|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2006 : 09:21:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
The universe had a beginning. Observed cause and effect theory proves the first cause of the universe would be eternal, or it would not be the first cause. Atheist will dismiss eternal first cause required with infinite universes and dimensions hypothesis, and then use this same hypothesis to used build a case for eternal matter as a possible candidate for the first cause the universe, even though they admit this is all pure speculation and not science. But yet they used it anyway to justify how they can brush aside cause and effect theory, even though they claim to be scientist and not philosophers. Oh my….
Bill:
1) Why did god wait so long to "CREATE" the Universe?
2) If god is omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to cease to exist?
'Cause and effect' is a process. Processes are governed by principles. Principles are logically more fundamental than processes. Cause and effect is governed by the principle of natural or "Reciprocal" balance - equal and opposite actions and reactions. If 'existence' is THE most fundamental phenomenon of nature, would it not stand to reason that it is explained by a principle rather than a process? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/05/2006 09:22:31 |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 09:54:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVE W
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by THoR
Actually, bill is probably closer to the truth than most. He realizes that SOMETHING has to be eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does something have to be eternal?
To cite- http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com - "If all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning."
Conditions - or states of being - have beginnings and endings, existence - being, itself - does not. UNfortunately we refer to the 'existence' of a condition in quite the same way we refer to the existence of an entity. In Spanish at least they have two separate words for the term: 'estar' and 'ser'. quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the Universe itself and everything in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So can it be said that you're a steady-state proponent along the lines of Einstein?
Actually a very UN-steady state. In constant change and flux, but both infinite and eternal in nature. quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing 'pops' into or out of existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you might pick a different descriptor, but I think that "pops" is a perfectly good one for, say, the sudden existence of sound waves in the air after I clap my hands together.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existence is not a condition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it is: things either exist or they don't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is demonstrable that cause and effect is NOT the principle which explains existence - whether BIG BANG or GENESIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, go ahead and demonstrate it, then.
Before something can change or be changed it must first exist. Change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change or cause and effect.
Those pesky (and quite theoretical at best) quantum particles which appear and disappear are 'conditional' not existential - they are effects, not existences... |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 10:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) But how do you know this? Dave W. has repeated many times that “we cannot know” what happened before the BB therefore all options are “equally likely”. So the chance that cause and effect was in existence before BB is just as great as the chance that it was not in effect. Your speculating that cause and effect was suspended, or not present, before BB and this is a science forum.
So you are stating that there is a 50% chance that "cause and effect" did not apply before the big bang. Since the existence of "cause and effect" prior to the big bang is the basis of your whole "god-did-it" contention, then you have just admitted that you agree with the proposition that "we just don't know". Jeez, it sure took you long enough to see the light.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So be careful what you argue for Bill. I'm not sure you really want to live in that universe you insist upon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill) While interesting yes, this has nothing to do with atheism.
That's it, Bill? That's all you got? I point out the logical consequences of your insistence on applying cause and effect to the creation of the universe, and the best you can come up with is a complete non sequiter? Very disappointing, Bill.
Why don't you address the issue, Bill? Is it because the logical implications rule out your meddling christian god of infinite love? Or do you just not want to admit to the type of universe you are ultimately arguing for? You really need to show some intellectual honesty here and address the issue to salvage any shred of credibility.
edited to correct spelling. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
| Edited by - R.Wreck on 03/05/2006 10:17:55 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 13:57:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
So Bill, you keep getting on us for speculation, but are you saying that it is not speculation to say "a god must have done it"? We've already settled the question of whether a supernatural creator of some kind exists. The answer is: maybe, maybe not.
And yet you mock us for our speculations left and right(not to mention you get confused between when we are actually speculating and when we are talking about hard science), as if our speculations about a purely material universe were any less than your speculations about god/s. Don't you see that this has all been dragged out for not? The final answer backed by current evidence is properly "We don't know" - which was said in this discussion so long ago, I don't even remember who said it first. But it sure wasn't you.
What makes the existence of your god a more likely speculation than anything else?
quote:
So Bill, you keep getting on us for speculation,
(bill) Well this a science forum. And besides, I wasn't getting on you for speculation. I was getting on you for injecting your speculation of unknown universes, as a trump card, over the observed and accepted theory of cause and effect. I also reminded you, that even if true, which is debatable in and of itself, quantum mechanics does not refute, repeal, nor trump, cause and effect, which we observe in our universe.
quote:
but are you saying that it is not speculation to say "a god must have done it"?
(bill) No that is speculation as well. That is all either of us has is speculation, just ask Dave. I happen to subscribe to an eternal deity as the first cause for the existence of the universe and all matter, including life it very self, while you possible subscribe to eternal matter as the first cause for the existence of the universe and all matter, including life it very self. We both realize/admit that all we can do is observe the known universe and then make our best speculation. I just happen to believe that my speculation is better founded. A big part of this is warped up in the fact that this non-living matter became life. Mankind, in all his glory, and in all his effort, has no clue how matter became living, breathing, complex beings, let alone where the matter to create life come from to begin with. To speculate that eternal matter could be the first cause of complex life, to me at least, pushes the limits of credible speculation. I see information required to turn matter into life, complex information. Information, that man, in all his glory, has not been able to even come close to gathering. I see a better chance for an eternal God to posses that required information then I do for eternal matter to poses that information. Yes, I know this is speculation as well, but in the end that is all any of us have is speculation, to come to our conclusion. So in reality we can both put forth our best speculation, but no one will empirically know until on the other side of eternity. Well, I guess unless it truly is a 100% materialistic universe, then we will never know, as our very existence itself, would cease to exist in the materialistic universe, at the point of death.
quote:
We've already settled the question of whether a supernatural creator of some kind exists. The answer is: maybe, maybe not.
(Bill) Yes, but at least I got the odds adjusted back to a more equal proportion. Most of the skeptics gave "god did it" 1 in infinite odds as the eternal first cause. In light of Dave W's post that we "cannot know" therefore all options must be "equally likely" I was able to come to a 50/50 spread on the God did it vs. no god debate with Dave. I didn't think that was to bad, to get 50/50 odds on "God did it" from battle tested skeptic after just a few posts.
quote:
And yet you mock us for our speculations left and right
(bill) That's right, because you boast of being a science forum, yet you try and trump established and accepted theory with speculation when you know you can't do this.
quote:
(not to mention you get confused between when we are actually speculating and when we are talking about hard science),
(bill) Quantum Mechanics I speculate, but to save time from debating this as well I will just grant your assertion for the observed particles. This still does not repeal cause and effect and you are speculating if you insist that it does and that is not science.
quote:
as if our speculations about a purely material universe were any less than your speculations about god/s.
(bill) But for some strange reason the atheist will seem to give the speculation about god/s 1 in infinite odds, while they give their infinite material universe/s high probability based on nothing other then their bias, and then proceed to label the creation position as moronic, based on the probability odds that the atheist made up themselves. All of this in spite of Dave W. declaring that all are "equally likely" *sigh*
quote:
Don't you see that this has all been dragged out for not?
(bill) No it has not. At the bare minimum I got Dave W. to adjust the odds from 1 in infinite for 'God did it" to 50/50 "God did it"
quote:
What makes the existence of your god a more likely speculation than anything else?
(bill) To begin with, I see my God, as a much better speculative candidate to have created life from matter then say, eternal matter, just for starters.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 14:01:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
For the purpose of this discussion, I will grant you that a being created our universe. What I want to discuss is your position that this being has to be an eternal deity with infinite power.
That this deity has to be eternal is, logically, easily shown wrong. If an eternal deity with infinite power was required to create the initial matter of a universe, there is no guarantee that this deity created our universe. The deity might simply have created the universe where subsequently a mortal pimply pizza-delivery-boy (or insert your “creator” of choice here) created our universe. You can always insert several of these “mortal” intermediate steps – an infinite amount of them, actually. In this case you are an infinite amount of time away from an eternal creator creating anything. Logically, this would mean that matter has always existed. And if matter has always existed, there is really no need for a creator, is there?
Also ponder this: if the deity existed infinitely long before the creation of our universe, there is no guarantee that it still exists. It might have been consumed in the creation of our universe. It might have died 3 seconds ago. Given that this deity has infinite power, it could even have died an infinite amount of time before our universe was created.
As to your assertion that the deity creator of our universe has infinite power – why would it have to have that? The only power it really needs is to be able to create matter. It might not have the power to interact with our universe at all. There is no logical reason why it should have to be able to do this. Do you think you could take the time to respond to this? Using logic? I.e. could you explain logically why the creator of our universe has to be eternal and have infinite power?
quote:
For the purpose of this discussion, I will grant you that a being created our universe. What I want to discuss is your position that this being has to be an eternal deity with infinite power.
That this deity has to be eternal is, logically, easily shown wrong. If an eternal deity with infinite power was required to create the initial matter of a universe, there is no guarantee that this deity created our universe.
(bill) So is this other universe speculative, or do you know that it exists?
quote:
The deity might simply have created the universe where subsequently a mortal pimply pizza-delivery-boy (or insert your “creator” of choice here) created our universe. You can always insert several of these “mortal” intermediate steps – an infinite amount of them, actually. In this case you are an infinite amount of time away from an eternal creator creating anything. Logically, this would mean that matter has always existed. And if matter has always existed, there is really no need for a creator, is there?
(bill) Your assuming that there is another universe correct? And just as I have already said, amazing. The atheist has all kinds of trouble with the creationist giving the attribute of eternal existence to, of all things, a deity, while they have no problem giving this attribute of deity to matter. And this is all based off of nothing but their bias. And yet they claim to reign in the world of science. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
quote:
Also ponder this: if the deity existed infinitely long before the creation of our universe, there is no guarantee that it still exists. It might have been consumed in the creation of our universe. It might have died 3 seconds ago. Given that this deity has infinite power, it could even have died an infinite amount of time before our universe was created.
(bill) Yeah maybe?
quote:
As to your assertion that the deity creator of our universe has infinite power – why would it have to have that? The only power it really needs is to be able to create matter.
(bill) To create matter from nothing. You, in all your glory, cannot do this, nor can you even explain how this can be done.
quote:
It might not have the power to interact with our universe at all. There is no logical reason why it should have to be able to do this.
(bill) God creates the universe, but yet you then think there is no reason to consider that God could interact with the creation in which he just created. Based on what?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 23:16:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
We've already settled the question of whether a supernatural creator of some kind exists. The answer is: maybe, maybe not.
(Bill) Yes, but at least I got the odds adjusted back to a more equal proportion. Most of the skeptics gave "god did it" 1 in infinite odds as the eternal first cause. In light of Dave W's post that we "cannot know" therefore all options must be "equally likely" I was able to come to a 50/50 spread on the God did it vs. no god debate with Dave. I didn't think that was to bad, to get 50/50 odds on "God did it" from battle tested skeptic after just a few posts.
There's a little snag though. The 50/50 odds are the options God vs. Not-God.
Once you start to assign characteristics to "God", you start limiting what alternatives you subscribe to. There is a 50/50 odds on God-with-a-white-beard vs God-without-a-white-beard. And there's a 50/50 of you consider Monotheistic God/Many Gods. Isn't there a 33/33/33 odds between Christian God vs. Judaism God vs. Islaamic God?
As long as you are satisfied with just God and don't care who that God is, then you're all right with your 50/50 odds. But once you decide/define your God, then your odds start drop rapidly.
We who are agnostic are ok with both alternatives: God and non-God, so we win either way.
quote:
quote:
And yet you mock us for our speculations left and right
(bill) That's right, because you boast of being a science forum, yet you try and trump established and accepted theory with speculation when you know you can't do this.
Please for my memory, what theory were you talking about?
quote:
quote:
(not to mention you get confused between when we are actually speculating and when we are talking about hard science),
(bill) Quantum Mechanics I speculate, but to save time from debating this as well I will just grant your assertion for the observed particles. This still does not repeal cause and effect and you are speculating if you insist that it does and that is not science.
The Casimir-effect is evidence that particles may spontaneously form, without out a cause. It verifies Quantum Mechanics. Since it does, it also invalidates cause-and-effect as a universal truth. I understand your unwillingness to accept that, but there are many aspects about quantum mechanics that is counter-intuitive. A single electron may pass through two different slots in a grid at the same time. When designing computer components like the CPU, QM has to be taken into accout because it puts limitations on the design. On the other hand, QM principals are used to improve performance on harddrives.
quote:
quote:
What makes the existence of your god a more likely speculation than anything else?
(bill) To begin with, I see my God, as a much better speculative candidate to have created life from matter then say, eternal matter, just for starters.
"Emergent Properties" is a cross-science that explain how complex systems can display properties that is not present in each part. It's what people is referring to when they say that something "is greater than the sum of its parts." |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/06/2006 23:18:33 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 01:27:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) So is this other universe speculative, or do you know that it exists?
(filthy) So is this god speculative, or do you know that it exists?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:09:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As Bill, does not seem interested in TalkOrigins' well referenced essay on the Big Bang Theory, and as that same Bill will not open any link short of being at gunpoint anyway, how can he be so certain that the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, without knowing quite well the scientific point of view?
Expects so much from the atheists, but accepts just faith from the theists. I actually searched for "The Theory of Cause and Effect" and came up empty. I did find THoR's site, some Budhist sites, and some philosophy sites. It seems reasonable that after 20+ pages bill would have provided a link or something.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So in reality, you are just assuming that cause and effect was suspended or non existent
... and later said ...
Well for the shake of the debate I declared the first cause of the universe to be an eternal deity with infinite power.
And you have suspended your pet theory of cause and effect to insert your arbitrary god. So is it logical to suspend it for your unevidenced god ? Or is it reasonable ? Or is it just convenient ?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
That is all either of us has is speculation
I never expected to see this, it is refreshingly honest. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 08:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
I didn't think that was to bad, to get 50/50 odds on "God did it" from battle tested skeptic after just a few posts.
I'm not sure why Dave granted you that. I sure as hell wouldn't have. But I'm willing to bet he meant that a supernatural force has a 50/50 chance with a natural force (which I personally still wouldn't grant you, but I digress) and any supernatural force need not be a sympathetic god with intelligence and a personality. Plenty philosophers of old hypothesized about all other sorts of kinds of creating forces. For for someone trying to come up with a rationale for any specific religion, it rather falls short.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:20:18 [Permalink]
|
You are correct, marfknox. Giving Bill Scott's imaginary friend a 50:50 chance of having been the creator of the universe doesn't sound like something Dave W. would say. Knowing Bill's penchant for misunderstanding, and without weeding through all these crazy posts to find the original comment and context, I'd be more willing to believe Dave said something like: From the information we have available, the chance that a god of some sort created the universe is exactly equal to the chance of anything or nothing else being the cause. And Bill probably saw that "exactly equal" as meaning 50:50. Where in reality, the universe being created by the monster living in Bill's mind is only one of how many possibilities, infinity minus 1? Without reading back in the thread, and without trying to put words in Dave's mouth, it seems more likely that he probably gave Bill's god a 1:(infinity - 1) chance of being the creator of the universe.  |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 03/07/2006 11:28:47 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:44:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
We've already settled the question of whether a supernatural creator of some kind exists. The answer is: maybe, maybe not.
(Bill) Yes, but at least I got the odds adjusted back to a more equal proportion. Most of the skeptics gave "god did it" 1 in infinite odds as the eternal first cause. In light of Dave W's post that we "cannot know" therefore all options must be "equally likely" I was able to come to a 50/50 spread on the God did it vs. no god debate with Dave. I didn't think that was to bad, to get 50/50 odds on "God did it" from battle tested skeptic after just a few posts.
There's a little snag though. The 50/50 odds are the options God vs. Not-God.
Once you start to assign characteristics to "God", you start limiting what alternatives you subscribe to. There is a 50/50 odds on God-with-a-white-beard vs God-without-a-white-beard. And there's a 50/50 of you consider Monotheistic God/Many Gods. Isn't there a 33/33/33 odds between Christian God vs. Judaism God vs. Islaamic God?
As long as you are satisfied with just God and don't care who that God is, then you're all right with your 50/50 odds. But once you decide/define your God, then your odds start drop rapidly.
We who are agnostic are ok with both alternatives: God and non-God, so we win either way.
quote:
quote:
And yet you mock us for our speculations left and right
(bill) That's right, because you boast of being a science forum, yet you try and trump established and accepted theory with speculation when you know you can't do this.
Please for my memory, what theory were you talking about?
quote:
quote:
(not to mention you get confused between when we are actually speculating and when we are talking about hard science),
(bill) Quantum Mechanics I speculate, but to save time from debating this as well I will just grant your assertion for the observed particles. This still does not repeal cause and effect and you are speculating if you insist that it does and that is not science.
The Casimir-effect is evidence that particles may spontaneously form, without out a cause. It verifies Quantum Mechanics. Since it does, it also invalidates cause-and-effect as a universal truth. I understand your unwillingness to accept that, but there are many aspects about quantum mechanics that is counter-intuitive. A single electron may pass through two different slots in a grid at the same time. When designing computer components like the CPU, QM has to be taken into accout because it puts limitations on the design. On the other hand, QM principals are used to improve performance on harddrives.
quote:
quote:
What makes the existence of your god a more likely speculation than anything else?
(bill) To begin with, I see my God, as a much better speculative candidate to have created life from matter then say, eternal matter, just for starters.
"Emergent Properties" is a cross-science that explain how complex systems can display properties that is not present in each part. It's what people is referring to when they say that something "is greater than the sum of its parts."
quote:
There's a little snag though. The 50/50 odds are the options God vs. Not-God.
(bill) No snag. The atheist believes in "no God" or maybe one in infinite chance that "God did it". They do not give Allah 12%, while they give the Christian God 18% etc... etc... It is "God did it" or "no god". And you would think that now that the atheist is forced to face the fact that "God did it" is 50/50 odds that he/she might want to reconsider their position of "little care" for who the god is?, as they did when they were under the belief that "god did it" contained 1 in infinite odds under false atheistic applications. That's like going from odds of winning the state lotto 1000 times in a row to odds of flipping a two sided coin for the reality that the atheist is a creation of g/God/s.
quote:
Once you start to assign characteristics to "God", you start limiting what alternatives you subscribe to. There is a 50/50 odds on God-with-a-white-beard vs. God-without-a-white-beard. And there's a 50/50 of you consider Monotheistic God/Many Gods. Isn't there a 33/33/33 odds between Christian God vs. Judaism God vs. Islamic God?
(bill) Wrong again. You are still using Dave's observation on origins of the big bang where he declares that "we cannot know" so all are "equally likely" when you ask the question of "what God"? We can examine the historicity or the manusriptive evidence, as well as the archeological evidence etc... etc...of a any deity claim and then compare them to reality and build a case for assigning probability to this deity or that based on observation of the origin of the said religion and their deity. Of coarse this is speculative as well but we both have already agreed speculation is all either of us have. The observation and follow up of the deity claims and their origin can be pointed to as a bases for giving probability of greater merit to one speculative deity over another.
As far as God with a white beard vs. God with no beard. God can not be described with physical features such as you would describe a man. He is an eternal being who operates outside of physical descriptions or limitations as that of a man. God can best be descried with attributes. He is eternal, he is infinite, etc... etc.... You can not describe God as a 6'4" 235lbs. older man with gray hair and beard. You know that doc.
quote:
As long as you are satisfied |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:45:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So is this other universe speculative, or do you know that it exists?
(filthy) So is this god speculative, or do you know that it exists?
quote:
So is this god speculative, or do you know that it exists?
(bill) I just had this conversation with marf a few posts back so you can go back to that if you want. Your about the 5th atheist to ask that question in the last page or so, if I were to answer it again I am afraid I will be yelled at for not coming up with anything new. *sigh*
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:52:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: quote:
I didn't think that was to bad, to get 50/50 odds on "God did it" from battle tested skeptic after just a few posts.
I'm not sure why Dave granted you that. I sure as hell wouldn't have. But I'm willing to bet he meant that a supernatural force has a 50/50 chance with a natural force (which I personally still wouldn't grant you, but I digress) and any supernatural force need not be a sympathetic god with intelligence and a personality. Plenty philosophers of old hypothesized about all other sorts of kinds of creating forces. For for someone trying to come up with a rationale for any specific religion, it rather falls short.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will worry about what God at a later time. Right now the debate with you is God/no God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We already settled that at 50/50.
Page 2 of this thread. Dave said since we cannot know what was before the BB that all options must be treated equal. I then mentioned to Dave that that would include "God did it" vs. "no god" and this would be 50/50. Dave then agreed. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:55:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You are correct, marfknox. Giving Bill Scott's imaginary friend a 50:50 chance of having been the creator of the universe doesn't sound like something Dave W. would say. Knowing Bill's penchant for misunderstanding, and without weeding through all these crazy posts to find the original comment and context, I'd be more willing to believe Dave said something like: From the information we have available, the chance that a god of some sort created the universe is exactly equal to the chance of anything or nothing else being the cause. And Bill probably saw that "exactly equal" as meaning 50:50. Where in reality, the universe being created by the monster living in Bill's mind is only one of how many possibilities, infinity minus 1? Without reading back in the thread, and without trying to put words in Dave's mouth, it seems more likely that he probably gave Bill's god a 1:(infinity - 1) chance of being the creator of the universe.
Welcome back Gee, you might want to go back and catch up a little as that has already been addressed and if I adress it again I will be chided for no new information. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:11:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Welcome back Gee, you might want to go back and catch up a little as that has already been addressed and if I adress it again I will be chided for no new information.
Between this thread and its predecessor, Part I, there have been well over 250 postings so far, probably just short of half of them made by you, Bill. And since the very first posting, and in fact in several dozen you've made in several other threads, you haven't provided a single piece of new information yet. I certainly wouldn't expect, nor can I imagine why anyone else might expect you to start now.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
