Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

So did the universe come from something or nothing?

I don't know. Whaddya reckon?

If it's something then you necessarily believe in the supernatural.

Doesn't follow.

You reject ex nihilio..

As I said, it's one hypothesis. If you can't get your head around entertaining different hypotheses, it's no wonder you live in your mum's basement.

[Skepdick]

So did the universe come from something or nothing?

I don't know. Whaddya reckon?

That's impossible. Contradiction to Law of excluded middle. You are lying.

You don't know which of the only two options you believe? Do you lack insight into your own mind? It's not possible to do any science until you pick a side. Any side. There's nothing wrong with being wrong.

I already told you that I was happy to settle for the miracle hypothesis.

I would've gone for Ex Nihilio but I don't like a void in my head.
So, God did it.

Doesn't follow.

Correct. It doesn't follow - it precedes. It precedes nature.

If you believe in something which precedes nature then you are not an atheist.

As I said, it's one hypothesis. If you can't get your head around entertaining different hypotheses, it's no wonder you live in your mum's basement.

Idiot. If you believe in ANY hypothesis, even Ex Nihilio then you are NOT an atheist. Because you have taken a step over the "It's not even wrong" line.
If you want to be an atheist - keep maintaining your position of ignorance and keep saying "I don't know". Ignoramus.

On the balance of time-wasted-looking-for-an-answer the Ex Nihilio theory is best.
It's a fucking miracle. From infinitely complex time the universe emerges.

You are wasting your brain cycles attempting to reduce it back to a prior state. That's impossible. It's fun, but it's a total waste of time.
That is LITERALLY entropy working away at your memories. Wasting. Wasting. Wasting. A mind that could be used for something constructive. Instead you became a dumb contrarian philosopher.

The entire history won't fit in your head. Dumb reductionist. Confuses scientism for science.

[Will Bouwman]

I would've gone for Ex Nihilio but I don't like a void in my head.
So, God did it.

He can't have; you didn't see him do it:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

Too bad there's a void in your head where the idea that God didn't create the universe would sit comfortably.

[Skepdick]

I would've gone for Ex Nihilio but I don't like a void in my head.
So, God did it.

He can't have; you didn't see him do it:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

Ohhh, so you do think God fits the definition of "anybody"? You think god is a person ?!?

anybody
/ˈɛnɪˌbɒdi/
pronoun
any person or people; anyone.

Tell me more about your atheism.

Too bad there's a void in your head where the idea that God didn't create the universe would sit comfortably.

Ah well, you've made an entire carreer out of the void in your head.

Who am I to judge?

You don't like the label "Ex Nihilio".
You don't like the label "God".

I think I will just label you a fucking idiot.

[Gary Childress]

A little knowledge of science make a man an atheist, but an in depth study of science makes him a believer in God. -- Francis Bacon

I don't know if that statement by Bacon is the case or not. Maybe you could share what it is about science that causes one to deduce that all that is unexplained or unexplainable necessarily demonstrates that there is a "God" to "believe" in? Or is Bacon not being entirely straightforward in his remark (perhaps further context of the remark would help?)?

[Skepdick]

A little knowledge of science make a man an atheist, but an in depth study of science makes him a believer in God. -- Francis Bacon

I don't know if that statement by Bacon is the case or not. Maybe you could share what it is about science that causes one to deduce that all that is unexplained or unexplainable necessarily demonstrates that there is a God to "believe" in? Or is Bacon not being entirely straightforward in his remark (perhaps further context of the remark would help?)?

There's nothing to "believe in". It's just a placeholder to fill the epistemic void in your head.

What meaning you assign to that placeholder is entirely up to you. Go with Genesis if you want.

The meaning scientists assign to it is "irreducible time complexity". The entirety of history leading up to this instant in time.

Trying to "understand" it is a meaningless exercise. Which aspect of "it" are you trying to understand?

[Will Bouwman]

You don't like the label "Ex Nihilio".
You don't like the label "God".

I've nothing against either; they are just underdetermined hypotheses.

underdetermine
/ˌʌndədɪˈtəːmɪn/
verb
past tense: underdetermined; past participle: underdetermined
account for (a theory or phenomenon) with less than the amount of evidence needed for proof or certainty.
"most cosmological theories are underdetermined by the facts"

[Skepdick]

You don't like the label "Ex Nihilio".
You don't like the label "God".

I've nothing against either; they are just underdetermined hypotheses.

underdetermine
/ˌʌndədɪˈtəːmɪn/
verb
past tense: underdetermined; past participle: underdetermined
account for (a theory or phenomenon) with less than the amount of evidence needed for proof or certainty.
"most cosmological theories are underdetermined by the facts"

No they aren't.

Everything is overdetermined the moment you go over the "it's not even wrong" line. You are hallucinating.

If I am going to be making any errors, I'd much prefer to be the least costly error.

So Ex Nihilio works for me. Cheap. Easy. Free error. No time wasted.

You go and hallucinate with your philosopher friends. Imagining what could be. Pulling shit out of your ass.

What could be is the OTHER way. The future, not the past.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know if that statement by Bacon is the case or not. Maybe you could share what it is about science that causes one to deduce that all that is unexplained or unexplainable necessarily demonstrates that there is a God to "believe" in? Or is Bacon not being entirely straightforward in his remark (perhaps further context of the remark would help?)?

There's nothing to "believe in". It's just a placeholder to fill the epistemic void in your head.

What meaning you assign to that placeholder is entirely up to you. Go with Genesis if you want.

The meaning scientists assign to it is "irreducible time complexity". The entirety of history leading up to this instant in time.

Trying to "understand" it is a meaningless exercise. Which aspect of "it" are you trying to understand?

It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of what is. I mean, if there is a God, and it's the Genesis God, then there's not much I can do about it. I would hope there's a better God out there (one that doesn't kill people for displeasing him or her and send them to hell afterward for no other reason than not believing Christ is God) but if that's what's out there then that's what's out there and I'm effectively screwed in the end because I don't believe Christ = "creator" of all that is any more than I believe that Socrates was the "creator" or all that is.

My personal take is that it's really not knowable what is out there when it comes to what is "beyond" what I call "reality". And "take your pick" isn't the right answer to "I don't know".

Of course, I'm diagnosed with "mental illness" so maybe this is all "delusional" thinking on my part. If it is, then call me "deluded" if that's the case.

[Will Bouwman]

"most cosmological theories are underdetermined by the facts"

No they aren't.

That's news to me. So which cosmological theory is determined by the facts?

Everything is overdetermined the moment you go over the "it's not even wrong" line.

That is not even wrong.

You are hallucinating.

That is an underdetermined hypothesis.

[Will Bouwman]

My personal take is that it's really not knowable what is out there when it comes to what is "beyond" what I call "reality". And "take your pick" isn't the right answer to "I don't know".

Quite right too.

[Skepdick]

"most cosmological theories are underdetermined by the facts"

No they aren't.

That's news to me. So which cosmological theory is determined by the facts?

It's also news to me that if a theory is not underdetermined then it's determined.

There's the underdetermined theories.
There's THE determined theory. The theory of everything. The one we'll never get to.
There's the overdetermined theories.

Everything is overdetermined the moment you go over the "it's not even wrong" line.

That is not even wrong.

It's not even right. Because it's all hallucination.

You are hallucinating.

That is an underdetermined hypothesis.

I thought we were talking about cosmological hypotheses. Are you insisting your mind is the cosmos or something?

[Will Bouwman]

No they aren't.

That's news to me. So which cosmological theory is determined by the facts?

It's also news to me that if a theory is not underdetermined then it's determined.

There's the underdetermined theories.
There's THE determined theory. The theory of everything. The one we'll never get to.
There's the overdetermined theories.

Everything is overdetermined the moment you go over the "it's not even wrong" line.

That is not even wrong.

It's not even right. Because it's all hallucination.

You are hallucinating.

That is an underdetermined hypothesis.

I thought we were talking about cosmological hypotheses. Are you insisting your mind is the cosmos or something?

Waiting for the edits.

[Skepdick]

My personal take is that it's really not knowable what is out there when it comes to what is "beyond" what I call "reality". And "take your pick" isn't the right answer to "I don't know".

Quite right too.

Isn't that an underdetermined hypothesis?

How do you kow "reality" is the right thing to call it, and not "existence"? What if they are defined differently?

Surely the right answer is just "I don't know what to call it."?

Or is it one of those weeks where you just can't decide wherher to adhere to the law of identity or not?

[Skepdick]

I don't know if that statement by Bacon is the case or not. Maybe you could share what it is about science that causes one to deduce that all that is unexplained or unexplainable necessarily demonstrates that there is a God to "believe" in? Or is Bacon not being entirely straightforward in his remark (perhaps further context of the remark would help?)?

There's nothing to "believe in". It's just a placeholder to fill the epistemic void in your head.

What meaning you assign to that placeholder is entirely up to you. Go with Genesis if you want.

The meaning scientists assign to it is "irreducible time complexity". The entirety of history leading up to this instant in time.

Trying to "understand" it is a meaningless exercise. Which aspect of "it" are you trying to understand?

It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of what is. I mean, if there is a God, and it's the Genesis God, then there's not much I can do about it. I would hope there's a better God out there (one that doesn't kill people for displeasing him or her and send them to hell afterward for no other reason than not believing Christ is God) but if that's what's out there then that's what's out there and I'm effectively screwed in the end because I don't believe Christ = "creator" of all that is any more than I believe that Socrates was the "creator" or all that is.

My personal take is that it's really not knowable what is out there when it comes to what is "beyond" what I call "reality". And "take your pick" isn't the right answer to "I don't know".

Of course, I'm diagnosed with "mental illness" so maybe this is all "delusional" thinking on my part. If it is, then call me "deluded" if that's the case.

Gary, you are confusing the Biblical accounts of God for what the Christians actually call God.

Which is why I keep making the point. Trying to understand what the Christians call God through a book is like trying to taste lemonade through customer reviews.

Human language is 2nd hand account of experience.
Human language is NOT direct experience.

The language is missing ridiculous amounts of information that you would've obtained if you were actually drinking the lemonade.

So leave the denomination/religion out of the discussion, the idea in modern language/technical writings is called "irreducible complexity".
It's all of the formal sciences combined into complexity theory.

It's the exact same idea. Described in different words by Mathematicians and Scientists. Instead of a 2500 year old book.

None of the theory is going to help you understand the idea either. Because... lemonade.

You actually have to engage the idea and think about it in your own head. Let reason do the rest.