Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
538 online now:
nwr, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (4 members, 534 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,049 Year: 5,161/6,534 Month: 4/577 Week: 72/135 Day: 3/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 16 of 263 (317997)
06-05-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
05-31-2006 1:01 PM


Philophically, chance is every reason to say there IS no designer..

From a phsyics point of view, the universe is governed by probalities.. and is not deterministic. This was shown with a number of experiments.

Nope.. no need for a designer, unless you already assume a designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 05-31-2006 1:01 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 06-05-2006 7:17 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 07-09-2015 6:52 AM ramoss has taken no action
 Message 144 by Phat, posted 07-22-2016 5:38 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 17 of 263 (317998)
06-05-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
06-05-2006 1:44 PM


Let's see.. a designer needed to design the designer.. which needed a designer to design it.. which needed a designer to design it.

It's turtles,all the way down.

Unless, you want to get into the logical fallacy for a 'special pleading' for the existance of the 'first designer'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:40 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 8:24 AM ramoss has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 18 of 263 (318101)
06-05-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sidelined
06-05-2006 2:53 PM


sidelined writes:

Creation in a world outside of time has no meaning.God is outside of time,therefore, God creating the world can have no meaning.

Not at all. Time is part of the creation from a creator outside of time.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 2:53 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 10:58 PM GDR has taken no action
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 1:57 AM GDR has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 19 of 263 (318107)
06-05-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ramoss
06-05-2006 3:27 PM


From a phsyics point of view, the universe is governed by probalities.. and is not deterministic

I'd love to know who started this rumour as it is completely untrue...

Probabilities play a role in *observations* of the universe, but the universe itself is totally deterministic (as in our current understanding of the laws of phsyics show them to be completely deterministic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:27 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 8:07 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 31 by iano, posted 06-06-2006 9:13 AM cavediver has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 20 of 263 (318112)
06-05-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ramoss
06-05-2006 3:29 PM


ramoss writes:

Let's see.. a designer needed to design the designer.. which needed a designer to design it.. which needed a designer to design it.
It's turtles,all the way down.

Your argument seems to be that because we don't understand it can't be true. In my view that's a pretty weak argument.

Science has answered a great many questions about the workings of our universe but there is still a great deal that remains unanswered. To quote Lisa Randall, "we understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the univers than ever before".

Your view is every bit as much a faith issue as is mine.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:29 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 11:01 PM GDR has replied

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 21 of 263 (318168)
06-05-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:03 PM


That is the fun thing about having no evidence. You make any claim you want, and you can't be disproven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:03 PM GDR has taken no action

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 22 of 263 (318169)
06-05-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:40 PM


And your answer is 'We don't understand it, it must be God'.

We do understand a lot about the probablity and at least the description of the way QM works. I don't see a requirement of postulating an 'intelligent designer' to have 'designed' the rules, since that begs the question about where that intelligent designer came from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 11:21 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 23 of 263 (318177)
06-05-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
06-05-2006 11:01 PM


ramoss writes:

And your answer is 'We don't understand it, it must be God'.

I did not say that. All I'm saying is that we don't understand it so either is possible and either is a position of faith.

ramoss writes:

We do understand a lot about the probablity and at least the description of the way QM works. I don't see a requirement of postulating an 'intelligent designer' to have 'designed' the rules, since that begs the question about where that intelligent designer came from.

I have never suggested that from a scientific point of view that an intelligent designer is REQUIRED. With what limited knowledge I have of QM however I believe a designer is required but I have no proof for it. It is my opinion that there is a designer and apparently it is your opinion that there isn't. We disagree.

We are actually going off topic here. The wiz states that nothing could have happened by chance without something being put in place allowing for chance. I think he has a good point. Atheists like to say that the world evolved through random chance and natural selection. How could there be a chance for anything to happen without something putting the ball into play. (So to speak.)

Edited by GDR, : Edited to add the last para.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 11:01 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 24 of 263 (318192)
06-06-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:03 PM


GDR

Time is part of the creation from a creator outside of time.

Since actions require time in which to proceed pray tell how does God manage to do something without the time to do it in?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 06-06-2006 2:08 AM sidelined has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 25 of 263 (318194)
06-06-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by sidelined
06-06-2006 1:57 AM


Of course I can't answer that. It's like science at this point can't tell what happened at the instant of the BB. We don't have the mental capacity to comprehend an existance without time. I don't ever expect to prove the existance of God just as I contend that you will never be able to prove to me that there is no creator.

The question of this thread is how can the universe have begun by random chance and then natural selection. How can the possibility of the chance of anything exist without something creating the opportunity for any chance to be a possibility?


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 1:57 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ikabod, posted 06-06-2006 3:51 AM GDR has taken no action
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 11:28 AM GDR has taken no action

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3768 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 26 of 263 (318202)
06-06-2006 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
06-06-2006 2:08 AM


Chance does not need a oppertunity to be a possiblity ..
its always there ..

if you have nothing then the chance of there being a blue fish is 0% ..
the chance of there being nothing is 100%....

if the universe was just planet earth the the change of finding a blue fish 100% ( i know i have seen blue fishes )
the chance of there being nothing is 0%

Also chance is time locked .. .. the chance of England winning the world cup in 1966 is 100% ( cos its happened ) the chance os winnining in 1970 is 0% ,the chance in 2006 is hmm%

at time= "now" we can make a good chance calulation
at time="future" wecan make a chance calultaion but there are more uncertain factors( chances) so our calulation is less certain .
at time ="past<50 years" ( assuming we know our history accuratly) chance are fixed .
at time ="past>50years" our chance calutaion are dependant on how well explored the event is historically

no as to the chance of the universe satrting .. we do not know the condistions and so we can not calulate the chance ..

for all we know "nothing" is very unstable and the chance of a " big bang " event is 0.000000000000000000001%
But as we do not know the physical laws that govern nothing we can not predict .
But given that we are here we can say that the universe did start and the chance of the universe starting and producing us is 100% .. cos its happened ..

you do not need a outside agency to allow chance ..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 06-06-2006 2:08 AM GDR has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 10:11 AM ikabod has taken no action

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 27 of 263 (318221)
06-06-2006 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by cavediver
06-05-2006 7:17 PM



I'd love to know who started this rumour as it is completely untrue...

Karl Popper for one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 06-05-2006 7:17 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 06-06-2006 9:16 AM ramoss has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 263 (318224)
06-06-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ramoss
06-05-2006 3:29 PM


Let's see.. a designer needed to design the designer.. which needed a designer to design it.. which needed a designer to design it.
It's turtles,all the way down.

Unless, you want to get into the logical fallacy for a 'special pleading' for the existance of the 'first designer'.

As far as I can tell, you're in the same boat.

Infact the first mover is God, eternal, from a philosophical perspective.

Claiming it was chance would be;

chance = universe. Where did chance come from? From other matter? Where did that other matter come from? From chance?

If chance is eternal but God can't be then that's a double standard.

If chance isn't eternal then what caused the first thing?

So, in my opinion, it's far more difficult for the none-believer because essentially, you're not providing a philosophical reason for existence. All you can say is that chance influenced some kind of multiple big bang scenario.

PHILOSOPHICALLY, it seems impossible that anything other than God could be the first mover, as it answers, gives a good reason, and makes sense.

NOTE TO ALL: My claim was that there is enough to prove God philosophically, NOT scientifically. This thread is about the philosophy. My aim is to solve the problem philosophically, because science can't tell us.

i.e. It's not so much about claims and backing them up, as it is about giving good reasons. "Why" if you like, rather than "how".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:29 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 263 (318236)
06-06-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
06-05-2006 11:11 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
Percy's kind of right, but I would say that you are trying complicate things anyway with bizarre limite choices, rather than trying to understand and be open minded about a Theistic position.

If you wanted to understand, then you wouldn't say "answer A or B".

DO you really think that I believe that you don't know what I'm talking about when I say "chance"?

Can you please answer my question ?

I wasn't being purposefully ambigious, it's that the site had the same problem as me. That is, we were trying to define chance as randomness. My own description would be something like; the potential for random events AND randomness. My only avoidance is the circular definiton, hence my boredom with the semantics, and my concentration on the pragmatics.

I would further like you to substantiate your claim that anyone asserts that chance exists when absolutely nothing exists.

This isn't a strawman because the ones who assert that reality came about via multiple big bangs, or simply by chance, obviously REQUIRE chance to firstly exist independent of the universe, which as far as I know IS reality. As far as I know, chance is a product of the universe, the same as time and planets etc.

I am not saying that you now have to prove otherwise to my declarations, because if you didn't, that wouldn't mean I was correct anyway. That would be an AFI.

But rather, I am adressing the apparently atheistic universe people seem to easily assume is the case these days, without thinking about it.

Infact, it's only from a scientific and parsimonious perspective, that the universe seems atheist. Philosophically, the philosophers conclude God. Their reasoning, as far as I can see, is better, because the whole point is to provide good reasons/reasoning.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2006 11:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 9:01 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 30 of 263 (318241)
06-06-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 8:48 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
I don't think that asking for explanation is complicating matters. If the two options I suggest aren't what you mean then please explain what you DO mean.

quote:

If you wanted to understand, then you wouldn't say "answer A or B".


And I didn't say that.

quote:

DO you really think that I believe that you don't know what I'm talking about when I say "chance"?

I certainly hope so, because you claim that neither of the two interpretations I offered is correct !

quote:

I wasn't being purposefully ambigious, it's that the site had the same problem as me. That is, we were trying to define chance as randomness


That's the first definition I offered.

quote:

This isn't a strawman because the ones who assert that reality came about via multiple big bangs, or simply by chance, obviously REQUIRE chance to firstly exist independent of the universe, which as far as I know IS reality.

But if they beleive in some sort of reality prior to our universe, then it would be a strawman. As I understand it, Eternal Inflation and the Ekpyrotic Universe both appeal to some "pre-existing" reality where chance could operate.

The closest I can think of is the idea of a space of zero volume inflating to become a universe like ours - but even then we have something that is not "nothing" in the absolute sense that your argument would require.

quote:

Philosophically, the philosophers conclude God. Their reasoning, as far as I can see, is better.

That's SOME philosphers. Others conclude otherwise. And I've yet to see a good philosphical argument for the existence of a God (although the Ontological argument is a clever piece of sophistry).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 8:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 9:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022