Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Mike Cl]

We think that is true.  However you can't prove it without someone there to record it, naturally or artificially.  See David Hume.

That's not true.  We can leave instruments behind to record what happens.  People don't have to be there.

[Unbeliever]

Whence my clarification re: physically possible things even in an infinite universe.  And, I should be very surprised if we do turn out to live in an infinite universe anyway.

I don't think I can even go that far, about what the universe is doing.  I don't think it needs to do anything, other than exist, and be sufficiently large and in space and in time for sentience to arise somewhere.  Everything else is gravy.

I see us as a bridge between the abstract realm and the physical realm. The only way certain abstract entities can be reified is to come through us, and only through us, through our minds. But, as Niels Bohr said,

Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.

[Drew_2017]

If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant. 

[Mike Cl]

If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

In your own little mind you have succeeded.  So, why not take your successful little toys and go home.

[doorknob]

If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

It is relevant whether we agree, we are the skeptics. If it doesn't convince us than it isn't convincing. Your evidence does not even meet the criteria of being evidence for what you are claiming. Sorry but it just doesn't so it seems you will continue hitting your head on a brick wall here. Other wise if you can honestly say you don't care that we reject your evidence as being evidence than why did you come here?

What was the point of all our conversations? Was it a failed attempt to prove to yourself that there is evidence for god?

Look if you want to continue believing there is a god that's just fine. We didn't come to you, you came to us. So ask your self this. If you are determined to believe that there is evidence for god despite what the skeptics are saying then what was it you were looking for when you came here? And did you get it? Because if not then you wasted both your time, and my time.

[Unbeliever]

But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. 

No hypothesis is ever proven in science. What they are is tested, continually. Einstein's theory of relativity is still being tested, and it still holds up under very close scrutiny, but it has not been proven.

Usually, several different hypotheses are put forward to explain some data. Those all get tested, and those that pass the tests go on to further testing. Those that hold up over and over become theories, which is just another word for "mathematical model." But theories continue to be tested, until testing runs into physical difficulties, as string theory does. They're having trouble figuring out how to test it, but if it can be tested, it will be. If it can't be tested, it will cease to be considered as a scientific hypothesis.

[Baruch]

That's not true.  We can leave instruments behind to record what happens.  People don't have to be there.

The instruments don't build themselves, they don't place themselves, they aren't played back .. without people.  Except materialists believe they do, if you wait long enough ;-)  There is always man-in-the-loop somewhere or there is no intelligence involved.

[Mike Cl]

The instruments don't build themselves, they don't place themselves, they aren't played back .. without people.  Except materialists believe they do, if you wait long enough ;-)  There is always man-in-the-loop somewhere or there is no intelligence involved.

Wow!  Instruments don't build themselves?  Learn something new every day!!

There were no people in the area when the instruments took their readings.  People came back, retrieved the instruments and evaluated the data collected.  And what a wonder--the data was the same with or without people.  The universe exists with or without people.  And the physical laws are the same, with or without people.

[sdelsolray]

Wow!  Instruments don't build themselves?  Learn something new every day!!

There were no people in the area when the instruments took their readings.  People came back, retrieved the instruments and evaluated the data collected.  And what a wonder--the data was the same with or without people.  The universe exists with or without people.  And the physical laws are the same, with or without people.

Baruch is addicted to making grandiose claims, pronouncements and edicts.  Many are thoughtful.  Some are full of shit.  Here, he appears to be attempting to apply the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics to the "Does a tree make a sound in the forest if no one is there" quip.  Watch how he dodges and weaves to avoid his mistake.

[Baruch]

Wow!  Instruments don't build themselves?  Learn something new every day!!

There were no people in the area when the instruments took their readings.  People came back, retrieved the instruments and evaluated the data collected.  And what a wonder--the data was the same with or without people.  The universe exists with or without people.  And the physical laws are the same, with or without people.

The point being ... prove something without any people involved, before, during or after.  Proof doesn't exist without people.  And without proof (without people) I don't believe your universe exists, Mr Plato ... nor are your laws legit.

Objectivity = two different people follow the same procedure, and get the same result.  This happens, sometimes.  Now try to do it without people.

Example:

Two different people, with two different weight scales, weigh a small pile of silver.  Both have independently calibrated their scales.  One weighs in at 5.0 grams.  The other weighs the same pile at 5.1 grams.  How much does the small pile weigh?  Here is where things go wrong ...

1. The only facts we have, are the two weights ... are we justified in making any deductions?  We can do any number of weighings ... we can determine a standard deviation, which will in this case follow an approximate Bell curve.  We can calculate the mean (average).  It is a fact, that we have done those calculations.  It is a fact, if we are consistent and effective, that we will come up with similar numbers any time we do the calculation, but we always truncate an irrational or in many cases, a rational number.  No weight is exactly a rational number ... in fact, given equal likelihood of finite numbers, the actual weight is a transcendental number and so it is irrational by deduction.  The only numbers we can write, are rational numbers, or often truncated rational numbers that are approximations of the actual rational number.  The standard deviation and mean therefore, will be any of several actual values, depending on how and where we truncate (round up?).  If we are consistent on our math, it is a property of math, but not of weighing, that we will get the exact same rational number each time, even though in fact that isn't the correct number, only an approximation.

2. We cannot conclude, on the basis of facts, but only on Plato, that the real weight is the same as the mean.  It is a jump of faith in Plato that the real weight is 5.05 grams (the mean of the two numbers I gave).  Plato was copying Pythagoras, that all things are number, that material reality isn't real.

3. The weight of something, not mass, is based on the gravitational acceleration where we weigh it.  So the measured weights will vary depending on the longitude, latitude and height above mean ground level.  Using a calibrated mass, we can used our experiment as a gravimeter, to explore for oil for example.

4. The scales also vary if they are moving ... that would also throw off the gravimeter.  Moving relative to Earth, or relative to an observer (special relativity).  In our example we are assuming that there is very little movement, but that is an inevitable source of variance (not error).  You might assume, per#2 that there is a real weight, and that any deviation from that is an error ... but that is a Platonic assumption.

5. We do have the concept of rest mass, that is invariant with respect to gravity, but not to motion.  Space and time are not invariant with respect to gravity (general relativity).  We can approximate the rest mass, with the weights, if we limit relative motion ... but my argument still holds.  The rest mass isn't constant, if the thing we were weighing is radioactive.  In that case the rest mass decreases with time.

So now we have examined a measurement in detail, but this also applies to microphones listening to trees falling in a forest with no humans in it.  There are sound vibrations in the air, we are told, but there are no sound vibrations in a human ear, to there is no "crash" in human physiological or psychological terms.  If it didn't happen in those terms, then its happening is a Platonic assumption.  Faith in physical laws, that have limited justification.

So as a matter of fact, we don't know what the small pile of silver has any particular weight, we just know the value from a variety of weighings, in a variety of circumstances.  We can do statistics on that, but it is an assumption that the statistics are meaningful (see statistical analysis of cryptology), even if we do the calculations and truncations consistently on the values of the weighings.  As an objective fact, we don't know how much the small pile of silver weighs ... except as a statistical approximation.  We have overall agreement, by sophisticated specialists (if you have to worry about the local gravitational acceleration).

How do we know the universe exists as a matter of fact?  We make measurements with our human senses, aided or unaided.  Those are first automatically processed by our sense organs and our sense-gestalt, before we even got to #1.  We can do calculations with the results.  Those are the facts.  But to then say that it is "chaos" or "cosmos" or "alive" or "dead" .. is extrapolation, on which ape men make different assumptions, even if we can get them to realize that they are misusing facts to justify their assumptions (assuming the conclusion).  Though as a matter of actual physics, most of nature is "chaos" with very little regularity (chaos isn't completely random, it is pseudorandom, the so called laws of physics are our observations, derived from facts such as I used in my example, hypotheses that are valid under some, but not all circumstances (conservation of mass-energy).  The reason why there are "apparent" laws is because reality isn't completely random, the non-randomness, on the edges, is where all the science happens.  And that science is driven by controlled experiments, that don't exist without people.  But those laws aren't absolute, they are hypotheses, verified, but subject to constant revision.  The idea that science is getting better and better is a pious faith.  In fact Newtonian physics, is much more often used than the Einstein version.  As a matter of calculation, the Einstein version is more accurate, in a narrow set of circumstances, but is otherwise a regression in practical terms.  Same thing with quantum field theory, there is relatively little that can be calculated with it ... quantum physics mostly consists of measured properties (as suggested by the conjoining of theory and experiment), not calculations.  We can't even calculate, from first principles, the rest mass of the humble electron.  I have no reason to believe, we ever will.  It is a measured fact, not subject to the whims of ape men.  What an electron might be (an explanation for it) is not a fact, it is speculation, that at this time has no verification (string theory).   It is in this sense that our Newtonian time, taught to us as a historical fact .. is a cultural artifact ... as are the clocks we use, man made, in artificial circumstances, to measure it.

[Mike Cl]

The point being ... prove something without any people involved, before, during or after.  Proof doesn't exist without people.  And without proof (without people) I don't believe your universe exists, Mr Plato ... nor are your laws legit.

That would be completely true if humans were the end product of this universe or if god is the creator.  But humans are not essential for this universe to exist.  It exists if humans exist or not.  "Proof'--I am assuming you mean proof for humans.  I don't know if ants or dolphins or chimps need proof--and if they do, what does that look like?  Humans can sense the universe within a very small band of understanding; much of the universe we don't even know exists (as a dog or a cat) or if we do only recently. So, our view of and understanding of the universe is narrow--because our senses are narrow.  Some instruments have been developed that have expanded our senses, but they are still very narrow.  Of course there is no human proof without humans.  You do love to spin your wheels, don't you. 

I do see some of the point you are trying to make, I think.  Even when we form hypothesis and then try to test them, often the results are altered because we are included in the testing.  Just doing some tests muddies the waters enough that we can't be sure of our findings.  And it is true that your proof and my proof may not be the same since your constructed world is not my constructed world.  That is why communication is so difficult.  In order to fully communicate we two have to define the words we use, and then use those defined words in the same fashion.  And it should start with the most fundamental of words, such as what is 'is'?  Then when we can communicate well enough in those fundamental areas we can go on.  Same with science--one of the goals is to use a universally accept way of doing things and a universal nomenclature.  Nor easy. 

My laws are not legit..........okay, he is a good example.  What are 'my' laws?  "My' laws, the laws I've tested and work for me are not scientific--they are personal.  And they work for me.  And are legit for me.  For you?  Probably not.  They are my personal laws.  As for the scientific proven physical laws, yeah, they exist and they are as legit as they can be.  Just because we have what we think are physical laws does not mean those laws are actually universal--they are as universal as we can make them, for they exist is all ways we can currently test them.  Gravity exists and it works.  We know much about it--and how it works as far as we can tell.  Until we can go to different parts of the universe we don't know if it changes or not.  And just because we have not fully determined what a law is or how it totally works does not mean it does not exist; only that we don't have a full understanding of it--yet.

Yes, human understanding is thin--and rudimentary--and flawed.  But if one took your approach to reject all, then there would be nothing.  You seem to worship the confusion; and that smacks of this fictional god/devil you keep referring to. The god of chaos--that would be your god.

On a personal level I fully realize and have for quite some time, realize that I comprehend a very tiny slice of the universe or even of this planet.  But I do what I can, test as I can, construct as I can to created a world that I can live in and I can appreciate.  I have constructed a purpose to keep me going when I fully know there is no universal purpose out there.  But mine works for me--is it perfect or am I perfect?  Far from it and I don't try for that--don't even know what perfect would be.  So, yes I view my world from my own set of lens'--as do you and every body else who has ever lived.  That is the problem--we really are islands unto ourselves and with only the greatest of effort can we build waterways from my island to yours or to anybody else's. 

So, of course, there is not any proof without humans.  So what???  There are humans and there is proof.   

[trdsf]

I see us as a bridge between the abstract realm and the physical realm. The only way certain abstract entities can be reified is to come through us, and only through us, through our minds. But, as Niels Bohr said,

Without a sentience being in place in the first place, there can't really be any such thing as 'the abstract'.  So I wouldn't say there's a realm to connect to, so much as there are abstract realms to be created.  And since they're the creations of natural products of physical reality, they're going to be related to that reality in one way or another.

[Baruch]

Mike, you completely missed my point.  You don't have to get it ... but I am sad.

Trdsf ... you actually read my post, or appear to have!  Awesome.

[Baruch]

Without a sentience being in place in the first place, there can't really be any such thing as 'the abstract'.  So I wouldn't say there's a realm to connect to, so much as there are abstract realms to be created.  And since they're the creations of natural products of physical reality, they're going to be related to that reality in one way or another.

People use the words and the ideas, without knowing what any of it means.  This is possible, because communication is semaphore .. the meaning isn't in the flags, like it would be with a national flag (patriotism etc) the designs of the flags are abstract labeling.  Basically "triggering" is exactly true.  I have an idea, I semaphore it to you, the meaning isn't in the flags, it is in the fact that my semaphore triggers in you the idea that I am thinking.  So then when we are both thinking the same thing, we have communed ... aka communicated.  There is no communication without communing.  Machines don't commune.  Machines don't communicate.  They are tools for people to semaphore.  Written language is a kind of machine.  Machines aren't intelligent, the people at each end are intelligent, and the person who thought up the means of communication was intelligent ... Seri isn't a real woman.  That is the same as a little girl, at a tea party, thinking that her teddy bear is a real person.

Yes, the abstractions, depending on how abstract they are, are related to what you call reality.  To me reality isn't out there, with Plato.  It exists as a relationship between living beings.  In that way only, Jesus exists (when two or more gather in my name (power)).  There is no community without relationship.  There is no relationship without communication.  There is no communication without communion (in general terms).  Communication only occurs between people with shared values and culture.  The problem with abstractions, if you study Roget's Thesaurus ... is that the more abstract concepts are more ambiguous, until with words like "exist" they hardly have any meaning at all.

[Drew_2017]

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

It is relevant whether we agree, we are the skeptics. If it doesn't convince us than it isn't convincing. Your evidence does not even meet the criteria of being evidence for what you are claiming. Sorry but it just doesn't so it seems you will continue hitting your head on a brick wall here. Other wise if you can honestly say you don't care that we reject your evidence as being evidence than why did you come here?

You are skeptics most of whom are completely committed and devoted to a naturalistic worldview. From what I have observed you're selectively skeptic, theistic claims are scrutinized to the nth degree while naturalistic explanations only need be possible to be plausible. I didn't hit my head at all, I made an excellent case in favor of what I think is true, I provided lines of evidence. That my adversaries disagree is a foregone conclusion. If I were making this case before people skeptical of either claim I'm confident most would say I put on a better case because I did. It is evidence whether you reject it or not. I logged in to have fun, match wits, see if atheists have any new material. Sadly most are stuck on the same shop worn arguments that only convinces themselves atheism is true the most common one being the fabrication there is no evidence of a Creator or that the universe was caused intentionally by design. Its the counter belief that naturalistic forces some how always existed, or somehow boot strapped themselves into existence which lacks much in the way of evidence it did happen or could happen.

I'm not 100% sold on theism, its a belief. Its what I think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true. There is evidence that supports naturalistic belief, but atheists and materialists should make their own case rather than relying on attacking theism. I know I'm going to be reminded I'm incredulous it is the claim we owe the existence of life and mind to mindless lifeless forces that didn't cause themselves to exist, didn't care if we existed but somehow still stumbled across the formula to create a universe, life and sentience. If it was done intentionally, by design its denoted as magic. If unguided naturalistic forces without plan or intent cause it to happen its called 'science'.

What was the point of all our conversations? Was it a failed attempt to prove to yourself that there is evidence for god? 

For you hopefully a moment of introspection. I defined evidence, listed facts that support theism and argued from those facts. Success!

Look if you want to continue believing there is a god that's just fine. We didn't come to you, you came to us. So ask your self this. If you are determined to believe that there is evidence for god despite what the skeptics are saying then what was it you were looking for when you came here? And did you get it? Because if not then you wasted both your time, and my time.

It wasn't a waste of my time I enjoyed our conversation. What I posted is evidence. You don't get to choose whats evidence and what isn't. The 'there is no evidence of theism' is a slogan you have bought into without a modicum of skepticism. It was before I came here and will be after. But it won't stop you from continuing to say it because to admit there is facts that support theism would be to admit its a rational possibility.