Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Zeus]

I'm not saying that the Universe must have been created, and that to think otherwise is illogical.  I'm saying that if the Universe was not created, then it is a totally random affair, and the apparent order we see in it is in fact simply a random bubble.  Kind of like all the monkeys typing all the time, and one of them produces Hamlet.  And furthermore, if the Universe is a random affair, then morality has no basis outside of oneself, and your choice of what is good and what is evil has no more validity than anyone else's.  It is not unreasonable to say there is no God, but it is unreasonable to say that, despite the non-existence of God, the Universe is not fundamentally random.
The assumption does in fact answer all the pressing questions of life, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish we can argue about another day.

This is pretty typical quasi-Christian apologetic thinking.  I would be happy to pick it apart (or try to!) on a religion thread.

[JBS]

This is pretty typical quasi-Christian apologetic thinking.  I would be happy to pick it apart (or try to!) on a religion thread.

If you wish....
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=28785.new#new

[71 dB]

If:

the following are true:

(1) senses are deceptive,

and

(2) inner responses are deceptive

and

(3) we have only subjective experiences as living organisms

then:

whence come this notion of a reason which, all the above notwithstaning, is and should be trusted by each and everyone of these living organisms as being completely and absolutely reliable and undeceptive, ie completely and absolutely independent of the senses, inner responses and subjective experiences of living organisms?

Senses, experiences and inner responses do influence reason (which is not always 100 % reliable), but reason is able to fix "errors" combining information form different experiences. I am able to reason colors do not exist despite of seeing colors all the time. It's because I have studied physics and the biology of human eyes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out in 2 seconds that colors do not exists, but are a useful delusion of our visual senses. That's the power of reason.

[71 dB]

Did it ever occur to you that reason is a means, not an end?

Yes, reason is a means, what else? Nowhere did I say it is an end. I even said how I enjoy colors and music despite of reasoning them to be interpretions of the underlying physical reality. Colors are 100 % real to us and I live my life accordingly, in fact I have eye to colors. One of the few things I am really good at.

Anyhow, as long as your "reason" allows you to create nothing else but parodies & travesties of other people's convictions, there's simply no ground for exchange. (Ridiculizing what you don't understand - talking about reason - is a lonely adventure). 

more smearing? I don't need to respect your every opinion or conviction to respect you as a person. I think belief in a deity is silly and I can tell why I think that way. So, if person X says he/she beliefs in deities, I will point out I find such belief silly and tell why I think so. That doesn't mean I find every opinion of the same person silly. Perhaps I admire his/her music taste? Maybe I am blown away by his/her insight about owls and snakes, but I still find the belief in deities silly. In many cases the belief in deities is indoctrinate to kids at young age, so in a sense they haven't even chosen that beliefs themselves. It was "given." That makes religious people victims of religious brainwashing. So when I attack the beliefs I actually attack the people who did the indoctrination if anyone. I did not choose your beliefs. I am not the one to blaime.

I ask you again: What evidence or reasoning do we have for your God we do not have for all other ~4999 deities mentioned in human history? If you find that questioning offending, it's not my fault. It is a perfectly valid question. If it is offending to you it's because it hits where it hurts. Why is that? Why does it hurt? I'm not hurt when my atheism is questioned. Why would it hurt? I can proudly explain why I don't believe in deities.

[Christo]

your God

You never ever referred to God, let alone 'mine'. The only God you keep talking about is one of your own image (your cown creation, projection, whatever, but always yours). Regarding all these silly gods of yours I'm a far greater atheist than you are. On the personal level: you're insulting other people's convictions (not mine, it's very helpful  ).

[71 dB]

If we can't absolutely define horses we are still allowed to ride them.

A poorly defined horse is a unicorn. 

[71 dB]

You never ever referred to God, let alone 'mine'. The only God you keep talking about is one of your own image (your cown creation, projection, whatever, but always yours). Regarding all these silly gods of yours I'm a far greater atheist than you are. On the personal level: you're insulting other people's convictions (not mine, it's very helpful  ).

Glad to hear I haven't insulted you. Your responses looked like you where insulted.

I have been referring to all ~5000 Gods ever mentioned in human history so yes, your God is included unless you are an atheist like me.

[BasilValentine]

I'm not saying that the Universe must have been created, and that to think otherwise is illogical.  I'm saying that if the Universe was not created, then it is a totally random affair, and the apparent order we see in it is in fact simply a random bubble.  ...  It is not unreasonable to say there is no God, but it is unreasonable to say that, despite the non-existence of God, the Universe is not fundamentally random.

Your fundamental idea above is nonsense. What makes you imagine the universe is random? There are physical laws that can be objectively established and various kinds of order emerge because of them. Given these laws and the nature of matter and energy, it is possible that life forms both simple and complex are all but inevitable. And once they exist evolutionary processes finely tune them in ways that are non-random. Given how bizarre your claim is, I wonder how you are defining the word random.

[Christo]

I have been referring to all ~5000 Gods ever mentioned in human history so yes, your God is included

You really don't get it, do you? You're correct in one respect: most people here who confess to believe in God, are far more radical atheists than you are. 

[Florestan]

Why would I argue over definitions?

Because:

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." - (atributted to) Socrates

It's you who brought up Socrates in the first place, so please be at least consistent with your own terms.

Anyway, actions speak louder than, don't you find?

I certainly am baffled by atheists stopping short of getting to the ultimate and only too logical conclusion of their position, namely that there is no difference whatsoever between Hitler and Mother Theresa.

Suppose I use a map as evidence of the way to get to grandmas house. 

There were a lot of historically wrong maps to get in a more real place than your grandmas  --- all of them being thought scientifically, evidence-based at the time, only to be proven wrong after.

Evidence is a name for a process about how information is used for validation pf propositions.

You might fancy yourself as a scientifically enllightened person, but the truth is that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you're talking about.

Retrospectively we call something evidence,

Are you nuts? Evidence is the same in 2019 BC as in 2019 AD.

Once again,  you are clueles.

and as an indicator of prospective use as well. We define more or less according to a compact description of what we are doing, the opposite of the a priorism you are recommending. See, I don't think people really do what you describe. I don't think Socraplato got it right at all. If we can't absolutely define horses we are still allowed to ride them.

You are the living embodiment of those sophists Socrates (via Plato) fought.

[71 dB]

I'm not saying that the Universe must have been created, and that to think otherwise is illogical.  I'm saying that if the Universe was not created, then it is a totally random affair, and the apparent order we see in it is in fact simply a random bubble.  Kind of like all the monkeys typing all the time, and one of them produces Hamlet.  And furthermore, if the Universe is a random affair, then morality has no basis outside of oneself, and your choice of what is good and what is evil has no more validity than anyone else's.  It is not unreasonable to say there is no God, but it is unreasonable to say that, despite the non-existence of God, the Universe is not fundamentally random.

Living organisms can observe the "randomness" only in universes that allow living organisms to emerge. It's possible there's infinite universes (every possible one), but only in few of them somebody can observe anything. We are in one of those "lucky" universes.

My own theory is that the only thing that exists is logic which can't not exist. Logic just is and you can't get rid of it. It's ridiculous to think there was a time when 2+2=4 wasn't logically true. My theory is our existence is build of layers of "illusions" over that logic, each layer defining ever more sophisticated illusion layers on top of itself. The lower layers define consept such as space and time, energy etc. while the higher layer define the laws of physics using these fundamental concepts. All possible structures of layers "exists" over the logic, but only in some of the layer structures observers like us can emerge. That's our Universe. Nothing created it. It just one layered structure of illusions over logic. Time is irrelevant for logic, because the time is just a illusion over logic. Time doesn't apply to logic. So, we can't ask when did the logic appear and how long will it last? That's a meaningless question. But that's just what I think. I'd be happy if it turned out I was even 10 % right about this.

Why do I think this way? Think about atoms. When you "look" at atoms it's not like you see small parts of "material" there, but instead what you get is probabilities of where "particles" are, described by wave functions. Atoms are kind of "nothing" in concrete sense. They are kind of hints/information of something existing. If I recall correctly, 99 % of the mass of atoms comes from vacuum fluctuations, in other words a person who weights 100 kg (180 lbs) is 99 kg worth of vacuum fluctuations! So, your overweight is all an illusion! It's just nothingness (empty space) fluctuating, because quantum physics allows (requires?) it. Leonard Susskind (the man who is almost never wrong) insists we are living in a hologram created by 2-dimensional surface of information, possible inside a black hole the event horizon being the 2-dimension surface. But that's again an illusion, 4-dimensional space-time created from 2-dimensional information. So, everywhere science looks, the real structure of reality looks less real and less "concrete" than what it looks to our senses which function to detect the highest layers of illusions.

[71 dB]

You really don't get it, do you? You're correct in one respect: most people here who confess to believe in God, are far more radical atheists than you are. 

I admit I don't follow you. How can a person who believes in God be more radical (militant?) atheist than a person who doesn't believe in any God.
I admit, I don't get that, unless you mean a muslim who believes in Allah, denies Christian God "stronger" (violently?) than I deny both of those Gods since I am not a violent person and allow people to have their believes no matter how silly.

[Florestan]

Living organisms can observe the "randomness" only in universes that allow living organisms to emerge. It's possible there's infinite universes (every possible one), but only in few of them somebody can observe anything. We are in one of those "lucky" universes.

And you call this "rational" and "scientific"?

My own theory is that the only thing that exists is logic which can't not exist.

Then you are hopelessly ignorant of the logic of the English language.

Logic just is and you can't get rid of it.

So is religion.

It's ridiculous to think there was a time when 2+2=4 wasn't logically true

.

Yes it is, but it's only you who think that there was ever such a time.

My theory is our existence is build of layers of "illusions" over that logic, each layer defining ever more sophisticated illusion layers on top of itself. The lower layers define consept such as space and time, energy etc. while the higher layer define the laws of physics using these fundamental concepts. All possible structures of layers "exists" over the logic, but only in some of the layer structures observers like us can emerge. That's our Universe. Nothing created it. It just one layered structure of illusions over logic. Time is irrelevant for logic, because the time is just a illusion over logic. Time doesn't apply to logic. So, we can't ask when did the logic appear and how long will it last? That's a meaningless question. But that's just what I think. I'd be happy if it turned out I was even 10 % right about this.

Why do I think this way? Think about atoms. When you "look" at atoms it's not like you see small parts of "material" there, but instead what you get is probabilities of where "particles" are, described by wave functions. Atoms are kind of "nothing" in concrete sense. They are kind of hints/information of something existing. If I recall correctly, 99 % of the mass of atoms comes from vacuum fluctuations, in other words a person who weights 100 kg (180 lbs) is 99 kg worth of vacuum fluctuations! So, your overweight is all an illusion! It's just nothingness (empty space) fluctuating, because quantum physics allows (requires?) it. Leonard Susskind (the man who is almost never wrong) insists we are living in a hologram created by 2-dimensional surface of information, possible inside a black hole the event horizon being the 2-dimension surface. But that's again an illusion, 4-dimensional space-time created from 2-dimensional information. So, everywhere science looks, the real structure of reality looks less real and less "concrete" than what it looks to our senses which function to detect the highest layers of illusions.

Had you been properly educated in logic, philosophy and history you'd have realized yourself the staggering amount of ignorance you displayed of all these fields  by writing all of the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutor,_ne_ultra_crepidam

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

And you call this "rational" and "scientific"?

Then you are hopelessly ignorant of the logic of the English language.

So is religion.
.

Yes it is, but it's only you who think that there was ever such a time.

Had you been properly educated in logic, philosophy and history you'd have realized yourself the staggering amount of ignorance you displayed of all these fields  by writing all of the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutor,_ne_ultra_crepidam

Do you think there is anything "Christian" about your contemptuous treatment of 71 dB?

[JBS]

Your fundamental idea above is nonsense. What makes you imagine the universe is random? There are physical laws that can be objectively established and various kinds of order emerge because of them. Given these laws and the nature of matter and energy, it is possible that life forms both simple and complex are all but inevitable. And once they exist evolutionary processes finely tune them in ways that are non-random. Given how bizarre your claim is, I wonder how you are defining the word random.

Reply here
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=post;msg=1192415;topic=28785.0

I purposely created the Atheology thread to allow this thread to get back on topic.

[Christo]

Do you think there is anything "Christian" about your contemptuous treatment of 71 dB?

Honesty counts among the Christian values. Ignorance does not qualify. 

[zamyrabyrd]

Living organisms can observe the "randomness" only in universes that allow living organisms to emerge. It's possible there's infinite universes (every possible one), but only in few of them somebody can observe anything. We are in one of those "lucky" universes.

My own theory is that the only thing that exists is logic which can't not exist. Logic just is and you can't get rid of it. It's ridiculous to think there was a time when 2+2=4 wasn't logically true. My theory is our existence is build of layers of "illusions" over that logic, each layer defining ever more sophisticated illusion layers on top of itself. The lower layers define concept such as space and time, energy etc. while the higher layer define the laws of physics using these fundamental concepts. All possible structures of layers "exists" over the logic, but only in some of the layer structures observers like us can emerge. That's our Universe. Nothing created it. It just one layered structure of illusions over logic. Time is irrelevant for logic, because the time is just a illusion over logic. Time doesn't apply to logic. So, we can't ask when did the logic appear and how long will it last? That's a meaningless question. But that's just what I think. I'd be happy if it turned out I was even 10 % right about this.

Why do I think this way? Think about atoms. When you "look" at atoms it's not like you see small parts of "material" there, but instead what you get is probabilities of where "particles" are, described by wave functions. Atoms are kind of "nothing" in concrete sense. They are kind of hints/information of something existing. If I recall correctly, 99 % of the mass of atoms comes from vacuum fluctuations, in other words a person who weights 100 kg (180 lbs) is 99 kg worth of vacuum fluctuations! So, your overweight is all an illusion! It's just nothingness (empty space) fluctuating, because quantum physics allows (requires?) it. Leonard Susskind (the man who is almost never wrong) insists we are living in a hologram created by 2-dimensional surface of information, possible inside a black hole the event horizon being the 2-dimension surface. But that's again an illusion, 4-dimensional space-time created from 2-dimensional information. So, everywhere science looks, the real structure of reality looks less real and less "concrete" than what it looks to our senses which function to detect the highest layers of illusions.

I get some of what you are saying but let me expand on it a bit. In the ancient world, no one would have believed that parallel lines would never meet. Consider this:

One story claims that a young student by the name of Hippasus was idly toying with the number √2, attempting to find the equivalent fraction. Eventually he came to realize that no such fraction existed, i.e. that √2 is an irrational number. Hippasus must have been overjoyed by his discovery, but his master was not. Pythagoras had defined the universe in terms of rational numbers, and the existence of irrational numbers brought his ideal into question. The consequence of Hippasus' insight should have been a period of discussion and contemplation during which Pythagoras ought to have come to terms with this new source of numbers. However, Pythagoras was unwilling to accept that he was wrong, but at the same time he was unable to destroy Hippasus' argument by the power of logic. To his eternal shame he sentenced Hippasus to death by drowning.

Logic in terms of rational numbers cannot account for many mathematical anomalies, yet they are useful. Without them, we would not be sitting here communicating via computers. I mean, how can anyone accept that two negative numbers multiplied by one another can render a positive number? It is not a quantity, but only symbolic.

Buddhism doesn't admit of a all-encompassing deity but in practice, transcendence. Otherwise, why should Prince Sakyamuni give up his position and wealth to become a begging monk? Going beyond the boundaries of the mere observable in science, sounds more and more "irrational" but only if one is stuck in a rational numbers stage.

As for "space" between the molecules, Eckart Tolle speaks of that in his lectures, that it is good, even freeing, to be aware of emptiness.

[Marc]

Honesty counts among the Christian values. Ignorance does not qualify. 

Smiley smiley, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Be careful though. They are still blessed, the ignorant. That bloke Jesus of Nazareth once said it.

But I'm not going to make my points about those 'blessed' Christians again, with their fine values. You are forgiven. Smiley smiley, wink wink, nudge nudge.

[zamyrabyrd]

Be careful though. They are still blessed, the ignorant. That bloke Jesus of Nazareth once said it.

That is the problem with the knowledge of good and evil. Once you know, you can't un-know.

[Florestan]

Do you think there is anything "Christian" about your contemptuous treatment of 71 dB?

No, I don't, but I just can't help it. I should really stop reading this bloody thread.