Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

06/22/2010 01:08:27 PM · #326

Want me to point out the fallacy your odds depend upon? It is exponentially more probable that any given deity is yet another myth.

06/22/2010 01:52:02 PM · #327

Originally posted by scalvert:

Want me to point out the fallacy your odds depend upon? It is exponentially more probable that any given deity is yet another myth.

I was trying to deflect your question with some levity since it had very little to do with what was being spoken of. You didn't seem to get it.

The fine tuned universe is also exponentially unlikely, yet we find ourselves here. But PLEASE, if you want to argue that, just read the pages above and I'll find more productive things to do in the meantime.

Matthew, if you want to continue the point at hand (am I correct on all my beliefs), feel free to PM me...

06/22/2010 01:55:10 PM · #328

I (and probably others) would be interested in hearing that too. Do you think you are correct in all your beliefs, what portions of those beliefs are potentially incorrect in your view, etc.

06/22/2010 02:01:26 PM · #329

Originally posted by Louis:

I (and probably others) would be interested in hearing that too. Do you think you are correct in all your beliefs, what portions of those beliefs are potentially incorrect in your view, etc.

You can PM me too. We have business to take care of.

06/22/2010 02:08:59 PM · #330

No, this deserves public discourse, since that perspective is germane to this discussion.

06/22/2010 02:13:37 PM · #331

Originally posted by Louis:

No, this deserves public discourse, since that perspective is germane to this discussion.

If I have learned anything, it is that such conversation is problematic at best in thread format. It quickly is sidetracked or fragments into multiple parallel conversations. I think one-on-one is more productive. As for the rest, you've already castigated me for airing dirty laundry, so you should PM me anyway.

06/22/2010 02:14:50 PM · #332

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I was trying to deflect your question

Per usual.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The fine tuned universe is also exponentially unlikely, yet we find ourselves here.

Reverse gambler's fallacy. The likelihood of suitable conditions for life somewhere among the trillions of stars and planets in the universe is actually quite high, though the vast majority is "finely tuned" to be totally inhospitable.

06/22/2010 02:23:37 PM · #333

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was trying to deflect your question

Per usual.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fine tuned universe is also exponentially unlikely, yet we find ourselves here.

Reverse gambler's fallacy. The likelihood of suitable conditions for life somewhere among the trillions of stars and planets in the universe is actually quite high, though the vast majority is "finely tuned" to be totally inhospitable.

Shannon, please stop playing these games. Your argument here doesn't talk to mine at all. I'm speaking of the finely tuned universe, not a finely tuned planet...

06/22/2010 02:49:11 PM · #334

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your argument here doesn't talk to mine at all. I'm speaking of the finely tuned universe, not a finely tuned planet...

The article I linked to regarding your Reverse Gambler's Fallacy was "A 'Fine-Tuned' Universe as Proof of a God?" Sure, that doesn't speak to your argument at all...

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 14:57:03.

06/22/2010 03:03:10 PM · #335

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your argument here doesn't talk to mine at all. I'm speaking of the finely tuned universe, not a finely tuned planet...

The article I linked to regarding your Reverse Gambler's Fallacy was "A 'Fine-Tuned' Universe as Proof of a God?" Sure, that doesn't speak to your argument at all...

You didn't do a good job of presenting it then and I didn't bring it up as any proof of God, merely as the equally uncompelling alternative. All of the points of the article have been discussed before ad infinitum and, in fact, among articles bandied about that one was a pretty lackadaisical (you don't want to know how I first spelled that) attempt at addressing it. There is nothing new there to offer.

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 15:05:55.

06/22/2010 03:07:42 PM · #336

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You didn't do a good job of presenting it then and I didn't bring it up as any proof of God, merely as the equally uncompelling alternative.

Two sentences were too hard to follow, eh? Supernatural explanations are never equal alternatives. Try reading the link this time.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/22/2010 04:11:13 PM · #337

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You didn't do a good job of presenting it then and I didn't bring it up as any proof of God, merely as the equally uncompelling alternative.

Two sentences were too hard to follow, eh? Supernatural explanations are never equal alternatives. Try reading the link this time.

The trick there is always how you phrase the question or topic. Take what we've been talking about just now, the finely tuned universe. Why is it so finely tuned to support life? There seem to be three current options: 1) it isn't as finely tuned as we think, 2) the tuning was directed 3) the tuning was only one iteration from many other iterations that were randomly tried. Where does your 'burden of proof' fall and why would it not be equal on all parties?

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 16:11:36.

scarbrd

Leica M10

06/22/2010 05:02:48 PM · #338

Off the current topic, but I read an interesting book last week.

"Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith" by Martha Beck.

It's her story about how she was raised Mormon and her relationship with her father, a noted "Mormon Apologist" (as she puts it)

For me the interesting part is that Mormonism is it is one of the few world religions that was founded in the last 200 years. All of its unique scriptures can be scrutinized from the original texts. Something we can't do with other, older world religions. The founders are still relatively recent and their actions and movements are well documented inside and outside the religion. It gives a lot of insights into the difficulty in establishing an absolutist theology when virtually all of the dogma can be held up to the cold light of day.

My take on it is that probably all religions went through the same process of intellectual justification and modifications, just some have been going on thousands of years instead of a couple of hundred.

Anyway, interesting read from someone on the inside.

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 17:03:18.

06/22/2010 05:22:11 PM · #339

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The trick there is always how you phrase the question or topic. Take what we've been talking about just now, the finely tuned universe. Why is it so finely tuned to support life?

You've unwittingly demonstrated where the trick of phrasing lies. Why wouldn't you say the universe is overwhelmingly inhospitable to life? Declaring that the universe is tuned to support life is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, implying causation with the word "tuned" is begging the question, assuming a creator is argument from ignorance, and the whole shebang is a tautology (if things were different, then they would be different).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Where does your 'burden of proof' fall and why would it not be equal on all parties?

You obviously didn't read the link that I suggested you try reading. "...burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary," that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts."

For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof. However, the burden of proof will often be asymmetrical, meaning that it will fall harder on one side of an argument than the other. There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are"
â�¢ How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
â�¢ Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).

While both "fairies exist" and "fairies are imaginary" are syntactically positive, only the former is ontologically positive. Therefore, since fairies exist is an ontologically positive claim, an added burden is placed on the proposition.

The party making the positive claim that fairies exists, for example, cannot demand that disbelievers provide evidence that fairies do not exist.

06/22/2010 05:30:58 PM · #340

Originally posted by scarbrd:

For me the interesting part is that Mormonism is it is one of the few world religions that was founded in the last 200 years. All of its unique scriptures can be scrutinized from the original texts... virtually all of the dogma can be held up to the cold light of day.

Yet 5.6 million people are believers as of 2004.

06/22/2010 05:42:53 PM · #341

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The trick there is always how you phrase the question or topic. Take what we've been talking about just now, the finely tuned universe. Why is it so finely tuned to support life?

You've unwittingly demonstrated where the trick of phrasing lies. Why wouldn't you say the universe is overwhelmingly inhospitable to life? Declaring that the universe is tuned to support life is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, implying causation with the word "tuned" is begging the question, assuming a creator is argument from ignorance, and the whole shebang is a tautology (if things were different, then they would be different).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where does your 'burden of proof' fall and why would it not be equal on all parties?

You obviously didn't read the link that I suggested you try reading. "...burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary," that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts."

For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof. However, the burden of proof will often be asymmetrical, meaning that it will fall harder on one side of an argument than the other. There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are"
â�¢ How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
â�¢ Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).

While both "fairies exist" and "fairies are imaginary" are syntactically positive, only the former is ontologically positive. Therefore, since fairies exist is an ontologically positive claim, an added burden is placed on the proposition.

The party making the positive claim that fairies exists, for example, cannot demand that disbelievers provide evidence that fairies do not exist.

Yes, I agree the word "tuned" was loaded, but not on purpose. Insert whatever word you would like. Why is our universe one that can support life? The question doesn't go away just because the word "tuned" is removed.

I did read the link as I can see you are just directly quoting it. Still you didn't answer my query. All three positions have their own issues. The first position (that the requirements for life are not as unusual as we think) is ad hoc and would directly counter our current understanding. The second and third positions (that it was directed and that it was the winning combo of many tries) equally lack evidence and their comparative "extraordinary" quality is a matter of where you stand.

06/22/2010 05:56:00 PM · #342

BTW, the "tuned" likely did not originally refer to God (or some creator) but rather the mathematician cosmologist who would "tune" the variables of their formulas to arrive at the conditions we see today. The number of formulas that describe an expanding universe with a t=0 is actually quite large and it was originally a knock on the whole idea that such tuning was required. Too many people thought it was ad hoc and lent a scientific distaste for many years to the whole concept of an expanding universe.

So the question is, what leads one to select the "correct" set of variables to describe our universe when using mathematical formuals? Interestingly, string theory is falling under the same criticism and the question becomes whether it can survive or not.

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 17:56:59.

06/22/2010 06:11:24 PM · #343

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why is our universe one that can support life?

The vast majority of the universe doesn't support life as we know it, but an enormous range of conditions along with the surprisingly adaptable nature of life pretty much guarantees that life will exist somewhere. 4 billion years ago or 4 billion years from now, the fallacious observer would hypothetically stand on this same planet and ask why the universe cannot support life.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I did read the link as I can see you are just directly quoting it.

Then you shouldn't have needed to ask where the burden of proof lies. It's squarely on you, buddy.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The first position (that the requirements for life are not as unusual as we think) is ad hoc and would directly counter our current understanding.

Argument from ignorance again.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The second and third positions (that it was directed and that it was the winning combo of many tries) equally lack evidence and their comparative "extraordinary" quality is a matter of where you stand.

The extraordinary quality derives from claims of a supernatural explanation, and a lack of evidence for a natural solution does NOT make the two claims equal. The party making the positive claim that fairies/gods exists cannot demand that disbelievers provide evidence that fairies/gods do not exist.

06/22/2010 06:22:39 PM · #344

Sigh. I'll just stop. You win Shannon.

Matthew, if you want to continue a fruitful discussion. PM me.

06/22/2010 06:23:57 PM · #345

Why not try countering his arguments instead?

06/22/2010 06:31:28 PM · #346

Originally posted by Louis:

Why not try countering his arguments instead?

I'd probably pass out in shock.

06/22/2010 06:37:43 PM · #347

Originally posted by Louis:

Why not try countering his arguments instead?

Because it's like fighting in molasses and it has been done a zillion times already and it wasn't even what we were originally talking about. It only leads to frustration and I don't need it. I am slowly learning that I don't need to rise to every challenge and occasion. I can just let it be, even if it gives the impression I don't have a response. If that's what you think, so be it.

06/22/2010 06:46:05 PM · #348

Well, that's not arguing. If you don't participate here to argue, why do you participate?

The ability to deflate an argument succinctly is something of a gift, and normally one uses the experience of seeing it first hand to improve one's own skills, just as in photography. Personally, I especially enjoy the repartee, which I believe can be sharp while being valid.

06/22/2010 06:50:56 PM · #349

Originally posted by Louis:

I participate to also see what other people have to say, but that has diminishing returns when people say the same thing all the time. Like I said, we've probably had this very same conversation two to four times in the past. I'm not seeing anything new. Shannon certainly can't teach me about cosmology very much. Wading through a 400 page book is much more revealing on facts not gleaned from wiki.

Arguing for arguing's sake can be fun, but it can be frustrating as well if your opponent is better at tricks of argument and tactics of frustration rather than an actual back and forth of ideas.

Message edited by author 2010-06-22 18:52:04.