@avalanchethecat saidIs it rationale by default rule out something that could be the root cause? I think not; that is pure bias. If you can find a natural explanation, fine, but many of our natural explanations are just stating what we see; they don't answer the why and how as if those are not important. You are ruling out the possibility of God by saying there is no such thing as the supernatural and claiming there is no evidence. Because, by definition, you have rejected every claim that might be called supernatural by default, so it isn't that there isn't anything we may have to say is supernatural. It is the refusal to accept even the possibility of it.
It simply isn't rational to invoke the supernatural with no evidence that the supernatural exists. You object to the use of the word 'magic', but that's exactly what you're talking about. You're effectively saying that unless I can tell you the exact mechanism by which the universe came into being and by which life and by extension ourselves arose naturally the ...[text shortened]... evidence than is currently available, that possibility should reasonably be viewed as most unlikely.
2 edits
@avalanchethecat saidPlease give me a story on how everything came to be that isn't fantastic! What reasonable means is that we have to look at something and come up with what sounds like it could answer all of the questions surrounding the event? How did that Holms quote go once we eliminate all other explanations...?
It simply isn't rational to invoke the supernatural with no evidence that the supernatural exists. You object to the use of the word 'magic', but that's exactly what you're talking about. You're effectively saying that unless I can tell you the exact mechanism by which the universe came into being and by which life and by extension ourselves arose naturally the ...[text shortened]... evidence than is currently available, that possibility should reasonably be viewed as most unlikely.
We could look at a book, see all of the material used to make it, break it down to molecular level and understand all there is to know about ink, paper, and cover. That is just stuff, nothing more; there isn't anything useful about that knowledge that can tell us about the book beyond its physical makeup. If we then look at other parts of that book, the arrangement of the ink on the paper, we can see patterns, but patterns are everywhere; nothing extraordinary about that all naturalistic explanations would still be in play, given enough time as the answer goes.
When we see words, sentences, paragraphs, a story unfold, we know there is more to the book than is the chemical makeup; something extra than natural explanations causes the book to be what it is. The information driving all of the processes in life is primary, not something that happens afterward; you don't get error checking without wanting to eliminate errors; you cannot have errors without a correct order of function within systems.
I think the information in life, the fine-tuning of the universe from a local level to the cosmic are all evidence for something supernatural, not a mindless happenstance. The universe is supernatural; in my opinion, this isn't the end product of a mindless process.
@kellyjay saidNot at all, as I've said, I accept the possibility, however barring scripture - which I am obliged to do for reasons stated earlier in the conversation - the evidence for the supernatural is scant indeed, so I rate the likelihood as slight.
Is it rationale by default rule out something that could be the root cause? I think not; that is pure bias. If you can find a natural explanation, fine, but many of our natural explanations are just stating what we see; they don't answer the why and how as if those are not important. You are ruling out the possibility of God by saying there is no such thing as the supernatur ...[text shortened]... anything we may have to say is supernatural. It is the refusal to accept even the possibility of it.
@kellyjay saidAgain you demand that I come up with impossible answers. I don't know how the universe came into being or how life started. I simply don't feel inclined to believe that it was consequent to magical processes. If magic and miracles existed, I think we'd know this, rather than be forced to rely on the words of long-dead men of uncertain motive and veracity. Despite my desires to the contrary, reason compels me to discount these fancies without better evidence than I have yet encountered.
Please give me a story on how everything came to be that isn't fantastic! What reasonable means is that we have to look at something and come up with what sounds like it could answer all of the questions surrounding the event? How did that Holms quote go once we eliminate all other explanations...?
We could look at a book, see all of the material used to make it, break it ...[text shortened]... ance. The universe is supernatural; in my opinion, this isn't the end product of a mindless process.
That's the second time you've used the phrase "fine-tuning" of the universe. As a concept, it makes no sense. We exist, therefore of course the universe is such that we may exist. If the universe were otherwise, we wouldn't be here to wonder at how perfectly tuned it is to our needs. And having said that, it's really not all that great. Go up in the air a mile or so and you will suffocate. Most of the universe is extraordinarily inimical to our continued existence.
@suzianne saidI think everyone agrees microevolution (changes within a species) is true. That’s what Darwin observed.
These endless "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" arguments concerning evolution vs. creationism are so needless.
Both are true. But everyone wants to win the willy-waving contest.
But then Darwin made the completely unsupported and ridiculous leap to say that changes within a species leads to macroevolution, which neither he nor anyone else observed or demonstrated by an experiment.
His whole theory is a joke and will one day be revealed as the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries (I give a pass to scientists in the 1800s.)
@avalanchethecat saidNo, it’s a stumbler to people who demand evidence before they’ll believe the theory of evolution. I didn’t believe the theory of evolution long before I read the Holy Bible and became a Christian, and I didn’t believe it based on the lack of evidence for it.
That's an entirely reasonable position to take, but it's a stumbler to those believers for whom the bible is the literal word of god.
@avalanchethecat said><It simply isn't rational to invoke the supernatural with no evidence that the supernatural exists.>>
It simply isn't rational to invoke the supernatural with no evidence that the supernatural exists. You object to the use of the word 'magic', but that's exactly what you're talking about. You're effectively saying that unless I can tell you the exact mechanism by which the universe came into being and by which life and by extension ourselves arose naturally the ...[text shortened]... evidence than is currently available, that possibility should reasonably be viewed as most unlikely.
Wow. You’ve never heard of paranormal events and NDEs? You think every single one has a naturalistic explanation?
@avalanchethecat
<<And having said that, it's really not all that great. Go up in the air a mile or so and you will suffocate.>>
That’s why we don’t have wings, Skipper!
<<Most of the universe is extraordinarily inimical to our continued existence.>>
Actually, it’s not. God gave humans extraordinary capacities to think, invent and create so to the extent the universe is “inimical to our continued existence” we can reason and build our way out of it - thanks to God!
@avalanchethecat saidI think your last two answers give a little insight into why you think it is impossible to come up with how the universe came into being or how life started. It isn't impossible if you open up to ideas you currently reject out of hand without considering the possibility. The claim is it is impossible to see how something like time, space, energy, and material could come into being without something that transcends them. In that case, it seems the obvious choice, as far as I can tell anyway, we must assume something transcending the universe started it.
Again you demand that I come up with impossible answers. I don't know how the universe came into being or how life started. I simply don't feel inclined to believe that it was consequent to magical processes. If magic and miracles existed, I think we'd know this, rather than be forced to rely on the words of long-dead men of uncertain motive and veracity. Despite my d ...[text shortened]... and you will suffocate. Most of the universe is extraordinarily inimical to our continued existence.
I'm not going to address the fine-tuning, you already refused to look at something that went into great detail when you said you were not interested in the first link.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI don't think it's impossible to figure out how the universe came into being or how life started. Nobody currently knows, but I think it's entirely possible that we'll figure it out eventually if we manage to avoid destroying ourselves and our civilisation for long enough.
I think your last two answers give a little insight into why you think it is impossible to come up with how the universe came into being or how life started. It isn't impossible if you open up to ideas you currently reject out of hand without considering the possibility. The claim is it is impossible to see how something like time, space, energy, and material could come into ...[text shortened]... ok at something that went into great detail when you said you were not interested in the first link.
I don't reject any ideas out of hand. I just accord them the weight of evidence they deserve.
I think you are rather jumping the gun when you say we 'must' assume something transcending the universe started it. Without knowing how it started, we would be foolish to make such an assumption.
I really don't understand why this 'fine-tuning' nonsense has any traction with anybody. Yes, it's amazing that the universe is such that we may exist, but it obviously IS that way. To assume that it was deliberately created that way simply because we exist is to ignore the logical necessity that it MUST allow our existence, because we exist. It couldn't be otherwise.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle/Forms-of-the-anthropic-principle#ref1078367
@avalanchethecat said
I don't think it's impossible to figure out how the universe came into being or how life started. Nobody currently knows, but I think it's entirely possible that we'll figure it out eventually if we manage to avoid destroying ourselves and our civilisation for long enough.
I don't reject any ideas out of hand. I just accord them the weight of evidence they deserve ...[text shortened]...
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle/Forms-of-the-anthropic-principle#ref1078367
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYes, I'm aware of the concept. What's your point? If any of those constants were not at those precise values, we wouldn't be here, and you wouldn't be able to be amazed that they're the universe is so "finely tuned". But we are indeed here. So it obviously is. That's not evidence of fine-tuning; it's evidence that we exist. We already knew that. Read the link I posted regarding the Weak Anthropic Principle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0
@avalanchethecat saidThat is like missing the forest because of all the trees. Do you see a paper written? Do you assume an author or chance put the letters into the precise placement to give us the information in the paper? I suppose ignoring the obvious can keep you from recognizing what is all around you. Yes, if it were not set up for life, there would be no life; that is part of the obvious takeaway. So how did it happen, considering we are talking about constants in play not only here but across the universe? Again, saying it is impossible to know only shows you your bias, not the facts, stops you from seeing all of the possibilities, and thereby missing evidence you find unappealing.
Yes, I'm aware of the concept. What's your point? If any of those constants were not at those precise values, we wouldn't be here, and you wouldn't be able to be amazed that they're the universe is so "finely tuned". But we are indeed here. So it obviously is. That's not evidence of fine-tuning; it's evidence that we exist. We already knew that. Read the link I posted regarding the Weak Anthropic Principle.
@avalanchethecat saidOkay, my eyes are bleeding, my brain is coming out of my ears.
I don't think it's impossible to figure out how the universe came into being or how life started. Nobody currently knows, but I think it's entirely possible that we'll figure it out eventually if we manage to avoid destroying ourselves and our civilisation for long enough.
I don't reject any ideas out of hand. I just accord them the weight of evidence they deserve ...[text shortened]...
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle/Forms-of-the-anthropic-principle#ref1078367
What part of that did you think answered where did everything come from?
"It is a truism that one cannot get something for nothing. The interesting question is whether one can get everything for nothing. Clearly, this is a very speculative topic for scientific investigation, and the ultimate answer depends on a sophisticated interpretation of what “nothing” means."
This points to something I have been saying if we can define things the way we like if we are not careful, we can miss what is important simply by how we choose to look at things because we have defined them to be one thing when in fact they could be some utterly different changing all of the calculus concerning them.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThis is just sophistry, it means nothing. You wish to find evidence of god because you believe your scripture which tells you god is there. I am not swayed by your scripture. The fact that we exist is not evidence for your god.
That is like missing the forest because of all the trees. Do you see a paper written? Do you assume an author or chance put the letters into the precise placement to give us the information in the paper? I suppose ignoring the obvious can keep you from recognizing what is all around you. Yes, if it were not set up for life, there would be no life; that is part of the obvious ...[text shortened]... , stops you from seeing all of the possibilities, and thereby missing evidence you find unappealing.
Again, I don't say it's impossible to know. I say I don't know, and you don't either. I dont' find your evidence unappealing. I find it unconvincing.