What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

This is relevant if your issue is drawing complexity from simplicity.

If drawing complexity from simplicity is an issue, is drawing simplicity from complexity an issue or a virtue?

[Galloism]

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

No, it doesn't.

Mmhmm.

I mean, I guess you could ignore the whole of the universe and pretend some sort of moral high ground (or low ground, if you will) on lack of faith, but that's not a terribly intellectual thing to do.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Lacking belief doesn't require any faith. Suggesting otherwise is, frankly, quite stupid.

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

Then you should find the idea that, instead of a sequence of events demonstrated to arise from the inherent properties from the universe and its components, the idea that all such complexity was created ex nihlo by a being capable of creating universes even more unacceptable, as it by definition cannot explain the cause of that complexity, only adding recursive elements.

If god causing the universe is more likely than the universe being caused by the big bang, then god being caused by minecraft steve using a sticky piston on the enderdragon egg is more likely than god being uncaused or selfcaused.

[Galloism]

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

How does a deity of some sort solve this problem ?

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

[Dyakovo]

How does a deity of some sort solve this problem ?

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

Just so you know, your bit about being an ancient being, while occasionally amusing is not actually true.

[The Alma Mater]

How does a deity of some sort solve this problem ?

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

So to make sense of the complexity of the universe, you posit the existence of something even more complex.
Is that not simply moving the problem instead of solving it ?

[Galloism]

It requires a tacit acceptance of a certain sequence of events or group of possible sequences that I find difficult to accept on faith.

Then you should find the idea that, instead of a sequence of events demonstrated to arise from the inherent properties from the universe and its components, the idea that all such complexity was created ex nihlo by a being capable of creating universes even more unacceptable, as it by definition cannot explain the cause of that complexity, only adding recursive elements.

If god causing the universe is more likely than the universe being caused by the big bang, then god being caused by minecraft steve using a sticky piston on the enderdragon egg is more likely than god being uncaused or selfcaused.

I mean it's entirely possible that our universe is a science experiment taking place in another universe. That would make that scientist effectively a deity from our perspective.

Also keep in mind that causality is a function of our universe. It may or may not apply the same way outside of the universe/in other universes.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

How does a deity of some sort solve this problem ?

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

P[q] cannot possibly be greater than p[q and k] under any circumstances. God creating the unverse adds MORE complexity, see my above post.

#2: what? i do not know what this is referring to. Land before time? back to the future? Jesus: secret agent?

EDIT: other universes cannot interact with ours in any possible way. If it doesn't have the same properties as our universe, it doesn't exist. Such an intersection would either destroy both universes or merge them(destructively, likely) into a single universe with once more homogenous properties. But "other universes" is already a somewhat nonsensical, entirely unfounded claim.

[The Cole North Frontier]

My thoughts on Atheism?

Yes.

[Galloism]

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

So to make sense of the complexity of the universe, you posit the existence of something even more complex.
Is that not simply moving the problem instead of solving it ?

Not especially. We know our universe functions under certain laws.

Some of those laws have had their function explained while others haven't. I have no doubt we will eventually figure out the rest (no argument from ignorance here), but just because you understand a skyscraper's structure does not make it a natural structure (unless you count man-made structures as natural, but that wasn't how I was using the word and you know it).

However, in other universes, or outside of our universe, the laws we know here may have no application, or be different somehow.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

So to make sense of the complexity of the universe, you posit the existence of something even more complex.
Is that not simply moving the problem instead of solving it ?

Not especially. We know our universe functions under certain laws.

Some of those laws have had their function explained while others haven't. I have no doubt we will eventually figure out the rest (no argument from ignorance here), but just because you understand a skyscraper's structure does not make it a natural structure (unless you count man-made structures as natural, but that wasn't how I was using the word and you know it).

However, in other universes, or outside of our universe, the laws we know here may have no application, or be different somehow.

"outside the universe" does not make sense. Even if reality is a computer simulation, the real world outside the sim is part of the universe. Its properties apply to all of its component parts absolutely and without exception. If god created what we believe to be the universe, the acual universe is larger than we thought and includes god. How did that universe begin? If cause is an issue, you only made it bigger.

[Galloism]

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

P[q] cannot possibly be greater than p[q and k] under any circumstances. God creating the unverse adds MORE complexity, see my above post.

NSG: teaching us that negative numbers don't exist.

#2: what? i do not know what this is referring to. Land before time? back to the future? Jesus: secret agent?

I missed Jesus. I was in Rome. Drinking.

EDIT: other universes cannot interact with ours in any possible way. If it doesn't have the same properties as our universe, it doesn't exist. Such an intersection would either destroy both universes or merge them(destructively, likely) into a single universe with once more homogenous properties. But "other universes" is already a somewhat nonsensical, entirely unfounded claim.

I'm a big fan of the D-brane theory, and I am unconvinced that the universes cannot be bridged.

[Mavorpen]

So to make sense of the complexity of the universe, you posit the existence of something even more complex.
Is that not simply moving the problem instead of solving it ?

Not especially. We know our universe functions under certain laws.

Some of those laws have had their function explained while others haven't. I have no doubt we will eventually figure out the rest (no argument from ignorance here), but just because you understand a skyscraper's structure does not make it a natural structure (unless you count man-made structures as natural, but that wasn't how I was using the word and you know it).

However, in other universes, or outside of our universe, the laws we know here may have no application, or be different somehow.

I never understood why people believe announcing they aren't arguing from ignorance is enough to actually demonstrate that they aren't.

[WestRedMaple]

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Of course, I have the benefit of thousands of years of life experience to look back on. The mortals lack such hindsight.

So you lack a lack of faith......

[WestRedMaple]

True, but it would mean having to acknowledge that god was neither loving nor merciful

He could also really like war and fighting. Entering Valhalla after all also required you to die in glorious battle.

Arresting someone and executing them isn't really war or battle

[Avenio]

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

This, it should be noted, is what Douglas Adams called 'puddle thinking';

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

Err, ball of fire?

[WestRedMaple]

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

How would you propose to have less than zero?

[Galloism]

Not especially. We know our universe functions under certain laws.

Some of those laws have had their function explained while others haven't. I have no doubt we will eventually figure out the rest (no argument from ignorance here), but just because you understand a skyscraper's structure does not make it a natural structure (unless you count man-made structures as natural, but that wasn't how I was using the word and you know it).

However, in other universes, or outside of our universe, the laws we know here may have no application, or be different somehow.

"outside the universe" does not make sense. Even if reality is a computer simulation, the real world outside the sim is part of the universe. Its properties apply to all of its component parts absolutely and without exception. If god created what we believe to be the universe, the acual universe is larger than we thought and includes god. How did that universe begin? If cause is an issue, you only made it bigger.

Except our rules upon which everything we're discussing relies, in that scenario (not one I personally subscribe to, just was apropo to the post I responded to), only exist within the simulation.

The rules of the "actual universe", if you will, may be massively different.

[Mavorpen]

"outside the universe" does not make sense. Even if reality is a computer simulation, the real world outside the sim is part of the universe. Its properties apply to all of its component parts absolutely and without exception. If god created what we believe to be the universe, the acual universe is larger than we thought and includes god. How did that universe begin? If cause is an issue, you only made it bigger.

Except our rules upon which everything we're discussing relies, in that scenario (not one I personally subscribe to, just was apropo to the post I responded to), only exist within the simulation.

The rules of the "actual universe", if you will, may be massively different.

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

[Galloism]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

You guys keep claiming this.

[Mavorpen]

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

You guys keep claiming this.

I'm sure they would keep claiming 2+2=4 if people kept insisting it wasn't. That's kind of how responding to people works.

[Galloism]

Except our rules upon which everything we're discussing relies, in that scenario (not one I personally subscribe to, just was apropo to the post I responded to), only exist within the simulation.

The rules of the "actual universe", if you will, may be massively different.

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

I'm not. Not sure how you got that idea.

[WestRedMaple]

Well, for one, the overall organization of the universe makes more sense.

This, it should be noted, is what Douglas Adams called 'puddle thinking';

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

For the second one, as science has basically shown there is no natural method by which ancient man could have shot a ball of fire out the sky, which I personally observed, that leaves me with little other recourse.

Err, ball of fire?

Goodness gracious!

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

P[q] cannot possibly be greater than p[q and k] under any circumstances. God creating the unverse adds MORE complexity, see my above post.

NSG: teaching us that negative numbers don't exist.

#2: what? i do not know what this is referring to. Land before time? back to the future? Jesus: secret agent?

I missed Jesus. I was in Rome. Drinking.

EDIT: other universes cannot interact with ours in any possible way. If it doesn't have the same properties as our universe, it doesn't exist. Such an intersection would either destroy both universes or merge them(destructively, likely) into a single universe with once more homogenous properties. But "other universes" is already a somewhat nonsensical, entirely unfounded claim.

I'm a big fan of the D-brane theory, and I am unconvinced that the universes cannot be bridged.

No such thing as a negative probability. Adding a component reduces probability in all cases where the component is not true by definition, in which case the probability remains the same.

If you can bridge "universes", you actually exist in the same universe, just with some serious boundaries between some of its components. String, membrane, and multiverse theories posit "universes" that are actually just segregated components of a single universe.

[Zottistan]

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

This is relevant if your issue is drawing complexity from simplicity.

If drawing complexity from simplicity is an issue, is drawing simplicity from complexity an issue or a virtue?

The capacity to draw complexity from simplicity and the capacity to draw simplicity from complexity are both virtues. One is creative and the other investigative, though.