|
On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly.
Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms.
|
On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior.
Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too?  To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence?
Except that the bible has been disproven by science (sorry Genesis is not a historical fact) while the possibility of Guardians of the Galaxy existing has not. (not that I believe a human names Peter is out saving the galaxy).
Is it possible that a god-like being exists in the universe (or multiverse if you want to go that route)? We can't rule it out.
But does that mean that any religion on earth could be correct and telling 'the truth'? Hello no.
|
On May 23 2017 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:[quote] Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? Except that the bible has been disproven by science (sorry Genesis is not a historical fact) while the possibility of Guardians of the Galaxy existing has not. (not that I believe a human names Peter is out saving the galaxy). Is it possible that a god-like being exists in the universe (or multiverse if you want to go that route)? We can't rule it out. But does that mean that any religion on earth could be correct and telling 'the truth'? Hello no.
Exactly! How much you believe or disbelieve the evidence presented does not refute the existence of evidence to discuss and have opinions over.
When nothing presented, conclusions can't really be made. It's possible to say that you known Jesus is real/fake/etc depending on how much you believe the evidence presented. For things that don't have proof--you can't really have that opinion as a stance.
|
Ok, I worked it out guys. Theiving Magpie isn't a troll. He genuinely believes the Bible is evidence of something or another. Through reading his convulated twisted semantics, that whilst he presents himself as an impatial non-believer, he is infact a believer of a Christian denomination of some sort, as he presents arguments akin to a sunday school lesson. For instance his inability to understand a viewpoint that is inconsistent with a reality where you have to genuinely "believe" with utter faith in matters of faith and religion. For him to "beleive" in "God", is the same as a "belief" in a lack of supernatural forces. For him one cannot exists in a lack of faith of some sort, it is instead a lack of faith is the same sort of "belief" to which a worshipper holds; that of an unshakeable faith in something unknowable, but converted to an unshakeable faith that something unknowable does not exist. He cannot and will not acknowledge that to hold that same unshakeable faith, that "belief" that other unknowable existences do not exists do not exist due to implausibilty in the manner of other supernatural objects and creatures that that very same, as the "belief" that an athiest holds. That it is contradictory to at the same time to hold this argument does not bother him in the slightest.
|
On May 23 2017 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ok, I worked it out guys. Theiving Magpie isn't a troll. He genuinely believes the Bible is evidence of something or another. Through reading his convulated twisted semantics, that whilst he presents himself as an impatial non-believer, he is infact a believer of a Christian denomination of some sort, as he presents arguments akin to a sunday school lesson. For instance his inability to understand a viewpoint that is inconsistent with a reality where you have to genuinely "believe" with utter faith in matters of faith and religion. For him to "beleive" in "God", is the same as a "belief" in a lack of supernatural forces. For him one cannot exists in a lack of faith of some sort, it is instead a lack of faith is the same sort of "belief" to which a worshipper holds; that of an unshakeable faith in something unknowable, but converted to an unshakeable faith that something unknowable does not exist. He cannot and will not acknowledge that to hold that same unshakeable faith, that "belief" that other unknowable existences do not exists do not exist due to implausibilty in the manner of other supernatural objects and creatures that that very same, as the "belief" that an athiest holds. That it is contradictory to at the same time to hold this argument does not bother him in the slightest.
Can't be further from the truth.
I don't believe it is possible for humans to have complete information about something. As such, one merely accepts some things to be true or false based on incomplete information.
That isn't a need for faith, it's knowing that there is always more that a person can know.
|
On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior.
Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence?
So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence?
So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true?
|
On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:[quote] Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true?
I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions.
|
On May 23 2017 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:
[quote]
To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.)
If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present. Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility. Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible) That means you either believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons) Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented) Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true? I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions.
So you would entertain Galactivism as a serious possibility based on some crackpot saying he believed in it (although, by this reasoning, I would no longer be an atheist, and thus no longer a crackpot. What a conundrum!)
You see, I think I understand your problem. We're not so different. It's just that you have a weird interpretation of "believe".
You seem to think that "believe" in the phrase "I don't believe the existence of God" to mean I have an "unshakeable faith" in God's nonexistence. Whereas I mean the far weaker "there is no reason for me to think God exists". Just as you, presumably have "no reason to think that with Peter lies the true salvation of the galaxy". The main problem is that you seem to think that based on this awkward interpretation of "believe", you have figured out atheists and they're all insane, rather than you just having a bad understanding of what atheists mean when they say "I don't believe in God".
|
On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms.
Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I).
Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him.
|
On May 23 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present.
Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility.
Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible)
That means you either
believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons)
Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented)
Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true? I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions. So you would entertain Galactivism as a serious possibility based on some crackpot saying he believed in it (although, by this reasoning, I would no longer be an atheist, and thus no longer a crackpot. What a conundrum!) You see, I think I understand your problem. We're not so different. It's just that you have a weird interpretation of "believe". You seem to think that "believe" in the phrase "I don't believe the existence of God" to mean I have an "unshakeable faith" in God's nonexistence. Whereas I mean the far weaker "there is no reason for me to think God exists". Just as you, presumably have "no reason to think that with Peter lies the true salvation of the galaxy". The main problem is that you seem to think that based on this awkward interpretation of "believe", you have figured out atheists and they're all insane, rather than you just having a bad understanding of what atheists mean when they say "I don't believe in God".
My main thing is about the core logic of it.
So when someone says they worship peter quill because of A, B, and C I know that I can look at those presented evidence and decide if it's crazy or not.
Even the more agnostic arguments made of "I don't know, haven't really seen enough one way or the other" makes sense to me because of this core aspect of that statement where they are looking for evidence and wishing to make conclusions from that evidence.
When someone says "I dont believe in God" or "There is no God" the skeptic in me always asks--how do you know?
The core argument is the Null hypothesis which translates to "I don't need evidence, you need evidence"
Which is a fine argument to have--except it hinges on the person being okay that his stance doesn't have evidence because his stance, according to him, doesn't need it. It's a super fundamentalist idea that is the core problem in all theistic conflicts. The moment you start saying that your side obviously doesn't need proof is the moment things get weird.
It's not about how "correct" it is, it's about the kind of axiom you're comfortable with. I don't like the idea of saying "this is my stance despite having no reason why it is my stance:"
Because That's insane to me.
|
On May 23 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'd say they are either less likely or more likely than Jesus--but not of equal probability due to the order of data present.
Animals gaining high level sentience, alien species traveling the cosmos, trees that are more alive than what we have now--those are things that are very much possible in the I often universe. Kid taken by aliens being able to find a way to live with those creatures--all are in potentially real category, albeit unlikely. However, no proof of it (for or against) is presented and so it remains merely a potential possibility.
Christian God has data for the conclusions presented as evidence (The Bible)
That means you either
believe the data (then it's literally more true than talking raccoons)
Or you dismiss the data (then it's already proven false and hence strictly less likely than talking raccoons based on the data presented)
Because one has evidence presented for it while the other doesn't, you are forced to have a more defininite conclusion for one and not the other. Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)? The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true? I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions. So you would entertain Galactivism as a serious possibility based on some crackpot saying he believed in it (although, by this reasoning, I would no longer be an atheist, and thus no longer a crackpot. What a conundrum!) You see, I think I understand your problem. We're not so different. It's just that you have a weird interpretation of "believe". You seem to think that "believe" in the phrase "I don't believe the existence of God" to mean I have an "unshakeable faith" in God's nonexistence. Whereas I mean the far weaker "there is no reason for me to think God exists". Just as you, presumably have "no reason to think that with Peter lies the true salvation of the galaxy". The main problem is that you seem to think that based on this awkward interpretation of "believe", you have figured out atheists and they're all insane, rather than you just having a bad understanding of what atheists mean when they say "I don't believe in God". I did write this a few post above yours. He cannot understand the idea of a continuation of natural reasoning that everyone, including him, normally operates under, when applied to matters of faith.
As have been explained countless times, athiest don't "Know" there is no god. It is a continuation of that natural reasoning you call "null hypothesis" that which you apply to everyday matters except that you do not apply in this one specific case. Athiests don't need prove for their lack of a belief in a (other gods +1god), no more than a theist need to prove their lack of a belief in (other gods).
|
On May 23 2017 02:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms. Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I). Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him.
Cascade said that if you believe that the rules of the universe precludes god, then your understanding of the multiverse would have no gods no matter how many infinite variations.
My argument is that we don't know what the rules of the universe fully are as we do not have total knowledge of the universe--as such all ideas of infinite universe either include the possibility of dieties, or requires the person to have the impossibility of gods from their axiom.
Remember, in infinite variations all things that are not Null become made certain. So a non-zero chance of God means that there is a god, much as a non-zero chance for humans means there are humans.
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
|
On May 23 2017 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 23:42 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Nice way of not actually addressing the issue, but I'll let you get away with it. What makes the Bible a better source of evidence than Marvel comics (or videogames)?
The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are. But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there. Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true? I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions. So you would entertain Galactivism as a serious possibility based on some crackpot saying he believed in it (although, by this reasoning, I would no longer be an atheist, and thus no longer a crackpot. What a conundrum!) You see, I think I understand your problem. We're not so different. It's just that you have a weird interpretation of "believe". You seem to think that "believe" in the phrase "I don't believe the existence of God" to mean I have an "unshakeable faith" in God's nonexistence. Whereas I mean the far weaker "there is no reason for me to think God exists". Just as you, presumably have "no reason to think that with Peter lies the true salvation of the galaxy". The main problem is that you seem to think that based on this awkward interpretation of "believe", you have figured out atheists and they're all insane, rather than you just having a bad understanding of what atheists mean when they say "I don't believe in God". My main thing is about the core logic of it. So when someone says they worship peter quill because of A, B, and C I know that I can look at those presented evidence and decide if it's crazy or not. Even the more agnostic arguments made of "I don't know, haven't really seen enough one way or the other" makes sense to me because of this core aspect of that statement where they are looking for evidence and wishing to make conclusions from that evidence. When someone says "I dont believe in God" or "There is no God" the skeptic in me always asks--how do you know? The core argument is the Null hypothesis which translates to "I don't need evidence, you need evidence" Which is a fine argument to have--except it hinges on the person being okay that his stance doesn't have evidence because his stance, according to him, doesn't need it. It's a super fundamentalist idea that is the core problem in all theistic conflicts. The moment you start saying that your side obviously doesn't need proof is the moment things get weird. It's not about how "correct" it is, it's about the kind of axiom you're comfortable with. I don't like the idea of saying "this is my stance despite having no reason why it is my stance:" Because That's insane to me.
I think you're perfectly willing to rule out lots of things. You just don't want to say so. You see, you weren't contemplating the existence of invisible finkleblarts until I invented them a few pages back. And now that Galactivism is a full-fledged religion you are obliged to say "I don't know, haven't really seen enough one way or the other", despite the fact that I just invented that shit in front of you and am now telling you it's bullshit that I only invented for the sake of the argument (this fact should not matter to you).
How far does this extreme agnosticism go? Does it extend to other areas of reality? Do you entertain homeopathy as a real and valid medical procedure? What about Acrofalopathy? I'm selling Acrofalopathy sessions for a shitton of money and guarantee that it might work to cure all your diseases, ills, and otherwise make your life absolutely marvelous! I really think you should give it a try! But if you don't have an uncurable disease, I think you should be charitable, and give Acrofalopathy as a gift to someone who does. Given that you don't know it definitely doesn't work, you can't possibly recommend against this, because it must have a chance to work, right?
Or is the chance so negligibly small that as a working theory you just ignore it? In which case, what exactly is the difference between "believing it is true with a negligibly small probability" and "believing it is poppycock". You see, I'm not saying my beliefs cannot change in the future, just that my beliefs right now are thus.
|
On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Um...I guess we can add your not being a mathematician to not being a physicist.
|
On May 23 2017 02:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 23:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
The Bible is presented as real, comics and video games are presented as imaginations and stories devoid of prediction. We can literally ask the writers of these comics, read their notes, read their editor's notes, and know definitely what the stories are.
But the concept itself, the idea presented, is not too far fetched. To believe that there are aliens out there in space helping each other solve problems is not as unlikely as the idea that we will invent some new way to fight cancer. Space is big, and there's a lot of it out there.
Are you saying it's impossible for there to be aliens out there helping each other? Oh, ok. So you adhere to a Discworldian (or American Gods) version of belief, where the number of believers in a religion determines how likely it is to be real. What about Scientology? Admitted by the founder to have been invented with the sole purpose of dodging taxes and to part fools from their money. Yet it has thousands of believers, who really have faith in the Church of Scientology. Is that approaching biblical levels of likelihood of being real in your system. Because I'm really trying to understand how faith works in your mind, but I am not managing. And no, I wasn't talking about the vague concept of a "group of alien heroes banding together to battle evil". I was talking quite literally about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just as with Protoss I didn't refer to "some space alien race", but quite specifically to the Starcraft race of space aliens. Why does the number of people presenting or believing the data matter at all? The Christian god has evidence presented for him, Guardians of the Galaxy does not. As such you need to have a more definitive conclusion to the evidence presented for God while you do not need a definitive conclusion from the lack of evidence not being presented for guardians. There are stories present that suggest a world/life where guardians of the galaxy is happening. Until proven otherwise, there is a non-zero chance of it happening. Without evidence presented we can't have an opinion on it one way or another, but since there is no proof that it's impossible aliens can exist, there is no proof that plants can't exist, and there is no proof space flight can't happen, there is no data present that definitely proves that guardians of the galaxy is not happening. The closest you get to it is the author of the work telling you, to your face, that this scenario was made up in his head. But what are the chances he isn't close to describing something real? Automatic doors in Star Trek wasn't real, it was made up in some guy's mind. As are many things we eventually find or invent, as well as many things we prove to be impossibilities. Could there be something happening in space that is similar to what is happening in guardians? Potentially yes. 1% chance? 100% chance? 1% similar? 100% similar? Etc... How is this hard for you to understand? Potentially possible versus defintively impossible are not hard concepts to grasp. You're still confusing. If the Bible counts as evidence, then why don't Marvel comics? If the Bible doesn't count as evidence then what exactly are you referring to? Also, I'm not talking about tricorders or automatic doors. I'm talking about a human called Peter and his talking racoon friend Rocket. Also fiction leading INVENTION is very different from fiction leading DISCOVERY. The Bible is literally presented as evidence. When people are asked if Jesus is real the Bible is picked up and presented as evidence for his existence. Guardians of the Galaxy is not presented as evidence. As in, when the writers of guardians of the galaxy wrote the text they did not present it as proof of the existence of peter quill and rocket. Is it possible that some kid named peter was taken by aliens and is now riding on a ship with a talking racoon--yes, there is a non-zero chance of it. Is the chance high? Absolutely not. Is it above zero? There isn't any evidence that the possibility is definitively zero. How is that hard for you to get? Where am I losing you? Do you not understand the difference is between presenting evidence and existence of evidence? So something is "evidence" because someone calls it evidence? So if I now tell you that I am a "Reborn Galactivist" and have absolute faith in that our savior, Peter, has been sent to guard our galaxy, and we should do everything we can do make Peter as comfortable as possible, such as leaving mix tapes on the altar of Galactivism, you'd accept Guardians of the Galaxy as evidence that my faith might be true? I would be willing to discuss with you the merits of your data and form conclusions, definitely, from those discussions. So you would entertain Galactivism as a serious possibility based on some crackpot saying he believed in it (although, by this reasoning, I would no longer be an atheist, and thus no longer a crackpot. What a conundrum!) You see, I think I understand your problem. We're not so different. It's just that you have a weird interpretation of "believe". You seem to think that "believe" in the phrase "I don't believe the existence of God" to mean I have an "unshakeable faith" in God's nonexistence. Whereas I mean the far weaker "there is no reason for me to think God exists". Just as you, presumably have "no reason to think that with Peter lies the true salvation of the galaxy". The main problem is that you seem to think that based on this awkward interpretation of "believe", you have figured out atheists and they're all insane, rather than you just having a bad understanding of what atheists mean when they say "I don't believe in God". My main thing is about the core logic of it. So when someone says they worship peter quill because of A, B, and C I know that I can look at those presented evidence and decide if it's crazy or not. Even the more agnostic arguments made of "I don't know, haven't really seen enough one way or the other" makes sense to me because of this core aspect of that statement where they are looking for evidence and wishing to make conclusions from that evidence. When someone says "I dont believe in God" or "There is no God" the skeptic in me always asks--how do you know? The core argument is the Null hypothesis which translates to "I don't need evidence, you need evidence" Which is a fine argument to have--except it hinges on the person being okay that his stance doesn't have evidence because his stance, according to him, doesn't need it. It's a super fundamentalist idea that is the core problem in all theistic conflicts. The moment you start saying that your side obviously doesn't need proof is the moment things get weird. It's not about how "correct" it is, it's about the kind of axiom you're comfortable with. I don't like the idea of saying "this is my stance despite having no reason why it is my stance:" Because That's insane to me. I think you're perfectly willing to rule out lots of things. You just don't want to say so. You see, you weren't contemplating the existence of invisible finkleblarts until I invented them a few pages back. And now that Galactivism is a full-fledged religion you are obliged to say "I don't know, haven't really seen enough one way or the other", despite the fact that I just invented that shit in front of you and am now telling you it's bullshit that I only invented for the sake of the argument (this fact should not matter to you). How far does this extreme agnosticism go? Does it extend to other areas of reality? Do you entertain homeopathy as a real and valid medical procedure? What about Acrofalopathy? I'm selling Acrofalopathy sessions for a shitton of money and guarantee that it might work to cure all your diseases, ills, and otherwise make your life absolutely marvelous! I really think you should give it a try! But if you don't have an uncurable disease, I think you should be charitable, and give Acrofalopathy as a gift to someone who does. Given that you don't know it definitely doesn't work, you can't possibly recommend against this, because it must have a chance to work, right? Or is the chance so negligibly small that as a working theory you just ignore it? In which case, what exactly is the difference between "believing it is true with a negligibly small probability" and "believing it is poppycock". You see, I'm not saying my beliefs cannot change in the future, just that my beliefs right now are thus.
Why would I Ponder the state of things I did not know about?
Until someone (like yourself) starts talking about worshiping Peter I had no reason to believe that to be real. And after you tell me you do worship peter but in a fake way, how else am I supposed to take that other than you dont actually believer in peter.
Like I said, data first, conclusions second. For exampleC I would never had walked around telling people I don't believe in Peter quill as my lord and savior because until I learned about your belief in him, that was just not something to conclude.
Data first, conclusions second.
|
On May 23 2017 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Um...I guess we can add your not being a mathematician to not being a physicist.
Are you suggesting you can find the value 2 between values 1 and 0?
|
On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:17 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms. Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I). Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him. Cascade said that if you believe that the rules of the universe precludes god, then your understanding of the multiverse would have no gods no matter how many infinite variations.
Cascade didn't say that. He said that currently there is no reason to assume anything about the multiverse except that, by its very definition, it is an infinite set (and gave some possible infinite sets that you might want to believe in if you were so inclined). It being infinite doesn't mean there are no rules governing it, nor does it mean you can make up your rules as you go along. It may be (and quite probably is) limited by some fundamental laws of the multiverse, just as our universe is governed by some fundamental laws of the universe. Given the current state of physics we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about those fundamental laws (or in fact, whether the multiverse is a real thing, or just a convenient explanation for the unknown). But right now there's no real reason to assume they allow for the possibility of gods, nor is there any real reason to assume they don't allow for the possibility of gods.
My argument is that we don't know what the rules of the universe fully are as we do not have total knowledge of the universe--as such all ideas of infinite universe either include the possibility of dieties, or requires the person to have the impossibility of gods from their axiom.
Remember, in infinite variations all things that are not Null become made certain. So a non-zero chance of God means that there is a god, much as a non-zero chance for humans means there are humans.
Not knowing what the laws are don't mean we can assume they don't exist. It means we should be aware of the fact we don't know that, and that they may, or may not, allow for the possiblity of deities. But there doesn't seem to be any reason why the existence of a multiverse necessitates the existence of God.
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Just as the fundamental laws of the universe put limitations on what is possible in the universe, the fundamental laws of the multiverse would put limitations on what is possible in the multiverse. Just as my "forced limitations" excluded 2 as a possible number selected from the infinite set of numbers.
What we want, and "would rather" include has very little to do with it.
In closing, your argument was "if you believe the multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real". This is a logical statement. Analyzed logically, it is simply not true, as shown by Cascade's perfectly adequate counterexample. If you had said "if you believe a completely unrestricted multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real", then that would have been a true statement. No quibbles. My own opinion: I don't believe that if there is a multiverse there are no fundamental laws that govern it. Whether those laws allow for a God? I don't really care.
|
On May 23 2017 02:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 02:17 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms. Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I). Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him. Cascade said that if you believe that the rules of the universe precludes god, then your understanding of the multiverse would have no gods no matter how many infinite variations. Cascade didn't say that. He said that currently there is no reason to assume anything about the multiverse except that, by its very definition, it is an infinite set (and gave some possible infinite sets that you might want to believe in if you were so inclined). It being infinite doesn't mean there are no rules governing it, nor does it mean you can make up your rules as you go along. It may be (and quite probably is) limited by some fundamental laws of the multiverse, just as our universe is governed by some fundamental laws of the universe. Given the current state of physics we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about those fundamental laws (or in fact, whether the multiverse is a real thing, or just a convenient explanation for the unknown). But right now there's no real reason to assume they allow for the possibility of gods, nor is there any real reason to assume they don't allow for the possibility of gods. Show nested quote +
My argument is that we don't know what the rules of the universe fully are as we do not have total knowledge of the universe--as such all ideas of infinite universe either include the possibility of dieties, or requires the person to have the impossibility of gods from their axiom.
Remember, in infinite variations all things that are not Null become made certain. So a non-zero chance of God means that there is a god, much as a non-zero chance for humans means there are humans.
Not knowing what the laws are don't mean we can assume they don't exist. It means we should be aware of the fact we don't know that, and that they may, or may not, allow for the possiblity of deities. But there doesn't seem to be any reason why the existence of a multiverse necessitates the existence of God. Show nested quote +
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Just as the fundamental laws of the universe put limitations on what is possible in the universe, the fundamental laws of the multiverse would put limitations on what is possible in the multiverse. Just as my "forced limitations" excluded 2 as a possible number selected from the infinite set of numbers. What we want, and "would rather" include has very little to do with it. In closing, your argument was "if you believe the multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real". This is a logical statement. Analyzed logically, it is simply not true, as shown by Cascade's perfectly adequate counterexample. If you had said "if you believe a completely unrestricted multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real", then that would have been a true statement. No quibbles. My own opinion: I don't believe that if there is a multiverse there are no fundamental laws that govern it. Whether those laws allow for a God? I don't really care.
I will agree with you that infinite sets with restrictions does not contain the totality of infinite possibilities. I think we are in agreement with that.
|
On May 23 2017 03:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 02:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 02:17 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms. Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I). Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him. Cascade said that if you believe that the rules of the universe precludes god, then your understanding of the multiverse would have no gods no matter how many infinite variations. Cascade didn't say that. He said that currently there is no reason to assume anything about the multiverse except that, by its very definition, it is an infinite set (and gave some possible infinite sets that you might want to believe in if you were so inclined). It being infinite doesn't mean there are no rules governing it, nor does it mean you can make up your rules as you go along. It may be (and quite probably is) limited by some fundamental laws of the multiverse, just as our universe is governed by some fundamental laws of the universe. Given the current state of physics we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about those fundamental laws (or in fact, whether the multiverse is a real thing, or just a convenient explanation for the unknown). But right now there's no real reason to assume they allow for the possibility of gods, nor is there any real reason to assume they don't allow for the possibility of gods.
My argument is that we don't know what the rules of the universe fully are as we do not have total knowledge of the universe--as such all ideas of infinite universe either include the possibility of dieties, or requires the person to have the impossibility of gods from their axiom.
Remember, in infinite variations all things that are not Null become made certain. So a non-zero chance of God means that there is a god, much as a non-zero chance for humans means there are humans.
Not knowing what the laws are don't mean we can assume they don't exist. It means we should be aware of the fact we don't know that, and that they may, or may not, allow for the possiblity of deities. But there doesn't seem to be any reason why the existence of a multiverse necessitates the existence of God.
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Just as the fundamental laws of the universe put limitations on what is possible in the universe, the fundamental laws of the multiverse would put limitations on what is possible in the multiverse. Just as my "forced limitations" excluded 2 as a possible number selected from the infinite set of numbers. What we want, and "would rather" include has very little to do with it. In closing, your argument was "if you believe the multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real". This is a logical statement. Analyzed logically, it is simply not true, as shown by Cascade's perfectly adequate counterexample. If you had said "if you believe a completely unrestricted multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real", then that would have been a true statement. No quibbles. My own opinion: I don't believe that if there is a multiverse there are no fundamental laws that govern it. Whether those laws allow for a God? I don't really care. I will agree with you that infinite sets with restrictions does not contain the totality of infinite possibilities. I think we are in agreement with that.
I'll go a step further. I don't think that "a set with the totality of infinite possibilities" is possible at all. For starters, you'll run into relatively benign paradoxes (for starters, it itself is a possiblity, and thus it should contain itself). But I suspect you could follow Gödel's proof along quite happily and create an Incompleteness Theorem for whatever adequate way you try to axiomatize the set that contains the totality of infinite possibilities.
|
On May 23 2017 03:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 03:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 02:55 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 02:17 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 01:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 23 2017 00:28 Cascade wrote:On May 22 2017 23:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Do you believe in the multiverse? Congrats, you are a theist by definition.
Infinite Multiverse => Infinite universes where god's are real => infinite gods who affects more than one universe => infinite gods that affect all universes => at least one of those infinite gods who affect infinite universes is the Christian god This makes no sense, but you are nonetheless very confident in your tone. Not sure if you're trolling, or if you actually believe that you know what you are talking about. I'd enjoy reading your posts more if you were a bit more transparent with your expertise. Sorry for these remarks. In this case I'll elaborate a bit. In TLDR, a multiverse do not require gods. I think you are alluding to the principle that if you have infinitely many universes with random starting condition, then anything that can happen will happen. Then you go on to say that there will be universes with gods. In that step you assume that gods can happen. Ie, you assume that gods are consistent with whatever physical laws all these universes follow. That is a very controversial assumption. An atheist would probably believe that the multiverses are governed by equations that do not allows gods in the usual sense. An agnostic perhaps would be tempted by rules that create gods in some universes but not in others, but doesn't allow for cross-universe communication. A christian would maybe but the christian god in every universe, or maybe outside, governing them all. Maybe others would be fine with this universe being the universe of thier god while other universes can have other gods, as you suggested (as only possibility). All in all, a multiverse can have or not have gods depending on what rules you to apply to the universes. So existence of a multiverse is independent of existence of a god. Just because Atheist think they know the definitive rules of how the universe works does not mean they know the definitive rules of how the universe works. As such, they don't actually know that the rules within a universe can or can't allow for deities. Nor can they know that the rules for one universe cannot affect the rules for others. As such, the only way for there to be no Gods in a multiverse is if you start with the axiom that it is definitely impossible for that to happen despite not having the data to support that assumption. If you start as a skeptic and assume you don't know what all the rules of the universe are (I definitely don't think weVe discovered all there is to know about the universe but you could disagree with that if you'd like) then you'd see that yes, it is potentially possible that the rules of the universe allows gods, and if you believe in multiverses, then you are forced to see that god's can exist in infinite possibilities. Don't let your absolutism limit your perceptions. Stop talking physics with the physicist. Right now. That's not an argument you can win. You are completely utterly wrong on this, and cascade is too polite to tell you you're being silly, but you're being silly. Cascade and I don't disagree on the physics, just the axioms. Not really. What you disagree on is that you seem to think you know the laws that govern the multiverse, whereas Cascade is agnostic towards any fundamental laws that govern the multiverse (as am I). Remember, I didn't say that the multiverse definitely precludes the existence of God in any of them. I just said that the mere fact that there are an infinity of universes doesn't say anything about the (non-)existence of God. Just as Cascade just did. But you felt the need to argue physics with him. Cascade said that if you believe that the rules of the universe precludes god, then your understanding of the multiverse would have no gods no matter how many infinite variations. Cascade didn't say that. He said that currently there is no reason to assume anything about the multiverse except that, by its very definition, it is an infinite set (and gave some possible infinite sets that you might want to believe in if you were so inclined). It being infinite doesn't mean there are no rules governing it, nor does it mean you can make up your rules as you go along. It may be (and quite probably is) limited by some fundamental laws of the multiverse, just as our universe is governed by some fundamental laws of the universe. Given the current state of physics we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about those fundamental laws (or in fact, whether the multiverse is a real thing, or just a convenient explanation for the unknown). But right now there's no real reason to assume they allow for the possibility of gods, nor is there any real reason to assume they don't allow for the possibility of gods.
My argument is that we don't know what the rules of the universe fully are as we do not have total knowledge of the universe--as such all ideas of infinite universe either include the possibility of dieties, or requires the person to have the impossibility of gods from their axiom.
Remember, in infinite variations all things that are not Null become made certain. So a non-zero chance of God means that there is a god, much as a non-zero chance for humans means there are humans.
Not knowing what the laws are don't mean we can assume they don't exist. It means we should be aware of the fact we don't know that, and that they may, or may not, allow for the possiblity of deities. But there doesn't seem to be any reason why the existence of a multiverse necessitates the existence of God.
Which is why your example of 0 and 1 was a very telling reveal of forced limitations. For while there are an infinite number of variations within the limited subset of your query, in order for your stance to be true you'd need to pretend 2 doesn't exist as an axiom. While I would rather we include all values and variables as part of the universe and not just the subsets you deem important.
Just as the fundamental laws of the universe put limitations on what is possible in the universe, the fundamental laws of the multiverse would put limitations on what is possible in the multiverse. Just as my "forced limitations" excluded 2 as a possible number selected from the infinite set of numbers. What we want, and "would rather" include has very little to do with it. In closing, your argument was "if you believe the multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real". This is a logical statement. Analyzed logically, it is simply not true, as shown by Cascade's perfectly adequate counterexample. If you had said "if you believe a completely unrestricted multiverse is real, then you also believe God is real", then that would have been a true statement. No quibbles. My own opinion: I don't believe that if there is a multiverse there are no fundamental laws that govern it. Whether those laws allow for a God? I don't really care. I will agree with you that infinite sets with restrictions does not contain the totality of infinite possibilities. I think we are in agreement with that. I'll go a step further. I don't think that "a set with the totality of infinite possibilities" is possible at all. For starters, you'll run into relatively benign paradoxes (for starters, it itself is a possiblity, and thus it should contain itself). But I suspect you could follow Gödel's proof along quite happily and create an Incompleteness Theorem for whatever adequate way you try to axiomatize the set that contains the totality of infinite possibilities.
I've read that and wanted to tear my hair out. I probably do need to brush up on it again. But yes, I understand "totality of all infinite possibilities" is not as all encompassing as it sounds once you remove paradoxes--assuming you even have to remove paradoxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
