Do you believe in God?

[UKMikey]

Go ahead.

 

[Exorcet]

Sure, SOME things can come together in a few billion years, but honestly, for the level of complexity we live in there hasn't been enough time for THIS level of complexity.

How much time could you possibly want? The Sun and the solar system didn't form right after the big bang, there were generations and generations of stars that formed previously, forming billions upon billions of planets. So many planets that even if life has 0.00000000000000001% chance of happening randomly the chance of it happening somewhere in the universe is probably around 1.

And how are you classifying complexity? What level of complexity is the universe and how do you know how long it takes to reach such a state naturally?

 

[Famine]

Sure, SOME things can come together in a few billion years, but honestly, for the level of complexity we live in there hasn't been enough time for THIS level of complexity.

I don't think you appreciate just how insanely large "a few billion years" really is. Billions are just hopelessly enormous numbers.

 

[Danoff]

Go ahead.

Gravitational force (among other kinds of forces) is a force which attracts matter to other matter. This means that you should expect to find matter clumped together into local pockets where matter was close enough for this force to act, and that you would expect to find regions of emptiness where these clumps cleared out the matter between them. Over time, configurations where matter is clumped together are selected for by gravity over configurations where matter is spread out evenly. Our solar system started out as blanket of matter which coalesced into our star and the planets at random under the constant selection of gravity favoring matter clumps over uniform matter distribution. The same is true of all stars and all solar systems.

All you need is a selecting force, such as gravity, acting consistently to prefer a configuration (such as clumping), and over time you will see that the result is that what was previously random is organized into configurations which are stable within that environment.

To jump to the chase, natural selection performs in much the same way. Matter which is good at replicating (DNA) arises more consistently and stably than matter which is not or does not. We have cyclical systems which stably replicate themselves from other states - like the water cycle or the rock cycle. But if the molecule can replicate directly (like DNA) that is a recipe for spread of that configuration across time. The best replicators (these are species) are what you would expect to see persist (this is natural selection).

 

[MatskiMonk]

As my old Physics lecturer used to say, the Big G in F=G·m1·m2/r² doesn't stand for God.



He also used to say "For ***' sake Matthew, are you ever going to hand in any coursework"... so it's possible I've got the equation wrong.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because given the time the universe has existed as we know it, or as our understanding of it allows us to know it, the way it 'exists' seems much more plausable to have come about by random occurrence over a time scale of almost 14 billion years, rather than by any kind of design/inteligence.

I don't really see it as any more or less plausible than an intelligent entity being behind it all.

Note this intelligent being could be evil, neutral, deserving of worship etc.

We can't even be sure enough to disprove the five-minute hypothesis....

 

[Famine]

I don't really see it as any more or less plausible than an intelligent entity being behind it all.

Note this intelligent being could be evil, neutral, deserving of worship etc.

And apparently self-creating.

Using a being to explain the organisation of the universe just kicks the can down the road; whence did the organisation of the universe required to create such a being come?

 

[Ghost Lap]

Gravitational force (among other kinds of forces) is a force which attracts matter to other matter. This means that you should expect to find matter clumped together into local pockets where matter was close enough for this force to act, and that you would expect to find regions of emptiness where these clumps cleared out the matter between them. Over time, configurations where matter is clumped together are selected for by gravity over configurations where matter is spread out evenly. Our solar system started out as blanket of matter which coalesced into our star and the planets at random under the constant selection of gravity favoring matter clumps over uniform matter distribution. The same is true of all stars and all solar systems.

All you need is a selecting force, such as gravity, acting consistently to prefer a configuration (such as clumping), and over time you will see that the result is that what was previously random is organized into configurations which are stable within that environment.

To jump to the chase, natural selection performs in much the same way. Matter which is good at replicating (DNA) arises more consistently and stably than matter which is not or does not. We have cyclical systems which stably replicate themselves from other states - like the water cycle or the rock cycle. But if the molecule can replicate directly (like DNA) that is a recipe for spread of that configuration across time. The best replicators (these are species) are what you would expect to see persist (this is natural selection).

So you do agree that there must be some kind of underlying force or forces (in this particular case that being gravity) which fundamentally drives the universe and propels it to be in a state of continual evolution?

Same case with "natural selection", DNA molecules may replicate, but don't you think that there must be some force of nature that is driving this process to begin with. Much like with a computer, it has all the machinery and components within it necessary for it to carry out it's job, but without the essential driving force of electricity behind it, it ain't doing diddly squat.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And apparently self-creating.

Using a being to explain the organisation of the universe just kicks the can down the road; whence did the organisation of the universe required to create such a being come?

No idea.

And that's the frustrating thing about the origins of the universe, and if anything is behind its minute by minute processes.

There are so many unanswerables, and this is just another one. Logically, it's impossible to conclude the probability of "something more" existing that is beyond our understanding is 0.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't really see it as any more or less plausible than an intelligent entity being behind it all.

Note this intelligent being could be evil, neutral, deserving of worship etc.

We can't even be sure enough to disprove the five-minute hypothesis....

Adding an over-seeing intelligence into the equation is just adding another unnecessary level of complexity. What is it about the universe that we don't already have workable explanations for via our knowledge of maths/physics that shouts out 'there must be an intelligence behind that'?

 

[Liquid]

Adding an over-seeing intelligence into the equation is just adding another unnecessary level of complexity. What is it about the universe that we don't already have workable explanations for via our knowledge of maths/physics that shouts out 'there must be an intelligence behind that'?

And to reference the god of the gaps fallacy, if we have been able to fill in gaps in the tapestry of knowledge that were previously attributed to "god", why does that fallacy persist?

The filling in of the god of the gaps is like a fast-approaching deadline or a room with walls closing in. It seems extra strange to me that the gap fallacy can be largely filled in yet some choose to hold on to the notion that after one gap is explained, this next gap can't be explained, therefore god does exist; a textbook case of moving the goalposts. How much more needs to be explained until you get the message?

 

[Famine]

No idea.

Yet you say that you don't see this extra step, introduced for no reason, "as any more or less plausible" than not having it.

It is fundamentally less plausible to have an unimaginably high-level being creating all that we see today because you need an extra explanation of what processes created the unimaginably high-level being in order that they can then create all that we can see today. If "a few billion years" aren't enough for natural processes to result in this (which, of course, they are), why would they be enough to put more steps in the way of that?

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", as the saying goes. And rarely is it more unnecessary than shoving one in to explain the origins of the universe and creating the additional issue of explaining their origins.

 

[UKMikey]

"It's turtles all the way down."

 

[Danoff]

So you do agree that there must be some kind of underlying force or forces (in this particular case that being gravity) which fundamentally drives the universe and propels it to be in a state of continual evolution?

I agree that gravity exists? Yes. That's what I said to you.

Same case with "natural selection", DNA molecules may replicate, but don't you think that there must be some force of nature that is driving this process to begin with.

Yes. Chemical bonding forces (electromagnetism).

Much like with a computer, it has all the machinery and components within it necessary for it to carry out it's job, but without the essential driving force of electricity behind it, it ain't doing diddly squat.

Yes, electromagnetic force exists.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yet you say that you don't see this extra step, introduced for no reason, "as any more or less plausible" than not having it.

It is fundamentally less plausible to have an unimaginably high-level being creating all that we see today because you need an extra explanation of what processes created the unimaginably high-level being in order that they can then create all that we can see today. If "a few billion years" aren't enough for natural processes to result in this (which, of course, they are), why would they be enough to put more steps in the way of that?

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", as the saying goes. And rarely is it more unnecessary than shoving one in to explain the origins of the universe and creating the additional issue of explaining their origins.

Adding an over-seeing intelligence into the equation is just adding another unnecessary level of complexity. What is it about the universe that we don't already have workable explanations for via our knowledge of maths/physics that shouts out 'there must be an intelligence behind that'?

The reason is down to extreme skepticism.

If I can't know you're real, or anything outside my "consciousness" is real, when does any answer become satisfactory, especially one that seeks to explain the universe.

Logically, we can only be sure of our own existence.

 

[Danoff]

Logically, we can only be sure of our own existence.

There are many things you can't know for sure. And many things which are non-falsifiable. The idea that you're in the matrix is non-falsifiable. You have the evidence of the universe in front of you, and you really have very little choice but to proceed according to what you've been presented.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There are many things you can't know for sure. And many things which are non-falsifiable. The idea that you're in the matrix is non-falsifiable. You have the evidence of the universe in front of you, and you really have very little choice but to proceed according to what you've been presented.

So I'll detail two experiences I had that made me question "reality" (I can't think of another appropriate word)

I was delivering something to an address I'd never heard of or been to previously, and before I got to the door I had a thought of an ex-girlfriend who came from Granada. Walking up to the door I see a sticker on it referencing Andalusia.

Is that just a coincidence?

Few days later I'm walking down another road and I start thinking about my readiness for a crash call, should I ever be involved in one again. Immediately after I have this thought I see a car with "CPR" in its registration.

Another coincidence?

These sorts of events happen frequently, and it feels lazy to put it down to chance and move on.

 

[Northstar]

So I'll detail two experiences I had that made me question "reality" (I can't think of another appropriate word)

I was delivering something to an address I'd never heard of or been to previously, and before I got to the door I had a thought of an ex-girlfriend who came from Granada. Walking up to the door I see a sticker on it referencing Andalusia.

Is that just a coincidence?

Few days later I'm walking down another road and I start thinking about my readiness for a crash call, should I ever be involved in one again. Immediately after I have this thought I see a car with "CPR" in its registration.

Another coincidence?

These sorts of events happen frequently, and it feels lazy to put it down to chance and move on.

Yes, both are indeed coincidences. You had been thinking about them so your mind was already focusing on the subject so you were more aware when something related to your thoughts happened.

Now if your ex had answered the door and a bad car accident happened right in front of you, that would be a bit harder to write off.

 

[Danoff]

So I'll detail two experiences I had that made me question "reality" (I can't think of another appropriate word)

I was delivering something to an address I'd never heard of or been to previously, and before I got to the door I had a thought of an ex-girlfriend who came from Granada. Walking up to the door I see a sticker on it referencing Andalusia.

Is that just a coincidence?

Few days later I'm walking down another road and I start thinking about my readiness for a crash call, should I ever be involved in one again. Immediately after I have this thought I see a car with "CPR" in its registration.

Another coincidence?

These sorts of events happen frequently, and it feels lazy to put it down to chance and move on.

Your mind is performing pattern recognition. It's wired by evolution to do that unconsciously and constantly. It's why we see Elton John's face in burnt toast.

There are probably 10,000 coincidental patterns like this per day. Your mind discovered a few of them and pointed them out to you. For example, you might have been thinking about a certain person and they happened to drive through an intersection you were waiting at going the other way. You never knew, because you didn't notice. You might have been at a cocktail party discussing a particular event, and someone at the other end of the room had just experienced something very similar, and yet you never knew because you weren't close enough. You might have been on the exact same flight with someone you know but never saw them and neither of you knew.

You would quite possibly have not paid any attention to a license plate with CPR on it if you hadn't been thinking about crash readiness. But because it was on your mind, your brain was looking for similar patterns. Or maybe you would have, but you'd have thought very little about it except that your mind pulled a recent experience that was related and tried to establish a correlation. There are many experiences you could have linked with a CPR plate. Maybe a childhood event where you saw CPR performed. Maybe remembering meeting someone at CPR training. There are probably 10,000 in your own lifetime that would have made a great pattern for your brain to latch on to when you saw that plate. And you're probably not the only person that whose brain got triggered by that particular plate. It drives around a lot, with tons of people seeing it and thinking "that's interesting". The owner of that car probably thinks it's a great plate that is easy to remember. And is well aware that it gets noticed by others, and probably gets quite a few comments about it in parking lots.

"Hey did you see that plate ending in 23X? That's so funny because I was just thinking about sex".

What's the alternative here? That some kind of intelligent programming just wanted you to see something on a license plate or door sticker that spooked you out for some reason? Someone is trying to send you a signal of some kind? The fact that your mind is wired to link patterns seems SLIGHTLY more likely.

If you have millions of experiences in a day, a 1 in a million chance is going to happen daily.

 

[Famine]

The reason is down to extreme skepticism.

If I can't know you're real, or anything outside my "consciousness" is real, when does any answer become satisfactory, especially one that seeks to explain the universe.

Logically, we can only be sure of our own existence.

Solipsism doesn't make a creator more likely or an equally logical concept as no creator; the creator still needs to have come from somewhere and you're right back to square one.

There is no logical approach that results in "someone or something created all of this" because you still need to explain what created them.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Is that just a coincidence?

Yes. You disregard hundreds and thousands of images, words, snippets, visual cues that DON'T remind you of anything and don't relate to you in any way everyday, on the odd occasion chance intersects with meaning, you think it's special.

edit: tree'd more expansively by Danoff.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. You disregard hundreds and thousands of images, words, snippets, visual cues that DON'T remind you of anything and don't relate to you in any way everyday, on the odd occasion chance intersects with meaning, you think it's special.

edit: tree'd more expansively by Danoff.

Your post was more efficient.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What's the alternative here? That some kind of intelligent programming just wanted you to see something on a license plate or door sticker that spooked you out for some reason? Someone is trying to send you a signal of some kind? The fact that your mind is wired to link patterns seems SLIGHTLY more likely.

Those would be "thoughts of reference". I'm not sure where the line is in thinking there's something more to the universe and that it's not indifferent to you, and a pathological, psychotic state.

Combining this with other experiences (some I've outlined here before) means I'm not as dismissive as I used to be.

Imagine getting predictions like this right, multiple times in your life:

Solipsism doesn't make a creator more likely or an equally logical concept as no creator; the creator still needs to have come from somewhere and you're right back to square one.

There is no logical approach that results in "someone or something created all of this" because you still need to explain what created them.

Sure makes it easier to live with.

If you're the only being you can be sure of existing, and you subscribe to it, then why would anything before your existence have happened.

 

[Danoff]

Those would be "thoughts of reference". I'm not sure where the line is in thinking there's something more to the universe and that it's not indifferent to you, and a pathological, psychotic state.

Combining this with other experiences (some I've outlined here before) means I'm not as dismissive as I used to be.

Imagine getting predictions like this right, multiple times in your life:

That doesn't seem that unlikely actually. A lot of that stuff is predictable given the situation at hand (batting stance, pitcher stats, batter stats). Sprinkle in a little luck, and then some generosity (it came close to the second deck so we'll give you that), and you have the makings of some fun.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Imagine getting predictions like this right, multiple times in your life:

Low probability outcomes occur occasionally... clue's in the name.

So what, God is the extremities of a sports book Bell Curve now?

 

[Famine]

Sure makes it easier to live with.

Which is also nothing to do with logic.

 

[Exorcet]

Imagine getting predictions like this right, multiple times in your life:

Violet Jessop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wenman Wykeham-Musgrave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Richard Lustig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cornfield Bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tsutomu Yamaguchi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roll enough dice and you'll get 100 of the same number in a row.

 

[Liquid]

Violet Jessop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wenman Wykeham-Musgrave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Richard Lustig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cornfield Bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tsutomu Yamaguchi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roll enough dice and you'll get 100 of the same number in a row.

Add this guy to the list:

Roy Sullivan

 

[HenrySwanson]

That doesn't seem that unlikely actually. A lot of that stuff is predictable given the situation at hand (batting stance, pitcher stats, batter stats). Sprinkle in a little luck, and then some generosity (it came close to the second deck so we'll give you that), and you have the makings of some fun.

Hmmm, here's the full report of exactly what he predicted pre-game:

Blowers went with M’s infielder Matt Tuiasosopo, then went so far as to predict Tui’s first big league home run, the count that the home run would be hit on (3-1), the pitcher that the home run would be hit off of (Blue Jays starter Brian Tallet), the at-bat that the home run would be hit in (second), the pitch that the home run would come off of (fastball), and the location of the home run (left-center field).

Which is also nothing to do with logic.

Say you encounter enough experiences that resemble what happens to the protagonist in 1408, only they're less overtly paranormal.

What would be the threshold for when you logically conclude there's more to the universe than random chance occurrences.

EDIT: The latest "WTF" moment for me was something* telling me to be prepared to help someone, and then not a minute later a van had a tyre blowout on the motorway and almost lost control at ~60mph. It's been the only time I've seen a blowout at high speed other than during motor races.

* It wasn't a voice - rather just my thoughts.

Violet Jessop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wenman Wykeham-Musgrave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Richard Lustig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cornfield Bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tsutomu Yamaguchi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roll enough dice and you'll get 100 of the same number in a row.

I wonder what their outlook on the universe was after their experiences.

There is no logical approach that results in "someone or something created all of this" because you still need to explain what created them.

I don't see why you'd need to explain "their" creation.

"They" could be bound by laws that we couldn't possibly understand. We may not even have access to that world if this universe turned out to be a simulation.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't see why you'd need to explain "their" creation.

"They" could be bound by laws that we couldn't possibly understand. We may not even have access to that world if this universe turned out to be a simulation

This smacks of a "mysterious ways"-style copout to me.

If it could be absolutely proved that this universe was a simulation or a fictional construct, I'm sure you have seen it'd only intensify our desire to discover who or what created it, why and where they came from.

I'm not surprised Russell's teapot was "created" (or, more properly, conceived) as a response to this kind of endless what-if speculation.