The natural

@pettytalk said
The initial segment of your composition primarily engages in obfuscation, a technique that, while seemingly sophisticated, ultimately serves as a feeble endeavor to conflate the concepts of "reasonable" and "natural," which, in reality, are fundamentally distinct from one another. However, in view of the argument and the relationship in which these distinct terms were put f ...[text shortened]... r natural endowment, which encompasses a wide range of innate capacities that we possess from birth.

How did you produce this steaming pile of word salad?

Did you dump our exchange in a ChatGPT-style bot and paste the output?

Is that all you got?

@bigdogg said
The last paragraph is disingenuous. I never said a scientist should not assume. I simply rejected the one poor assumption you wished to make.

Which assumption wished to be made by me are you rejecting? Or lets reword it as it may be too simple and too poorly put for your taste in words.

Which of the premises I endeavored to assert are you refuting? Moreover, could you elucidate the rationale behind your judgment of its inferiority?

If my assumption was poor for your taste, then you must be a wealth of knowledgeable assumptions.

@bigdogg said
How did you produce this steaming pile of word salad?

Did you dump our exchange in a ChatGPT-style bot and paste the output?

Is that all you got?

Simulated human speech in a simulated universe? Was not that which you found to be the poor assumption, a simulated universe?

Artificial intelligence? Don't we love it? But it's not 'natural' 'reasoning,' is it? AI assumes to be human, but as long as we keep that in mind, the assumption, we can assume just as well... actually better. All that AI assumes was assumed from what natural reasoning humans have been assuming ever since we assumed our existence in this physical universe to be real.

It's only natural, or/and reasonable to assume we are living in an Adonis Garden.

I did provide my own obfuscation, and conflated the salad with my homemade dressing. Perhaps I used too much hot pepper for your taste? And maybe also heavy on the vinegar?

I do have a couple of old thesauruses at my disposal, including a digital one for quick words lookup. Possibly the same one from where you got 'obfuscation' and 'conflate'?

You are not obfuscating your lack of providing a reply with your 'Is that all you got?' You are only conflating your frustration with your lack for a better assumption.

@KellyJay

Looking for the first cause of all things is either one or two different things, an endless regress of this came from that, or something that did not require to be created because it always was.

For the umpteenth time, you present a false dichotomy. There are several other options. This has been explained to you many times in several threads over the years, and you still don't get it.

@pettytalk said
Simulated human speech in a simulated universe? Was not that which you found to be the poor assumption, a simulated universe?

Artificial intelligence? Don't we love it? But it's not 'natural' 'reasoning,' is it? AI assumes to be human, but as long as we keep that in mind, the assumption, we can assume just as well... actually better. All that AI assumes was assumed from ...[text shortened]... that all you got?' You are only conflating your frustration with your lack for a better assumption.

I'll give you a bit of free advice. Put down the thesaurus, stop with the evasions, and try to engage the ideas under discussion.

If you can't manage that, the only way you will vex anyone is by making them wonder why someone posts so strangely.

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

Looking for the first cause of all things is either one or two different things, an endless regress of this came from that, or something that did not require to be created because it always was.

For the umpteenth time, you present a false dichotomy. There are several other options. This has been explained to you many times in several threads over the years, and you still don't get it.

Lay them out, should be easy.

@bigdogg said
I'll give you a bit of free advice. Put down the thesaurus, stop with the evasions, and try to engage the ideas under discussion.

If you can't manage that, the only way you will vex anyone is by making them wonder why someone posts so strangely.

So says you, who has not given a reason for dismissing what is acknowledged in life, design.

@kellyjay said
Thinking about how people who discuss things like evolution are looking for a “natural cause” to life and everything about it. It is only through their definition of “natural” alone that matters, it doesn’t seem natural it needs to be rejected, not by evidence but definition.

This limitation removes all possibilities that doesn’t fit the narrative they want. Therefore t ...[text shortened]... when their definition of natural is met, then they only care about that which confirms their biases.

Again, what is natural, what explanation can be offered that isn't just a spouting of one's worldview? If natural is just what you say it is, then that is not reasoning from a position of what is, you are only telling everyone what you want and think it to be. We can define many things by that which has nothing to do with us, how long is an inch, how we measure voltage, something as basic as nature, and how and why it works, explain.

@bigdogg said
How did you produce this steaming pile of word salad?

Did you dump our exchange in a ChatGPT-style bot and paste the output?

Is that all you got?

😂🔥

@bigdogg said
I'll give you a bit of free advice. Put down the thesaurus, stop with the evasions, and try to engage the ideas under discussion.

If you can't manage that, the only way you will vex anyone is by making them wonder why someone posts so strangely.

You are wanting to give advice? Is that the best you can do to vex anyone?

We were discussing assumptions and rejections. Evasions! Who is evading who?

"A barking dog never bites." A fitting proverb for any size dog.

@kellyjay said
Lay them out, should be easy.

1. The universe had no beginning, it has existed forever. This is the pagan Greek cosmology (Mother Night, or chaos, is eternal. Gods and goddesses came later.)
2. The universe had multiple simultaneous beginnings.
3. There have been many universes each with an initial Big Bang and a terminal Big Crunch or a terminal dissolution (entropy death), repeating interminably.
4. The universe had a beginning but no god or intelligence was involved; any mindless igniter would be sufficient.
5. The universe had a beginning but it was wasn’t the God of the Jews and Christians, it was some other godlet or demi-urge (gnostics believe this).
6. Whether the universe had a beginning is undefined, like division by zero (Buddhism holds this position).
7. Having a beginning applies only to processes within the universe not to the universe as a whole. Asking whether the universe had a beginning is a nonsense question, like “what is north of the North Pole?”
8. God did it, just as it says in the Book of Genesis (everything from sheer nothing).

In terms of pure logic, item 1. requires the least contentious assumption (Occham’s Razor).

@moonbus said
1. The universe had no beginning, it has existed forever. This is the pagan Greek cosmology (Mother Night, or chaos, is eternal. Gods and goddesses came later.)
2. The universe had multiple simultaneous beginnings.
3. There have been many universes each with an initial Big Bang and a terminal Big Crunch or a terminal dissolution (entropy death), repeating interminably.
4. ...[text shortened]... ng).

In terms of pure logic, item 1. requires the least contentious assumption (Occham’s Razor).

Anything is possible.

Just to touch on number 1, and Occham’s Razor.

I don't doubt that you are aware of the razor's owner. But it's ironic that you should use a Christian priest/monk to cut to the chase on a universe where logic would dictate the simplest explanation as being the most probable to the truth.

Do you then favor the number 1 on your list?

@pettytalk said
Anything is possible.

Just to touch on number 1, and Occham’s Razor.

I don't doubt that you are aware of the razor's owner. But it's ironic that you should use a Christian priest/monk to cut to the chase on a universe where logic would dictate the simplest explanation as being the most probable to the truth.

Do you then favor the number 1 on your list?

Nothing ironic about it at all; logic is not specific to any particular faith (or lack thereof).

Given that there is no a priori argument why the universe could not cease to exist from one instant to the next, for no reason or cause, there is no reason to make any assumptions whatever about beginnings or origins or lack thereof. Origin-fixation is peculiar to the Judeo-Christian mythology. For me, it's a non-issue.

@moonbus said
1. The universe had no beginning, it has existed forever. This is the pagan Greek cosmology (Mother Night, or chaos, is eternal. Gods and goddesses came later.)
2. The universe had multiple simultaneous beginnings.
3. There have been many universes each with an initial Big Bang and a terminal Big Crunch or a terminal dissolution (entropy death), repeating interminably.
4. ...[text shortened]... ng).

In terms of pure logic, item 1. requires the least contentious assumption (Occham’s Razor).

"Looking for the first cause of all things is either one or two different things, an endless regress of this came from that, or something that did not require to be created because it always was."

1. It is covered in what I said, something did not require to be created, started it.
2. It is covered in what I said, endless regress of this came from that.
3. It is covered in what I said, something was always creating, started it, repeat cycle, it is also a change of topic, this is the universe under question.
4. It is covered in what I said, something did not require to be created, started it.
5. It is covered in what I said, something did not require to be created. started it.
6. Its here I don't know, is more than like your true answer, you cannot offer anything and you think not offering anything is offering something, you cannot be reasoned with here because there is no reasoning involved, just a braindead, "well it's here!"

Why bother entering into this discussion if you cannot or will not own something about the topic? Do you simply want an endless regress of I don't know to be your answer or an endless regress that cannot be it without reasons?

@moonbus said
Nothing ironic about it at all; logic is not specific to any particular faith (or lack thereof).

Given that there is no a priori argument why the universe could not cease to exist from one instant to the next, for no reason or cause, there is no reason to make any assumptions whatever about beginnings or origins or lack thereof. Origin-fixation is peculiar to the Judeo-Christian mythology. For me, it's a non-issue.

Denying a cause is the default answer of the braindead, don't know, don't care too.
Endless regress of I don't know, you don't know, we don't know so stop asking.
Endless regress of avoiding what we do know, to hide behind the possibilities.