Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Unbeliever]

I'm using the hypothetical to make a point that if the universe didn't exist the claim there is no evidence that supports theism would actually be true. Are you suggesting the universe has to exist? Always existed?

The reason "something" exists is that there has to be either something, or nothing; there's only one way for there to be nothing, but an infinite number of ways for there to be something - so it's simply much, much more likely for there to be something than for there to be nothing.

[Unbeliever]

We are in no way implicit in the universe.  We are merely possible.

I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

It's fun to consider how this idea applies to fictional characters and stories.

[Drew_2017]

I was being facetious. It is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically though alleged to have been caused by naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if the universe is understandable.

Why is that surprising?

It wouldn't be surprising at all if the universe was designed by a team of engineers. If that were the case we would expect logic and the laws of deduction and induction to work. It is surprising when you say it was caused by mindless natural forces that didn't plan, intend our existence or give a rats ass if the universe is explicable or knowable. 

That should be expected in a universe that follows explicable laws of nature. 

What would lead you to expect mindless natural forces minus any intelligence will or desire would cause explicable (explainable) laws of nature? Why wouldn't we expect meaningless babble from an unintelligent source?

[widdershins]

Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief...

Are you claiming its a scientifically proven fact that God doesn't exist and its natural forces all the way down? I'm not claiming I can prove the existence of God scientifically. I don't think either of our respective beliefs pass scientific muster do you? I think you're mistaken about the scientific method, scientists propose theories about phenomenon. I'm not a scientist but I'm guessing they propose theories they believe are true. They don't know they're true, that's why they subject the belief to a test.

I've already explained this see my post with Solomon. The rest of your post is just a rant...I hope you feel better.

I don't remember expressing any particular beliefs to you.  It must be awfully convenient to deal in "philosophical arguments" instead of facts.  It apparently means you get to just pretend any old thing is true.

For the record, I never made any claim that God can be scientifically proven to be not real.  Do you make any claim that fairies can be scientifically proven to not be real?  If you're not, does that mean fairies are real?  And if you are, please, I would be delighted to look at the evidence you have that science, the study of nature, has somehow stepped outside of its bounds to prove definitively that magical claims are untrue, including those of God.

And it was not a rant.  I was trying to explain to you how ignorant you are of the things of which you speak.  If you wish to remain stupid as well, by all means, dismiss what I've said as a pointless "rant".  The truth is that you're an idiot.  That's not an insult (though I know it's insulting), but I would like you not to be an idiot, so I was trying to help you not be an idiot, though I know from many years of experience that you have no desire to not be an idiot.  You approach what I say to you with the absolute knowledge that, first and foremost, anything I say which disagrees with you is wrong.  You don't analyze it first and determine it's wrong, you know it's wrong first and then try to figure out why, the wan an idiot would.  I've been there.  I was an idiot at one time too.  And honestly, I feel your pain.  It sucks to be in your position.  It's frustrating.  Unfortunately it doesn't get any less frustrating from my side, so, you're just screwed.

I would LOVE nothing more than to have a civil, intelligent conversation with you, but I know very well that will not happen, what with you being an idiot and all.  You are completely incapable of approaching the topic with the attitude and understanding that you may be wrong.  You are absolutely certain that you are right, without question.  And that's what makes you an idiot.  I am not absolutely certain that I am right.  I do not claim with any certainty that no gods exist.  I freely admit that I don't believe gods exist.  It is my belief that no gods exist, but, being a belief and not a fact, I may be wrong.  I am willing to look at any evidence which shows that I am wrong.  But we both know you have none.  That's why you are giving, instead, philosophical arguments, too big an idiot to realize the difference between philosophy, the study of knowledge, and science, the study of nature.  So you try to use the study of knowledge to prove something about nature, which can never happen because you have to use the study of nature to prove something about nature.  Philosophy has been abused for centuries by idiots and liars to convince bigger idiots that they're right.  It isn't something the intellectuals among us generally fall for.

And before you call this post passive-aggressive I would like to point out, it wasn't really all that passive.

[Drew_2017]

I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

Someone might suggest you're multiplying entities beyond necessity...not to mention all kinds of conundrums. For instance it would mean there is another person just like me only in that alternate universe I'm an atheist arguing against theism...

[Unbeliever]

Yep, it would mean exactly that.

[widdershins]

What would lead you to expect mindless natural forces minus any intelligence will or desire would cause explicable (explainable) laws of nature? Why wouldn't we expect meaningless babble from an unintelligent source?

Oh my god, you are so stupid!  The "laws of nature" are not a set of intelligent rules laid down in a book which everything has to follow or else.  It's the way we have observed everything in the universe to work.  The laws weren't written and then made to be so, they were written because they were so.  If they weren't so then they wouldn't have been written down.  Jesus, it's like talking to a retarded log.

[Unbeliever]

[Baruch]

Oh my god, you are so stupid!  The "laws of nature" are not a set of intelligent rules laid down in a book which everything has to follow or else.  It's the way we have observed everything in the universe to work.  The laws weren't written and then made to be so, they were written because they were so.  If they weren't so then they wouldn't have been written down.  Jesus, it's like talking to a retarded log.

The laws aren't just so ... we create toy situations to simplify things, then discount that effect (which is observable in quantum mechanics directly) that there is no Platonic objectivity.  Newton's laws are Newtons (and very useful).  Einstein's laws are Einstein's (not as useful).  Without man, there are no laws. our simplifications create the regularity, nature without that, is mostly chaotic.

[Hydra009]

It is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically

Haha, no.  Math can sometimes be used to describe what's going on - some known relationships between things under certain conditions. Reverse engineered?  Not remotely.

For a lot of this stuff, we simply don't know what's going on.  For example, the laws of physics famously break down at the very beginning of the Big Bang.  And dark matter isn't so much an observed particle as it is a placeholder for something we suspect might be out there.

For something supposedly so easily understood, there's plenty of stuff that isn't understood, even by generations of the finest minds this planet has ever produced working with cutting edge equipment.

It wouldn't be surprising at all if the universe was designed by a team of engineers.

Witty Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference or watchmaker analogy?  'Cause, imo the former teabagged the latter.

[Baruch]

Yep, it would mean exactly that.

Amazing, what materialists grasping at straws are willing to believe ;-)

[Baruch]

I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

It's fun to consider how this idea applies to fictional characters and stories.

Nietzsche had the idea of Infinite Return.

[Baruch]

The reason "something" exists is that there has to be either something, or nothing; there's only one way for there to be nothing, but an infinite number of ways for there to be something - so it's simply much, much more likely for there to be something than for there to be nothing.

But our something, is as close to nothing as you can get, without actually being nothing.  Empty space mostly.

"It wouldn't be surprising at all if the universe was designed by a team of engineers." ... Drew, do you know any engineers or programmers?  I have been both.  If any human-like being was responsible for this universe, it would be much worse.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Of course all intellectuals, including us engineers, are legends in our own minds .. until our design fails ... as they always do if one over-reaches.  Building a universe is as big an overreach as one could imagine.

[Baruch]

I'm using the hypothetical to make a point that if the universe didn't exist the claim there is no evidence that supports theism would actually be true. Are you suggesting the universe has to exist? Always existed?

Excellent ... if you use a hypothetical, that isn't a testable hypothesis, then you are engaged in philosophy, not science.  When Galileo or Newton had similar speculations, they were engaged in philosophy, not science.

No, if you want to talk quantum cosmology, then we have to take it to the physics section.  And of course theism doesn't belong there, at best it belongs in philosophy, at worse it belongs in theology.  All of which I like but most here do not.

If you want to learn, you can be taught.  I am very familiar with Relativity theory, and two years ago took (for no credit) the Stanford on-line course in QM for engineers.

[PopeyesPappy]

Because I don't believe nature haphazardly created these laws and by happenstance the laws just happened to cause stars, galaxies solar system planets and ultimately sentient beings to exist. I don't believe in such gratuitous serendipity...

And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.