RE: Evolution and natural selection ARE the gods of this world!
June 15, 2015 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2015 at 9:15 am by comet.
Edit Reason: stupid
)
Please, don't take this the wrong way, I am so happy some reasonable atheist showed up here and are participating in the boards these days without the asshole slamming everything they say.
The universe acting like a giant data processer is a basic level understanding. MiT, and many other top physics people, are researching that as we speak. But on a simpler level we can just look at the process of seeing the color blue. Stating it as "simple cause and effect" is how the it works. Not what it is doing, here, "seeing blue". Everything works by cause and effect. Again, we don't define "things" by "C-A-E", we define them by "what is the exact particles, using C-A-E to interact with its surroundings, is doing." Like "a brain". Your brain operates by C-A-E, but it still reasons.
"random" is based on what is not know about a system. basically what statistics does is predict repeatable outcomes in a group of events where each "state" in "each" piece is not known. but the set of outcomes is known. A very simple example of this is flipping a coin. We know heads or tails is the solution set. If you knew is velocity, spin rate, and weight distribution, and its "orientation" half way up on the toss leg you would predict its landing on your hand and at a much greater rate than "50/50" . also you can think out it in terms of how insurance company calculates the number possible car accidents without knowing what each driver is doing every second.
Determinism, that a tricky one for me. The data points to it be so but I just can't accept it myself. But that is emotional for me so I have to be careful. So how I deal with that emotion is by interjecting logic is to make it a more valid general statement while maintaining some connection to the standard model.
For example. When my wife and I got married we were going to have kids. But exactly what they were going to be like was in question. The same goes for "us going to be here at the moment of the big bang.". Our type of life was going to be here, (carbon based) but maybe not exactly as we are today. For example, there were about a dozen pre-humans so many years ago. Any one of them could have become the dominate "sentient being".
again, it is not about right and wrong. It is only about if one stance seems more valid than another based on what we do know, not what we don't. And we can have more than one 'equally, or close, valid opinions. Theist base their belief on what is not known or emotional needs. The latter of the two is not bad per say, but we need to be careful with it. so whats that mean in terms of "evolution having a purpose.". "no-nothing reason " just doesn't have any observational support. In fact, the better the machine the less chance you have of seeing "no nothing reason". The LHC is an example. There is no Omni dude moving evolution, that's a fact at this point for us all. But the universe may very well be alive.
Key word: "MAY". Not definitely. What data would you use to say that it is not?
The universe acting like a giant data processer is a basic level understanding. MiT, and many other top physics people, are researching that as we speak. But on a simpler level we can just look at the process of seeing the color blue. Stating it as "simple cause and effect" is how the it works. Not what it is doing, here, "seeing blue". Everything works by cause and effect. Again, we don't define "things" by "C-A-E", we define them by "what is the exact particles, using C-A-E to interact with its surroundings, is doing." Like "a brain". Your brain operates by C-A-E, but it still reasons.
"random" is based on what is not know about a system. basically what statistics does is predict repeatable outcomes in a group of events where each "state" in "each" piece is not known. but the set of outcomes is known. A very simple example of this is flipping a coin. We know heads or tails is the solution set. If you knew is velocity, spin rate, and weight distribution, and its "orientation" half way up on the toss leg you would predict its landing on your hand and at a much greater rate than "50/50" . also you can think out it in terms of how insurance company calculates the number possible car accidents without knowing what each driver is doing every second.
Determinism, that a tricky one for me. The data points to it be so but I just can't accept it myself. But that is emotional for me so I have to be careful. So how I deal with that emotion is by interjecting logic is to make it a more valid general statement while maintaining some connection to the standard model.
For example. When my wife and I got married we were going to have kids. But exactly what they were going to be like was in question. The same goes for "us going to be here at the moment of the big bang.". Our type of life was going to be here, (carbon based) but maybe not exactly as we are today. For example, there were about a dozen pre-humans so many years ago. Any one of them could have become the dominate "sentient being".
again, it is not about right and wrong. It is only about if one stance seems more valid than another based on what we do know, not what we don't. And we can have more than one 'equally, or close, valid opinions. Theist base their belief on what is not known or emotional needs. The latter of the two is not bad per say, but we need to be careful with it. so whats that mean in terms of "evolution having a purpose.". "no-nothing reason " just doesn't have any observational support. In fact, the better the machine the less chance you have of seeing "no nothing reason". The LHC is an example. There is no Omni dude moving evolution, that's a fact at this point for us all. But the universe may very well be alive.
Key word: "MAY". Not definitely. What data would you use to say that it is not?
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
