1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Its kind of hard to argue against King Rat's philosophy wolfgang59. Obviously the guy thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things.
LOL
Funny man.
If you disagree with GKR - who you know to be atheist - then please
explain the importance of life to the universe. (Remember - no god stuff!)
Maybe, as a Materialist he is just a more stark honest than most.
Can you argue with a guy who is eager to become dust ?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThis is what I think GKR’s underlying argument is—
Its kind of hard to argue against King Rat's philosophy wolfgang59. Obviously the guy thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things.
Maybe, as a Materialist he is just a more stark honest than most.
Can you argue with a guy who is eager to become dust ?
I just looked up the Powerball on the lottery: the jackpot is now $400 million. The odds of winning the jackpot are listed as 1 in 175,223,510.
The last time the jackpot was won was May 2013, when it was worth $ 590 million. That person (from Florida) might have felt very special—but s/he was just one in roughly 175 million. She happened to hit. Sooner or later, someone else will hit, too.
Whether or not there is “fine tuning”, the fact that things turned out the way they did (as opposed to some other way—some other winning number) is not evidence of that, any more than the fact that that person won the jackpot is evidence that the lottery was fine-tuned (“rigged” ) to come up with that number.
Originally posted by vistesdDon't over-look the fact that people spent over $590 million trying to win that lottery jackpot.
This is what I think GKR’s underlying argument is—
I just looked up the Powerball on the lottery: the jackpot is now $400 million. The odds of winning the jackpot are listed as 1 in 175,223,510.
The last time the jackpot was won was May 2013, when it was worth $ 590 million. That person (from Florida) might have felt very special—but s/he was just ...[text shortened]... kpot is evidence that the lottery was fine-tuned (“rigged” ) to come up with that number.
Originally posted by sonshipIf he thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things it is not obvious to me.
Its kind of hard to argue against King Rat's philosophy wolfgang59. Obviously the guy thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things.
Maybe, as a Materialist he is just a more stark honest than most.
Can you argue with a guy who is eager to become dust ?
And I don't see where he says he is eager to become dust.
Perhaps you can point out where he does say these things.
Or are you just making things up? (Like in the good old days)
Originally posted by sonshipI think that before you try and flood the thread with quotes, you should be clear about your stance on GKRs basic argument.
It is not simply the universe which is the surprise. It is a life permitting one as opposed to a far more probable life prohibiting one.
Do you, or do you not agree that he has a case if life is not part of the equation?
Does your argument claim that any result from a long sequence of die throws indicates the existence of an intelligent creator?
Originally posted by sonshipFor the universe - hell, even for the rest of our solar system - whether earth exists or not in a healthy state or not is of no importance. Earth could go *poof* today and the universe would keep on existing as if nothing happened. Galaxies will be formed, stars will be formed, planets will be formed, life may be formed and everything will disappear again. Earths existence plays no meaningful role in this cycle.
So the environmentalists should just relax ? It is no big deal if every river is poisoned, every tree is cut down, the ozone layer is destroyed and skin cancer eats up everyone at least with light colored skin ?
So insect killing chemicals in the fruit, radioactivity in the fish, genetically engineered vegetables whose side effects we really have no ide ...[text shortened]... is of no "vital importance" ?
Boy I know some Republicans who would love you ![/b]
We care for the health of our planet because we are a part of it.
Do you think that on average "environmentalists" are more likely to be atheist or theist? How about those "republicans" who would love me for saying what you think I'm saying. More likely to be atheist or theist?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipNonsense on all accounts. I do think living things "should be regarded" over non-living things.
Its kind of hard to argue against King Rat's philosophy wolfgang59. Obviously the guy thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things.
Maybe, as a Materialist he is just a more stark honest than most.
Can you argue with a guy who is eager to become dust ?
Then again, I'm not the universe, am I?
I'm not eager to become dust. Nowhere have I said anything remotely like that and I would appreciate if you could point to where you think I said that or apologize for putting words in mouth (hint: go for the second option!)
Originally posted by vistesdRight on (although technically it was twhitehead's underlying argument 🙂 )
This is what I think GKR’s underlying argument is—
I just looked up the Powerball on the lottery: the jackpot is now $400 million. The odds of winning the jackpot are listed as 1 in 175,223,510.
The last time the jackpot was won was May 2013, when it was worth $ 590 million. That person (from Florida) might have felt very special—but s/he was just ...[text shortened]... kpot is evidence that the lottery was fine-tuned (“rigged” ) to come up with that number.
One last thing: As twhitehead points out, you've not yet responded to the point that I made concerning the die (or dice??). Please do so. Here it is again:
Throw a die 10000 times. Note all the numbers that you got. After throw number 10000, look at that sequence of numbers. Now ask yourself, what were the odds that that sequence would come up? I think you'll agree that the chance of that is astronomically small (I believe the chance is 1/6^10000, but correct me if I'm wrong).
Hence, getting that sequence, whatever the sequence is, is according to your logic impossible. There had to be an intelligence present to make sure that that sequence would come up. No matter what the sequence is.
Originally posted by Great King RatUnless there is more than one universe, in that case all bets are off. We would happen to be in the one that allows our form of life. Other universes may have a speed of light of one foot per second, others yet may have a speed of light at one light year per hour, and the chances for life in those kind of universes would be slim.
One last thing: As twhitehead points out, you've not yet responded to the point that I made concerning the die (or dice??). Please do so. Here it is again:
[b]Throw a die 10000 times. Note all the numbers that you got. After throw number 10000, look at that sequence of numbers. Now ask yourself, what were the odds that that sequence would come up? ...[text shortened]... gence present to make sure that that sequence would come up. No matter what the sequence is.[/b]
It could be just chance that our universe is friendly to life, maybe others are MORE friendly, others still less friendly to life of any kind.
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59
If he thinks living things should not be regarded over non-living things it is not obvious to me. Wolfgang59
He did say life was of no vital importance.
That's all very nice and it would be a big deal if the existence of life in the universe were of vital importance, but it isn't. GKR
And I don't see where he says he is eager to become dust.
That's true. However he strongly implies that for him to be alive is no big deal.
That's all very nice and it would be a big deal if the existence of life in the universe were of vital importance, but it isn't. GKR
Why should I not understand him to mean that his own life is of no vital importance in the universe ?
Perhaps you can point out where he does say these things.
The implication is that life including human life is no big deal and is of no vital importance in the universe. Why should that not include your life, my life, his life, and all lives ?
They are no big deal in the universe. And now he wants me to apologize for taking seriously the implication of his own words.
He can always clarify.
Or are you just making things up? (Like in the good old days)
Don't blame me if the King Rat writes that life is no big deal and not of vital importance.
Originally posted by Great King Rat
For the universe - hell, even for the rest of our solar system - whether earth exists or not in a healthy state or not is of no importance.
I don't agree with that at all.
This attitude, I think, reflects a kind of modern [b]dispair with human life. And this kind of attitude of despair I spoke to in my thread If No God - What Meaning is there ?
Earth could go *poof* today and the universe would keep on existing as if nothing happened.
King Rat, you do not practically live with that viewpoint on a day to day basis. When you cross the street and see the Stop Walking sign begins to blink, I bet you speed up so as to not be mowed down by a automobile.
You are going to have your meals today probably to keep yourself alive. And I bet you regard that as vitally important.
In fact, the recreation you are pursuing on your computer right now is to avoid the boredom of just sitting in a rock like existence - dead, unreacting, bored, with no plans.
So how do you expect me to believe your cavalier quip that your life (which is A life) is of no vital importance ? And you DO live as if your contribution to the universe is important.
Now I have to run out and come back. Cont. latter.
Galaxies will be formed, stars will be formed, planets will be formed, life may be formed and everything will disappear again. Earths existence plays no meaningful role in this cycle.
We may assume dead and non living things will continue business as usual. But we do not live to meaningfully manage that little corner of the material creation that we occupy.
We care for the health of our planet because we are a part of it.
There you GO !!
To sum up,
*** WHY THE FINE-TUNING / EX-ANTE PROBABILITY ARGUMENT SUCKS ***
1. It is not surprising to get a 1 in 1 billion result if you get to play the game 1 billion times (in fact, it's almost certain that you will get it).
2. The argument is applied after the fact; we are all here; life exists. Probability = 100%
3. We are never given a probability calculation for the spontaneous existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, highly intelligent creator of the Universe. We need that to compare the likelihood of the alternate explanation.