTE ]
"eternal dimension (or a billion other possibilities)"
The eternal dimension you speak of (but not the other billion possibilities) would be God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? So if this universe was the spawn of a black hole in another eternal universe (or one where time does not exist), that universe would be God?

This is silly.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you need me to pick, I'll give you a couple:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

But please feel free to pick whichever ones you like.


[/ QUOTE ]

No that's fine. These will serve to answer others who've asked the same.

The first one. Very simple. What we would expect if there was no design is absolute chaos, complete disorder, total irrationality.




[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that high falootin philosphical rebuttal. I don't know if it is sound or not but there is, I think, a much better one. One that ironically comes from modern science. I wrote about it in another thread and I will repeat it here. While Dawkins may be right that the properties of ANIMALS follow from blind indifference, the same cannot be said, at least as of now, about the the constitutents of those animals. In other words 100 varieties of subatomic particles is certainly NOT what should be expected from blind pitiless indifference.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many would you expect?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
We cannot reach a point in science where we're dealing with absolute nothingness - in the realm of science - nothing cannot exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% wrong. Read the chapter on cosmology in God: The Failed Hypothesis. There are definitely models evolving in theoretical physics that make no distinction between "something" and "nothing." The two are different sides of the same coin.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
My definition for God is: Pure Potential. This is the simplest possible thing next to nothingness. And by this simplicity, it is able to encompass everything. For everything that was created was in the state of pure potential.


[/ QUOTE ]
That would seem to make the most sense. Maybe what we experience as existence is generated by the polarity between absolute nothing and pure potential.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter,

you're simply mangling words. You're calling something God that is not, by any reasonable or religious definition of the word, God. See my Weetbix example.

[ QUOTE ]
"eternal dimension (or a billion other possibilities)"
The eternal dimension you speak of (but not the other billion possibilities) would be God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? So if this universe was the spawn of a black hole in another eternal universe (or one where time does not exist), that universe would be God?

This is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it truly was eternal, and truly did create everything else, than of course I would acknowledge it as the be all and end all, or God. Why would it be silly? It would be necessary.

Just because some people define their dog Fido as "God" doesn't mean we should acknowledge it. What is your definition of God?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
100% wrong. Read the chapter on cosmology in God: The Failed Hypothesis. There are definitely models evolving in theoretical physics that make no distinction between "something" and "nothing."

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn. This is the fifth time this month I've been proven 100% wrong by an evolving theory.

But I would appreciate it if you would cite a source or two on these theories, I don't have the book.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you need me to pick, I'll give you a couple:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

But please feel free to pick whichever ones you like.


[/ QUOTE ]

No that's fine. These will serve to answer others who've asked the same.

The first one. Very simple. What we would expect if there was no design is absolute chaos, complete disorder, total irrationality.




[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that high falootin philosphical rebuttal. I don't know if it is sound or not but there is, I think, a much better one. One that ironically comes from modern science. I wrote about it in another thread and I will repeat it here. While Dawkins may be right that the properties of ANIMALS follow from blind indifference, the same cannot be said, at least as of now, about the the constitutents of those animals. In other words 100 varieties of subatomic particles is certainly NOT what should be expected from blind pitiless indifference.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many would you expect?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT...

I wonder if he answers.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
100% wrong. Read the chapter on cosmology in God: The Failed Hypothesis. There are definitely models evolving in theoretical physics that make no distinction between "something" and "nothing."

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn. This is the fifth time this month I've been proven 100% wrong by an evolving theory.

But I would appreciate it if you would cite a source or two on these theories, I don't have the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, let me amend my criticism: you are 100% an overwhelming favorite to be wrong. I'm going to go ahead and trust theoretical physicists instead of your intuition when it comes to scientific epistemology.

Also, I don't have the book either, because Neteller stole all my money and I can no longer afford to buy every book that interests me. I just read it at Barnes & Nobles. Next time I go I will copy the citations of the articles Stenger refers to and report back.

I will not, however, pretend I understand the referenced models beyond the layman's explanation in Stenger's book, so I suggest you just read it for yourself.