>[T]he designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
Has a proper response to this ever been formulated?
>>884969
>not understanding that the design argument is predicated upon the correctness of the cosmological argument's premises
>>884969
Only a bunch of arguments by necessity which really don't address how creation by an infinity complex creator solves the problem of complexity
>>884975
>problem of complexity
What's that?
>>884969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
>>884976
It has been argued by some, that the universe is so complex it could not have arisen on its own anymore than a watch could come together through erosion. Thus a creator is necessary to explain its complexity
>>884969
His argument by complexity fails to define complexity, and when it does come up with some idea of complexity, it seems to be 'consisting of many parts' by which standard God is the simplest of all possible things.
>>885036
Can someone transcribe this post for me?
>>885008
But "complex" fails to describe something like the origin of physical laws. Complex is something we use to describe things in the universe that have a specific quality of interwoven heterogeneity within its components (maybe this description isn't perfect but we know what complex is, such are the limits of language). To say the universe is too complex is nonsense because it's not conceivable in any other way. In other words, when you say a watch is complex you can say it is because your standard of complex is based on an existence where you see lots of
rocks that aren't complex and can ascribe relative values of "complexity" to things. To ask "why isn't the universe a homogeneous mass of gas floating without intermolecular forces" as a counterpoint to the universe's complexity is as good as asking "why don't apples fall up?" "why is 1+1=2?", which are pointless questions because they're asking that we conceive something beyond reality (reality here used in a material sense) whose existence is impossible as far as we know and measure it against what is "possible". And that's another thing, "possibility" is a concept that works within our universe, hence it is possible for a bunch of copper atoms to be arranged in a watch or in a lump of copper. But it is not "possible" for 1 and 1 to equal 3 or for apples on earth to just fall up.
The creator doesn't need a creator because fuck you
>>884969
This rests on the assumption that in order to create something the creator must be as complex as the creation or more complex than the creator. I see no principled reason why this must hold.
Anyways, design arguments are shit. Cosmological arguments are the way to go.
>>885086
>magic!!!!!!!
This is essentially their argument.
The evidence suggests that the energy responsible for creating the universe has always existed, and WILL always exist, in some form or another, as experiments here on Earth clearly demonstrate that energy is neither created or destroyed, but merely transformed.
>>885050
It's already transcribed, plainly as it is in front of you.
Did you mean 'translate'?
>>884984
>inspiringphilosophy
Holy shit what a joke
There's even a patreon
Threw up in my mouth a little
Fractals exist in nature, perhaps God is part of a fractal of Gods. Maybe that's why some much of the natural occurrences most commonly associated with some level of intelligent design are fractal, such as DNA, bolts of lightning, and heart rates.
We did, obviously.
>>884969
Couldn't the same be said of the Big Bang?
Is a limitation to the cosmological argument that just don't know if the Big Bang was the "beginning" given we have close to no idea to what came before it?
EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE
>>885131
>WAH HE BTFO ME MOMMY ;_;
Get fucked
The part I love most about these complexity arguments is that:
A) The problem they raise is completely explained by natural mechanisms
B) The fact that any complexity is an emergent byproduct of NON-complex systems and laws. Black holes and stars are not complex whatso-fucking-ever, and the laws governing the universe can be written down on a single piece of paper. So creationist morons are exactly wrong on the argument in every way possible.
To say nothing of the unjustified assertion mounted on unjustified assertion to reach a desired conclusion.
>>885036
The simplest of all possible things is one that doesn't exist, not one that has a million properties (all unjustified) while at the same time being some vague ethereal thing like "perfection".
>>884969
>884969
retard faggot
>>885185
No. Because plenty of cosmological arguments stay neutral on whether or not the universe had a temporal beginning ( Aquinas' for example). The point is explaining what keeps the universe going and what it's ultimate ontological grounding is, rather than whether or not there was a first moment of creation that needs accounting for.
>>885305
Now now, don't be so upset
>>885296
>and the laws governing the universe can be written down on a single piece of paper
Ehh. Given how many ceterus paribus assumptions need to be hand waved in order to get those "laws" ( which of course are just man made generalizations by abstracting from reality that which is quantifiable) down to that size- it is hard to say that their presentation reflects simplicity in nature. Just about every "law of nature" is actually wrong in practice when they are posited in that simple of a form. Nancy Cartwright's "How the Laws of Physics Lie" make a good case for this.
>>885320
I'm talking about all the ones that do. And Aquinas's unmoved mover is no exception because the causa prima would have to be the beginning of time
it's not a meaningful point
the fact the universe must have been designed/created is without question... to then demand explanations for how the creator/designer was designed, isn't my problem. the creator was likely eternal, but it's not important..
it's side stepping the issue of whether the universe was created or not. and it makes no sense if it wasn't.. you think a bunch of stars, planets and life and emotions just exist? that is ridiculous.
>>885341
>Not a meaningful point
Dismissal without evidence/ anything to back it up
>The fact that the universe must have been designed is without question...
Dogma, avoiding burden of proof
>creator was likely eternal
Nothing you provided was proof that supports that the creator is 'likely' eternal
>You think a bunch of stars, planets and life and emotions just exists? That's ridiculous
argument from personal incredulity
Formulate a less fallacious and poor argument and we'll talk again, fallacy pro signing out
>>885372
Except everything he said was correct
>>885386
Nope, please try again, what he said was garbage, we'll see if he can do better next time
>>885392
Nope it was all correct
>>885395
You provide me nothing, I dismiss it with nothing, provide more
>>885395
Everything he said was nonsense, especially the part were he says that the universe being intentionally designed is without question. That is pure garbage.
>>885331
The fuck are you talking about?
>>885395
It was horsecrap.
>>884969
As the designer is transcendent and only experienceable indirectly, the question of the designer of the designer is a question for the designer, not for us.
Also as he is transcendent you can't apply the immanent notion of "everything has a designer/creator" at him.
>>885428
We'll decide what's a question for us, thank you.
So who did design the designer?
>>885131
Nicely refuted my man, keep up the good fight
ATHEISM 4EVER
>>885487
It's very kind of you to compliment him like that.
>>885473
The term "designer of the designer" is meaningless to us because the designer is transcendent, thus we can't apply the concept of "being designed by" to him. The question literally lacks any meaning.
>>885296
>the laws governing the universe can be written down on a single piece of paper
This is incorrect, or more charitably a misperception.
Any such laws capable of describing the workings of the universe and being written upon a single piece of paper would be incomprehensible to anyone that did not already possess the equivalent of knowledge printed upon many thousands of sheets of paper. If this were not true we wouldn't bother sending people to study in universities for years to become physicists, we would just hand them that sheet of paper you mentioned.
>>885401
>You provide me nothing, I dismiss it with nothing, provide more
Dismissal without evidence/ anything to back it up
:3
>>885508
>you can't do that because I described it as transcendent.
Too bad buddy we just did and no one's going to stop us.
Who designed the designer?
>>884969
But who watches the watchmen?
That which can exist, does exist.
It's a simpler explanation than explaining why somethings exist and others do not.
>>885542
Words don't work that way faggot.
>>885075
precisely
idk why religous people still use muh complex universe as an argument
>>885050
Get a load of this moron. Are people like you the ones making threads? Fucking hell.
>>885303
>The simplest of all possible things is one that doesn't exist
That doesn't sound very simple at all.
>>885428
Holy shit, how can you feel that this shitty explanation is enough? How do you sleep at night?
Isn't this just a circular argument?
>Complex things cannot arise without a creator
>But if you look at [natural phenomenon] you can see complexity arising spontaneously
>That's because God created it
>>885596
Because you think not existing is complicated?
>>885510
Yes, and you need to go to fucking kindergarten to learn how to read words. Learn to read math and it can be written down on a piece of paper.
>>885635
Congratulations! You found out why people have given up on trying to debate with religion.
>>885008
>It has been argued by some, that the universe is so complex it could not have arisen on its own
How the fuck do you reach this conclusion? Have you compared our universe to known non-designed universes and seen that they are less complicated?
Argueing about what a designed universe or an undesigned universe SHOULD look like is meaningless, there's no information to draw any conclusions from.
>>884969
>[T]he designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
Did he actually make this argument?
Is this actually in The God Delusion?
>>884969
>the larger problem of who designed the designer
that implies that causal rules apply to the creator of causality itself, an genuine and unfettered conscious omnipotence capable of making (A = ~A) completely true simultaneous with (A = A).
.
God exists metaphysically prior to space and time; the manifest temporal reality that allows for the rules of causation does not in any way delimit his whole being outside of his express Will. There is no "before" time. There is not necessarily a "before" or "after" for such a being save, qualified by the indomitable Will of the omnipotent. There easily only an eternity of now, maybe think about what that means. God can look upon the physical universe as it is, has been, will be, could be, should be, and isn't.
dawkins is a decent biologist, but a complete failure as a plebeian philosopher.
>b-but muh logic necessarily constrains omnipotence as a quality
>m-muh paradox
eat
shit
no
limits
>>885635
>you can see complexity arising spontaneously
that's an assumption, baseless.
you can see what appears to be spontaneity.
a monkey can think the images on a television appear spontaneously, but we happen to know better.
It is the hubris of the positivist that our cognitive potential is without clear bottom.
>>885428
>only experience-able indirectly
not necessarily, remember that he's omnipotent.
>>885410
are you literally retarded, or did he break your brain when he said something in latin?
>>886653
>shit English
>shit plebeian philosopher arguments
>ends post with eat shit no limits
>>884969
This is why it is called the prime designer. If we add the word prime to it, we can make an argument about infinite recursion necessitating, a greater power, but not have to explain why infinite recursion doesn't apply to the thing we designate prime.
Also this prime designer is sentient, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and Jesus.
>>884984
>tmw even atheists think Dawkins is shit
top kek
>>887278
>>887302
2/10
you're trying to hard
>>887302
This is literally semantics
>>886664
that's not an assumption, you are the one assuming to know the reason behind it
>>885008
That's interesting, but as the other anon mentioned our universe could be extremely simple. When it's not relative to anything, who's to say? Humanity only knows this single universe. And only 4 dimensions in a microscopic span of distance at that.
You'll never come to the conclusion of a designer, because you automatically assume they must be designed. So first prescribe what to design is, and what a designer may be of it. Then you can formulate a response, but it'll only be based on the assumption of what your specific definition of "design" and "designer" are. Which, by the way, are both relative. Simply because if you establish a designer exists, people will posit that as a concept it must have also been designed. That's why to some degree you have to accept a beginning and end. If you don't, you can and will never come to the conclusion of either.
>>887935
No, when you say an event is spontaneous you automatically assume that there is no reason behind it.
>>885395
Hot garbage is what it was...
>>885428
That's some indoctrinated cult shit, right there, and not the thoughts of a reasonable person.
>>885487
Allahu Akbar fellow believer!
>>888485
>Spontaneous in this case implies that there is no conscious effort by some entity that drives it. Evolution, in this case, happens through mutation and variation which are entirely random, coupled with selection processes that are not random.
>>884969
No but some moron probably said some bullshit and threw the word "metaphysical" in as though it absolves him of any actual explanation
>>885428
>>884969
Plenty.
Here is one.
In the primordial soup that existed before creation, a Creator arose. One that had the will to shape the primordial chaos.
>>885487
By their fruits you will recognize them.
God is eternal, nothing created him. Gee, that was hard.
>>884969
It's designers all the way up, Richard.
>>885341
>The universe can't 'just exist'
>must be a creator
>he 'just exists' but that's not important really
I see no problem with this logic
>>892698
and turtles all the way down
>>884969
We shouldn't even respond to such, there is only the Tao.
>>884984
What theists don't understand is that simply by needing to have arguments for the existence of god, they're tacitly admitting that their god does not exist. There's no need for arguments to prove that water exists, or that atoms exist, or that air exists. They can be interacted with, studied, measured. Even something seemingly intangible, for example, emotions, can be studied and measured. These arguments are nothing but sophistry that would be completely unnecessary if the thing they argued for actually existed.
>>891097
>In the primordial soup that existed before creation, a Creator arose.
Evidence?
>In the primordial soup that existed before creation, a universe arose.
Sounds more reasonable to me, and doesn't contain assumptions about beings you have no evidence of.
>>893639
what the fuck so you think all mystic-religio-spiritual literature from all history pertains to, you dumb fuck. you can't even see that you're being a sophost yourself by not acknowledging that mankind has had a fixation on the divine, the spirit, soul, etc. since the dawn of our history.
you've probably never heard of hermeticism, or the alchemist Geber, or the Tree of Sephirot, or the Dhammapada, or the Bhagavad Gita.
when people like yourself look at these things, they auyomatically label it as insanity, or stupidity, or primitive or unenlightened while claiming to be intellectually rigorous. the arrogance is blinding. it's not that these things don't exist, it is that you yourself outright refuse to consider them critically and without pretense
>>892685
So then why not worship nothing, as the more powerful of the gods?
>>893668
The age of an idea or how widespread that idea is makes no difference as to whether or not it is correct. So what of alchemy? What did the alchemists achieve aside from gaining a rudimentary understanding of chemistry? Where are the elixirs of immortality, the philosopher stones, the lead bars turned to gold? Everything you mentioned is stupid and insane and primitive, with no relation to how the universe actually functions. Any mystical experience you feel you're having is a result of self-deception. Go ahead and believe in the tree of sephirot. You can just as easily believe in the Force from Star Wars and have the same skoopy mystical feelings.
>>893725
You have no idea what any of those things mean. You also have no intention to understand them. So, all your talk amounts to is blatant sophistry. You need to accept that, and stop feeling so justified in your willful ignorance. I'm sorry you can't be honest with yourself.
>>893639
>>893668
We know more about the divine things now than at any time in history. The sheer volume of mythical, spirtual, and religious work we have available compared to what a simple priest would have just 200 years ago is mind-blowing.
On one hand we have atheistic thought that wants to read all religious work as literal. I think this is a flaw, early religion was basically philosophy in allegorical form. This atheistic thinking also wants to view divine and material things as ant-thesis, which simply isn't how divinity was always viewed.
On the other hand we have centuries of superstition and old dogma that doesn't really integrate well into new learnings: for example the psychology has amazing explanatory power for divinity.
>>893725
There are deeper concepts of divinity than trying to create magical potions.
As you said before, a proper God is one that we already know exists, just like we know the sun or water exists. But if I point you to the sky and say "look it's the sun" and you say "So what it's just a bright light!" than you can deny the sun. The same thing would be true if I told you can feel God. You would say "it's just feelings" and deny that as easily as you deny the sun.
>>893764
There was a time when I believed in supernatural things. I once had what I thought was an extremely powerful and moving spiritual experience. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to square what I had felt with the totality of my worldly experience. I was forced to choose between two possibilities: that my spiritual experience was real despite there being no other evidence for such a supernatural event, or that my experience was a hallucination brought on by my desire to believe. I chose the latter conclusion because it required the fewest assumptions.
That all being said, if given the option, I would certainly prefer to live in a universe with mystical supernatural things in it, and I'm open to evidence that such things exist. But since no evidence has been given, outside of flimsy arguments that break down quickly, I will continue to not believe in the supernatural.
>>892685
It's also not an snswer.
>>886400
>logical positivism
wew lad
>>892685
But I can equally validly assert that the Universe is eternal, nothing created it.
>>893639
Nope
God exists and Christ is lord
Objective fact
Feel free to shitpost about it online as much as you want though
>>893845
I will, thanks.
>>893659
the universe is physical and a self-causing universe cannot explain the metaphysical.
>>893639
Existence is not always a trivial matter, e.g. black holes, the Higgs Boson, or the luminiferous aether. You stupid fedora.
>>893845
>God exists and Christ is lord
Why should I believe that?
>>893882
What do you mean by "the metaphysical"?
>>893882
The metaphysical is purely a creation of the human mind, the universe doesn't need to explain it.
>>893885
It's your choice. You always had a choice.
>>885548
Let me make this a bit clearer.
1) All things are considered to be objects
2) All objects must have a cause
Thus there must exist at each point in time a set of objects that cause all things that occurred at a later point in time.
3) Suppose that the lifespan of the universe is finite and bounded
At t = 0 there exists some set of objects that cause all other objects within the lifespan of the universe.
Let us pretend that the notion of causality holds for t < 0 (it doesn't). In order for you to have a creator you must prove; that the cardinality of the set of objects at t=0 is 1.
Given that we now have an unbounded infinite universe for t < 0 we've violated (3) , but we'll press on because otherwise the universe as an object is uncaused as defined by (1) and (2). (Note that causality has already broken down)
In order for a singular cause for the universe I must now define a new class of thing that is not an object because all objects must have a cause. So I'm going to tack on the bit that defines the argument you want to make here as an axiom at the end.
4) God is defined to be the singular object at t=0 that causes all others, god gets exemption from (2)
So yes, you are quite clearly arguing from a conclusion not from a premise.
>>884969
Am I the only one who realizes these threads just mean that God could be more accurately some horrible design from Lovecraft than from some Jews 2000 years ago?
>>893178
>We shouldn't even respond to such, there is only the Tao.
Only good answer.
>>893883
>luminiferous aether
you mean that thing that doesn't exist and that we know doesn't exist because it was falsified through experimentation?
>>885119
you've just disproved your own point.
>something cant have always existed, thats magic
>energy that created the universe has always existed
>>885114
Really though? They assume infinite regress is impossible, for no thorough reason.
>>895470
The "something cant have always existed" part is not the magic part. But nice try.
>>895898
Their reasoning is correct though. If you have an infinity of causes that only have their causality derivatively( which is what the infinitely regressive causal series is) then there is nothing for any of them to derive their causality from- hence there can be no series. Derivative causes are like conditional statements in logic " If A then B" for example, you can posit the logical structure " if A then B" " if B then C" " if C then D" and etc- but without actually having the existence of A nothing else will follow from this logical structure in reality. No matter how many more conditionals you posit in your causal series by positing another cause that only causes insofar as something else causes it you won't actually get anything. You will just posit more that needs to be grounded ontologically with each addition. You need something that acts as the ultimate ontological ground of the series- or there can be no series.
I think this is less cogent for us because we see causation as mainly rooted in temporal priority rather than simultaneity. There are "causes" that act as necessary conditions for a cause to come about- I need to move my hand towards my water bottle in order for it to be knocked over. But until I actually knock it over the instance of causation can always be canceled( by chopping the hand off, supporting the bottle somehow, etc)- only once the effect actually arises is the cause acting in a sufficient way as a cause. Causation is primarily simultaneous, and it is important to note that cosmological arguments are about the simultaneous chain of causes that happen at each moment in nature. Aquinas admitted that it was possible to have a chain of causes that stretch back infinitely in past time- insofar as each cause in the series is not the sufficient cause for the next member itself causing- but what he wouldn't allow is an infinity of derivative causes all existing in one moment.
>ctrl+f
>turtles
>1 Result Found
I'm not mad, just disappointed.
>>896492
>If you have an infinity of causes that only have their causality derivatively( which is what the infinitely regressive causal series is) then there is nothing for any of them to derive their causality from- hence there can be no series.
These fucking retarded word games infuriate me to no end. It's about as valid as whining about math because there is no "next number" on the real number axis so they obviously don't exist, or the fact that functions veer off to infinity must mean some other retarded shit.
Here's the thing. The universe doesn't care about whether you think something is weird. Calling something "derivative" and thus "not real" is a completely baseless and asinine way of thinking that should've remained in the gutters of ancestry where it began. The only reason it has lived on for so long is not any intellectual merit, but the emotional need to rationalize god claims.
All it takes for this nonsense to be discredited is to provide an alternate model of reality. Alternate in terms of description, not necessarily a fantasy model that is not applicable to our own reality.
-The universe is a closed and static 4-dimensional object. What we call time is a loop.
-There is no beginning, no cause and no end. Just eternal inflation that produces universes from quantum fluctuations.
-Causality only works on large scales and doesn't exist on small scales.
-The universe is a mathematical construct and much like infinite time series are valid in maths, infinite time is valid in the universe.
There, you have 4, some straight out of my ass, some supported by evidence. Thomism is completely devoid of substantiation and can go fuck off.
>>896606
I already pointed out that I was talking about simultaneous causation at each moment, not a temporal series. Having cyclical time would be irrelevant. Thomas allows that an infinite time series is possible, it has nothing to do with the argument at all.
Also this argument is reasoning from the way the world works in order to ground what must be the case given that the world does work this way. Positing a different universe misses the point- this isn't like the ontological argument where we just look at terms and how they relate to each other. It is about what must be case given what we see in the world. No shit if causation is different then the argument won't go through- we are questioning about the real world- not hypothetical models. Positing a different model does nothing against the validity of the argument because it isn't a purely a priori argument.
>>896641
>Positing a different universe misses the point- this isn't like the ontological argument where we just look at terms and how they relate to each other.
I specifically said that I'm simply describing this universe in different terms. Tommy's definition is not the ultimate definition, and in fact clashes with reality. Causality breaks down on the quantum level. Do you want to point out a problem with my models, or are you going to just assert absolute authority on the way the universe works? Because I can do that too.
>I already pointed out that I was talking about simultaneous causation at each moment, not a temporal series. Having cyclical time would be irrelevant. Thomas allows that an infinite time series is possible, it has nothing to do with the argument at all.
Simultaneous causation at each moment is not necessarily true on every scale. And no, the first cause argument rests on infinity being illogical. Are you really going to start lying now?
>>896647
If his model of reality is wrong then I agree that his argument probably wrong. The argument that quantum physics shows us that this model doesn't work requires that someone buys into the claims of quantum physics. And mathematical abstractions about reality that miss out on what we actually experience in reality are always suspect to me. It is just like with classical physics when people would posit that because physics only grants predictability and determinism in nature that nature must be that way- when the only reason that was the case was because classical physics only abstracted that which was predictable and determinate out of nature for its mathematical abstractions. Scientism has a huge problem with constructing ontological claims due to methodologically oriented confirmation bias.But that takes us too far astray into the scientific realism vs anti-realism debate. I'm quite willing to leave the question of what model is better open- I don't expect you to accept the argument as absolutely necessary. But given that it's initial premises about the world hold, I do think that the argument goes through and that if you analyze my explanation of the argument more rigorously you may come to agree.
>And no, the first cause argument rests on infinity being illogical
No it doesn't. I already explained that the problem with the infinite regress is qua-causation, not qua-infinity. Thomas allows that an infinite past is possible even with this argument holding. Don't be purposefully obtuse. You have hardly touched any of the sub arguments in my initial post where I explain exactly what is going on with the argument. Some people teach the cosmological argument as being about temporal infinity, that is their cosmological argument, not my cosmological argument nor Thomas'.
>>896691
>No it doesn't. I already explained that the problem with the infinite regress is qua-causation, not qua-infinity.
You're making a distinction without difference. Tommy posits causality in some absolute sense, and then exclaims that it is impossible given an infinite series.
>Don't be purposefully obtuse.
Likewise.
>You have hardly touched any of the sub arguments
I'm not interested in any sub arguments when I disagree with the premises and terminology, and I'm not going to waste time on them.
>The argument that quantum physics shows us that this model doesn't work requires that someone buys into the claims of quantum physics.
The claims of quantum physics are actually proven to be true, in so far as the claims themselves are demonstrable. There exist several interpretations of them which might be true or untrue.
I find your statement of "requires that someone buys into it" to be interesting. Are you saying you don't? Because if you do, the conversation is over. Read up on it and then it can continue.
>And mathematical abstractions about reality that miss out on what we actually experience in reality are always suspect to me.
Keep your spooks and biases out of it.
>>893790
If you are still in this thread, I would like to hear about this experience if you're okay with sharing it. I am also interested in why you chose that picture to go with your post. My stance on supernatural things is somewhat similar to yours, although I admit to half-believing in some supernatural things I would like to be true.
>>894062
So causeless objects caused objects
>>896716
An infinite regress qua infinity would be in regards to the concept of infinity- but nowhere is it claimed that the concept of infinity is incoherent. What is incoherent is that you can derive a non conditional from an infinite series of conditionals. Derivative causes are structured like conditionals, they exist only insofar as something else exists. So just like we can't derive
If A then B
so
B
Without adding in "A" as a premise. You can't get a really existing cause from just derivative causes- you need an underivative cause for it to work. No matter how many derivative causes you add to the series you still won't get a real instance of causation without an underivative one.
Thomas notes that there are instances of causal series in the world that are full of derivative causes, he shows from this that you need something that does not cause derivatively for this to be the case. Hence you need a first cause that causes underivatively. The problem with the infinity here is the particular kind of infinity that is being posited- not infinity itself. There is also no positing of "causality' as an absolute law- he starts from the fact that there is causation in the world and hammers out what must be the case due to that. I repeat " everything needs a cause" IS NOT a premise in this argument.
The sub arguments are what explains away your objections - you are being disingenuous when you posit things that are made null by the sub arguments and then deny that you have to deal with the sub arguments.
According to standards of scientific methodology quantum physics is the best model of reality- why I need to take this as entailing ontological fundamentality is something that needs to be justified. And there is a huge debate in philosophy around it. I've studied Quantum physics informally. If you read up on scientific realism vs anti realism I'll read up on quantum physics more and we can call it even.
>Keep your spooks and biases out of it.
Same to you.
>>896852
I forget why, but I had stopped going to church regularly with my family. I guess I had become disillusioned with the sort of liberal, mainstream, generic Protestantism I had grown up with, but I was still a believer in god, and I had a religious impulse. I didn't want to be a submarine Christian, I wanted belief to be a part of my life. So I began doing research on various other Christian sects, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Swedenborgianism, Mormonism, etc. Eventually finding Gnosticism and Mesopotamian paganism. But despite all this research I didn't feel like I was getting any closer to really knowing anything more about god. It was frustrating.
One night I'm praying, and I'm saying, c'mon god, I'm trying to connect with you. Show me the way or something. After about a half hour of this really intense prayer a suddenly feel this strange combination of feelings. It's like a presence in the room with me, plus a weight being lifted up and an epiphany all in one. I had never felt anything like that, even this description isn't doing it justice, but at the time I was certain. God had answered my prayer, I had had a spiritual experience.
A few days later and the "high" of the experience began to fade, and I realized that nothing had actually changed. What I needed was specific guidance, but what I got was a vague feeling. So I went back to studying, and from the fringes of paganism I found atheism. I was extremely hostile to it at first. "What are these people thinking? Idiots, I KNOW god is real" etc. But the emphasis on skepticism seemed good, I couldn't argue it away.
(1/2)
>>897030
Meanwhile, while I'm reading more about skepticism, I'd still be praying and meditating, but I never again had a spiritual experience like the one before. I was beginning to feel distraught. Had god abandoned me? Or maybe there was no god to begin with. Eventually I decided to look at my spiritual experience skeptically. Which was more likely, that god had given me a one time spiritual experience, or that I had wanted such an experience so badly that I deluded myself into thinking I'd had one?
I truly wanted to choose the former, but I couldn't lie to myself. I couldn't justify all the extra assumptions required to believe in god when I wouldn't do the same for any other belief that lacked evidence. After that I became an atheist in short order.
As for the images, I've just been choosing them at random from my art folder.
(2/2)
>>897030
>>897035
Thank you for the reply. The reason I asked was something that is apparently a coincidence, since you picked the picture at random.
My father was ill for a long time with what seemed to be complications from a head injury. About 5 years ago his headaches, weakness etc. were so bad he thought he was dying. He prayed to either get better or die, and soon after he had an experience which he called a vision but we believe to have maybe been the side effect of a stroke (not sure since he didn't have any other stroke symptoms but idk what else to call it). He described it and I did an approximation of it in paint (see pic). Anyway, after that experience his headaches started to recede and he made a significant recovery and was nearly pain-free for several years.
I admit the whole thing sounds a bit more /x/ than /his/ but I'd wondered if there were any parallels in your experience that could help explain medically what happened to him. But it doesn't sound like your experience and your picture were related to each other.
Anyway, thank you again, I have had some odd spiritual experiences myself and have always left them as an open file. But I've never found myself able to believe in them with the kind of conviction that most religions require out of a person, and of course I have no proof. I guess I can't really commit fully to being an atheist either, but I've had strong leanings in that direction at times, so I can relate somewhat.
>>884969
From my understanding, and I never read too much philosophy, there has to have been some originator without origin. An unmoved mover. Whatever that is the Creator.
>>894014
that's what you need to believe
the question is moot. God is not useful.
>>893826
>responding with memes because you had nothing else to say
I know its 20 hours old fuck you
>>896941
>According to standards of scientific methodology quantum physics is the best model of reality- why I need to take this as entailing ontological fundamentality is something that needs to be justified. And there is a huge debate in philosophy around it. I've studied Quantum physics informally. If you read up on scientific realism vs anti realism I'll read up on quantum physics more and we can call it even.
You don't need to take it as "entailing ontological fundamentality", you are simply not allowed to dismiss it out of hand in order to continue wallowing in your delusion. Provide valid reasoning for rejecting it or buzz off.
>>893845
>God exists and Christ is lord
>objective fact
nice bait
>>898384
Except he is right
>>898358
Provide valid reasoning for accepting it as telling us something that should make me accept it instead of my prima facie experience of the world when the two clash. I accept that it is a nice set of abstractions that we can use to predict phenomena. Why I should take that as entailing it actual giving us an account of reality is what you need to justify.
>>898485
Different anon here but something that can accurately predict phenomena seems a bit more useful than something you potentially hallucinated. I'm pretty sure you are using a device based on technology using scientific methodology to post on this website, that would be a website on the Word Wide Web developed at CERN.
I will take any reply to this post that is made using an electronic device and not used based on hallucinating the post into the thread from a cave as proof I am correct.
>>898485
>Provide valid reasoning for accepting it
Sure.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantum+mechanics+experiments
Now if your only refutation is "u can't know nuffin", you're a fucking retard because I can just assert the same and claim absolute authority on reality, just as you did, on any number of claims contrary to yours.
>>898832
With that same just google it method of valid reasoning you actually must admit water reacts to emotions, watered down poisons are the most powerful antidotes, reality is a computer simulation, and ironically admit that there basically is a god and quantum mechanics doesn't matter to the true nature of reality anyway.
>>898846
What? Did you forget to take your meds or something?
>>898854
Exactly, it does seem that way if someone just accepts google result as valid reasoning without even being able to justify themselves, I mean, are you kidding me?
>>898867
Do you think it's valid reasoning to deny scientific consensus on literally no grounds?
>>898870
I thinks its valid to ostracize some faggot on an imageboard who can't even articulate a clear opinion, but keeps managing to claim authoritative superiority with incoherent buzzwords and google searches.
>>884969
The Designer only needs to be designed if it has a semi-permanent form.
>>898858
The first time I noticed, even worse than the Dawkins thing:
>Reason Circle
>Science Circle
>>898858
>>898903
>Dawkins milks rich people for fairly small amounts of money
>OMG I guess magic paedophiles flying winged horses and magic carpenters that fly up to Heaven r totally real guyz!
>>898998
Nobody suggested that, stop throwing a shit-fit.
>>898877
wew lad
go on being an ignoramus ;)
>>899081
Are you kidding me, are you not even offering more ignoramus classes again in the fall at Pompous Jerk University?
>>899097
go on denying quantum theory, dingus
muh cant know nuthin
>>884969
This is the same argument being used for at least a few centuries. Had this smug turd any actual knowledge of science or its process, this wouldn't have been an issue.
Forgetting all of that, just think about the following: If time was created when this universe came into existence (which is true and has been proven) then there was a "period" where time did not exist (again, been observed in subatmoic particles that are not subject to time). If a sentient Being of Power existed before time did, that Being could never have been "created" since He always existed as there is no time.
>inb4 so many "ifs"
Well yes there will be a lot of ifs. Reminder that science was never meant to present solid facts, it was meant to reduce uncertainty. For a species that can only observe 2% of the KNOWN universe, with the remainder completely and utterly hidden, we sure have a lot of arrogance.
>>896864
You defined objects to be things that are caused, you violated your own premise.
>>888064
Yes and with that skepticism virtually all of modern scientism can be derailed. Who is to say that the universe is random? Can you compare it to any random or ordered universe?
>>899097
Alright then, another anon here. Let us posit a few scenarios:
1) There exist two models A and B that do not conflict, each with a set of observations {a1... an} and {b1 ... bn}, obviously the model that accounts for the most observations is A + B. We cannot prove that either A, B or A+B is a correct model, just that A+B is currently the most correct model.
2) A and B are now mutually contradictory, we posit that A only holds for {a1... an} and similarly for B, applying any observation from {a1...an} to B will produce an incorrect result. Asserting that there exists some model that describes all observations we can conclude that neither A nor B is a correct model.
3) As with (1), but now B provides no additional observations. A + B is no more correct than just A by itself. At this point occam's razor becomes useful.
4) As with 2) except while A contradicts B, B does not contradict A. From this we can conclude that A is more correct than B, but that A is not a correct model and must be extended by some B' to include the set of observations from B that are not found under A.
Now then, you make the claim that your experience of the world should hold more weight than quantum mechanics. I can perform an experiment to demonstrate the quantisation of electrons, so long as that experiment is repeatable I dont have to give a flying fuck about your experience of the world as your set of observations about quantum mechanics has a cardinality of zero.
>>899296
>Forgetting all of that, just think about the following: If time was created when this universe came into existence (which is true and has been proven)
It's one possibility, and not something that is true and has been proven on any level. In fact under eternal inflation, there is a universal time which may be infinite.
>>884969
I've never understood how people can possibly not know the answer to this question.
The Designer is an eternal being; He has always been, He is the I Am, and He will always be.
>Everything that begins to exist has a cause
>But God never began to exist, hahahah atheist CHECKMATE!
Sometimes I wonder whether theists will ever find new arguments, but then, as Hitchens said, their arguments are old by definition and are never going to change, because it's about faith, and not reason and evidence.
>>900192
That's not a proper response. In fairness, as pointed out in this thread, there are better more detailed philosophical arguments that are harder to pull apart about necessity etc.
Your answer is just a glib anti-intellectual assertion and special pleading.
>>898832
You still have yet to explain how the results of the experiments give us something about reality and not just the way phenomena appears in the experimental setting. As I mentioned before in my critique of classical physics and why it has historically failed at making ontological claims due to the confirmation bias inherent in the method, you can't just assume that because someone uses a scientific method that this method is actually telling us something about reality unfiltered through scientific methodology. >>896691
My refutation is not " u can't know nuffin:- I'm just asking you to justify the epistemic justification you have for identifying the results of these experiments as something that tells us about reality. There is no prima facie necessary connection between these things- it is something you actually need to justify. How does the data provided by these experiments provide us with a foundation to make claims about reality? This is no a refutation of any claim of yours really, I am just asking you to fill in a gaping hole in your reasoning so that I can deal with an actual position.
>>899347
This is closer to what I was looking for.
The issue with your claim here now is that you have admited that quantum mechanics, so to be the better model, must account for what goes on in our prima facie view of reality as well as accounting for more. Your claim was that quantum mechanics contradicts Aquinas' argument insofar as causality breaks down at the quantum level.>>896647
But Aquinas' argument only requires that a chain of causation exists somewhere in the world- not that all phenomena is caused, since "all phenomena is caused" is not a premise in the argument. Causation does exist on the macro level- so how can quantum physics refute Aquinas' arguments if it can actually account for causation ?, which it would have to so to be the better model, since you have to be able to account for that set of data as well to be the better model.
Isn't the idea of single causes for things a gross simplification? In reality nothing is caused, everything is a process feeding from and flowing into innumerable other processes. To point at causes as distinct things is pretty kindergarten-tier.
>>899276
Go on "believing" things you can't even define or explain because you have to think by committee.
>>899347
Then why should I care about your experience of experimenting, what measurement did you make and experiment did you do that says the only way of validating truth is by experimental measurement?
>>900192
Why not just take the designer out of the equation and make that statement about the universe as it being that which is and always will be?
>>902186
That image really bothers me for some reason and I do not know why
>>884969
The designers hypothesis is invalid because it does not solve the original problem that is the complexity of the universe. Since the creator interacts with the universe, then he MUST be part of the universe. Complex beings cannot come from nowhere so therefore the argument is moot. Saying that the universe is designed by a creator is equivalent to saying that the universe was complex in the first place.
>>903059
Only if you presume that the designer has form.
Since infinity and zero interacts with the set of positive real numbers, infinity and zero must be positive real numbers, right?
Saying the universe is infinite is the same thing as saying the universe if pretty big, right?
