Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

You seem like a chap who enjoys discussions and debates. What are your basic beliefs and/or conclusions regarding the source of inspiration for humans? Do we make it ourselves through study and further sociological and technological advancement or is it given to us somehow through inspiration from another source? If so, what do you believe that source to be?

Yes, I understood that this was something you were claiming as a fact.My question is: How is this a fact?
Do you have any evidence to support this "fact?"
Do you have any evidence to support even the existence of "the Creators?" (Let alone that they can "only directly control strings.")My current understanding is that such evidence does not exist.
Therefore, there is no reason to posit that "the Creators" even exist.
Therefore - a lot of the problems with your ideas just disappear. I don't think it does show this.
I think that Man having a poor quality of life shows that Man evolved through an unguided process of descent with modification over hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.So - we agree on the fact that Man had a poor quality of life.My explanation of an unguided process of descent with modification has hundreds of years and thousands of scientists providing evidence and support for it.Your explanation of a Creator that did not care about Man has... no evidence at all?
No evidence that such a Creator even ever existed? Let alone anything about that Creator's feelings on the life of Man?So far, I am not persuaded to accept your position over the one I currently tentatively hold. 1. I don't even see why AI would be of any value to the Creators.
2. I don't even see that Creators exist at all in the first place.These are big problems with your ideas.
But - watch the problems disappear:"The Creators do not exist, and never did!"Viola! Problems are gone.
Now we don't have to think of a reason why Creators would want AI!
Now we don't have to think of anything that would be of value to the Creators - because they don't exist!

Creators exist because something had to create spacetime from nothing.

YES!!Absolutely we can.
In fact, "speculation" can be the first (optional) step to learning! I don't think the mind is mindlessness.
I think the mind is already very mindful - do you not think? Not 'think' as in 'agree with Stile'.... but 'think' as in 'have thoughts within your head.'Do you think? Do you have thoughts within your head?
If so - how can that be called "mindlessness?"If you are under the impression that a mindless process cannot create a mindful brain - I believe there are some scientific facts you should be made aware of. A visit to the local museum might be a great start. Feel free to ask questions to the people who work there, they can be very helpful.You do know that a tree that cannot-hold-water can go through a waterless-process in order to become a vessel that can hold water very well, right?
Properties of end results do have restraints.
But they are not restrained by some strange rule such as "the end result can only have properties that are present at all times during the creation of the result."If so, what would be the point of making anything?
If every end-product could only already have the characteristics present in the raw-materials... why go through the process of making the end-product if whatever-you're-looking-for is already present in the raw-materials?Such a strange, illogical notion that goes against so many everyday products.
It makes me wonder what sort of mind would so assumingly-accept the ability of a calculator to be more than just plastic and metal... but the same mind rejects the idea that a brain could be more than just carbon and oxygen.Useless things become useful things every day.
Many we create ourselves.
Many were created without our input.

But the idea that such a "something" has to be a Creator - a sentient, intelligent being of some sort - requires more evidence.Especially since as we learn more and more it's becoming more and more plausible that such a "something" could very well be unguided and non-intelligent (inanimate) itself.

That is fine. Please provide a link. I should not have to do my own research to confirm this statement. Also, it does not support your original assertion. Child mortality could have been much lower or much higher thousands of years ago. Your 60% seems to have no basis in factual data. 1800 was not thousands of years ago.I am not disputing that infant mortality was exceedingly high it is just your statement has no empirical data to support it. Also, what do you mean by thousands of years ago? Roman times? There is very little data for this in just looking doing some quick searches I have found estimates anywhere from 20-50%. Bronze age? Stone Age?There also seems to be some evidence that precontract native societies had a much lower child mortality rate than postcontact. Finally there is also a big difference between infant mortality and childhood mortality. So 43% is not the infant mortality rate(newborns) but childhood mortality rate.
Again, I do not disagree that infant and childhood mortality was much higher in the past. I have a problem with a specific number being given to a vague time period. Also, I have a problem with the extrapolation that if mortality was higher in 1800 it must have been much higher "thousands of years ago".
I want to see the data not hear assertions.

Says who?"Creator", in the idiom, denotes some kind of entity with will in control.The process that created this universe may be just that - a process. Some set of circumstances that may have had no choice but to manifest in this glorious spacetime without purpose or reason or meaning.

Now I remember why I left this forum. Goodbye.

Does it really? Or isn't that a reflection of our tendency to anthropomorphize? For example, I am thoroughly convinced that all Apple software has an attitude problem with me because I'm a retired software engineer who knows how computers work and how they should behave. Of course Apple software doesn't have any attitude problem (it was just written with a bias against anyone who knows anything about computers), yet we describe it in that manner. Similarly, we still speak of sunrise and sunset at the same time that we know that that's not what's actually happening (the world turns, you know).I'm seeing that as a fundamental problem. We normals try to use language to describe what we observe happening (AKA "reality"), while the fundies and creationists try to use language to change reality to fit their own whim, a form of word magick fit for lawyers and theologians.

I'll give you a personal data point. My mother's mother gave birth six times, but only two children survived. That was in the USA in the early 20th Century.

Please do not feel discouraged.Every statistical data point has some kind of causality behind it. The fundamental danger is in applying the wrong causality to that data point.To protect against applying wrong causalities, the scientific approach includes trying to weed out wrong causalities.In science and engineering, this is called "rigor". It is a necessary discipline which can be ... rigorous.You are being asked to be properly rigorous. That is no insult, but rather a basic requirement.

There was no intention of an attack on you. Without holding peoples feet to the fire and requiring support for statements, anyone can say anything or make any claim they want. Also, by asking for supporting data, it forces people to actually look at their preconceived ideas to see if they actually stand up to the scrutiny.
This is a thread in the science forum. Claims are not accepted on faith, but on data.
I am very sorry if you felt attacked. I would have requested the same from any other member. If you do not feel you should have to defend your claims, maybe this is not the correct forum for you. On the faith side of the forum there are not the same rigorous requirements for an argument.

It seems like our generation and our parents' generation were the only ones where large families were common. My grandfather had twelve children but several of his siblings died in childhood. His children had an average of four children each.

I tend to attribute that to Reagan's false meme of the "traditional nuclear family".Part of that was the higher rate of infant and young-child mortality. You had to pump out more babies to compensate for most of them dying off.The other part was pure economics which Reagan had ignored. The "traditional" nuclear family is instead an aberration created by the Industrial Revolution. Instead, the truly traditional family is the extended family of rural societies in which multiple generations and and aunts and uncles and even cousins all contributed to the survival of the family. It was largely moving to the city for the factory jobs that destroyed that support system. That happened in the USA in the 1930's, but in most countries in the world since WWII we've seen a shift from rural populations to large cities.In rural agrarian populations, large family sizes are advantageous as are extended families: all the more hands to help out. In urban industrial populations, large family sizes are just an extra burden to support (especially with child-labor laws, which I support) and extended families are not much help at all.

Come on FLRW.You started a nice thread with a good opening and feedback.A lot take exception to what you say then you take exception to what they say, mild insults ensue and we all have a good time throwing salt at each other.Yeah, OK, we're kinda loaded up with those science types (guilty as charged, your honor) who tell you you're nuts and here's why, but you can defend your stand, or at least die trying, and then go on to the next topic like nothing happened. Great fun.I hope you have looked over the rest of the topics and have seen the breadth of talent, opinion and philosophy represented in this community. Some off the wall stuff comes in here with their off the wall advocates and we love it. We may not show it, many prefer not to, but there is a reason we are all here; To laugh at the crazies and throw salt at 'em. And the 'em is each of us at some time or other since we all get a wee bit nuts about something or other. 'Cept me. I'm the sane one of the bunch.There are rules to keep things from getting too far out of hand but a good bout of verbal fisticuffs is a wondrous thing to behold and, well, to be a part of.Come back. Give us your best shots. We'll all jump up and down, sling insults and salt all over the internet then go fume and chuckle at the dinner table afterwords.Set a spell. Take your shoes off. Join us ... again.