RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 20, 2021 at 12:52 pm
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2021 at 1:21 pm by R00tKiT.)
(October 18, 2021 at 5:55 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Of course, Klorophyl doesn't know logical fallacies. Personal incredulity is when someone is making a conclusion out of his own lack of education about the subject for which there is available data, like "eye could not evolve because there can not be a half eye."
That's not the general definition of personal incredulity, one can also commit the fallacy when arguing about abstract objects or metaphysical entities, there doesn't have to be "data". Saying that an omnipotent being can't do anything without time, simply because you can't think of how he would do it, is a textbook example of this fallacy.
(October 18, 2021 at 5:55 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: What Jehanne is doing is simply testing your claim which is to you a sacrilege.
Jehanne thinks that action is impossible without time by appealing to her own lack of imagination. What do we call that, I forgot?
(October 18, 2021 at 5:55 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: And the claim that God created the universe but not being allowed to ask who created God is Special pleading.
God is generally presented as a first cause. If the theist manages to establish the existence of God as a first cause, it's moronic to ask "who created God?" after that. There is no special pleading in this case.
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, how do you support that P(T|T&C)>P(T|U)? What is your event space? What measure do you use on it?
And, more specifically, what are the probabilities of P(T|U&(not C))? How about P(U&(not C))? Without those, it is impossible to compare those relative probabilities.
But you are going further and claiming that P(T|U&C)>> P(T|U). How, precisely, do you justify that claim?
First of all, P(non C) is exactly zero. Because the fact that the universe obeys life-permitting conditions is indisputable, and is generally conceded by both the theist and the atheist, therefore P( C )=1, from which we get P(non C)=0. Since the probability of non C is zero, the probability P(U&(not C)) is zero, and the probability P(T|U&(not C)) is undefined. It's impossible to condition on an event of probability zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditiona...ility_zero
Now for the justification that P(T|U&C)>P(T|U), that's because the existence of a finely tuned universe makes it more probable that an intelligent designer exists as opposed to a "less tuned" universe or some random vacuum. If you have in front of you a work of art next to a random paint splatter, it's clear that the probability of an artist existing is vastly superior for the work of art, given the skillfulness displayed in the first object.
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. I don't think there *can be* a coherent 'explanation' for something like that. It is like asking for the cause of causality. The question itself makes no sense.
Why ? That's not the same thing. If a very unlikely scenario occurs, like shooting thousands of bullets at point-blank range and still missing, it demands an explanation. How is this request incoherent?
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And to expect an answer to that question means that you already have some regularities. And those regularities *are* examples of natural laws.
You simply cannot have any actual explanations without natural laws of some sort. So to e ven ask for the cause of natural laws is a category error.
It's true that we can't have a physical or natural explanation without natural laws, but this is not the issue. We're not looking for some scientific theory of the universe's existence, nobody can hope to apply the scientific method beyond the observable universe, however we still have the ability to think logically about what caused the universe with all its natural laws, given that the principle of causality is universally valid.
Again, isn't it problematic for you to allow for violating causality?
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: What makes you think that 'prior in a causal sense' that isn't 'prior in a temporal sense' is even coherent?
It's perfectly coherent. Take the model of simultaneous causation, let's say A causes B, and B causes C, and both these operations happen simultneously. In this case A is prior to B/B prior to C in a causal sense, but no time has elapsed in this model.
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Why would you even think it is *possible* for spacetime to have a cause?.
Because it's irrational to suspend the principle of causality for the spacetime itself.
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And, in your scenario, the 'rank' is simply a notion of time. Nothing else. Time is the rank function (to the existent a rank function can even be defined).
Not necessarily, time is a rank function, but not any rank function should be time. As above, you can have a chain of causes and effects arising simultaneously, in which it's meaningless to speak about time, but you can still assign ranks to every element of this chain. There is nothing incoherent about doing it.
(October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And, again, time only makes sense within spacetime, so that rank function is *part of the geometry of the universe*. because of that *there is no rank outside of spacetime*.
As above, a rank function doesn't necessarily have to be time.
(October 18, 2021 at 11:50 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
Ah the 'Impossible odds' talk.
Just like a lottery where they sell a million tickets. A person only has a 'One in a million' chance of winning.
However , that there WILL be a winner is a hundred percent chance.
Invalid analogy.
In the case of a lottery, someone prepared beforehand the prize the winner will get. Also, playing the lottery is a vastly simpler process than, say, protein synthesis.
(October 19, 2021 at 1:21 am)Oldandeasilyconfused Wrote: The claims that existence warrants justification is just that, a claim, not a given.
For me, reality/existence/ everything just is. For me, a fact justifies its own existence. It may imply many things, but it infers nothing but itself .
Congratulations, you just flushed the entirety of science down the toilet.
All science is based on an inference to the best explanation(or abduction) of some aspects or phenomena in reality. If you think reality justifies itself, you just rejected science.
Applying the principle of abduction to the universe itself lead us to a creator of the universe, that's the idea behind the a posteriori arguments for God.