Sapere aude

First, I never employed the Anthropic Principle. The Principle really just states that if things were different and we weren't here, we couldn't ask the question as to why thing are the way they are. Things would be some other way and we wouldn't be at all. Since we are here, conditions permit it and we can ask why.

I didn't use it, if I had, it's not a cop out, it's logically true. The answer to why things are the way they are is that we don't know.

Science doesn't know, religion doesn't know, you don't know. Therefore, making up an answer is intellectually dishonest.

The Universe may have been required to form in a similar way that atoms are required to form. Underlying forces of nature, that we don't fully understand.

I never said anything about random chance. You made that up.

Are you capable of being intellectual honest or not?
 
Naturalist said:
never said anything about random chance. You made that up.
Click to expand...
It's implied in quantum mechanics. It's the building block of quantum mechanics. Do you not agree?
 
RJM said:
It's implied in quantum. Do you not agree?
Click to expand...
There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One interpretation had been selected as the most favored, but it has problems, it's called the Copenhagen interpretation. In that interpretation, there is a quantum divide. Below the quantum divide, there are probabilities associated with variables. It is accepted that we don't know the variable until we measure it, only probabilities. The laws of nature still apply.

Above the quantum divide, where we live our lives, things are deterministic, determined by a prior state. The laws of nature still apply.
 
RJM said:
Perhaps you will be able to stop correcting 'belivers' that they are wrong?

Ditto that
Click to expand...
Nope, I respond to your remarks as written. You said, I said something about randomness and the Anthropic Principle.

I DID NOT.
 
Naturalist said:
where we live our lives, things are deterministic, determined by a prior state. The laws of nature still apply.
Click to expand...
That's not true. They are certainly influenced but certainly not determined by prior events, in the case of human choice.

That's the hinge. That's purely your own opinion. I'm MY own opinion

Can we just shake hands and let it go at that?
 
RJM said:
That's not true. They are certainly influenced but certainly not determined by prior events, in the case of human choice.

That's the hinge. That's purely your own opinion. I'm MY own opinion

Can we just shake hands and let it go at that?
Click to expand...
I can shake hands and let it go, but the evidence shows my opinion is correct and yours isn't.

I already elaborated with someone else above on some of the details and provided links.

Get educated, so you are not arguing from ignorance.
 
Naturalist said:
Get educated, so you are not arguing from ignorance.
Click to expand...
Your evidence dismissed the emergent whole man as greater than the sum of his organic parts. But you're entitled to your opinion IMO
 
There'd be no point in trying to correct others away from their predetermined belief if they had no choice but to believe that. A wasted exercise all around, surely?
 
RJM said:
Your evidence dismissed the emergent whole man as greater than the sum of his organic parts. But you're entitled to your opinion IMO
Click to expand...
Well, you can cherry pick man if you like. A chair is an emergent property of its parts. It maintains its shape, you can sit in, water rolls off of it, etc.

The weather is a huge example of emergent complexity.

This does deserve a yawn.
 
RJM said:
There'd be no point in trying to correct others away from their predetermined belief if they had no choice but to believe that. A wasted exercise all around, surely?
Click to expand...
A person has no choice to believe what they believe, but the environment affects that.

So my comments are part of your environment.

Whether you will incorporate them into your understanding or not is predetermined.

I'm hoping some readers will, but I know most readers will not.
 
Naturalist said:
Tell me why you think I'm wrong, and if your evidence or logic is sound, I will have learned something.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, Naturalist. Atheist Hindu here. One of India's saints, KABIR (1440-1518), neither Hindu nor Muslim, but dear to both and Sikhs, said:

"Nindak neare rakhiye, angan kuti chhavaya, bin pani bin sabune, nirmal kare subhaya"
(Keep the critic near you, make a hut for him in your courtyard, (for he) without water or soap, will make you humble)
 
Naturalist said:
Well that's convenient isn't it?
Click to expand...
No, more a simple statement of fact.

Naturalist said:
The version I'm using is the most common rendering, an invisible theistic god, as described by the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.
Click to expand...
Ah, you might be at some disadvantage there. Really the scriptures should be read in the light of commentaries, as there is a general assumption that because one can read, one understands everythign that is being said in what one is reading – reason and rationality will tell you that's not the case. People read all manner of nonsense into the texts, and others draw all manner of profound insight. One has to use one's own discursive faculty, as best one can, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
No one needs to 'disprove' god, you can't prove a negative. Therefore those who insist there is a god need to prove there is one. To insist on something existing without any proof is the epitome of irrationality.
Click to expand...
By the same token, and purely as an example, can you offer such proof to validate the LHP?
 
Thomas said:
No, more a simple statement of fact.


Ah, you might be at some disadvantage there. Really the scriptures should be read in the light of commentaries, as there is a general assumption that because one can read, one understands everythign that is being said in what one is reading – reason and rationality will tell you that's not the case. People read all manner of nonsense into the texts, and others draw all manner of profound insight. One has to use one's own discursive faculty, as best one can, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Click to expand...
The statement is an assertion, not fact.

Yes, because the all powerful God couldn't write a clear concise text, he needs humans (who "read all manner of nonsense into the texts"), to editorialize.

How do you know the difference between mythology and non-fiction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top