Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:50 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This cruel universe I love so dearly
#31
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
So there is no room for theory? It is 'common knowledge' that you have access to and I do not, that death is the 'big sleep'. And it is in no way a theory that death is a big sleep, since everyone knows it is the case. And since everyone knows that death is the big sleep, there is 'no room for theories', of which the "Big Sleep Certainty" is not one?

I don't know Kyu.
Reply
#32
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
As you Kyu said, Pippy, it's not a theory it's just wishful thinking. The most logical is that nothing happens. It's as when you get unconsious. You don't dream or anything.

Since your brain isn't working when you'r dead are you not gonna experience anything when you are dead.
- Science is not trying to create an answer like religion, it tries to find an answer.
Reply
#33
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
(July 12, 2009 at 7:40 am)Giff Wrote: As you Kyu said, Pippy, it's not a theory it's just wishful thinking. The most logical is that nothing happens. It's as when you get unconsious. You don't dream or anything.

Since your brain isn't working when you'r dead are you not gonna experience anything when you are dead.
Of course we could all be living in a computer simulation and wake up at death. This certainly is the scenario a god with some awareness on sustainability would prefer, the cosmos seems a rather perverted waste of resources for divine experiments on humans in this deserted corner of the visible universe (some 94 billons lightyears across). But in the end the simulation argument is like the dream argument: possible (in a way yet to be found) but not probable, and certainly nothing beyond speculation.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#34
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
(July 12, 2009 at 6:58 am)Pippy Wrote: So there is no room for theory? It is 'common knowledge' that you have access to and I do not, that death is the 'big sleep'. And it is in no way a theory that death is a big sleep, since everyone knows it is the case. And since everyone knows that death is the big sleep, there is 'no room for theories', of which the "Big Sleep Certainty" is not one?

A theory is not a hunch or a guess but an extensive, well defined set of data complete with fully outlined mechanisms and so on ... a theory is the HIGHEST form of scientific explanation available and implies nothing of guesswork or uncertainty.

OTOH you know [expletive deleted] all about what happens on the other side of life so no it isn't a theory, it's wishful thinking!

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#35
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
I don't fear death. I fear dying. As in the process (it's not always very nice :S). But I don't fear it now, only if it's coming lol.

EvF
Reply
#36
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

First, to ask that someone explain why X is "intended" is asking them to explain its purpose, if "intention" has any teleological implications at all. Second, you are mistaken: Christian theology does not claim "to know the intentions" of God with respect to human "ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others." If Smith tells Jones that he has a purpose behind something, it does not follow that Jones knows what that purpose is. Third, pointing to someone's ability to explain does not somehow establish their obligation to explain. Why do you assert they have this obligation?

(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. ... [Y]ou might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer God whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

"These asserters ... their understanding ... they are full of shit ... they haven't checked ..." In short, no conclusion about an intentional designer can be drawn. If those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what an intentional designer's purpose is, you can draw a conclusion only about them.

(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation?

First, I do not need to establish that this is in fact the case, only that it is logically possible. For if it is possible in a logical way (i.e., the premises do not self-contradict), then any argument for a logical contradiction vanishes. Second, nevertheless there are indications for this; e.g., "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Gen. 50:20).

(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil ...

You could, but to be a valid and legitimate criticism of Christian theology, you would have to argue in favour of that speculation from Scriptures or orthodox Christian theology. Otherwise it would amount to nothing other than a competing view that leaves the Christian view untouched.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Reply
#37
RE: This cruel universe I love so dearly
(July 13, 2009 at 2:09 am)Arcanus Wrote:
(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

First, to ask that someone explain why X is "intended" is asking them to explain its purpose, if "intention" has any teleological implications at all. Second, you are mistaken: Christian theology does not claim "to know the intentions" of God with respect to human "ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others." If Smith tells Jones that he has a purpose behind something, it does not follow that Jones knows what that purpose is. Third, pointing to someone's ability to explain does not somehow establish their obligation to explain. Why do you assert they have this obligation?
There's another connotation for me in 'purpose' than in intended design. Intended design neutrally describes that the design in some way was intended but not necessarily for one purpose. The use of 'purpose' instead of 'purposes' narrows down possibilities a priori and is somewhat suggestive on it's way to the anthropic principle. But possibly I'm reading too much in it. If theology does not claim to know the intentions of god then how can it claim these are good intentions of a good god, or isn't that really in the book also?

Arcanus Wrote:
(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. ... [Y]ou might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer God whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

"These asserters ... their understanding ... they are full of shit ... they haven't checked ..." In short, no conclusion about an intentional designer can be drawn.
Non-sequitur. In the case that we have nothing else but written and oral accounts of believers to go by we have a choice:
(a) assume that the premisses thus presented are true and check the validity of the argument from there onwards
(b) disgard the truth of these premisses to begin with

If (a) then we can assess consistency of the presented argument with empirical evidence following from suggested intentions (such as: nature is specially designed for humans by a good god that loves you) and verifiable facts about nature (such as: nature is unmistakably lethal for humans in most places and is indifferent for personal suffering since there's no statistical significant mechanism in place to balance fortune and misfortune on a personal level). To conclude, the presented arguments are not consistent with facts and are invalid. Then there's no valid argument presented by claimers of intentional design, therefore no reason to assume intentional design, and therefore no reason to assume an intentional designer.

If (b) we must conclude that the conclusion is false, there's no valid argument leading to intentional design and therefore no reason to assume an intentional designer.

Arcanus Wrote:If those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what an intentional designer's purpose is, you can draw a conclusion only about them.
And in the absence of any further proof than written and oral accounts from such clueless claimers of intentional design we are led to the conclusion there is no valid evidence for intentional design and further that there's not evidence for an intentional designer. In short if you do not know what the intended design was you cannot claim intentional design. No skyhooks allowed in logic.

Arcanus Wrote:
(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation?

First, I do not need to establish that this is in fact the case, only that it is logically possible. For if it is possible in a logical way (i.e., the premises do not self-contradict), then any argument for a logical contradiction vanishes.
But consistency with reality remains to be seen. The purple rabbit conception of the universe is equally logically possible but therefore not necessarily true. How are you gonna distinguish the purple rabbit accident from a universe with a net moral good mechanism? Please elaborate.

Arcanus Wrote:Second, nevertheless there are indications for this; e.g., "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Gen. 50:20).
Non-sequitur and circular reasoning. It does not follow from scripture that statements of scripture provide any truth. Also kid cancer is a clear case of meaningless harm that could be prevented by an omnipotent god if he existed. Indeed in human legislature not assisting fellow human beings in severe death stress while being able to, is actionable.

Arcanus Wrote:
(July 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil ...

You could, but to be a valid and legitimate criticism of Christian theology, you would have to argue in favour of that speculation from Scriptures or orthodox Christian theology. Otherwise it would amount to nothing other than a competing view that leaves the Christian view untouched.
There's more to reality than scripture my friend. To invalidate christian theology I do not need scripture unless your scripture is describing some other reality than the reality you and I live in. So just look around and see what's happening. I see severe indifference regarding the harm done to people by the workings of our universe. I just gave you an excellent example. Please show me how the kid cancer nets out into moral good.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Photo Popular atheist says universe is not a work of art like a painting Walter99 32 3268 March 22, 2021 at 1:24 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  Applicability of Maths to the Universe GrandizerII 72 6706 June 17, 2020 at 3:20 pm
Last Post: polymath257
  I am a pixieist, what do you think of my proof that universe creating pixies exist? Simon Moon 69 10502 November 13, 2016 at 9:16 am
Last Post: Expired
  What's your crazy ideas about the existence of the universe? Vegamo 32 8624 April 1, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Last Post: archangle
  Why are so many atheists cruel? edgeoflogic 14 2916 March 22, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Last Post: paulpablo
  Is the universe God? Lek 89 20756 February 9, 2014 at 1:07 am
Last Post: Esquilax
  Is it cruel for atheist to have kids blue dee 65 18499 February 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  I know how the universe was created Chriswt 36 20709 November 27, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Last Post: Vincent Sauve
  Why should we love love beyond what is necessary for gene survival? rybak303 1 1337 August 17, 2010 at 5:04 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)