Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Multiple Words Argument

TheLaw
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.

Discuss and destroy :P
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 7:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assume, for the moment, that the universe is run by a gigantic set of die which, when spun, determine which of the infinite possible worlds occur.

The die is rolled, and although 99.999% of the resulting universe is uninhabited, in that 0.0001% is life existing for billions years. Of this, 99.999% of life never reaches sentience. In all of existing time, sentience comes around after 99.999% of billions of years have passed.

If that sentient spark were to put forward the argument you have above, would it rightly have proved the universe is driven by a personal God?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.


Discuss and destroy :P

What if the amount of possible worlds, is less that an infinite amount, but such as large number that our humans minds couldn't have a chance of comprehending at this point? You fudge "infinity" into your argument to try and make your the "1/ infinity not being tangible" claim, and "there must be a creator claim" work. when there is no reason why there has to be an infinite number of possible worlds. There is no way to know how many different worlds could have occurred, or if any other worlds could have at all (It's possible for determinism to be true, this would make this exact universe technically necessary).

You are also presenting a false dichotomy:

(i) Intelligence is behind the universe
(ii) 100% random randomness

We have many examples of non-intelligent mechanisms which produce order and not 100% randomness (chemical reactions in clouds that produce snowflakes, gravity which produces galaxies ect, Natural Selection which produces new species ect.).

So, it seems your argument fails as a demonstration of an intelligent "creator".
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 7:39:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.


Discuss and destroy :P

Two questions. Do you actually believe this argument and if so how much.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 1:02:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This argument does make existence of God highly probable. In fact very highly probable. Believe in God, or believe in probability. It is your choice.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:50:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.


Discuss and destroy :P

What does that even mean?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TheLaw
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:02:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alright thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

@Wnope: I'm a bit unclear on your position. But at the looks of it, you seem to have developed a faulty analogy. Please elaborate some more.

@Rational_Thinker: No, it is an infinite amount, literally. A possible world is anything that can have the most minute difference from our world. Take for example that in a possible world, penguins could talk. You could have infinite possibilities of animal species in other possible worlds which is why the infinity side holds true. Your basic contention is that:

1.It's impossible that there are an infinite amount of worlds.
2.Since there is not an infinite amount of worlds, your argument falls.
Since I took care of your first contention, your second naturally falls apart as well. Next, you say I propose a False Dichotomy which I don't believe this argument poses any fallacies such as that. I'm not saying that there's only two extremes, I'm saying there is only one cause (a Creator) and one effect (our possible world). Through the mathematical fact that randomness can not cause a possible world it leads us to the conclusion of few options, the creator being the best option as where would these semi-intelligent mechanisms come from? Wouldn't they also be "creating" a universe then?

@Dan4reason: I believe it, I've been toying around with it for a couple months now, but I'm sure it has some holes which is why I presented it here.

@baggins: Thanks!

@bossyburito: In our reality (this possible world) horses exist. But why don't unicorns? Because they are not in our possible world.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:02:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 5:02:00 AM, TheLaw wrote:
Alright thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

@Wnope: I'm a bit unclear on your position. But at the looks of it, you seem to have developed a faulty analogy. Please elaborate some more.

@Rational_Thinker: No, it is an infinite amount, literally. A possible world is anything that can have the most minute difference from our world. Take for example that in a possible world, penguins could talk. You could have infinite possibilities of animal species in other possible worlds which is why the infinity side holds true. Your basic contention is that:

1.It's impossible that there are an infinite amount of worlds.
2.Since there is not an infinite amount of worlds, your argument falls.
Since I took care of your first contention, your second naturally falls apart as well. Next, you say I propose a False Dichotomy which I don't believe this argument poses any fallacies such as that. I'm not saying that there's only two extremes, I'm saying there is only one cause (a Creator) and one effect (our possible world). Through the mathematical fact that randomness can not cause a possible world it leads us to the conclusion of few options, the creator being the best option as where would these semi-intelligent mechanisms come from? Wouldn't they also be "creating" a universe then?

@Dan4reason: I believe it, I've been toying around with it for a couple months now, but I'm sure it has some holes which is why I presented it here.

@baggins: Thanks!

@bossyburito: In our reality (this possible world) horses exist. But why don't unicorns? Because they are not in our possible world.

No, you are just fudging infinity in futile hopes to make your argument work. You have no idea that a world where penguins can talk is possible, no evidence at all. If determinism is true, then this may be the only possible world. Thus, your argument is utter hooey (especially considering the false dictionary implied).

Back to the drawing board it seems...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:09:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate it when theists think that just because you can imagine something it makes it possible. I can imagine myself jumping 50 feet in the air with no support, but it's not possible. I can imagine another world, that doesn't mean another world is possible.

This is just the imagination running wild, and arguments like these do nothing to describe reality. Also, the number wouldn't be infinity even if every world that could be imagined, was possible. It may be a number so high that we couldn't comprehend, but not actually infinity.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:31:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 11:09:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it when theists think that just because you can imagine something it makes it possible. I can imagine myself jumping 50 feet in the air with no support, but it's not possible. I can imagine another world, that doesn't mean another world is possible.

This is just the imagination running wild, and arguments like these do nothing to describe reality. Also, the number wouldn't be infinity even if every world that could be imagined, was possible. It may be a number so high that we couldn't comprehend, but not actually infinity.

That's bad, but what's worse is when they use that argument as a proof of a deity, and assume then that their specific religion is proven. Same with arguments from design. I come from a Jewish private school, aka a yeshiva, and I used to get that from students and teachers alike all the time... They make these arguments, and sleep well at night content that their religion has been rationally proven, when - forgetting the fact that the arguments aren't all that strong to begin with - they only make the case for some creator deity. You have a long way to go from attempting to prove a creator deity based on obviously faulty logic to proving the Judeo-Christian God, who cares about what we human beings eat, think, have sex with, etc, and has revealed this in several books throughout history...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:38:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.


Discuss and destroy :P

Pick a number at random. Any number.

I'll wait.

Did you pick a number?

Well, since you only picked one number, and there are an infinitude of numbers (1/infinity) then, per your #2 it was impossible for you to do this. So, either your #2 is completely and utterly bunk, or you didn't actually pick a number at random, God put it into your head.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:32:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?
Not necessarily infinite (ie in the sense of "never ending" or uncountable.)

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance.
It is an INEVITABLE universe and how is that not the same as random? Random is a subjective term.

This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.
What do you mean by tangible and why would that make a difference. Zero is actually a number while infinity is not. Regardless, they are both quite similar!

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created".
First: predetermined not = to created. Second, the MOST fundamental laws of physics are pretty clear on the fact that things are not created or destroyed only transformed. Opinion as to what is more or less random is not important. So you know, things that are more random in the short run are less random and more predictable in the long run; things that are more random in the long run are less random and more predictable in the short run.

For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.
So? If I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but I can roll a dice and let the outcome "pick" one of the possibilities.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.
No. If the world was created then there is a creator; pre-determined has nothing to do with it. Under determinism, there is no free or creator and the universe is completely determined from start to finish.
***********************************
Cheers!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thank you for this argument. I think it attempts to show God's existence the right way, but I'm not so sure it uses the right words.

Now, since this is the only universe that has been observed or that there is evidence for, we have to assume one crack at one universe. If you believe in the inflationary model, any less or more energy, any smaller or larger duration in the inflationary epoch, any different balance between the forces would produce a universe where matter cannot clump together in any meaningful way. It would either collapse upon itself or blow itself to bits.

Because of this, you can directly take the probability of God vs no God as the causality root. If the probability of creating a universe where matter can clump together is almost zero, then that leaves the probaility of God at nearly 100%.

Of course, that's putting it generously. If you want to see specifics on the argument, go to my debate.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.


Discuss and destroy :P

If the world works by causality there is only one effect for every cause.

In the example of rolling a dice, you might be tempted to say that there are size different effects (rolling 1, rolling 2, ...) for every roll thus negating strict causality.

However, the physical conditions of each dice roll is slightly different. In fact the place the dice will roll is determined by physics. If you knew enough about the physical world, the randomness of a die roll would disappear because you would know what the outcome would be if you were the one rolling the dice.

So pure chance and randomness are only the product of our lack of understanding of the world.

The only conclusion is that this world as it is is the only world possible given the world 1 second ago, and the world 1 second ago was determined by the world 2 seconds ago, and so on.

This means that given the initial cause(s), this is the only possible world.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:31:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 5:08:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
If the world works by causality there is only one effect for every cause.
Cause & effect are only possible if time is present.

In the example of rolling a dice, you might be tempted to say that there are size different effects (rolling 1, rolling 2, ...) for every roll thus negating strict causality.

However, the physical conditions of each dice roll is slightly different. In fact the place the dice will roll is determined by physics. If you knew enough about the physical world, the randomness of a die roll would disappear because you would know what the outcome would be if you were the one rolling the dice.
However, that is NOT how physics works: one NECESSARILY cannot know ALL aspects of a physical system. Because many properties of a physical systems are related in such a way that the more you know about one aspect the less you necessarily know about another. (Heisenberg.)

So pure chance and randomness are only the product of our lack of understanding of the world.
Randomness is an opinion.

The only conclusion is that this world as it is is the only world possible given the world 1 second ago, and the world 1 second ago was determined by the world 2 seconds ago, and so on.
Maybe, but your statement cannot be proven empirically.

This means that given the initial cause(s), this is the only possible world.
There are no initial causes in the infinite regression that you suggest.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:41:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 5:31:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Cause & effect are only possible if time is present.

Why?

However, that is NOT how physics works: one NECESSARILY cannot know ALL aspects of a physical system. Because many properties of a physical systems are related in such a way that the more you know about one aspect the less you necessarily know about another. (Heisenberg.)

I was never arguing that one could completely know about a system. All I am saying is that if one could, nothing could appear random.

Randomness is an opinion.

Please elaborate.

Maybe, but your statement cannot be proven empirically.

Prove empirically that 1+1 is always equal to 2.
TheLaw
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:02:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Rational_Thinker: Okay, you've pissed me off. I specifically said in the OP "Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument." Then you go off on a tangent bashing Theists. I should just ignore you as a whole, but hey, your doing a terrible job at refuting my claims so here we go. First of all, I'm not "fudging" infinity, it is infinity and that's a fact. The matter to be debated is whether or not the fact that this 1/infinity is somehow due to chance or actually a creator. Did I say a world where penguins can talk is possible? No. Simply put, everything outside our reality (our possible world) is not true. It doesn't exist because it's not perceptible. However, the fact that our world is the way it is out of the infinite amount of possibilities it COULD have been draw a problematic situation which is what this argument addresses. And where did I say "False Dictionary"?

Jat93: Another annoying Atheist, typical. The fact that I never mentioned a specific deity and made it clear that I made it ambiguos by using the term "Creator" already debunks your whole meaningless post. I'm not trying to prove the Judeo-Christian God, where did I say that? Please tell me? If not, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anymore in this topic.

Drafterman: Thanks, really. THANK YOU. You just proved my argument. Let me reverse your logic. You're sitting at your computer, okay? You want to write a book. What do you do..an idea eventually comes to mind and you start writing...out of the INFINITE number of possible plots that you could have developed you made this your plot, you CHOSE it. Therefore, you just agreed right here that a "Creator"..."picked" this possible world. Brilliant.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:02:35 PM, TheLaw wrote:
@Rational_Thinker: Okay, you've pissed me off. I specifically said in the OP "Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument." Then you go off on a tangent bashing Theists. I should just ignore you as a whole, but hey, your doing a terrible job at refuting my claims so here we go. First of all, I'm not "fudging" infinity, it is infinity and that's a fact. The matter to be debated is whether or not the fact that this 1/infinity is somehow due to chance or actually a creator. Did I say a world where penguins can talk is possible? No. Simply put, everything outside our reality (our possible world) is not true. It doesn't exist because it's not perceptible. However, the fact that our world is the way it is out of the infinite amount of possibilities it COULD have been draw a problematic situation which is what this argument addresses. And where did I say "False Dictionary"?

Jat93: Another annoying Atheist, typical. The fact that I never mentioned a specific deity and made it clear that I made it ambiguos by using the term "Creator" already debunks your whole meaningless post. I'm not trying to prove the Judeo-Christian God, where did I say that? Please tell me? If not, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anymore in this topic.

Drafterman: Thanks, really. THANK YOU. You just proved my argument. Let me reverse your logic. You're sitting at your computer, okay? You want to write a book. What do you do..an idea eventually comes to mind and you start writing...out of the INFINITE number of possible plots that you could have developed you made this your plot, you CHOSE it. Therefore, you just agreed right here that a "Creator"..."picked" this possible world. Brilliant.

Don't forget, I had a pretty good refutation for you.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 11:09:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it when theists think that just because you can imagine something it makes it possible. I can imagine myself jumping 50 feet in the air with no support, but it's not possible. I can imagine another world, that doesn't mean another world is possible.


Before you go off on your furious little tangent you should probably learn what possible world means in this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

While you're at it you should also probably learn about the conceivability-possibility principle.

This is just the imagination running wild, and arguments like these do nothing to describe reality. Also, the number wouldn't be infinity even if every world that could be imagined, was possible. It may be a number so high that we couldn't comprehend, but not actually infinity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:02:35 PM, TheLaw wrote:

Jat93: Another annoying Atheist, typical. The fact that I never mentioned a specific deity and made it clear that I made it ambiguos by using the term "Creator" already debunks your whole meaningless post. I'm not trying to prove the Judeo-Christian God, where did I say that? Please tell me? If not, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anymore in this topic.

Sorry for the confusion, but I was responding specifically to the post which I quoted. My post had to do with the post that came before it - that's fair game for posting a response... My post didn't have to do directly with your OP. You start a topic, conversations ensue, and sometimes comments won't be specifically in response to the OP. That one wasn't. Sorry for the confusion, no need to say things like "another annoying atheist" which is a very juvenile thing to say.
TheLaw
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:52:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Dan4Reason: Ah, sorry, I may have skipped over this by accident. Anyway, if understand the basic ideas of your argument, you're saying 1. That randomness and chance are not the cause of our world, randomness is a term simply to explain our lack of understanding 2. This is the only possible world. I'd like some further elaboration and clarity before I refute this.

@popculturepooka: Thanks for the link, I think it will benefit several, especially those that think they know what a possible world is :/

@jat93: Wow, I'm really sorry man. I was thinking you were using his post to refer to me or something, I completely took it out of context, my bad. And yea, I agree the annoying atheist comment was out of hand even if I was a bit angry, so I apologize once again.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:25:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:02:35 PM, TheLaw wrote:

Drafterman: Thanks, really. THANK YOU. You just proved my argument. Let me reverse your logic. You're sitting at your computer, okay? You want to write a book. What do you do..an idea eventually comes to mind and you start writing...out of the INFINITE number of possible plots that you could have developed you made this your plot, you CHOSE it. Therefore, you just agreed right here that a "Creator"..."picked" this possible world. Brilliant.

When I sit down to write something, I'm not choosing at random. I asked you to choose a number at random. The analogy doesn't apply since you removed the most important factor: randomness.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 10:36:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 5:41:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/10/2012 5:31:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Cause & effect are only possible if time is present.
Why?
Because they are defined by the fact that they are separated by time! I thought that rather obvious. Not only are they defined by time, they also are required to appear in a specific order within time!

I was never arguing that one could completely know about a system. All I am saying is that if one could, nothing could appear random.
But the problem isn't that it's not IMPROBABLE to know, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. In other words, KNOWING would actually be a CONTRADICTION, and from a contradiction ANYTHING follows. It's like saying if square-circles existed then (insert anything you'd like here.)

Randomness is an opinion.
Please elaborate.
"Without order; not able to be predicted; happening by chance. However, there will be an overall structure, such as tending to be within a certain range." -mathisfun.com
Notice the contradicting concepts in bold; as well as the ones in italics. Overall structure is an order; tending to be within a certain range is predictable; etc.

"Applied usage in science, mathematics and statistics recognizes a lack of predictability when referring to randomness, but admits regularities in the occurrences of events whose outcomes are not certain. For example, when throwing 2 dice and counting the total, we can say 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4. This view, where randomness simply refers to situations in which the certainty of the outcome is at issue, is the one taken when referring to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. In these situations randomness implies a measure of uncertainty and notions of haphazardness are irrelevant." -Wiki.

I guess "opinion" is not the right word to use. Sorry about that. I guess it's better said that it is relative.

Maybe, but your statement cannot be proven empirically.
Prove empirically that 1+1 is always equal to 2.
That doesn't follow from what I said; I think that you have misunderstood my objection. I wasn't saying that it is impossible to empirically prove that the same thing will always evolve the same way ALWAYS; I was saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to KNOW that there can be a SAME THING to be able to compare it to.

********************

@TheLaw, any particular reason why you avoided my post?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 3:07:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:02:35 PM, TheLaw wrote:
@Rational_Thinker: Okay, you've pissed me off. I specifically said in the OP "Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument." Then you go off on a tangent bashing Theists. I should just ignore you as a whole, but hey, your doing a terrible job at refuting my claims so here we go. First of all, I'm not "fudging" infinity, it is infinity and that's a fact. The matter to be debated is whether or not the fact that this 1/infinity is somehow due to chance or actually a creator. Did I say a world where penguins can talk is possible? No. Simply put, everything outside our reality (our possible world) is not true. It doesn't exist because it's not perceptible. However, the fact that our world is the way it is out of the infinite amount of possibilities it COULD have been draw a problematic situation which is what this argument addresses. And where did I say "False Dictionary"?

Jat93: Another annoying Atheist, typical. The fact that I never mentioned a specific deity and made it clear that I made it ambiguos by using the term "Creator" already debunks your whole meaningless post. I'm not trying to prove the Judeo-Christian God, where did I say that? Please tell me? If not, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post anymore in this topic.

Drafterman: Thanks, really. THANK YOU. You just proved my argument. Let me reverse your logic. You're sitting at your computer, okay? You want to write a book. What do you do..an idea eventually comes to mind and you start writing...out of the INFINITE number of possible plots that you could have developed you made this your plot, you CHOSE it. Therefore, you just agreed right here that a "Creator"..."picked" this possible world. Brilliant.

"Okay, you've pissed me off. I specifically said in the OP "Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument"

What a hypocrite, you say you don't people raging at you yet, you admit I pissed you off and you are raging at me (I never even raged at you). If you don't want people to refute your arguments, then don't post them.

There is nothing to back up your claim that there are an infinite possibilities, you just made it up. Thus, you have a weak argument. There is also no reason why something something non-intelligent couldn't have caused the universe, you just presented a false false dichotomy between either that, or 100% randomness for not apparent reason.

The only raging being done, is being done by you (since you have not pissed me off, and you admit I'm getting you emotional). Go back to the drawing board, and come back when you actually can present a logical argument with a foundation.

This is the best advice for you.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:54:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:52:38 AM, TheLaw wrote:
@Dan4Reason: Ah, sorry, I may have skipped over this by accident. Anyway, if understand the basic ideas of your argument, you're saying 1. That randomness and chance are not the cause of our world, randomness is a term simply to explain our lack of understanding 2. This is the only possible world. I'd like some further elaboration and clarity before I refute this.

We know that this world operated by cause and effect.
So we have cause -> effect. For every cause you have only one effect.

You might argue that the cause of rolling a dice roll will produce 6 possible effects, but when you actually look, each dice roll situation is different with the hand in slightly different positions, with slightly different air currents, with the dice in slightly different position in the hand and it is these that produce this variability. So the cause of a dice roll is not the same at all in every situation and that explains the 6 different results.

If one specific situation were to produce two equally likely events without any cause that explains why they were different, then this runs against causality and so is impossible.

The only conclusion I can form from this is that starting from the initial conditions from everything, we will see one and only one result because of causality so this is the only possible world.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 10:36:48 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

But the problem isn't that it's not IMPROBABLE to know, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. In other words, KNOWING would actually be a CONTRADICTION, and from a contradiction ANYTHING follows. It's like saying if square-circles existed then (insert anything you'd like here.)

The only point I am trying to make is that the only reason why things seem random is because of our lack of knowledge about a situation. Whether it is possible for us to know everything is irrelevant to my point.

I was saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to KNOW that there can be a SAME THING to be able to compare it to.

Could you please explain to me what point you are attempting to make here?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:35:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:59:45 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
The only point I am trying to make is that the only reason why things seem random is because of our lack of knowledge about a situation. Whether it is possible for us to know everything is irrelevant to my point.
OK, point taken. All I am saying is that randomness seems to be inherent.

I was saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to KNOW that there can be a SAME THING to be able to compare it to.
Could you please explain to me what point you are attempting to make here?
You're arguing for a deterministic universe. You are saying that given Conditions X, the Universe will ALWAYS evolve into State Y. All I am saying is that there's actually no way of knowing that because there isn't even a way to define or show that any 2 Conditions could ever be the same.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 5:35:39 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/11/2012 4:59:45 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
The only point I am trying to make is that the only reason why things seem random is because of our lack of knowledge about a situation. Whether it is possible for us to know everything is irrelevant to my point.
OK, point taken. All I am saying is that randomness seems to be inherent.

I was saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to KNOW that there can be a SAME THING to be able to compare it to.
Could you please explain to me what point you are attempting to make here?
You're arguing for a deterministic universe. You are saying that given Conditions X, the Universe will ALWAYS evolve into State Y. All I am saying is that there's actually no way of knowing that because there isn't even a way to define or show that any 2 Conditions could ever be the same.

I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To say that things happen in-deterministically does not have much evidence. So therefore I will be forming my philosophy without this idea. So far everything we have explored shows causality and that is the theory I am sticking with because it has the evidence.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:49:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 7:05:02 PM, TheLaw wrote:
Hey everyone. I made up an argument that I think proves that a Creator exists (don't know if this has been made before because I'm too lazy to check lol). So all I'm asking is that you tear up my argument from head to toe so I know if it's "legit" or "not" lol. Not anything too serious so I'd like no flaming and raging and just simple refutations of my argument. Here it goes:

1. Our word is a "possible world". Meaning that it is one of the infinite possibilities that this world "could have" been. However, there is only one reality which is what we know of as our world. For example, why do we have horses and not unicorns? Why couldn't there be any evolutionary processes that allowed for their existence?

2. If there are infinite worlds and our world is only one of these worlds then it is impossible that it got chosen through random chance. This is because 1/infinity does not produce a tangible number.

Doesn't follow. Saying that infinities don't work when we treat them as finite numbers is like saying that Chemistry doesn't work when we apply it to French literature analysis. My favourite analogy is like "trying to use science to explain the antisemitic polemic of Merchant of Venice". The graph would be x/y, as we don't know how many possible worlds have unicorns is (using the unicorn/horse point). However, if there are an infinite number of universes, and infinite number have horses, and an infinite number has unicorns. But the graph is still 1/x. Which is confusing in itself. Therefore, as Hilbert Hotel proves, we cannot treat infinite numbers as finite numbers.

3. If the world was not picked through random chance it had to be pre-determined or "created". For example, if I'm writing a book, there are infinite possibilities but since I'm the creator, I can "pick" one of these possibilities because one will eventually come to mind.

4. If the world was pre-determined or "created" then a Creator exists.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...