morrowasted said:

Bill_Oreilly said:

here we go again.

---

It isn't meant to begin a debate about the existence or non existence of God. If you read the OP, it is quite clear that I take neither stance. I do not even take the agnostic stance; it is not even precisely clear what stance I take, in my opinion. Perhaps you could call it the "critical thinker" position.

---

morrow, you remind me of some opposite incarnation of like...IAMSWIM or something...like the opposite of crazy.



i can't quite put my finger on it, but it's awesome.

PS: that Rg Veda verse is very poetic and divine. and that picture too.

nice.

Quote:

That smooth white void everything sprang forth from.

---

poke smot! said:

Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.

morrowasted said:

A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).

---

Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy?

Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos,
0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"

You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any intelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.

But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory.

---

morrowasted said:

poke smot! said:

Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.

morrowasted said:

A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).

---

Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy?

Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos,
0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"

You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any intelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.

But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory.

---

Circular reasoning is the wrong. What I meant to say is that they are begging the question. It's not that the cosmological constants of the universe change and sometimes allow for life and sometimes don't. They are constants. The ideas that scientists put forth are that either we just simply "lucked out", or that there are a [near] infinite number of universes, almost all of which are characterized by chaos because of their cosmological constant, with the exception of ours and perhaps a few others.

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:

morrowasted said:

poke smot! said:

Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.

morrowasted said:

A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).

---

Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy?
0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"

You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any i
Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos,ntelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.

But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory.

---

Circular reasoning is the wrong. What I meant to say is that they are begging the question. It's not that the cosmological constants of the universe change and sometimes allow for life and sometimes don't. They are constants. The ideas that scientists put forth are that either we just simply "lucked out", or that there are a [near] infinite number of universes, almost all of which are characterized by chaos because of their cosmological constant, with the exception of ours and perhaps a few others.

---

Which is something I disagree with strongly because the universe has direction, it acts in meaningful, living ways. You cant draw anything meaningful about the truth of it from the way you can push and pull on it.  Theres this raw sort of intelligence that permeates everything and science is so woefully ill equipped to describe it. To say its just a happenstance of chaos seems like the easiest choice. It doesnt grasp at the elusiveness of awareness, or the subtle nuance of how its tied into being. Something I think is crucial to understanding the truth, god, whatever. When you get down to it, without it, there is...nothing.

---

millzy said:

@ morrow - at least your friend has an easy position to refute. the teleological argument is fairly easy to contradict (as you have); the examples that thinkers along these lines cite are usually explainable without a designer.

the main problem i have with god talk (philosophy jargon for discussing problems associated with god) is the conception of god as the transient cause of reality, as theism promotes.  to me, the idea is mired in medieval ideas regarding cause and effect and it's sloppy thinking. if you're trying to make an account of all reality, why do you need to do that by creating two separate realities i.e. the material world and its creator? it seems to me that if there is something like god, he is the eminent cause of reality. put another way, if god exists he is the underlying cause of reality itself, not separated from the world.

---