Philosophy Now Forum

I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:57 pm You claim to “understand” why people resist your mysticism, but the truth is, people resist it because it collapses under scrutiny. It’s not a deeper truth—it’s a retreat into vagueness when precision threatens your worldview.

Mike, I regard you and this fAnTaSTiC shtick of yours as essentially flawed. You use rhetorical scientistic absolutisms as a bludgeon. But (I feel) you are externalizing an existential issue that you cannot surmount.

I suggest considering other points of view.

And maybe, just maybe! try to •wave your hands• a little!

(BTW those are all former students of my 14 Week Course Email Course. I freed them!).

Oh and — seriously — try to understand ramifications.

[No charge for this lesson],

Your ever well-wisher,

Sat-Guru of this Age, Mahatma Jacobi

My wife tells me that I have begun to spontaneously levitate.

Things are happening fast, people …

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm Skepdick, there’s no “magic” in negentropy—it’s just a system exporting disorder elsewhere while locally increasing order. There’s no bootstrapping problem; the second law of thermodynamics never states that all parts of a system must increase in entropy at once. Open systems, like life, take in energy and use it to reduce their own entropy while increasing the entropy of their surroundings.

I know all the same definitions you are parroting, bozo.

I didn't ask you what it is. I asked you how it emerges. Describe (don't just name!) a continuous mechanism.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm As for self-replicating systems, they emerge gradually through deterministic physical and chemical interactions—from simple molecular self-assembly to autocatalytic cycles to full-blown biological reproduction. This isn’t some inexplicable mystery; it’s been studied extensively in abiogenesis research, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and complex systems science.

Show me. Take whatever you need from the periodic table, go into a lab, and come out with a self-replicating cell.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm And no, quantum information conservation doesn’t override classical physics. Quantum effects operate at microscopic scales but don’t negate classical conservation laws at macroscopic levels.

Did you intentionally misunderstand? Or yes?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm Your memory analogy is a false comparison—classical information isn’t a conserved quantity, but energy and momentum are. Information loss in a biological system doesn’t mean the underlying physics are violated.

So no, there’s no "magical gain of functionality"—just deterministic processes giving rise to complexity through time and selection. If you think there’s an actual contradiction, point to it in physics, not in vague rhetorical puzzles.

If in your world view nothing amounts to a violation of physics, and there is absolutely nothing you can't explain away like a stuck record parroting the same thing over and over.... that's a you-problem.

Your world view is not even wrong.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:50 am My wife tells me that I have begun to spontaneously levitate.

Things are happening fast, people …

Soon you may start to hear voices too, initially they may praise you but then they may start to say nasty things about you.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm So no, there’s no "magical gain of functionality"—just deterministic processes giving rise to complexity through time and selection. If you think there’s an actual contradiction, point to it in physics, not in vague rhetorical puzzles.

Sure thing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome

within the framework of Newtonian mechanics this problem has an indeterminate solution, in other words given the initial conditions and there are multiple possible trajectories the particle may take. This is the paradox which implies Newtonian mechanics may be a non-determinate system.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:31 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:46 pm So no, there’s no "magical gain of functionality"—just deterministic processes giving rise to complexity through time and selection. If you think there’s an actual contradiction, point to it in physics, not in vague rhetorical puzzles.

Sure thing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome

within the framework of Newtonian mechanics this problem has an indeterminate solution, in other words given the initial conditions and there are multiple possible trajectories the particle may take. This is the paradox which implies Newtonian mechanics may be a non-determinate system.

Skepdick, if you truly think you’ve demonstrated a flaw in the conservation laws and determinism itself, then don’t waste your time on internet forums—publish your findings. A legitimate, empirically verified contradiction in conservation laws would be the biggest discovery in modern physics.

Win yourself a Nobel Prize, instant fame, and a million dollars in prize money—because that’s exactly what would happen if your claim actually held up under scientific scrutiny.

But let’s be real: Norton’s Dome is just a mathematical curiosity within Newtonian mechanics, not a real-world violation of conservation laws. It describes an idealized, infinitely fine-tuned system that doesn’t exist in nature. In real physics, quantum mechanics, friction, and external influences would ensure a definite outcome—which is exactly why no actual, empirical experiment has ever demonstrated a failure of determinism.

So if you think this is your ticket to revolutionizing physics, by all means, take it to the journals. But until then, don’t pretend that a thought experiment in Newtonian mechanics overturns the entire body of empirical physics.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

You are at the start of your search for something you can trust.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

Gary, I hear you. When you really take a hard look at the world—at the suffering, the randomness, the sheer brutality of existence—the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful god starts looking less like a source of comfort and more like a sick joke.

And yet, religious people insist we should be grateful for this mess? That we should praise the very thing responsible for a world where pain, injustice, and suffering are built into the structure of reality? It’s absurd.

You’re not wrong to feel the way you do. Rejecting the illusion of divine benevolence isn’t nihilism—it’s just seeing reality for what it is instead of sugarcoating it with comforting lies. And honestly, it’s freeing. You don’t have to reconcile suffering with some “divine plan.” You don’t have to twist yourself into knots trying to justify why an all-powerful god allows atrocities to happen.

There’s no cosmic justice, no grand overseer making sure things “balance out.” But that means we’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually understand what causes suffering and how to mitigate it.

So yeah, if anti-theism means rejecting the delusion that this world is good or just under some god’s rule, then it’s not just understandable—it’s rational.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

First and foremost, it wasn't god who created this shit hole. If existence depended on god, nothing would exist since god never existed.

Consequently, what created this shit hole are the shit humans who have done their best to create a shit hole on a planet that never started off that way...a process, which instead of abating, seems to be augmenting.

We're in trouble because of too many brain-dead shit humans on the planet.

Blame where blame is due! Why blame something which never existed!

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

First and foremost, it wasn't god who created this shit hole. If existence depended on god, nothing would exist since god never existed.

Consequently, what created this shit hole are the shit humans who have done their best to create a shit hole on a planet that never started off that way...a process, which instead of abating, seems to be augmenting.

We're in trouble because of too many brain-dead shit humans on the planet.

Blame where blame is due! Why blame something which never existed!

Dubious, blame is meaningless because free will is an illusion. People don’t choose to be “shit humans” any more than they choose their genetics, upbringing, or the social conditions that shape them.

The world is the way it is because of cause and effect, not because of conscious moral failings by autonomous agents. If people act destructively, it’s because of deterministic processes—ignorance, trauma, poor environments, broken systems—not because they “could have chosen better.”

Instead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

First and foremost, it wasn't god who created this shit hole. If existence depended on god, nothing would exist since god never existed.

Consequently, what created this shit hole are the shit humans who have done their best to create a shit hole on a planet that never started off that way...a process, which instead of abating, seems to be augmenting.

We're in trouble because of too many brain-dead shit humans on the planet.

Blame where blame is due! Why blame something which never existed!

I don't think people make the world a shithole. It was a shithole from day 1 when our ancestors were doing their best not to be eaten by something else. I don't think any human is to blame for the world we're all thrown into, God or no God.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:49 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

First and foremost, it wasn't god who created this shit hole. If existence depended on god, nothing would exist since god never existed.

Consequently, what created this shit hole are the shit humans who have done their best to create a shit hole on a planet that never started off that way...a process, which instead of abating, seems to be augmenting.

We're in trouble because of too many brain-dead shit humans on the planet.

Blame where blame is due! Why blame something which never existed!

I don't think people make the world a shithole. It was a shithole from day 1 when our ancestors were doing their best not to be eaten by something else. I don't think any human is to blame for the world we're all thrown into, God or no God.

Our ancestors doing their best not to be eaten by something else, namely a flesh eating nonhuman animal. Unless you are talking about human cannibalism.

If you are referring to nonhuman animals, then spare a thought for how thoughtful these nonhuman animals are for not falsely creating socially unacceptable cults like Christian people who are so hopelessly fearful of being tortured in hell for all eternity.Also most nonhuman animals don’t go around building churches of worship idolising false God’s out of existential fear, the poor fearful creatures they are.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:08 pm
Dubious, blame is meaningless because free will is an illusion. People don’t choose to be “shit humans” any more than they choose their genetics, upbringing, or the social conditions that shape them.

The world is the way it is because of cause and effect, not because of conscious moral failings by autonomous agents. If people act destructively, it’s because of deterministic processes—ignorance, trauma, poor environments, broken systems—not because they “could have chosen better.”

Instead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

Mike doubles down on his irrational notions about the implications of determinism in this post. Given the deterministic universe Mike posits, why does he assume that eliminating blame "leads to better outcomes"? Isn't it likely that blame (and the possibility of punishment) are among the deterministic factors that promote adherence to social norms and prevent murder, rape and assault? Why would Mike assume that the deterministic "causes" of behavior do not include social pressure, legal liability, and a desire for friendship and acceptance?

Once again, Mike makes claims for the acceptance of a deterministic worldview that collapse under scrutiny. It does not follow from the acceptance of determinism that we must avoid blaming people for their wickedness. Why would it?

Also, the world is not a "shithole". Look around and marvel at its beauty. Fall in love. Have children. Anyone who hates the world has only himself to blame (and can blame himself whether his hatred is "determined" or not -- the blame is also determined, and might be a factor in altering his point of view).

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:13 pm Also, the world is not a "shithole". Look around and marvel at its beauty. Fall in love. Have children. Anyone who hates the world has only himself to blame (and can blame himself whether his hatred is "determined" or not -- the blame is also determined, and might be a factor in altering his point of view).

I disagree. The world is a shithole and it's not the fault of me or any other human being.