The question to fellow atheists is, in a nutshell:
admitting the fact that we have so absurdely low odds of existing, how come do we exist?
Here are some facts:
The Universe exists. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that it came into existance. Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros. (1)
But that's just the Universe. To exist, we also must have a home that we can call Earth. The very odds of Earth existing in its position in relation to tghe sun, its composition, its atmosphere, all that has the odds of
It is admitted by scientists that the odds of the Universe existing are 10 to the power of 23. That's 1 followed by 23 zeros.
In terms of life, the smallest genome known has 160,000 base pairs. If you provided a big soup of nucelotides, the odds of that genome forming are 1 in 4^160,000, about 10^100,000. The odds for the lottery are on the order of 1 in 10^8. For life to happen is like winning the lottery 12,000 times in a row.
So, multiplying the odds of the Universe existing by the odds of Earth existing by the odds of life existing, we have a 1 in 10^154 chance of existing right now. I'm not eving calculating the odds of human life existing as it is right now. 1 in 10 to the power of 154. The picture gives you an idea of how great that number is. Better yet, keep in mind that there are arround 10^80 atoms in the universe. The chances of us not existing is far, far greater than the amount of atoms in the Universe. multiplied by itself.(4)
So. With that in mind, do atheists actually believe that we were THAT lucky to exist? Don't you think this all was made by a creator? The chances are basically zero. The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator. It's logical to believe in God. So what do atheists think?
>>362108
Posting the sources from the statements.
(1) on the existance of the Universe
http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/
(2) on the existance of Earth
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang
(3) on the existance of life
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(4) on number of atoms in the Universe
http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/
>>362108
>The Universe exists. That is a fact.
>But it is also a fact that it came into existance.
No, that is not a fact.
>Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros
What the hell does that even mean, and how does one calculate it?
>The very odds of Earth existing in its position in relation to tghe sun, its composition, its atmosphere, all that has the odds of
It is admitted by scientists that the odds of the Universe existing are 10 to the power of 23
Again, how is this calculated? And if the universe is infinite, which it seems to be, then it doesn't matter how "improbable" life is. It is bound to happen. I wouldn't say the universe is made for life either, if the universe is good at anything it is making black holes.
> keep in mind that there are arround 10^80 atoms in the universe
I'm pretty sure you mean OBSERVABLE universe.
>The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator
Why? If the universe is so complicated and fine-tuned that it has a minuscule chance of existing then a universe creator must also have a minuscule chance of existing, since anything that can create universes must be more complicated and fine-tuned than the universe.
>>362108
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. It follows from the same theory that many regions of this multi-faceted universe will collapse and start the whole process over again, causing more multi-faceted universes to emerge from the original one. And so on. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have. So if inflation did occur, and it was chaotic, then nearly every possible universe would exist, including ours.
The above theory is not mere speculation. Every element builds entirely on known science. Inflation itself, chaotic or random behavior at small scales, “freezing” at larger scales, collapsing regions jump-starting inflation again, inflated regions being much larger than any distance we could see, etc. All these things actually follow from known scientific facts and established theories, based on empirical observations. Most scientists are in agreement about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
>>362108
How would you even come up with those probabilities?
Also, doesn't any account of such probability contain a narrative of the thing in question coming into being without god, given that if god intentionally created it all, the probability would be 1 in 1?
Have you, in other words, just delivered a theory of existence as something that is unlikely, but doesn't really require a creator?
>>362108
>admitting the fact that we have so absurdely low odds of existing, how come do we exist?
Throw a dice a million times. The chance that you did throw that exact result is 1:1million and yet you did it just now.
Idk if this is bait or not, but on a long enough timescale, any non-zero value is almost guaranteed to occur
Also
Almost 0 is never 0
Take a statistics class
>>362166
>Almost 0 is never 0
uh
>>362108
>With that in mind, do atheists actually believe that we were THAT lucky to exist?
Obviously I can't speak for every atheist out there, but yes. Winning against the odds doesn't prove that you were guided to it, it can just mean you were lucky, thinking otherwise may be just a case of you thinking too highly of yourself.
If we really were a product of intelligent design, you could ask why were made to be pack animals inclined to think others as insiders or outsiders, creating endless reason for conflict. Then there's parasites, all sorts of nasty diseases and the whole system that makes benefactory genetic variation possible can also cause incredibly painful conditions that can also be passed along.
Frankly the idea of there being a deity is terrifying, since there is plenty of reason to think it isn't exactly on our side.
What are the chances that an omnipotent being would poof into existence?
>b-but he always existed! checkmate!
Who says the universe/greater multiverse hasn't always existed in some form?
So you are at disbelief at the odds of existence and you try to find an explanation by adding a supernatural creator in the mix ? you are either a cretin or trolling or both.
Firstly I'd ask a physicist to chime in and tell us if that "odds of the universe existing" actually means anything.
Assuming you're right, then it's very interesting. If chances of this universe existing the way it does are so minute then what are the consequences? Maybe there is some natural process that allowed it to happen, maybe our understanding of how the universe started is wrong since it's so unlikely, maybe there the starting process is what we could call intelligent, in which case we have some kind of deist God.
You can see I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, but if we're considering a God of religion then I don't think it's very convincing. Why would we immediately leap from this problem to a system of faith with many unrelated beliefs coming along with it?
So again, I think a deist God is an interesting idea. I don't see why the reason for an unlikely universe would *have* to be intelligent, because we see a lot of things that at first seem very unlikely but have a natural explanation, however I wouldn't rule it out.
>>362193
>Firstly I'd ask a physicist to chime in and tell us if that "odds of the universe existing" actually means anything.
They don't. Obviously the chances of the universe existing are non-zero since we exist, and i the single example we have existence has beaten out non-existence. It's like only looking at life on Earth and trying to give any kind of reasonable numbers for the probability of life in the rest of the universe. It's just numbers pulled out of people's asses, that's why they vary so much.
>>362181
We're talking about statistics on a timescale of possibly infinity but atleast inconceivably long
>>362108
>Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros. (1)
And how would the Universe be created? How can you calculate the probability of something existing if you don't know how it is created and have virtually 0 evidence of it's creating?
>he very odds of Earth existing in its position in relation to tghe sun, its composition, its atmosphere, all that has the odds of
It is admitted by scientists that the odds of the Universe existing are 10 to the power of 23. That's 1 followed by 23 zeros.
You seem to forget that there's literally billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each. The probability of getting an earth like planet is infinitely small, but there's just so many checks you'll eventually hit an earth-like environment.
>In terms of life, the smallest genome known has 160,000 base pairs. (...)
This is bullshit, plain and simple. The creation of RNA based life is almost an automatic process, assuming you generate the conditions for it. We even created primitive live in the 20th century by simulating said conditions. Can't remember the name of the two scientists, but they essentially proved that once the conditions are met there's virtually no way to stop life from happening.
Not to mention that what you said has fuck all to do with atheism and no self-respecting scientist will ever say that anything we currently know refutes the possibility of god existing.
Sorry American friend, but your meme probability is simply wrong. Please at least give a cursory read of the topics you wish to address before posting.
>tl;dr people who argue there's no life outside earth have no idea how big the universe is.
Also
>>>/sci/
>>362108
One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane", not a "skyhook"; for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
>>362108
Low probabilities are meaningless in an infinite (or even sufficiently large) reality.
>tfw shit at math and don't understand any of this
>>362320
Don't worry, these statistics were created exactly for the type of people who don't understand math.
>>362320
Don't worry, it's all bullshit.
0.99 repeating=1
you should be able to solve this
>>362334
x = 0.999...999
10x = 0.101010...101010
Therefore if x = 1 = 0.999...999 then 10 = 0.101010...101010 which is trivially false QED
p.s. please enable Latex on all boards Hiro, thanks
The fact that we do not understand exactly how or if the universe came into existence does not prove that a collection of myths written thousands of years ago has any basis in reality. Nor does it prove that a creator of any kind exists. Pushing back the question of how did it all start to some kind of creator is futile. All you are doing here creating a false dichotomy between the broadest explanation modern science has and a mythical being creating everything and it proves absolutely nothing.
If we didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to ask why we exist.
"Odds" are irrelevant when it comes to cause and effect, chance is just something humans came up with to explain what's not observable to the naked eye. In reality when you flip a coin it's the strength of the flip, air resistance, the position/weight of the coin, etc that determines how it lands, but we can't reliably observe or control any of these things (without the help of technology, at least), so our ignorance makes it into a feat of impartial chance.
The only questions that matter when it comes to any event is
>Did it happen?
>How did it happen?
The "odds" of it happening don't matter.
*tips fedora*
>>362136
>No, that is not a fact.
U trolling bruh
Also
>what is divine simplicity
>the being that created complexity as a principle must be complex itself
>>362361
interesting when even the simplest googling proves the original statement right
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm#
>>362416
Undergrads who think that everything you read on the internet is true are adorable. Go read some bullshit on arxiv, kid.
>>362108
>The chances are basically zero. The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator. It's logical to believe in God. So what do atheists think?
What are the chances of your creator existing? And just because we don't have an answer for it doesn't mean the answer is immediately a divine force.
>the fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible
No it doesn't. You literally mentioned the possibility in your post.
>>362235
>Can't remember the name of the two scientists, but they essentially proved that once the conditions are met there's virtually no way to stop life from happening.
Miller-Uray? Because they only proved that conditions in super-ancient Earth would have had all the necessary ingredients to make organic matter out of inorganic matter, primarily amino acids. That's not exactly creating primitive life, but it is absolutely strong evidence that life would be able to form on its own.
>>362405
>U trolling bruh
Nope, there is absolutely no evidence that matter and energy ever came into existence. (And before you embarrass yourself and say "big bang" please research the theory first)
>>362361
this goes beyond simple x=variable, the problem is stating that 0.999...999 is indistinguishable from 1. Anyone can say HAHA! 0.999999 is solveable by 0.000001!
And then the reply is 0.9999999
>>362430
>they only proved
*they only provided evidence, shouldn't exactly say "proved".
>>362432
>Implying you wouldn't want to use the flatness problem and not the big bang itself if you wanted to justify bullshit assertions about the chance of the universe existing
I highly doubt you know anything about the big bang beyond a conceptual level
There are multiple alternate universes where we don't exist.
>>362404
Yep. Anthropic principle has far more explanatory power than it seems to get credit for, I don't know why so many people seem to find it unsatisfying.
>>362447
>There are multiple alternate universes where we don't exist.
>>362474
>tfw stuck in a universe where you do exist instead of one where you don't
>>362108
How is us existing "lucky"? Is a rock "lucky" for having a certain arrangement of atoms? What are the odds for each of its atoms to be situated in that exact position? Pretty "low" odds, right? You're assuming for no good reason that life is specia or "sacred"l. So you assume that there is another "higher" thing that resembles life orchestrating it, because YOU'RE the one familiar with life. Since you're life, you think life is special or worthy of note. YOU'RE also the one familiar with the concept of creating, since you're a human who creates things. You then project this concept to a supernatural level; this is human nature. This is what makes the idea of a "creator" attractive to you.
So no, the "low odds" for life existing no more make me inclined to believe in a creator than the "low odds" for a rain droplet to land in a particular spot on a windy day. It just happened, with low probability. That doesn't mean there had to be a purpose behind it.
>roll a 10^154 sided die
>WOW! The odds of that side being face-up is 10^154! God must have done that.
>>362817
That would essentially be a sphere though. How would you even tell which side is up?
>>362817
>implying dice dont have free will
Get out determinist scum
>>362108
If we didn't exist, then someone or something else would. Every single possibility is equally valid and probable, just because it's extremely unlikely for any one specific possibility to occur doesn't mean it's less likely than every other possibility.
>>362108
I have yet to receive evidence that there is a God that created us, so I don't believe it.
I have yet to receive evidence that there is no God that created us, so I don't believe it.
That's why I'm Agnostic
OP, you can do better than that.
>The odds of the initial, low entropy state of the universe coming into being by chance:
>1/10^10^123
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvV2Xzh11r8
>>362675
tips fucking fedora
>>362108
There is a lot of shit in the universe, life as we know it was bound to happen somewhere, if it didn't happen here, it would have somewhere else, and those fuckers would be asking themselves the same question you did.
>>362108
tl;dr
Before I flip a quarter, there is a 50% chance it will land heads.
After a quarter has been flipped and landed heads, there is a 100% chance that it has landed heads.
>>363011
That's the only argument you fuckers have, huh?
>random probabilities that I just pulled from my ass prove the universe was made by a wizard
>despite that that explaination doesn't actually explain anything
>the other knockdown argument of christfaggotry is "you're wrong because you wear a hat"
Damn, I seriously think that only feminism is in a poorer intellectual state than christfaggotry
>>362108
>the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros. (1)
>>362108
This is actually a fallacy (and there's a name for it but I can't remember it).
Here's an analogy: poker. In poker the odds of getting a royal flush (the best possible hand) are 0.000154% or 1 in 649,739. You could play poker your entire life and maybe never even see one.
Here's where the fallacy comes in: even though the probability is very low, royal flushes do happen. If you get a royal flush you have a royal flush, end of story. The other players can't say "that's impossible, the probability of getting a royal flush is so low that I don't believe that you got one even though I can see the cards in your hands."
>>362108
>The chances of us not existing is far, far greater than the amount of atoms in the Universe. multiplied by itself.(4)
>>362108
>The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator.
Did you even finish any kind of school at all?
>>364328
Also, these probabilities are based on what we know right now, not on all possible knowledge, which, for all we know, is completely unattainable
This thread is just like saying "The chance that you can jump to the moon is 1 in a 1 followed by 9 billion zeroes, therefore, we'll never go to the moon and anyone who thinks otherwise is insane"
>>362163
Technically it's 1:6^(1 million) isn't it?
What? What kind of retarded bullshit numbers are those?
Of course the odds of Earth existing in this exact positions are low, but it could exist in an almost infinite number of other positions and it would be fine, in fact there are probably millions of planets in the universe that can sustain life.
I don't even understand what the number for the universe is supposed to be based on.
The chances of us existing are 100%, because we do. Or at least I do.
>>364852
>Or at least I do.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
>>362108
>Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.
stopped reading there
>>362108
>The chance for life is 1 in <insert obnoxoiusly high number here>
>The universe is infinite
>The chance for life is thus infinite
>>362825
Plen, how do you think my level 700 kinder rogue back stabs gods :^?
>>362108
The best way I've seen this argument described is a puddle of water commenting on how perfectly its hole fits it, almost as if the hole were made for the puddle. Clearly, the puddle was the one that took its shape from the hole, not the other way around.
Similarly, humans did not just hit the universal jackpot and evolved on a planet that just happened to fit them. Evolution has spent billions of years sharpening the DNA of every organism on Earth against the specific set of conditions found on our planet.
>>362108
statistician here
my answer would be yes, the "odds" of us existing are 1/over a huge number. But, when your N is as nearer to infinity than any human will count, odds are good you'll have at least one hit and probably several. So say the odds of earth are one with a thousand zeros but the universe has tried one with a billion zero times. Obviously I'm making up numbers for the sake of example, but hopefully you get the point.
>>365027
>Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them aiming rifles at your heart. You are blindfolded; the command is given; you hear the deafening roar of the rifles. And you observe that you are still alive. The 100 marksmen missed!
>>365108
>aiming
!= hitting
>>365108
The universe is not a trained marksman with a rifle. It is more like a soccer mom with a full auto AA-12. Something is going to get hit.
>>362108
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD4eAMrkIlM&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk&index=6
>>365184
>soccer mom
Just out of curiosity, what did you mean by adding this?
>>365184
>>365121
But that's just Leslie's analogy of how one should actually be surprised at such a minuscule probability of us existing.
You don't just walk away from the firing squad and say, "Well, there are days when 100 marksman miss me, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that I'm still alive."
>>365209
In gun culture, it implies someone without knowledge or training in firearms.
>>364862
>universe is infinite
That's like a kid growing up in a huge forest, thinking that because even though he's walked away from his house until time for supper and still been in the woods, that this forest is infinite.
>>365184
>culture in which soccer mom's aren't adequately trained in firearms
This disgusts me. How could they have procreated if they cannot act as a citizen soldier to protect their family and nation?
>>365260
By fucking a man with a cock and letting him cum inside her.
>>365276
The man must also have functional balls I should add.
>>365260
Because America has no need for a citizen soldier anymore. The military is a professional volunteer organization, and the militia is similar.
The probability of anything occurring is 100% after you know it has occurred.
>>364301
>your claim that life is sacred is wrong because I claim that it isn't
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN FUH DORA???
>>365310
More like
>anon makes argument
>other anon replies with *tips fedora* shit
>anon responds with response to *tips fedora* shit.
>>365310
>life is sacred
Prove this claim. All of the observational evidence I have demonstrates otherwise.
>>365221
>But that's just Leslie's analogy
Exactly. Life isn't in the slightest comparable to 100 marksmen. For instance, life doesn't show you all the failed attempts of it that died out billions of years ago. That's one of the nasty characteristics of information, that it tends to hide its failures.
This is why the whole term of 'fine-tuning' is so amusing to me. It's like going up to a Rembrandt painting, knowing it took the guy decades of trying and failing absolutely miserably at painting, and then concluding that the only way he could have painted it is in one session, by Jesus instructing everything. If we had the ability to salvage the thousands upon thousands of failed works by Rembrandt he threw away, you'd probably understand a little better where he got his skills from
>>365334
I'm sorry you're so numbed to the miracle of existence that you think conscious, feeling agents in an otherwise dark and cold universe isn't a big fucking deal. Go back to reddit
>>365353
>muh feels
Great argument
>>365358
>I don't feel that life is sacred, therefore it isn't
great argument
>>365353
>you need to believe in a higher power to appreciate the miracle of life
>>365364
>someone needs to believe in a higher power to appreciate the miracle of life
>>365363
So everything is true until disproven? Better start worshipping flying spaghetti monster then
>>365377
So everything is dead, inert matter until disproven? Better be an eliminative materialist then
>>365363
Tell me other things that you feel must be correct because you feel that they should. It's fascinating.
>>365374
That's what I'm arguing against.
>>365384
Tell me other things that you feel must be incorrect because you feel that they should. It's fascinating.
Keep trying to contort science into a metaphysical discipline, it's hilarious
>>365382
I don't see why the burden of proof for that claim is any more rigged than the ones we apply to every other thing we believe.
>>365401
empiricism can't describe everything. existence presupposes logical discourse, not the other way around
>>365399
If science offers a more practical explanations for the questions that metaphysics tries to answer, and I am a practical individual, then why should I choose to believe your theory?
>the odds against you picking the King of Hearts from a deck of cards are 52 to 1 against!
>so if you say you picked that card randomly, I have no reason to believe you
>the odds are against you
>>365420
How can science possibly offer solutions to metaphysical conundrums that, by their very nature - Meta + physics = beyond, after physics - cannot be observed empirically?
You've been reading too much Dawkins chief. You don't even know the terms you're arguing.
>>365382
>dead, inert matter
Not sure what you're talking about. Bacteria and cells are made of matter, biologists classify them as alive. Plenty of matter isn't inert, chemical reactions are abundant in fact
>>365435
>How can science possibly offer solutions to metaphysical conundrums that, by their very nature - Meta + physics = beyond, after physics - cannot be observed empirically?
How can metaphysics produce useful knowledge then? You basically admit yourself that we have no access to it?
Unless you have some non-empirical method of observation, in which case I'm dying to know how it produces reliable knowledge
If god created the world than who created god?
Is it more probable that god came to exist and than created the world than, than the world coming to exist somehow? I think the razor says otherwise.
>>365435
I'm saying that the questions that you perceive as metaphysical, really aren't, and they only exist as separate from the physical world because of how you organize that information in your brain.
>>365435
How do you prove someone wrong in metaphysics?
>>362108
Given that there is indeed a great mystery before us of fine-tuning, all possibilities are open game. As fallible human beings with no means of separating ourselves from subjective experience, the best we can do in finding an answer with real consequence is through testable, falsifiable means. Therefore, until you can come forward with a predictive, falsifiable, explanatory model to answer the question, and until said model best reflects observable reality, the most honest answer anybody can give is: "We don't know".
The appearance of incredibly low odds for the universe existing (not just life, but black holes and everything else) is literally no clearer a link to a divine creator than it is to "magic" or even some other obscure natural mechanism we have yet to discover. The point is, we cannot move forward with ANY answer until we are able to approach it on pragmatic grounds. If there is a God who cannot be traceable in any way, then all of humanity is simply left in the dark.
But if you want to argue that God is what caused the fine-tuning of the universe, you first have to demonstrate that a God exists first.
Even if I were still a theist, this argument would not be good enough for me to show the existence of a God. In my opinion His (Hers, it's, their) existence is more a metaphysical claim than anything else and therefore needs no physical mysteries to support it. If you're a theist, fine-tuning or not, you believe in a God and you already know the "what"... So why not ask the much more interesting question which could actually lead to real answers: "HOW did God do it?".
Believers and non-believers alike can figure that out together.
>>365435
Metaphysics is useful for forming hypotheses in physics. But they're just hypotheses, we have to test to see if they hold up as plausible. You can bicker all day about how the universe works with a philosopher but you can't deny the repeated results of an experiment.
>>365450
Intuition. The penetration of the deepest levels of consciousness and being in trance states, meditation, present-moment awareness, and contemplation of higher truths. But it's not discursive, sterile intellectualization so it gives STEMfags the vapors
>>365454
lol. Lotta tough talk for a discipline that can really only function if we grant the provisionality of its models
>>365456
Only within the context of the proposed system, but objectively? You probably don't. The issue is less "I hold all the cards, scifags amirite??" and more "stop pretending a methodology to explain physical phenomena can be extrapolated to explain everything else because it's 2015"
>>365465
>implying there are experiments that have empirically verified the non-existence of morals, God, consciousness being a fluke, etc.
>once again, confusing the how for the why
>>365494
>The penetration of the deepest levels of consciousness and being in trance states, meditation, present-moment awareness, and contemplation of higher truths
AKA 'I dropped acid this one time, and now I understand the world in ways you CAN'T POSSIBLY IMAGINE!'
>we grant the provisionality of its models
The vast majority of scientific knowledge gets built upon, not discarded. Especially when you consider how many more discoveries we've made in the past 150 years than the rest of human history combined.
>stop pretending a methodology to explain physical phenomena can be extrapolated to explain everything else because it's 2015
I can explain why you can't accept this, despite it being, demonstrably, the most accurate model of thought. It's called cognitive dissonance.
>>365505
It's not about verification, it's about falsification. This is a central principle in scientific methodology. Every theory in science is open for future revision or disproof. We need this, because otherwise, we can literally argue the validity of any concept and find things to "support" the concept, even if it wasn't true.
This is not to say that things that cannot be falsified cannot actually exist. It just means we simply will have grounds to assume it to be the case as it ultimately amounts to words without any real-world consequence.
>>365536
>AKA 'I dropped acid this one time, and now I understand the world in ways you CAN'T POSSIBLY IMAGINE!'
Epic dude, either you're le super smart science man or you're a dirty hippie. Got it.
>I can explain why you can't accept this, despite it being, demonstrably, the most accurate model of thought. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Dude, just stop. Empirical science cannot comment on the non-physical, if it exists. You're literally arguing against definitions.
>>365544
The guy I quoted was just as guilty of making a ridiculous, totalizing statement, but don't let me remind you about your biases
>>365542
I fully concede my personal views could be bullshit. From where I'm standing, and from what I've read, they seem to be the truth. Who knows? The difference here is I'm not intruding on science's domain to tell it where it's gone wrong. Science accurately describes the physical portion of what could be a metaphysical reality
>>365582
>Empirical science cannot comment on the non-physical, if it exists
That's my point. Nothing we can observe in this universe is non-physical. It at least exists as a concept in someones brain. A brain is a physical entity that can be studied.
>>365582
>I fully concede my personal views could be bullshit. From where I'm standing, and from what I've read, they seem to be the truth. Who knows? The difference here is I'm not intruding on science's domain to tell it where it's gone wrong. Science accurately describes the physical portion of what could be a metaphysical reality
And indeed, it could be that there is more to all this than merely the "physical". But I simply have no means to assume otherwise. In fact, I literally have no concept of what that even means - what is "non-physical"? It seems from my perspective that we cannot even move forward with arguing the existence of such a concept until we can come up with a coherent definition of it. But if you say that science cannot brush upon this "realm" (which we can only conceive of in physical terms anyways), or that defining it coherently "confines it" in some way, than essentially what it amounts to is saying "science cannot explain what it cannot explain". There is literally no coherent conversation we can have about what we cannot know. In any case, I don't mean to sound aggressive. I respect your views, I simply just don't come to the same conclusion. To me until such criteria is met, I can't feel justified in thinking those conclusions are anything other than purely subjective phenomena.
>>362108
>namely Penrose
That's where you went wrong. Nobody in the physics community takes him seriously and neither should you.
Everything else can be chalked up to the Anthropic Principle. Read a book or something.
>>365536
>AKA 'I dropped acid this one time, and now I understand the world in ways you CAN'T POSSIBLY IMAGINE!'
You don't think the guy who made it to the top of a mountain knows something that the guy who saw a picture from the top of the mountain knows?
If there's a creator, who created a creator?
>>365494
>Intuition. The penetration of the deepest levels of consciousness and being in trance states, meditation, present-moment awareness, and contemplation of higher truths.
This just seems to be rife with opportunities to project upon the world that which isn't there which is very easy, especially if you already expect something.
Even if you aren't high or an idiot that's a very real danger.
>>366687
The whole point of mindfulness is to avoid exactly just that, although it's not like anyone would recommend transcendental meditation on day 1
>>366708
Mindfulness is probably not going to help you avoid your brain projecting something that isn't there.
Intuiting, meditation and trances are not going to give you error free results and will be skewed towards any biases you have, be they innate or posed through expectation.
>>366744
I don't think you understand what either meditation or mindfulness is supposed to be.
>>362108
>The Universe exists. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that it came into existance. Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros. (1)
This is not what your source says, your source says that for a universe with entropy comparable to ours would be a one-in-whatever chance on the assumptions that it was created out of whole cloth and every possible arrangement was equally probable, ie, it's one-in-whatever simply because the entire phase space of possible states has whatever volume.
These assumptions do not match reality, where states are not equally probable because the universe, obeying the laws of physics, can only move from its state at each time to a limited selection of possible adjacent states. This is the difference between describing probability in a random system where events are independent and a complex system where events are interdependent.
Total shit senpai, especially given that much of our modern understanding of self-organizing systems can be neatly shoehorned into an evolutionary theology like Tielhard de Chardin's if you bother to read a fucking book.
