Religiouscels don't enter. I found God.

[Incline]

Your prophet is right here. He decided your fate, he gave you life. Every choice you think you have made has been predisposed by a genetic sequence long before you were ever born. Every thought you ever had a conclusion of a complex chain of reactions that all date back to your primordial code. Not a single second of your life has been truly your own; you are result not action.

But that is not your god.

This is your god.

It has no favor, no directive nor intention. Purest form of godhood there is, a primitive force of universe that dictates everything there is to dictate. Chance. This is the only god that exists. Submit to it now and perhaps in the future there might come a time it will turn in your favor. The universe will always exist, is the only possible explanation to end the paradox of what came first (Greeks had it figured out aeons ago), as such time is of no consequence, an unspeakable amount of time could pass before a conscious lifeform arises after your demise but it will happen, it is inevitable and you being alive is proof of it right now.

When it does, you better pray your one-time chance roll at the start of your new life will roll in your favor.​

 

[Scatius Deletus]

Brutal godpill

 

[romanstock]

Well said.

 

[based_meme]

Chance is mindless and has no intentionality, direction, will nor design. We plenty of all of these in the natural world. Now, I can appreciate that high complexity can arise out of simple rules and structures (see: John Conway's Game of Life). However, there are simply too many coincidences, and probabilities being so low so as to being functionally and effectively zero, that we have to look elsewhere and appeal to something greater than random chance. We have to, at the very least as a basis beyond random chance, teleology. This can only happen with intent and planning, which can only happen if there's a mind. Note that this doesn't preclude stochastic systems, as those can be constructed as well.

 

[Incline]

Chance is mindless and has no intentionality, direction, will nor design. We plenty of all of these in the natural world. Now, I can appreciate that high complexity can arise out of simple rules and structures (see: John Conway's Game of Life). However, there are simply too many coincidences, and probabilities being so low so as to being functionally and effectively zero, that we have to look elsewhere and appeal to something greater than random chance. We have to, at the very least as a basis beyond random chance, teleology. This can only happen with intent and planning, which can only happen if there's a mind. Note that this doesn't preclude stochastic systems, as those can be constructed as well.

Why do you assume that we are special and that the laws of the universe exist with intent. If you roll a dice a billion times eventually you'll roll an incredibly complex chain of outcomes that will seem magical to you because if even a slightest alteration occurred you would not exist. But it's just chance.

For example, let us say that your goal is to roll number 6 on a dice 20 times in a row. This is your condition for existing, as long as the dice does not roll that you will not exist. The probability of that happening is 0.000000000000000274%. Extremely unlikely. Now lets assume something very important, that time is not a factor in this equation. the dice WILL roll this exact scenario eventually, even if it takes an immeasurable amount of time.

After an immeasurably long amount of time the dice eventually rolled the sequence and you came into existence . From your perspective, you would assume that there is simply no way a coincidence like this could occur because the probability of it is just mind-blowingly small. But what you don't know about is the bazillion amount of times the dice has been rolled to random outcome that did not result in your creation.

But how can a dice reroll so many times? I have to assume that the universe is cyclical in some form and that it never began (its over for the universe), it just always existed. That is what the Greeks assumed before we moved away from this way of thinking. This is the only logical explanation that can follow to avoid the paradox of what came first. Any other answer is simply beyond human comprehension so its pointless to reason it because we will never grasp it.

Adding a creator to this universe doesn't solve anything. Then you just added one more problem to the equation. Who created the creator? If you are willing to admit that the creator is all-mighty, and he always existed or exists beyond the bounds of time then you might as well remove this needless complication and assume the same of the universe itself.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

I saw God

She said, If you don't believe me, guaranteed you'll never leave me, on my way and out of your time

but I didn't even know if it was true or just a result of chemicals

 

[SuperKanga.Belgrade]

Just submit to god BRRRROOOOOO

 

[based_meme]

Why do you assume that we are special and that the laws of the universe exist with intent. If you roll a dice a billion times eventually you'll roll an incredibly complex chain of outcomes that will seem magical to you because if even a slightest alteration occurred you would not exist. But it's just chance.

But there's no evidence that nature rolled for us - conscious, intelligent life - billions of times and "lucked out," giving rise to us. Not only that, but the probabilities of life forming from lifelessness with existing building blocks (itself orders of magnitude removed from cosmic events, which itself is further orders of magnitude removed from purely ex nihilo processes) are so low that they simply should not be meaningfully used as a rational basis for our explanations.

You have to make a great deal of assumptions about how life in the universe formed to make the billion dice roll argument. Even then, the position is simply not reasonable. It would be akin to coming across foot prints and concluding that the arrangements of sand particles, with the precise pressure to form the shape with the precise pacing distance, could have been the result of fish being washed ashore and other weather effects when you can simply make the inference and say there was a person walking here.

Adding a creator to this universe doesn't solve anything. Then you just added one more problem to the equation. Who created the creator? If you are willing to admit that the creator is all-mighty, and he always existed or exists beyond the bounds of time then you might as well remove this needless complication and assume the same of the universe itself.

There isn't a problem to be solved. It's just one of many explanations of our position in the cosmos, given what we can observe and reason about. You don't like the universal progenitor (God) explanation, that's fine. You can appeal to other explanations. I'm only here to remind you that chance is not a good enough explanation.

 

[Incline]

But there's no evidence that nature rolled for us - conscious, intelligent life - billions of times and "lucked out," giving rise to us. Not only that, but the probabilities of life forming from lifelessness with existing building blocks (itself orders of magnitude removed from cosmic events, which itself is further orders of magnitude removed from purely ex nihilo processes) are so low that they simply should not be meaningfully used as a rational basis for our explanations.

But the probabilities don't matter if there is an endless amount of time for them to be tried. As long as the probability exists then it will eventually happen even if it takes a near infinite amount of time for that to occur. You look at the outcome and deduct backwards that it is a product of intelligent design.

You are saying that there is no proof of the universe being a cyclical universe and that on the contrary there is proof of intelligent design because universe is too perfectly designed to accommodate life for it to be a coincidence. From what we know so far the universe had an origin point some billion years in the past from which everything expanded. If this starting point was a product of intelligent design and not a cyclical happening of some kind then what existed before the intelligent actor decided to begin the universe? Was he just twiddling his thumbs all day long, or maybe he himself runs it in some cyclical fashion, how did this actor even came into such power, do we just accept that he is beyond the laws of science and exists on some higher level?

To me it just looks like adding elements to a story to explain something we don't know. Just like Zeus was the god of thunder before we understood how thunder works. I can concede that the current universe is designed in such a way that life can be accommodated, I do not know much about science but I am going to assume that if the laws of physics were even slightly tempered with life would not be possible anywhere in the universe and that there is no concrete-in-your-face proof that universe is cyclical as much as the universe itself is proof that we exist because the conditions are right for us to exist. I can agree with this part of the argument, but linking it back to a intelligent Actor is something I just cannot accept logically.

You have to make a great deal of assumptions about how life in the universe formed to make the billion dice roll argument. Even then, the position is simply not reasonable. It would be akin to coming across foot prints and concluding that the arrangements of sand particles, with the precise pressure to form the shape with the precise pacing distance, could have been the result of fish being washed ashore and other weather effects when you can simply make the inference and say there was a person walking here.

If we are going to make assumptions about the universe and bring up an progenitor into the picture, then why shouldn't we similar make assumptions about the universe being cyclical and we being a product of random chance. One is a force of nature that we well observed in this world and the other is a mythical all-mighty creator that we have no proof of existing as he has never revealed himself to us in any provable way.

You say chance is an unreasonable explanation, why is it not reasonable, explain that. I think your example with footprints is good with what it is trying to imply but if you add context to it that you would come across a random set of footprints a near infinite time before this and only this time you reached a perfect set of footprints that you could infer belongs to a person and not just some byproduct of nature it would explain the mystery away.

In the end, we are going to have to make assumption either-way, because we lack knowledge or perhaps we are simply incapable to understand the true nature of the universe with our current state of existence.

There isn't a problem to be solved. It's just one of many explanations of our position in the cosmos, given what we can observe and reason about. You don't like the universal progenitor (God) explanation, that's fine. You can appeal to other explanations. I'm only here to remind you that chance is not a good enough explanation.

You still not convinced me why chance is not good enough.

Tell me, as long as something is possible regardless of how little the probability, is it not bound to happen given an infinite timeframe? Isn't that effectively chance, why isn't that good enough of an explanation?

I am not really convinced by my own arguments either, I am trying to reach something I can settle on internally but so far I have failed to do so, this is my best attempt yet but it has some fallacies to it too. For example, even if we do assume universe is cyclical and existed forever, that seems so incomprehensible to me, how could there be no 'first' cycle? We measure things, we can count, how do we measure something that never began? On the other hand, the other option is even more incomprehensible, to say that the universe had a beginning then and will have an end, then what the fuck is on either end then. Very hard.

I do not think human mind can really grow to comprehend this world.

But we must try.

 

[LeFrenchCel]

The only tangible proof that God exists is that he has a verified profile on pornhub
Apart from that, there's nothing much really

 

[Awake]

ok

 

[copemaxx9002]

Cope I am god.

 

[bonedigger06]

Your prophet is right here. He decided your fate, he gave you life. Every choice you think you have made has been predisposed by a genetic sequence long before you were ever born. Every thought you ever had a conclusion of a complex chain of reactions that all date back to your primordial code. Not a single second of your life has been truly your own; you are result not action.

But that is not your god.

This is your god.

It has no favor, no directive nor intention. Purest form of godhood there is, a primitive force of universe that dictates everything there is to dictate. Chance. This is the only god that exists. Submit to it now and perhaps in the future there might come a time it will turn in your favor. The universe will always exist, is the only possible explanation to end the paradox of what came first (Greeks had it figured out aeons ago), as such time is of no consequence, an unspeakable amount of time could pass before a conscious lifeform arises after your demise but it will happen, it is inevitable and you being alive is proof of it right now.

When it does, you better pray your one-time chance roll at the start of your new life will roll in your favor.​

"There is no intelligent creator,only phenomena"

 

[bonedigger06]

But the probabilities don't matter if there is an endless amount of time for them to be tried. As long as the probability exists then it will eventually happen even if it takes a near infinite amount of time for that to occur. You look at the outcome and deduct backwards that it is a product of intelligent design.

You are saying that there is no proof of the universe being a cyclical universe and that on the contrary there is proof of intelligent design because universe is too perfectly designed to accommodate life for it to be a coincidence. From what we know so far the universe had an origin point some billion years in the past from which everything expanded. If this starting point was a product of intelligent design and not a cyclical happening of some kind then what existed before the intelligent actor decided to begin the universe? Was he just twiddling his thumbs all day long, or maybe he himself runs it in some cyclical fashion, how did this actor even came into such power, do we just accept that he is beyond the laws of science and exists on some higher level?

To me it just looks like adding elements to a story to explain something we don't know. Just like Zeus was the god of thunder before we understood how thunder works. I can concede that the current universe is designed in such a way that life can be accommodated, I do not know much about science but I am going to assume that if the laws of physics were even slightly tempered with life would not be possible anywhere in the universe and that there is no concrete-in-your-face proof that universe is cyclical as much as the universe itself is proof that we exist because the conditions are right for us to exist. I can agree with this part of the argument, but linking it back to a intelligent Actor is something I just cannot accept logically.

If we are going to make assumptions about the universe and bring up an progenitor into the picture, then why shouldn't we similar make assumptions about the universe being cyclical and we being a product of random chance. One is a force of nature that we well observed in this world and the other is a mythical all-mighty creator that we have no proof of existing as he has never revealed himself to us in any provable way.

You say chance is an unreasonable explanation, why is it not reasonable, explain that. I think your example with footprints is good with what it is trying to imply but if you add context to it that you would come across a random set of footprints a near infinite time before this and only this time you reached a perfect set of footprints that you could infer belongs to a person and not just some byproduct of nature it would explain the mystery away.

In the end, we are going to have to make assumption either-way, because we lack knowledge or perhaps we are simply incapable to understand the true nature of the universe with our current state of existence.

You still not convinced me why chance is not good enough.

Tell me, as long as something is possible regardless of how little the probability, is it not bound to happen given an infinite timeframe? Isn't that effectively chance, why isn't that good enough of an explanation?

I am not really convinced by my own arguments either, I am trying to reach something I can settle on internally but so far I have failed to do so, this is my best attempt yet but it has some fallacies to it too. For example, even if we do assume universe is cyclical and existed forever, that seems so incomprehensible to me, how could there be no 'first' cycle? We measure things, we can count, how do we measure something that never began? On the other hand, the other option is even more incomprehensible, to say that the universe had a beginning then and will have an end, then what the fuck is on either end then. Very hard.

I do not think human mind can really grow to comprehend this world.

But we must try.

"The God of the Gaps" is a fallacy but God is a cope billions take.It is impossible for most to comprehend in this way because if they do, BILLIONS WILL BE TRUECELS and will be aware about it clearly and lot will lost even the hope to survive maybe.

 

[wastedcodeine]

Top tier post

 

[based_meme]

But the probabilities don't matter if there is an endless amount of time for them to be tried. As long as the probability exists then it will eventually happen even if it takes a near infinite amount of time for that to occur. You look at the outcome and deduct backwards that it is a product of intelligent design.

There weren't billions and billions of iterations of our universe, let alone billions and billions of tries at the Goldilocks zone for a planet, let alone the track of life's evolution (of which we have a sample size of one; by that I mean life didn't try and fail billions and billions of times, as far as the evidence shows), let alone the far less than a billion tries of life at intelligent homonids and ancestors (there's about a couple of dozen, if that) from which we - Homo Sapiens - arrived.

You are saying that there is no proof of the universe being a cyclical universe and that on the contrary there is proof of intelligent design because universe is too perfectly designed to accommodate life for it to be a coincidence.

We don't have proof of the cyclic universe. It's only a proposed model. I also didn't use the word proof for intelligent design (if you have design of life and the universe, can it even be considered unintelligent?).

From what we know so far the universe had an origin point some billion years in the past from which everything expanded. If this starting point was a product of intelligent design and not a cyclical happening of some kind then what existed before the intelligent actor decided to begin the universe?

We don't know what existed before our reality. That's not a comprehensible question in concrete terms. Not only that, but it's an epistemological ceiling i.e., it's impossible to know.

Was he just twiddling his thumbs all day long, or maybe he himself runs it in some cyclical fashion, how did this actor even came into such power, do we just accept that he is beyond the laws of science and exists on some higher level?

If someone creates a thing and creates the rules governing the thing, then, by necessity, the creator of the thing is above the rules created and is not bound or limited by them.

To me it just looks like adding elements to a story to explain something we don't know. Just like Zeus was the god of thunder before we understood how thunder works. I can concede that the current universe is designed in such a way that life can be accommodated, I do not know much about science but I am going to assume that if the laws of physics were even slightly tempered with life would not be possible anywhere in the universe and that there is no concrete-in-your-face proof that universe is cyclical as much as the universe itself is proof that we exist because the conditions are right for us to exist. I can agree with this part of the argument, but linking it back to a intelligent Actor is something I just cannot accept logically.

It's not God of the gaps, but if it helps you to see it that way, go ahead.

If we are going to make assumptions about the universe and bring up an progenitor into the picture, then why shouldn't we similar make assumptions about the universe being cyclical and we being a product of random chance.

Because one is a rational claim that attempts to resolve the problem of causality and infinite regress, while the other is an empirical claim.

One is a force of nature that we well observed in this world and the other is a mythical all-mighty creator that we have no proof of existing as he has never revealed himself to us in any provable way.

Really? Chance is a force of nature? Which force is it? Is it the fifth force? Is it one that supersedes the existing four? How do you measure it, and what are its units? Does it affect every other force or only some? Which ones? Who discovered this force?

You say chance is an unreasonable explanation, why is it not reasonable, explain that. I think your example with footprints is good with what it is trying to imply but if you add context to it that you would come across a random set of footprints a near infinite time before this and only this time you reached a perfect set of footprints that you could infer belongs to a person and not just some byproduct of nature it would explain the mystery away.

In the end, we are going to have to make assumption either-way, because we lack knowledge or perhaps we are simply incapable to understand the true nature of the universe with our current state of existence.

It's unreasonable by comparison, because we can infer and deduce better explanations in its place. You're loading it with the assumption that there were billions and billions or whatever large arbitrary number of tries to get to where we are, but we don't have evidence for that. We don't know that there were trillions and gazillions and gorillions of universes that tried to "roll" for intelligent, conscious life and we happened in one of those iterations as an event outcome.

And even if we were to suppose all of that, how did these rolls happen? What is this "luck" force that did the rolling? Where did it come from? What governs that force? Was it one universe over and over, or countless ones until the desired event occurred?

You still not convinced me why chance is not good enough.

Tell me, as long as something is possible regardless of how little the probability, is it not bound to happen given an infinite timeframe? Isn't that effectively chance, why isn't that good enough of an explanation?

I am not really convinced by my own arguments either, I am trying to reach something I can settle on internally but so far I have failed to do so, this is my best attempt yet but it has some fallacies to it too. For example, even if we do assume universe is cyclical and existed forever, that seems so incomprehensible to me, how could there be no 'first' cycle? We measure things, we can count, how do we measure something that never began? On the other hand, the other option is even more incomprehensible, to say that the universe had a beginning then and will have an end, then what the fuck is on either end then. Very hard.

I do not think human mind can really grow to comprehend this world.

But we must try.

There's a fundamental problem with appealing to chance that adds yet another layer of meaningless to any discussion of this sort that deals with hard numbers: We don't know the true probabilities. All we can do is make guesses and estimates. And even if we did know them, they wouldn't help explain anything extra and shed light on unknowns.

What you've done, in essence, is to replace the explanation of an origin point of reality as the causal starting point that is ascribed to a mind with intent and infinite power with a mindless force (of equivalent metaphysical weighting) that operates in an infinite, cyclical cosmology, whereas the "god" explanation operates infinitely, but with a finite cosmology.

Psychologically, I understand why people do this. "God" has too much baggage that comes from religion and this is unpalatable for many people. Why? Because if we were to hold that there is a god who created all of this, then why did he create all of this suffering and make me this way etc. etc. It's easier to cope when it's all attributed to random chance, because random chance is fair, and a god who created things with intent means that he created inherent unfairness with what we observe amongst ourselves.

 

[Aegon Targaryen]

Brutal godpill

 

[Aegon Targaryen]

Cope I am god.

Average new age spiritualist.

 

[Karakol96]

I am god

 

[outcastgymcel23]

 

[Incline]

And even if we were to suppose all of that, how did these rolls happen? What is this "luck" force that did the rolling? Where did it come from? What governs that force? Was it one universe over and over, or countless ones until the desired event occurred?

I don't think anything would govern it per say. Just like nothing governs gravity, it just exists, it doesn't have an explanation just like nothing else in this universe does if you don't conclude God as its source. Chance is a documented phenomena though, especially in quantum physics which is a probabilistic model of reality, isn't probability a form of chance?

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Chance is mindless and has no intentionality

How would you distinguish between incomprehensible intention and lack of intention? (a rhetorical question) I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to comprehend intention of any higher power. And by virtue of Occam's razor, why differentiate between incomprehensible intention and lack of intention, seeing as they are functionally equivalent?

TLDR Lady Luck is a fickle and whimsical mistress.

 

[based_meme]

How would you distinguish between incomprehensible intention and lack of intention? (a rhetorical question) I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to comprehend intention of any higher power. And by virtue of Occam's razor, why differentiate between incomprehensible intention and lack of intention, seeing as they are functionally equivalent?

TLDR Lady Luck is a fickle and whimsical mistress.

You would be realizing that there is (or may be) an intent, even if you may not have specifically identified it. Teleological clues in nature i.e., the appearance of things having a design - and thus, function - hint that there may be intentionality (a directedness of mind towards things). If things appear designed, and it may well be designed, then it must be intentional, since design is not accidental. The act of designing is an intentional act. The only thing that is capable of being intentional is a mind.

If there is an intent and a design and we've realized that, it may not necessarily mean that we know what the intent is or understand the full extent of the design. God's grand machinations, as it were, that are out our knowledge's reach wouldn't be something incomprehensible per se (though it likely would be in most cases), but it would be, at minimum, yet to be known. That would be the job for the thinkers and scientists - to keep pushing and prodding at the edges and boundaries to try and remove more of the unknowns.

 

[based_meme]

isn't probability a form of chance?

It's the study and science of chance.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Teleological clues in nature i.e., the appearance of things having a design

what clues?

God's grand machinations, as it were, that are out our knowledge's reach wouldn't be something incomprehensible per se

Machinations, damn. Anyhoo, while you're technically right, I think it's safe to say that, if He has intentions, His intentions have proven incomprehensible thus far (at least a complete picture).

 

[based_meme]

what clues?

All around in the natural world you will see efficiencies in structures and systems (esp. ecology) that have either evolved and progressively improved or seem to have been that way initially. This is a clear indication of design (mostly through the iterative process). Even the mechanism of evolution itself is arguably the way in which "nature" designs organisms. Nature here is the placeholder term in place of god to act as intentional force, and is the one that I've seen secularists and naturalists ironically use, as if the "force of nature" is some kind of independent mystical force itself.

Machinations, damn. Anyhoo, while you're technically right, I think it's safe to say that, if He has intentions, His intentions have proven incomprehensible thus far (at least a complete picture).

I think the things that are beyond the scope of our knowledge and observational reach (in the sense of being able to measure and study it) are what we could throw in the set of incomprehensible (assuming the usual: that there is a god and that this god has a mind).

 

[Incline]

You would be realizing that there is (or may be) an intent, even if you may not have specifically identified it. Teleological clues in nature i.e., the appearance of things having a design - and thus, function - hint that there may be intentionality (a directedness of mind towards things). If things appear designed, and it may well be designed, then it must be intentional, since design is not accidental. The act of designing is an intentional act. The only thing that is capable of being intentional is a mind.

But it is designed by chance and random mutations and unpredictable environmental factors which drive the evolution forward, it is designed intentionally but it was chance that played the role in its design and what drives it to what it is.

 

[based_meme]

But it is designed by chance and random mutations and unpredictable environmental factors which drive the evolution forward, it is designed intentionally but it was chance that played the role in its design and what drives it to what it is.

If I program a non-deterministic RNG, I've designed the source of randomness. I don't think you can reasonably say that it's the lines of code executing and producing the random outputs that played the role.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

All around in the natural world you will see efficiencies in structures and systems (esp. ecology) that have either evolved and progressively improved or seem to have been that way initially. This is a clear indication of design (mostly through the iterative process). Even the mechanism of evolution itself is arguably the way in which "nature" designs organisms. Nature here is the placeholder term in place of god to act as intentional force, and is the one that I've seen secularists and naturalists ironically use, as if the "force of nature" is some kind of independent mystical force itself.

While design can in principle be sought behind everything I fail to find evolution and the like particularly evincing in that regard. In fact, I find evolution quite soulless. Stochastic gradient descending one's way to efficacy is not particularly elegant. Heck making things suboptimal to begin with is inelegant. Speaking of which, why should elegance or efficacy be evocative of design in the first place? Because we try to design things thusly? I never could see the sense in humanizing God. Clearly we have a hard time comprehending His every whim, so why assume He's like us when there's no clues in favor of that assumption yet one glaring inkling to the contrary?

I dunno what it is, but you and I just cannot seem to see eye to eye on very fundamental things. I can't quite put my finger on the crucial difference tho.

 

[based_meme]

While design can in principle be sought behind everything I fail to find evolution and the like particularly evincing in that regard. In fact, I find evolution quite soulless.

This leads to a greater point about the relationship between mechanism and design. I think that the two are inextricably linked. Intuitively, design appears to be a necessary condition for mechanism. We'd have to look to mechanisms we've designed that we can say are not influenced or inspired by and then compare them to mechanisms in nature that could be considered designed. If the man-made (designed) mechanism has properties that the natural ones don't, then it we could say that design is not necessary for mechanism.

Stochastic gradient descending one's way to efficacy is not particularly elegant. Heck making things suboptimal to begin with is inelegant.

I don't know if it needs to be elegant nor optimal. It just needs to work systematically in a logical way that is internally consistent. There's good design and bad design, and both can be continually improving.

Speaking of which, why should elegance or efficacy be evocative of design in the first place? Because we try to design things thusly?

No, because design implies that there's a logic to a thing, regardless of its elegance, efficacy or efficiency i.e., there's a way in which a thing works that can be understood (and possibly replicated). Teleologically, the way in which a thing works (its design) is inseparable from its purpose. A thing cannot be designed without a purpose, as the act itself of designing imbues the object of design with some intended purpose, which means that if we see things (in nature) that appear to be designed or have design, then we must rule out any purpose before we can rule out the possibility that it was designed. And in nature there are a great many things that have a clear and identifiable purpose.

I never could see the sense in humanizing God. Clearly we have a hard time comprehending His every whim, so why assume He's like us when there's no clues in favor of that assumption yet one glaring inkling to the contrary?

This is not humanizing God. This is attempting to understand God in human terms.

I dunno what it is, but you and I just cannot seem to see eye to eye on very fundamental things. I can't quite put my finger on the crucial difference tho.

We see things differently.

 

[Qizarate]

Even in fundamental physic, the Dice God manifests.

 

[Defetivecuckachu]

I like boobs.

Sorry, I have nothing else worth contributing here.

Amazing thread.

 

[based_meme]

I like boobs.

You know, I'm something of a tit man myself.

 

[Sloth.Belgrade]

You know, I'm something of a tit man myself.

Based

 

[based_meme]

I dunno what it is, but you and I just cannot seem to see eye to eye on very fundamental things. I can't quite put my finger on the crucial difference tho.

We see things differently.

I've been thinking more about this and it has to be our different starting points. It must be because our first principles (metaphysics) are fundamentally different.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I don't know if it needs to be elegant nor optimal. It just needs to work systematically in a logical way that is internally consistent. There's good design and bad design, and both can be continually improving.

No, because design implies that there's a logic to a thing, regardless of its elegance, efficacy or efficiency i.e., there's a way in which a thing works that can be understood (and possibly replicated).

So any process we can project our human logic onto is evocative of design according to you?

Teleologically, the way in which a thing works (its design) is inseparable from its purpose. A thing cannot be designed without a purpose, as the act itself of designing imbues the object of design with some intended purpose, which means that if we see things (in nature) that appear to be designed or have design, then we must rule out any purpose before we can rule out the possibility that it was designed. And in nature there are a great many things that have a clear and identifiable purpose.

Having a purpose is different from being able to project a purpose onto it. Case in point, whatever purposes you may postulate my actions have, they needn't be indicative in the slightest of their true purposes, which are possibly only known to me (alternatively I'm not even consciously aware of them) if I don't divulge them.

This is not humanizing God. This is attempting to understand God in human terms.

definition 1a of "humanize" in the Merriam-Webster reads

to represent (something) as human : to attribute human qualities to (something)

which sounds like attempting to understand something in human terms to me

I've been thinking more about this and it has to be our different starting points. It must be because our first principles (metaphysics) are fundamentally different.

So I figure too. Care to take a whack at guessing which first principle(s) we disagree on? I would, but I don't know the apposite jargon, so you'd probably misconstrue my word spaghetti.

 

[based_meme]

So any process we can project our human logic onto is evocative of design according to you?

I don't understand what the phrase, "project our human logic onto," is supposed to mean. There is no human logic. There is just logic. There is a human understanding and symbolic representation of it, but it's universal and independent of us. It's the same anywhere, regardless of what being understands it (to the degree that it's able). Any process that appears to have be systematic with a logical consistency can't have the possibility of a designer ruled out, because those are two properties of design (a third being telos, or it's end purpose/function).

You can infer design in nature even from a naturalist perspective without any philosophical finagling or introducing novel concepts. If we're the products of nature and we're capable of designing things, then nature is, by extension, designing things in nature through us. You would simply go backwards one step and say that nature must capable of designing things without us, since it designed a type of designer: us.

definition 1a of "humanize" in the Merriam-Webster reads

which sounds like attempting to understand something in human terms to me

But it's incorrect to use that term, because that's not what's happening. Trying to understand God in human terms is not attributing human qualities to God. The only way we could comprehend God without direct sense experience somehow would be through language. I don't understand how you take this process to be equivalent to the attribution of human characteristics onto an ontologically superior and higher order being.

So I figure too. Care to take a whack at guessing which first principle(s) we disagree on?

Yes, our initial metaphysic is different. I think it's diametrically opposed in fact.

I would, but I don't know the apposite jargon, so you'd probably misconstrue my word spaghetti.

Try to flesh it out as best you can; you don't need jargon. If I'm unsure, I'll be asking for clarification anyway.

 

[Doesitmatter?]

High iq post

 

[Ahnfeltia]

There is no human logic. There is just logic. There is a human understanding and symbolic representation of it, but it's universal and independent of us. It's the same anywhere, regardless of what being understands it (to the degree that it's able).

there are various logics (do you include the law of the excluded middle for example). Perhaps aliens use rulesets very different from the ones we use.

Any process that appears to have be systematic with a logical consistency can't have the possibility of a designer ruled out, because those are two properties of design (a third being telos, or it's end purpose/function).

I'm not ruling it out, but I'm assuming there ain't one until proven wrong.

If we're the products of nature and we're capable of designing things, then nature is, by extension, designing things in nature through us.

If one child punches another child, are the parents of the one child punching the other child thru their child? Same line of reasoning.

But it's incorrect to use that term, because that's not what's happening. Trying to understand God in human terms is not attributing human qualities to God. The only way we could comprehend God without direct sense experience somehow would be through language. I don't understand how you take this process to be equivalent to the attribution of human characteristics onto an ontologically superior and higher order being.

I don't really wanna go down pedantry lane again, so all I'll say is that attributing design to God is attributing a human quality to God.

Try to flesh it out as best you can; you don't need jargon. If I'm unsure, I'll be asking for clarification anyway.

Part of it might be you generalizing maximally vs me generalizing minimally -- e.g., you say that

If things appear designed, and it may well be designed, then it must be intentional

yet I'd rather not attribute intention to nonhumans period. I'd rather say those things weren't designed.

 

[based_meme]

there are various logics (do you include the law of the excluded middle for example). Perhaps aliens use rulesets very different from the ones we use.

That is a law under the same universal logic. "Alien logic" doesn't make sense, because they'd be bound to the same laws of logic whether they like it or not, just as they'd be bound to sequential, temporal or numerical ordering, or the laws of physics, for example.

I'm not ruling it out, but I'm assuming there ain't one until proven wrong.

You're starting position is assuming that design is not possible in nature. However, we're a part of nature and we design things. It's not a fantastical leap to infer that because we're capable of design, that design is possible outside of us, whether that's in "nature" or that's in the mind of some other being.

If one child punches another child, are the parents of the one child punching the other child thru their child? Same line of reasoning.

No, because it's not the act of punching that is (ontologically) transitive, but the ability to punch.

I don't really wanna go down pedantry lane again, so all I'll say is that attributing design to God is attributing a human quality to God.

This is still technically incorrect. In saying this, you're claiming that humans can do something God can't (or doesn't). You're claiming that a created, lesser, finite being can do something its greater, infinitely capable creator cannot. The concept of an all-powerful God make this claim rationally untenable.

Part of it might be you generalizing maximally vs me generalizing minimally -- e.g., you say that

yet I'd rather not attribute intention to nonhumans period. I'd rather say those things weren't designed.

You'd rather not? Then this is a preference or an inclination. What's that rooted in?

 

[based_meme]

No, because it's not the act of punching that is (ontologically) transitive, but the ability to punch.

To add to this, nature:humans is also not analogous to parent:child.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

That is a law under the same universal logic. "Alien logic" doesn't make sense, because they'd be bound to the same laws of logic whether they like it or not, just as they'd be bound to sequential, temporal or numerical ordering, or the laws of physics, for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by universal logic then.

You're starting position is assuming that design is not possible in nature. However, we're a part of nature and we design things. It's not a fantastical leap to infer that because we're capable of design, that design is possible outside of us, whether that's in "nature" or that's in the mind of some other being.

I'm not saying it's entirely nonsensical, but I still think it's an unnecessary assumption.

No, because it's not the act of punching that is (ontologically) transitive, but the ability to punch.

Is the ability to be pregnant also pseudotransitive? Hint: father and daughter. I'm saying "pseudotransitive" because proper transitivity says that if A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C, where the relation is the same in all three cases. Howbeit, the relation between nature and man is plainly different to that of man and the ability to design.

To add to this, nature:humans is also not analogous to parent:child.

What's the crucial difference then? What's the abstract mold wherefor ontological pseudotransitivity should always apply then?

This is still technically incorrect. In saying this, you're claiming that humans can do something God can't (or doesn't). You're claiming that a created, lesser, finite being can do something its greater, infinitely capable creator cannot. The concept of an all-powerful God make this claim rationally untenable.

I assumed you were using God as a stand-in for an arbitrary metaphysical being. If God is by definition omnipotent in your headcanon, then we've been talking past each other.

You'd rather not? Then this is a preference or an inclination. What's that rooted in?

A reluctance to make assume things with insufficient proof in general. E.g., I like consequentialism because it sidesteps the need to speculate anent people's intentions.

 

[based_meme]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by universal logic then.

I suppose it was redundant to say that. Logic operates and functions immutably, independent of language or the type of mind comprehending it.

Is the ability to be pregnant also pseudotransitive? Hint: father and daughter. I'm saying "pseudotransitive" because proper transitivity says that if A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C, where the relation is the same in all three cases. Howbeit, the relation between nature and man is plainly different to that of man and the ability to design.

What is "pseudotransitivity" and why are you introducing that term? Is that supposed to be a kind of partial transitivity whereby transitivity is inferred? What are you trying to say with the example of pregnancy?

It's not just the relation but the type of relation and how it's related, hence the qualifier "ontologically" transitive. That is, the ability to design is existentially transitive from God to nature to us (or from nature to us to whatever we design). It's not the object or thing being designed that is what's transitive here, but design itself.

What's the crucial difference then?

What is the crucial difference between the relationship between nature and an organism in it (like man) and the relationship between a parent and a child? Really bro?

The relationship is categorically different - a difference of kind. How did you even reason about that they're similar? That's a very curious thing to me.

What's the abstract mold wherefor ontological pseudotransitivity should always apply then?

Hold on. I don't even know what you mean by this term, "pseudotransitivity."

I assumed you were using God as a stand-in for an arbitrary metaphysical being. If God is by definition omnipotent in your headcanon, then we've been talking past each other.

In these discussions this metaphysical being is always implied and understood to have certain properties, such as being infinite in power and all attributes, temporally indepedent and distinct and so on. This metaphysical being is traditionally understood as God. God is in the category of metaphysical being. But this is not any theistic, personal God of religious traditions; it's the primary necessary being and is sui generis.

A reluctance to make assume things with insufficient proof in general. E.g., I like consequentialism because it sidesteps the need to speculate anent people's intentions.

The question of what is your metaphysic is a very specific type of question that is intended to capture the essense of your worldview. It includes things like your fundamental, personal beliefs and your cosmology. It does not necessarily have to include your ethic.

I think I'm fairly certain what your metaphysic is, but I don't want to throw around labels and lead you on. I think it would better if you put it into your own words.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I suppose it was redundant to say that. Logic operates and functions immutably, independent of language or the type of mind comprehending it.

Not what I meant. What do you mean by logic here? A specific set of rules? Or the study of the interplay of such rules?

---

What is "pseudotransitivity" and why are you introducing that term? Is that supposed to be a kind of partial transitivity whereby transitivity is inferred? What are you trying to say with the example of pregnancy?

It's not just the relation but the type of relation and how it's related, hence the qualifier "ontologically" transitive. That is, the ability to design is existentially transitive from God to nature to us (or from nature to us to whatever we design). It's not the object or thing being designed that is what's transitive here, but design itself.

What is the crucial difference between the relationship between nature and an organism in it (like man) and the relationship between a parent and a child? Really bro?

The relationship is categorically different - a difference of kind. How did you even reason about that they're similar? That's a very curious thing to me.

Maybe me explaining what went thru my head from the very beginning will work better. Initially you said:

If we're the products of nature and we're capable of designing things, then nature is, by extension, designing things in nature through us.

which I interpreted as the (argumentative) mold "if A is a product of B and A R C, then B R C" with A = man, B = nature, C = design, and R = "can". I repudiated this mold by means of the counterexample A = child, B = parent, C = child, and R = "punches":

If one child punches another child, are the parents of the one child punching the other child thru their child? Same line of reasoning.

You then insinuated that R = "can":

No, because it's not the act of punching that is (ontologically) transitive, but the ability to punch.

However, the word "transitive" didn't sit right with me. Properly transitivity is a property of binary relations, and your mold wasn't the transitivity of a binary relation, so I said:

I'm saying "pseudotransitive" because proper transitivity says that if A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C, where the relation is the same in all three cases. Howbeit, the relation between nature and man is plainly different to that of man and the ability to design.

Pseudotransitivity aka false transitivity for whatever you were intending in contrast with proper transitivity (of a binary relation). In hindsight I probably shouldn't've made a fuss about it. Anyhoo, at this point I thought your mold was "if A is a product of B and A can C, then B can C". Yet, I still repudiate this mold, and my counterexample this time around is A = daughter, B = father, and C = conceive -- i.e.,

Is the ability to be pregnant also pseudotransitive? Hint: father and daughter.

where, again, I was using "pseudotransitive" to refer to what you call (ontological) transitivity.

You also said:

To add to this, nature:humans is also not analogous to parent:child.

which addresses the last remaining ambiguity -- what exactly "A is a product of B" is supposed to mean. In hopes of getting that clarification, I asked:

What's the crucial difference then? What's the abstract mold wherefor ontological pseudotransitivity should always apply then?

I can now rephrase this question -- what is your mold? Is it indeed of the form "if A S B and A can C, then B can C"? If so, what exactly is S? Are there criteria ABC have to satisfy in addition?

---

In these discussions this metaphysical being is always implied and understood to have certain properties, such as being infinite in power and all attributes, temporally indepedent and distinct and so on. This metaphysical being is traditionally understood as God. God is in the category of metaphysical being.

I didn't know that. And even if I entertain there being a primordial metaphysical being who created the physical world, none of the properties you listed seem necessary to me. Why couldn't the metaphysical and the physical world be temporally linked for instance? Moreover, "being infinite in all attributes" is self-contradictory.

But this is not any theistic, personal God of religious traditions; it's the primary necessary being and is sui generis.

I fail to see why there should be such a being in the first place, let alone just one.

The question of what is your metaphysic is a very specific type of question that is intended to capture the essense of your worldview. It includes things like your fundamental, personal beliefs and your cosmology. It does not necessarily have to include your ethic.

I think I'm fairly certain what your metaphysic is, but I don't want to throw around labels and lead you on. I think it would better if you put it into your own words.

My metaphysic (as in a particular system of metaphysics) should be quite minimal. Cosmologically I'm pretty agnostic. As for my fundamental personal beliefs, I believe that if you can't please everyone (almost always the case in practice) there is no truly best option. I'll have some time to think about it more during my commute later today.

Maybe we should continue this discussion in

Atheists of .is, what is the basis for your moral foundation?

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it. Atheists, however, must ground...

incels.is

btw

 

[based_meme]

Not what I meant. What do you mean by logic here? A specific set of rules? Or the study of the interplay of such rules?

I mean in the sense that logic existed before we did, will exist after we become extinct, and will exist after the universe implodes in heat death.

---

Maybe me explaining what went thru my head from the very beginning will work better. Initially you said:

which I interpreted as the (argumentative) mold "if A is a product of B and A R C, then B R C" with A = man, B = nature, C = design, and R = "can". I repudiated this mold by means of the counterexample A = child, B = parent, C = child, and R = "punches":

You then insinuated that R = "can":

However, the word "transitive" didn't sit right with me. Properly transitivity is a property of binary relations, and your mold wasn't the transitivity of a binary relation, so I said:

Pseudotransitivity aka false transitivity for whatever you were intending in contrast with proper transitivity (of a binary relation). In hindsight I probably shouldn't've made a fuss about it. Anyhoo, at this point I thought your mold was "if A is a product of B and A can C, then B can C". Yet, I still repudiate this mold, and my counterexample this time around is A = daughter, B = father, and C = conceive -- i.e.,

where, again, I was using "pseudotransitive" to refer to what you call (ontological) transitivity.

You also said:

which addresses the last remaining ambiguity -- what exactly "A is a product of B" is supposed to mean. In hopes of getting that clarification, I asked:

I can now rephrase this question -- what is your mold? Is it indeed of the form "if A S B and A can C, then B can C"? If so, what exactly is S? Are there criteria ABC have to satisfy in addition?

---

I don't know what you mean by mold, but you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Just think of "the ability to design" as a property. It's this property that I'm arguing is transitive between different ontological classes (gods, universes, systems in universes aka nature, and products of those systems in nature aka biologics like us etc.), and from this transitivity we can infer backwards from us and make claims about there existing designs in nature.

I didn't know that. And even if I entertain there being a primordial metaphysical being who created the physical world, none of the properties you listed seem necessary to me.

Why? How could that work?

Why couldn't the metaphysical and the physical world be temporally linked for instance?

It is in some sense. What claim are you trying to make?

Moreover, "being infinite in all attributes" is self-contradictory.

How?

I fail to see why there should be such a being in the first place, let alone just one.

You should study the metaphysics of God and why properties like "all powerful" necessarily reduce the number of gods to one. Thomas Aquinas is a good place to start.

My metaphysic (as in a particular system of metaphysics) should be quite minimal. Cosmologically I'm pretty agnostic. As for my fundamental personal beliefs, I believe that if you can't please everyone (almost always the case in practice) there is no truly best option. I'll have some time to think about it more during my commute later today.

When I ask that question what I'm really asking is, "what is your conception of reality grounded in?"

Here, I'll make this very easy:

Metaphysics - Ontology, Epistemology, Cosmology | Britannica

Metaphysics - Ontology, Epistemology, Cosmology: The object in what follows will be to present in outline metaphysical systems that have exercised, and indeed continue to exercise, a strong intellectual appeal. In most cases, these systems were given classical shape by particular philosophers of...

www.britannica.com

Maybe we should continue this discussion in

Atheists of .is, what is the basis for your moral foundation?

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it. Atheists, however, must ground...

incels.is

btw

It's not necessary. Ethics is a completely different topic really.