Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation?

What have been and what are the consequences and ramifications for Wilbur Boneman, by way of the realization, the knowledge, that there may be no Prime Cause and thus no rhyme or reason to anything, and certainly to Mr. Boneman?

I assume that you are of the opinion that the physics-understandings of the Universe undermines any and all teleological stories or suppositions and, as a result, that all Meanings are concoctions, inventions, supports or perhaps ‘tools of compensation’. And what of that, Wilbur?

Wilbur Boneman “gazes into the abyss” and — what does he see?

Oh God! Oh God! it just became clear: This, this forum, this endless mindless circular and ETERNAL bickering is the result!

My destiny, the result of some random, meaningless particle clinamen is to be stuck in an Eternal Loop with people who I must live with but can’t. Who produce only nausea. You know, L’infer c’est les autres, that sort of thing.

I wonder if “the death of God” when understood as ”murder most foul” can be linked to Hamlet’s predicament? Or is it only Alexis Jacobi — far truer philosopher! — who has discerned the Real Meaning and the Deepest Meaning here?

[Will Bouwman]

Well, that takes care of the idea that the "might" of quantum theory presents any "challenge" to the very observable fact of causality, I would say.

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation?

Well, I suppose you'd begin by providing the evidence for this "quantum fluctuation" having taken place, and add the evidence for it being "uncaused," estimate the likelihood of that "maybe" evidence, however strong or weak it is, being decisive, and you'll be able the estimate the likelihood of that being the explanation.

That's a no then. Good; so we agree that any argument which includes a premise that assumes a particular uncaused cause is unsound.

[Will Bouwman]

I assume that you are of the opinion that the physics-understandings of the Universe undermines any and all teleological stories or suppositions and, as a result, that all Meanings are concoctions, inventions, supports or perhaps ‘tools of compensation’. And what of that, Wilbur?

Gus, if you could only pay attention, you would not assume any such thing. Physics, in its current iteration, is divorced from meaning, in my view. Physics does it observing, measuring and hypothesising thing, leaving us to discover meaning wherever we perceive it. The scale of people who only experience meaning vicariously ranges from mad to mad, with shades of tragic and comic filling the in between.

...is it only Alexis Jacobi — far truer philosopher! — who has discerned the Real Meaning and the Deepest Meaning here?

That would be a plot twist.

[Immanuel Can]

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation?

Well, I suppose you'd begin by providing the evidence for this "quantum fluctuation" having taken place, and add the evidence for it being "uncaused," estimate the likelihood of that "maybe" evidence, however strong or weak it is, being decisive, and you'll be able the estimate the likelihood of that being the explanation.

That's a no then. Good; so we agree that any argument which includes a premise that assumes a particular uncaused cause is unsound.

So...you didn't read what I said. Okay. You don't have to.

[Fanman]

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence for God from people's experiences, whereby rare or extraordinary events are reduced to coincidence. However, at what point does coincidence become falsifiable? There’s no humanly formulated explanation that can coherently be treated as inherently unfalsifiable, because people are fallible. That’s why the scientific method forbids it. An a priori truth (or a given) may be unfalsifiable, but why would coincidence be a priori?

[Immanuel Can]

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence for God from people's experiences, whereby rare or extraordinary events are reduced to coincidence.

Sure. But what about the scientific and rational evidence? How come skeptics never seem to remember all that?

Answer: because they don't want to. It messes up the narrative they're telling themselves, that it's all imaginary. So it makes them very unhappy to think they have to deal with the evidence.

It's just easier to declare there is none, and walk off the field before anybody responds.

[Fanman]

The problem is that you cannot apply a quantitative system to a qualitative event and then claim that the quantitative data proves a coincidence. They are different categories. Do we use rulers to measure how good books are?

[seeds]

...is it only Alexis Jacobi — far truer philosopher! — who has discerned the Real Meaning and the Deepest Meaning here?

That would be a plot twist.

There are innumerable legendary fables (porkies) inscribed upon the interior wall ("film") of the tiny bubble of reality that encases our esteemed Lord Alexis' inner being.

However, none of those fables can match the sheer chimerical (phantasmagorical) structure of the one created by the owner of the bubble himself in which he falsely imagines himself as being a "...far truer philosopher..." who...

(after years of navel-gazing)

...may have discerned the "...Real and the Deepest Meaning..." of things being discussed in this thread.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

(Continued from prior post)

The owner of that tiny bubble of reality mentioned in the prior post (Little Lord Alexis) will of course insist that if only the other bubble owners...

(of which there could be a near infinite number of such beings existing on the other side of the “film” of Lord Alexis’ bubble)

...could see the array of fables that he has amassed and inscribed on the inner film of his bubble, then not only would they understand the deepest truths of reality as discerned by Little Lord Alexis,...

...but, more importantly,...

...they would understand why he is a Trump (or Trumpism) supporter.

Ah, but dang it all, ^^there’s^^ the problem.

The Lord Alexis,...

(who seems to be an "anosmiac" who has lost all sense of smell)

...has done gone and stunk-up the innards of his bubble with the disgusting aroma of Trumpism.

And thus, anyone invited in to read the inscriptions on the inner film of his bubble cannot last more than two or three minutes immersed in Trump’s stench.

In which case, they have no choice but to run for the exit, gasping for fresh air while lost in wonderment as to how the Lord manages to exist in such a vile and hellish realm.

The Lord will of course insist that if the visitor would simply endure the smell and read the inscriptions, they will understand.

But what the Lord Alexis cannot seem to fathom is that everything anyone needs to know about the value and worth of his fable-filled bubble is immediately imparted to a visitor once they catch the first whiff of the Trumpian stench.
_______

[Fanman]

Continued from my previous posts.

All three of the AI models that I use — Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and ChatGPT — independently recognised my previous two posts as correct. I'm not saying that confirms my statements are correct, but it does add epistemic significance to the statements. This subject has traction; there's no escaping it. It certainly isn't a coincidence.

[FlashDangerpants]

All three of the AI models that I use — Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and ChatGPT — independently recognised my previous two posts as correct.

There are no humans who give a f***.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is that you cannot apply a quantitative system to a qualitative event and then claim that the quantitative data proves a coincidence. They are different categories. Do we use rulers to measure how good books are?

I'm not talking about a "qualitative event." I'm talking about quantitative, empirical data and facts. There's actually plenty of evidence from both. How come the skeptics never admit they know that...or else remain ignorant of it? How do they manage that?

[Fanman]

For the neutral reader, regarding the users: Immanuel Can and FlashDangerPants. I have added both of them to my ignore list because, without hubris, I find their posts to me are not consistent and coherent enough to warrant a response. IC is not directly insulting, but Flash is heavily so, making him a detractor — he attacks the user on every level he can think of — but when the rubber hit the road, he used the very thing he detracts from (AI) to try to make a salient point, which is a violation of his purported standard — with those factors in mind, which I believe are evident. I perceive that responding to either of them would not be conducive to coherence. Or, in other words, unwise.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, I suppose you'd begin by providing the evidence for this "quantum fluctuation" having taken place, and add the evidence for it being "uncaused," estimate the likelihood of that "maybe" evidence, however strong or weak it is, being decisive, and you'll be able the estimate the likelihood of that being the explanation.

That's a no then. Good; so we agree that any argument which includes a premise that assumes a particular uncaused cause is unsound.

So...you didn't read what I said. Okay. You don't have to.

Mr Can, if the likelihood of a quantum fluctuation being the cause of the universe is anything but nil, any argument that concludes anything other than a quantum fluctuation being the cause of the universe is unsound. You either agree with that, or you don't understand logic.

[FlashDangerpants]

but when the rubber hit the road, he used the very thing he detracts from (AI) to try to make a salient point, which is a violation of his purported standard

That's a lie. I simply fed your argument into an AI along with my response and asked if the AI said mine showed errors in yours. It said yes. To me that is unimportant because I don't need an AI to assess arguments for me. I wrote about the errors in your argument because they are obvious. But it is your methodology, and you have claimed it is important. You broke your own AI rules, that is all.

Almost nobody is here Fanman. This is a tiny dying forum cut off from Google SEO. Soon it will be gone. If you really want to spend time arguing with IC about religion, you need to get on with it. If you just want people to take you and your AI arguments seriously, you should alredy have left.