|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology | |||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
But at LEAST it would be an *explanation*. God-did-it is only an explanation if you have a working definition of the word "God." Otherwise, it's essentially shrugging and saying, "This... thing did it. This big cosmic thing. Yeah." Or, rephrased slightly, "I have absolutely no idea." "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
But it isn't always a kind of gap-filler, you might postulate that the whole she-bang was intentionally created with a purpose and it is exactly as it was designed to be. Still seems like a gap-filler to me; an explanation that fails to explain who, what, when, where, why, and how doesn't actually manage to explain much. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
well we'd have the "what" Again, not without a working definition of the word "God." The only thing you have a "what" for is the universe, which we already know is here. 'Cuz... y'know. *waves hand outward* Check it out.
You are right but it does sit as a possible explanation, a very empty one perhaps but still. No, it really doesn't. Because it's not a "very empty one," it's a completely empty one. The word is totally undefined. You might as well say, "Fhqwhgads did it."
We could proceed to investiage on that basis, attempt to falsify etc.. Investigate and falsify what, exactly? "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The "what" would be the universe. As I said... already known, and therefore not explained by the non-explanation.
You guys always bring God into it. I think that when discussing "God did it" as an explanation, God is already in it. However, if you move the goalposts to "an intelligence with an intended purpose", you've clarified nothing. What intelligence? What intended purpose? What was the process of creation? Still a completely empty non-explanation.
Next you'll be telling me to repent bla bla. You do realize that I'm saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation, right?
Look at what Tusko posted - also valid explanations. Except for the part where they fail to actually explain anything, sure. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Well, you start with some theories (potential explanation) Great. Soon as we come across a theory that actually does some explaining, we'll be all set.
then look at the evidence and see if it supports it or goes against it. These scenarios DO fill that criteria. -- ie. they are potentially falsifiable. Marvelous. Please provide the evidence that supports them or goes against them, and explain how they can be falsified. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Well, lets take this one. Cool. Now perhaps you could take one that involves the undefined terms like "god" or "designer" or "creator" or what-have-you. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
LOL, oh I'm sorry - I didn't pick the one you wanted me to? You didn't pick the one that had any relevance to what we were talking about. You could also have falsfied the statement "bebotx1 doesn't have an answer, and is avoiding the subject," but it wouldn't have had anything to do with whether or not positing the existence of a god is a valid explanation. Y'know... like you said it was, in this post. (And several times since.) Edited by Dan Carroll, : for shits and giggles "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
That was quick - I thought you'd be on that site for hours. You sound so smart when you insist that I'm a jesus freak. Really, you should keep doing it. It makes you sound like a genius.
Actually - this post is talking about how AP is just a description of how things are and RD claiming it is some kind of explanation is nuts. Little hint about this newfangled "internet" thing... when a word looks like this, it's a link. If you click it, you can go read your exact words.
Yes of course if the earth was intentionally created it would be an explanation of why it was here. Are you gonna argue with that? Sure, even since you've qualified the fuck out of it. (I guess we can assume you know you were wrong with your first phrasing?) Saying the earth was intentionally created says nothing about what the intent was. Therefore, it doesn't explain why the Earth is here. It just says it is, which we already know. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Actually it was RD's alternative in the book (TGD) Wow, apparently you do need help reading your own words. When responding to the statement, "Positing the existence of a God doesn't actually help the matter one bit," you said, "but at LEAST it would be an *explanation*." You were very, very wrong.
Well maybe you'd find that out along the way. Great. Maybe along the way, it'll become a valid explanation. For now, it's meaningless. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Are you saying I'm lying about it being RD's point in the book. No. I'm saying that you said it, and now you're trying to pawn it off on someone else who also said it. That's really exceptionally cowardly.
And I'm sorry to have to tell you but yes, it would count as a valid explanation for it being there. What, exactly, was explained? Absolutely nothing. Not an explanation.
You can't just tack on extra conditions like intent and insist on them. I didn't tack on anything. You said, (damn, you're bad at remembering these things,) "Yes of course if the earth was intentionally created it would be an explanation of why it was here." You introduced the importance of intent, not me.
Are you saying unless you can show intent it's false? Nope. I'm saying, for about the fiftieth time, that unless you can actually define some terms, you aren't really saying anything. And not saying anything is not a valid explanation. Every "explanation" you've offered up so far amounts to: something, somewhere, at some point, did something somehow for some reason or another. And that's how the Earth came to be! Really, can't stress this enough... if nothing is explained, then no explanation has been given. Edited by Dan Carroll, : clarity "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024