The Problems With Ethical Relativism (12 Viewers)

[rounder]

The preconditions were ALWAYS going to be perfect. You know the chances of them being perfect? 100%.

The preconditions for the universe to exist were 100% plausible. The preconditions for a life-permitting universe to exist is very very small. Let me put this into context.

You are dealt a hand of 5 cards in poker. The probability of getting any hand at all is 1. The probability of getting one hand is equally probable as the other. But since there are certain winning hands, these specific hand become more improbable.

Because not only would you be calculating any probability but you would be calculating probabilities given other conditions such as in the case of a royal flush, the cards must be same suited and must follow in consecutive order and must be from A to 10.

Now, substitute this premise in cosmology. The probabilty of getting any type of universe is equally probable but the probability of getting a life permitting universe(Royal Flush) without intelligent design is largely improbable.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Yes.. but at some point it's going to happen. You have an infinite number of chances. And how would you know anyway? We happen to live on water and oxygen. Perhaps there are other methods too.

 

[Dinsdale]

Didn't Martin a thread about this probability argument?

 

[rounder]

Yes.. but at some point it's going to happen. You have an infinite number of chances. And how would you know anyway? We happen to live on water and oxygen. Perhaps there are other methods too.

That's not what I mean when I say life-permitting. It was imperative that the constants in space were held in perfect equilibrium, a slight alteration of these constants would result in non-existence.

http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

This will give you a good grasp on the general idea.

"All of these have appealed to what Tennant called "wider teleology," which emphasizes the necessary conditions for the existence and evolution of intelligent life, rather than specific instances of purposive design. Unfortunately, they could speak of this wider teleology for the most part only in generalities, for example, "the fitness of the inorganic to minister to life," but could furnish few specific examples of experimental fact to illustrate this cosmic teleology.

In recent years, however, the scientific community has been stunned by its discovery of how complex and sensitive a nexus of conditions must be given in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life on Earth at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth at this time depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist."

 

[rounder]

Didn't Martin a thread about this probability argument?

I think he tried to debunk it, yes.

 

[Raz]

I think he tried to debunk it, yes.

Did god win?

 

[Martin]

Didn't Martin a thread about this probability argument?

*sigh* Yes, more than once.

The most annoying thing about this "probability argument" is people asserting probabilities based on no observations whatsoever. And then equating them to things like shuffling cards. Makes you want to stab your eyes out.

The only valid claims about probability are based on observation of prior events.

 

[rounder]

*sigh* Yes, more than once.

The most annoying thing about this "probability argument" is people asserting probabilities based on no observations whatsoever. And then equating them to things like shuffling cards. Makes you want to stab your eyes out.

The only valid claims about probability are based on observation of prior events.

I know Martin, we've been through this before.

I have not given actual numerical values, that would indeed be nonesensical.

I am just providing something analogous to cosmology, I am basically putting it into different context.

Read the link to fully understand the theory.

 

[rounder]

Did god win?

Did you ever make sense?

 

[Raz]

Did you ever make sense?

I distinctly remember you telling me that i made sense at least one time.

 

[rounder]

I distinctly remember you telling me that i made sense at least one time.

I seriously doubt that. And if I ever did, I must have been under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Raz]

I seriously doubt that. And if I ever did, I must have been under the influence of alcohol.

Be careful then, you don't want to get addicted to that stuff. And since you can't control yourself like that, I would suggest to quit while you can, who knows what filthy things you have done under that influence.

 

[rounder]

Be careful then, you don't want to get addicted to that stuff. And since you can't control yourself like that, I would suggest to quit while you can, who knows what filthy things you have done under that influence.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[*aca*]

Not that I believe in it, but it explains:
-How it's possible that an entity could have created our universe, because if it is higher dimensional it wouldn't be a part of our universe. The old man you mentioned couldn't have created our universe because he would be part of it himself.
-How it could observe us without us being able to observe it
-How it could interfere with our universe without us realizing it

It wasn't meant to be supertight model, but it gives an intuitive physical interpretation of many godlike properties imo. I didn't want to provide evidence for anything, I just thought it was something interesting to think about.

That is fine in theory, but means nothing in practice.

Scientist do come up with abstract ideas that explain how things work. Your definition does not do that. The creature is still undetectable and it is still "unknowable being doing things in unknowable way using unknowable means".

Yes, I used the starting hypothesis "god exists", but only in an attempt to evaluate the plausibility of that hypothesis and properties most people would call divine. What's wrong with that?

Divine god is not a theoretical hypothesys. He/She/It is the ultimate conclusion.

You can not start with the solution/conclusion/ultimate explanation (ie god) and then go backwards looking for kind of observation that will fit your conclusion (4th dimension mover).

 

[Seven]

That's not what I mean when I say life-permitting. It was imperative that the constants in space were held in perfect equilibrium, a slight alteration of these constants would result in non-existence.

http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

This will give you a good grasp on the general idea.

"All of these have appealed to what Tennant called "wider teleology," which emphasizes the necessary conditions for the existence and evolution of intelligent life, rather than specific instances of purposive design. Unfortunately, they could speak of this wider teleology for the most part only in generalities, for example, "the fitness of the inorganic to minister to life," but could furnish few specific examples of experimental fact to illustrate this cosmic teleology.

In recent years, however, the scientific community has been stunned by its discovery of how complex and sensitive a nexus of conditions must be given in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life on Earth at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth at this time depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist."

That's very dandy, but there's nothing in there that remotely points to the idea that there had to be some idea behind the beginning of the universe.

 

[Dinsdale]

That is fine in theory, but means nothing in practice.

Scientist do come up with abstract ideas that explain how things work. Your definition does not do that. The creature is still undetectable and it is still "unknowable being doing things in unknowable way using unknowable means".

I know, I know. It doesn't explain or predict anything. I just suggested a god model that makes a little more sense and is more concrete than the ones usually used, and it's not complete by any means. It's not science, just something that might expand your thinking.

Divine god is not a theoretical hypothesys. He/She/It is the ultimate conclusion.

You can not start with the solution/conclusion/ultimate explanation (ie god) and then go backwards looking for kind of observation that will fit your conclusion (4th dimension mover).

That's how you interpret it. Didn't man (some people, not mankind in general) at some point, based on observations, concluded that the universe is created by a god? Of course we don't know whether this conclusion is right or wrong, and that's why we research the plausibility of explanations supporting this conclusion, so that we can then examine the plausibility of the conclusion itself. The backwards thinking came after the forwards thinking. That's why you too called god a conclusion, and not an axiom.

 

[rounder]

Verynine, I was thinking about the four dimensional space theory you were mentioning.

I suddenly thought of Super Mario. I remember playing that game when only two-dimensional space existed in games, when I thought about it, I was living in three-dimensional space, controlling a character in two dimensional space that cannot even see me while I can see everything in its world.

I suppose that's how the four dimensional space theory would work, with a supernatural entity being involved in our three dimensional universe being able to control our actions without us being able to see it.

Am I close to the general idea?I really found it difficult to get a good grasp on the concept.

 

[Dinsdale]

Verynine, I was thinking about the four dimensional space theory you were mentioning.

I suddenly thought of Super Mario. I remember playing that game when only two-dimensional space existed in games, when I thought about it, I was living in three-dimensional space, controlling a character in two dimensional space that cannot even see me while I can see everything in its world.

I suppose that's how the four dimensional space theory would work, with a supernatural entity being involved in our three dimensional universe being able to control our actions without us being able to see it.

Am I close to the general idea?I really found it difficult to get a good grasp on the concept.

Yep that's pretty much it. The two-dimensional space of your television screen would be 'their universe'. They could only move and look right, left, up and down, but not into your living room. It's not evidence or anything, it just makes some concepts of god more understandable.

Of course this god couldn't have created the universe in the most broad sense (the higher dimensional space), because it's part of it itself, but it could have created 'our universe' (which would be like his '3-dimensional television screen').

 

[Seven]

Yep that's pretty much it. The two-dimensional space of your television screen would be 'their universe'. They could only move and look right, left, up and down, but not into your living room. It's not evidence or anything, it just makes some concepts of god more understandable.

Well yes, but the problem is what that fourth dimension may be. Counting down is easier than counting up, which would be impossible.

 

[Raz]

Yep that's pretty much it. The two-dimensional space of your television screen would be 'their universe'. They could only move and look right, left, up and down, but not into your living room. It's not evidence or anything, it just makes some concepts of god more understandable.

If there is a 4d space, so theoretically there should be 5d space too? And maybe infinite number of spaces then? If so this still would not explain any of gods properties, since one god would be higher then the other and so forth with increasing number of dimensions, while god as we are told have to be the highest thing there is? So for god to be he would have to be outside of the dimensional space then, no?