Mea Culpa

[g0zen]

He's a credible scientist and those books are pertinent to the discussion, what's the problem?

[MarsKitten]

Did I say or imply a problem?

[Master of 7s]

I know I'm late...



It's not too much of a coincidence for me and I'm a rational, intelligent and thinking person.

No one cares what you think anyway.

If all that Asimov/robots/aliens stuff happens in our lifetime I guarantee you'll ditch God in a second, you big nerd.

If any of that stuff comes to pass in our lifetime, it'll just confirm what I already believe anyway. God isn't a concept exclusive to our species.

As for the big nerd comment....well, duh!

[Josh]

Lets get dangerous imo.

[Frogacuda]

Fuck off, you've been dancing in circles for three or four posts now without ever making a point.

My point is that neither of us know all the answers, and you're an arrogant twit for thinking you do. I'm not dancing in circles, I'm avoiding making assertive claims about things I don't know. All I know is that you don't know either.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: The difference between a wise man and a fool is not how much he knows, but being aware of what he doesn't. Every time you make an ass of yourself on these boards it's not because you're an idiot, it's because you think you know more than you do.

What the fuck does that have anything to do with the science itself? I don't give a good goddamn what they 'believe' only what they have evidence that supports.

The point is, again, that you aren't smarter than the rest of humanity. You haven't just "figured it out" with a certainty that no one else has. You're a know-it-all and an ass.

As it stands they don't have evidence for what you're proposing (which is essentially intelligent design), no matter how hard you want it to be there it just isn't.

I'm not really proposing much, honestly. Everything I'm claiming with regard to the way the universe works is pretty indisputable. Logically provable, even. I'm just describing it in terms you're arbitrarily uncomfortable with because you think they imply more than they do.

This is by far the stupidest oversimplification of the universe ever uttered in history, congrats. It's not an intelligent process just because it works. You continue to misuse the word intelligence, I'm guessing because you don't understand it.

You can't possibly be dumb enough to think I was trying to point out something meaningful about the universe there. My statement was just an obvious one about language and logic, not the universe. I clearly defined how I was using the term over and over, so I don't know why you continue to dispute it. You know what I fucking meant. And if you don't disagree with what I meant as I explained it, then why are you still bitching?

Only if you consider some para-natural purpose as having value. I don't. Why does the universe need to have a design or a purpose?

It doesn't, but that belief (or lack thereof as it were) is the backbone of nihilism, so I was just calling it what it is. Nihilism tends to devalue the importance of life, but I suppose it doesn't have to.

In any event, your notion of the possibility of the universe's laws being other than what they are is as completely ungrounded in any evidence as any God man has ever created.

[g0zen]

It doesn't, but that belief (or lack thereof as it were) is the backbone of nihilism, so I was just calling it what it is. Nihilism tends to devalue the importance of life, but I suppose it doesn't have to.

Nihilism can only apply to people, not to the universe. The universe is naturalistic, not nihilistic. I don't need the universe to have a purpose or design for me to have purpose in my own life. It just means I can't rely on bullshit para-natural garbage to 'give' me a reason to live, I make it myself. I control my destiny. I find that a far cry from belief in nothing.

In any event, your notion of the possibility of the universe's laws being other than what they are is as completely ungrounded in any evidence as any God man has ever created.

I'm just going to leave you with this, because you really need to practice what you preach, if I'm making bold assertions for which I cannot definitively prove (as you claim), then I'm certainly not the only one here. Your rigid declaration that the universe's laws can't be anything other than what they are (based on current understanding and observation) is really off base I hope you see that. We learn only through continuous observation and testing, revisiting and clarifying things as needed, we don't stay in statis because it wrecks your philosophy.

[Frogacuda]

I control my destiny.

No you don't. You're a machine like everything else. The universe is all one big machine. You're applying the magical importance to the machine in your own head, and then criticizing me for implying the one outside your head might be as important.

Your brain does what it's supposed to do. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the magical bridge between possibility and actuality. It's a cog. Get over it.

Your rigid declaration that the universe's laws can't be anything other than what they are (based on current understanding and observation) is really off base I hope you see that.

I don't know what good it does to talk about other universes. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means I'm not even sure what it would mean to say they do (it wouldn't be using the term "exist" in the conventional sense, at least).

[g0zen]

No you don't. You're a machine like everything else. The universe is all one big machine. You're applying the magical importance to the machine in your own head, and then criticizing me for implying the one outside your head might be as important.

Wrong again. I'm not saying I have a free will outside of naturalistic forces, just that when I act through those natural forces it's me acting and not the design of your bullshit spiritual 'intelligence' or God. The universe isn't a machine, and neither am I, because machines are designed. I'm a product of biological evolution, as in change and adaptation over time, not design. The universe is a product of forces interacting, again, not design.

I don't know what good it does to talk about other universes. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means I'm not even sure what it would mean to say they do (it wouldn't be using the term "exist" in the conventional sense, at least).

There are theories about alternate universes, some are 'baby universes' formed in black holes but not lasting long enough to form stars, galaxies, etc. If nothing else, it's hard to find room for a black hole even existing in your static deterministic universe.

[Frogacuda]

Wrong again. I'm not saying I have a free will outside of naturalistic forces, just that when I act through those natural forces it's me acting and not the design of your bullshit spiritual 'intelligence' or God.

There's nothing spiritual about what I'm saying at all. If anything it spits in the face of most religious philosophy. But ok, whatever. You can keep playing the name calling game if it's easier than making a point.

The universe isn't a machine, and neither am I, because machines are designed.

No, machines are mechanical (defining a word with itself, I know, but at least you can't argue that way). Something is a machine if it behaves in a certain way based on a certain mechanism. The state of being a machine has NOTHING to do with how that machine came into being.

I'm a product of biological evolution, as in change and adaptation over time, not design. The universe is a product of forces interacting, again, not design.

I never argued this for a second. Though, stating it like that is a horribly weak point, because there's no reason it can't be both, and most that would want to frame God in such a way would certainly claim as much.

There are theories about alternate universes, some are 'baby universes' formed in black holes but not lasting long enough to form stars, galaxies, etc. If nothing else, it's hard to find room for a black hole even existing in your static deterministic universe.

That's not an alternate universe in the same sense that was being discussed earlier, and you know it.

[g0zen]

There's nothing spiritual about what I'm saying at all. If anything it spits in the face of most religious philosophy. But ok, whatever. You can keep playing the name calling game if it's easier than making a point.

You've been throwing around the word intelligence, and despite your constant backpedals we all know how you're framing it as being the work of some paranatural force. Whether sentient or not, it's still supernatural and it's still bullshit.

No, machines are mechanical (defining a word with itself, I know, but at least you can't argue that way). Something is a machine if it behaves in a certain way based on a certain mechanism. The state of being a machine has NOTHING to do with how that machine came into being.

That's not the way you were using the term though, you were using it in the sense of a designed system that operates according to the rules set by its designer (in this case your disembodied 'intelligence').

I never argued this for a second. Though, stating it like that is a horribly weak point, because there's no reason it can't be both, and most that would want to frame God in such a way would certainly claim as much.

Sure you can fudge all to fuck and jam God into it, but you'd be the one making the extremely flimsy argument. Especially when a better explanation (a naturalistic one) already exists. Evolution, whether biological or cosmological, is anything but perfect and at no point shows evidence of a grand design. That is really the crux of my argument, and you've yet to address it other than with "no, dur, you're stupid".

That's not an alternate universe in the same sense that was being discussed earlier, and you know it.

If you're not going to be clear in what you're saying (with your continued misuse of words and concepts) then don't be mad when I'm not following down the path you keep changing.