Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[badger2]

#214: No, there are other time machines. Obviously, there is a paucity of knowledge on melancholy at this cyberloaction. Not only is melancholia intimately connected to the endocosmogenic (Tellenbach), but the lack of aging can come through on the countenance of the melancholic face itself. Year Zero. Once more Persephone will awaken to the spring equinox, as Tellenbach quotes Ludwig Klages about '...that primal feeling through which human regulation comes under the sway of daemonic rhythm, dissolving the vitreous resistance of law in the undulating ether of the cosmic pulse.'

Sans melancholy, there are still more machines:

'Time goes on toward better days or plunges blindly toward unimaginable catastrophes; unless it simply starts to vegetate indefinitely. We can bypass these dilemmas by refusing any sort of causalist or finalist extrapolation and by strictly limiting the object of research to structural relations or systemic balances. But no matter how one goes about it, the past remains heavy, cooled down, and the future seems largely mortgaged by a present closing in on it from all sides. To think time against the grain, to imagine that what came "after" can modify what was "before" or that changing the past at the root can transform a current state of affairs; what madness! A return to magical thought! It is pure science fiction, and yet....'In my view there is nothing absurd about attempting to explore these interactions, which I would also qualify as "machinic," without initially specifying their material or semiotic nature.'
(Guattari F, The Machinic Unconscious: Essays in Schizoanalysis)

[Baruch]

"cyberloaction" vs cyberlocation?  So you are from one universe over, the Typo-verse?  Your kenosis is very poetic, but obtuse.  I enjoy the shear XYZ of your posts.  Other folks will be stuck at ABC.

[badger2]

Yes, #226, the "location" or "material" is not easily exploitable by capitalistic systems. As Guattari says, "A signifier does not decidedly represent schizoanalytic subjectivity for another signifier!'

[Baruch]

Just don't wake Brahman, I don't want to disappear yet ;-)

[badger2]

We suggest Zizek's Absolute Recoil, which dialectical materialism is getting down to brass tacks: the concept of "less than nothing." Whooda thunkit.

[Baruch]

We suggest Zizek's Absolute Recoil, which dialectical materialism is getting down to brass tacks: the concept of "less than nothing." Whooda thunkit.

As post-structuralism collapses as the house of cards it is, everyone assumes their real mentality ... every society its true culture.  Flat.

[badger2]

We suggest www. Deleuze, How Do We Recognize Structuralism. The surprise is that of fractals seen consistent and immersed in the darkness of the human cerebral blood flow, even when that blood flow is exacerbated. These lie on the boundaries of the machinic unconscious.

[Drew_2017]

A few days ago I made a case using known facts only this time to support naturalism.

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

I made a similar case by citing facts the support theism but was repeatedly told it wasn't evidence. I asked if anyone was going to tell me this isn't evidence for naturalism I haven't heard a soul comment so lets hear it is this a good case in favor of naturalism? Would you consider this evidence that supports naturalism? 

[doorknob]

you're basically saying that the same evidence that applies to naturalistic explanations are also evidence that  supports god?

I just want to clear up what it is you are trying to say?

The facts you sited weren't facts! The evidence you provided wasn't evidence. I don't know how else to say it. You keep insisting it was but that doesn't change the fact that what you presented is not evidence supporting intelligent design.

Could an generic intelligent designer exist. I admit it's possible there still isn't any evidence. Wishful thinking at best. I really can't say anything else at this point there are many demonstrations as to why there isn't evidence of a god. But you just refuse to accept any of them and keep restating the same thing over and over again. To be honest I think I'm running of explanations. I mean you can only explain naturalism and science so many times.

[Drew_2017]

you're basically saying that the same evidence that applies to naturalistic explanations are also evidence that  supports god?

I just want to clear up what it is you are trying to say?

The facts you sited weren't facts! The evidence you provided wasn't evidence. I don't know how else to say it. You keep insisting it was but that doesn't change the fact that what you presented is not evidence supporting intelligent design.

I'm not asking about the case I made for theism, I'm asking about the case above I made for naturalism. Are the 5 facts I listed above in your mind legitimate evidence in favor of naturalism or not? If not then what evidence does support naturalism?

[badger2]

This structuralism, this symbology. It is collapsing, humans are snapping out of it and atheism is the future. How will capitalism attempt to exploit fresh extraterrestrial surfaces? It can be made difficult if the colonizers are robots, less so if humans, because the CIA and FBI know that intent of migrants even post-vetting is a concept hard to get a handle on: "I'm afraid I can't do that, Hal."

[Cavebear]

you're basically saying that the same evidence that applies to naturalistic explanations are also evidence that  supports god?

I just want to clear up what it is you are trying to say?

The facts you sited weren't facts! The evidence you provided wasn't evidence. I don't know how else to say it. You keep insisting it was but that doesn't change the fact that what you presented is not evidence supporting intelligent design.

Could an generic intelligent designer exist. I admit it's possible there still isn't any evidence. Wishful thinking at best. I really can't say anything else at this point there are many demonstrations as to why there isn't evidence of a god. But you just refuse to accept any of them and keep restating the same thing over and over again. To be honest I think I'm running of explanations. I mean you can only explain naturalism and science so many times.

I think the argument here is that "nothing is impossible".  That's true, but some situations are more likely than others and by magnitudes of likelihood. There might be unicorns, flargs, or stone-trolls, too.  Might.  But not worth considering.

[fencerider]

Cavebear there is probably a pet unicorn in Baruch's backyard.

Drew you didn't get through the first step in providing proof that the universe was created. So we never got to the second step; a reminder that proving that the universe was created makes an excellent premise for proving the existence of a god. But proving there was a creator does not prove the existence of a god aka supreme being.

1. prove the universe was created by a localized entity.
2. prove the act of creation didn't kill the entity.
3. prove that the entity hasn't died between then and now.
4. prove that the creator entity is qualified as a supreme being.
5. prove that the entity actually wants the title of a god.

of course after you can prove the existence of a creator god we're still gonna have to ask what that has to do with us. Just because you claim to be a god is not a good enough reason to expect or demand anything from us....

[Baruch]

I think the argument here is that "nothing is impossible".  That's true, but some situations are more likely than others and by magnitudes of likelihood. There might be unicorns, flargs, or stone-trolls, too.  Might.  But not worth considering.

Actually certain things are impossible, but not very many.  One of the primary ones is there is no free lunch (in energy).  If it takes you 2 BTU to extract 1 BTU of fuel from the ground, then you are losing, not gaining.  Arithmetic is a bitch.  With credit, we get to pretend in unicorns every day.  So Bruin ... do you use a credit card or other forms of credit?  You get credit because someone "thinks" you are creditable ... and that is just someone's opinion.  It is a bet on your future ability to repay ... a gamble.  So some gamblers ... "think" you are creditable.  Without credit, there is no free lunch, and not just with fracking N Dakota.  And no, QM won't let you get around this.  Heisenberg didn't say, anything is possible.

[doorknob]

I'd just like to take this moment to point out that no one will give me unicorns because I borrowed so many unicorns that I couldn't feed them all and they died. The tragic death of unicorns there for made the unicorn brokers not interested in giving me more unicorns. I probably will never have another unicorn for the rest of my life.


moral of the story is don't borrow unicorns if you can't feed them.

baruch is correct that quantum mechanics for the life of me hasn't convinced unicorn brokers that I'm not going to just kill more unicorns. Quantum mechanics doesn't perform miracles.

2nd moral of the story there is no quantum mechanics god.

PS if you didn't understand any of that see the burachs post above.