801. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283925 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 2:44 am

579. Comment #283918 by Mark Jones

Dunno. I've yet to look. I'm still unsure of what to do.

802. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283909 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 2:04 am

Sometimes I feel beside myself when arguing about the existence of magic beings.

It seems so intuitively strange to me that this is even an issue with so many of us, and that only a minority actually don't believe in magic entities that control the world. It's off putting.

Am I a mental ward patient in wonderland? The implications of this is so disturbing that it is difficult to hold in the mind without getting depressed.

...
...
...

I think there is a mouse nest in my electrical box. I hear squeaking... I've also had mysterious power trouble lately. If I open it up...what do I do with them? I can't put them outside, this time of the year...but it's dangerous in there...I can't ignore it... I don't know what to do.

803. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283880 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 am

560. Comment #283871 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Oh come off it. Steve wasn't literally talking about kicking everything that exists. Show a little of that christian charity when you interpret people's words.

It always appears to me that Christians have no idea what charity means when it comes to conversation.

804. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283869 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 am

557. Comment #283864 by Steve Zara

Never mind. I don't even like supermodels. I forgot how tall and lanky they tend to be.

Utena is tall and lanky, but she can pull it off.

805. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283859 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 12:32 am

552. Comment #283854 by Steve Zara

Please do so. I am afraid I am a bit sceptical when people claim that entities exist that they can't introduce me to.

This is the reason that I don't believe in supermodels.

806. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283852 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 12:21 am

549. Comment #283846 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Saying that only material things exist, and that everything materially is physically visible is different. Much of the material universe is not physically visible.

When someone religious claims there is more than material, they can never describe or define it. They use words like "spiritual" and "non-material" and then talk about "energy" and such. They either define it positively using material terms, or they define it negatively, and tell you what it isn't. I've yet to hear a coherent positive definition of what it in fact is.

Though these are different claims, and not necessarily relevant to each other. If you want to form an argument about what kind of "stuff" god is made of, that is different than a discussion about its effects on the world. I don't need to know what the moon is made of to witness the tides, and link their behavior to the moon. Take it one step further, to satisfy you, and say that the moon is not physically visible. As long as I have general relativity, I can infer the moon's presence, and attempt to falsify it with experiments.

If however, then this moon that is not physically visible has no discernible, or testable effects on the world, and you tell me that it exists, how did you come upon this knowledge? Why are you privy to knowledge that I'm not? Also, supposing you are, is it reasonable to expect me to accept your claim? That you have the special ability to detect the undetectable? To know, the unknowable?

Necessitated by the vary parameters of the things you claim to know, you are a charlatan.

807. Richard Dawkins: An Exclusive Profile

Comment #283845 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm

My dream dinner would be Utena, Yoruichi, Son Goku, Oda Nobunaga, the Buddha, Winston Churchill, Sam Harris and Skeletor.

If RD is allowed fictional people then so am I!

808. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283841 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 10:34 pm

244. Comment #283570 by Bonzai

I think that you're obviously right. MPhils scenario is not about harming potential people, it is about harming actual people, only planing to do so while they're potential.

So it is a false analogy. In one scenario actual people will be harmed, and in the other, no actual people will ever be harmed.

Take this scenario. Say a woman gets pregnant and wants to have the baby, and then sacrifice it to the devil or some such, and has a well orchestrated plan for this. Is this morally analogous to abortion? Would a court think so if they discovered her plan? I think clearly no.

I think that your assassin example demonstrates this well. If you plan a murder at t1, to be executed at t2, then the state of affairs of t2 is what is relevant. So it doesn't matter if the murder is planned against a potential person, what matters is at the time of the act they will not be a potential person, but an actual person.

So, appreciating this, the original definition of "morality" obtains. The act of ordering the murders of the first born will effect actual others. Abortion will not.

809. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283476 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm

234. Comment #283464 by MPhil

Perhaps I'm being inflexible with my definition of morality. Clearly there is an important distinction between what has yet to exist, and what does exist however.

On account of your numerous scenarios unappreciative of what I've been saying, I feel that perhaps trying to draw a distinction here is too confusing to uphold. Since you keep fighting for the designation of "morality" more than the obligations it implies -- which I haven't disputed -- I think that I will just let the semantic difference go for fear of being "irrational".

810. Proposition 8 made me quit the Mormon church

Comment #283402 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Good!

811. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283392 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm

231. Comment #283371 by MPhil

Here, again, "moral" is every deliberation and decision that takes evaluates interests to decide on a specific course of action that will affect others.

This is exactly what you're not doing. We're not talking about actions that will affect "others" we're talking about actions that will affect potential others, possible others. Not actual others. There is a clear difference here.

While I did not say that we have no obligation to the feature of the planet, and our species, I said that since it does not actually affect others, it is not a moral obligation, and I disagreed that all obligations must be moral.

812. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283330 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm

225. Comment #283300 by MPhil

With all do respect, I haven't said what mental faculties I consider relevant to morality, so your criticism of a position I have not outlined is annoying to read.

What I think is important to my moral considerations is experiential cognition, emotional cognition, self-awareness, and a theory of mind.

Human beings are well up the line on this, but all of the higher mammals, most birds, and even some reptiles exhibit signs of experiential and emotional cognition. Some of the higher mammals also exhibit signs of rudimentary self-awareness and a theory of mind.

I don't have to show everything equal moral consideration if they do not possess all of the faculties I consider relevant to my moral considerations, but must of the variance must be ignored, if you want equity among people. Surely there is a variance between the levels of those mental faculties within the human species. Not ignoring their variance clearly promotes inequity within the species. Their possession of these traits at all is what matters.

Many people anthropomorphise the behaviour of animals, interpreting it in human schemes...

I'm sure many do, others anthropocentrize their moral outlooks. I do neither. It doesn't need to be "human like". I don't see why that matters. Is there any necessary link between the experience of pain and displeasure and intelligence for instance? Do smarter people experience pain more than dumber people? If not then it is justified to assume that people experience pain to a greater degree than other species? In fact, isn't it quite possible that other species may experience displeasure far more potently than humans do?

I don't see why "human like" is necessarily better, or should be all that we care about.

813. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283311 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm

224. Comment #283288 by MPhil

I really don't think that you mean the same thing by "morality" that I do. You appear to be saying that all forms of responsibility are inherently moral ones, and that the only possibly governor of one's actions is moral considerations.

You are misconstruing the situation I presented.

You're right, I did. It had been a couple posts, and I guess I lost track of your original wording. It was not intentional. I apologize. I'll been more attentive.

It still does not effect my opinion on the matter.

Now, when you know that the developing life will be sentient and sapient, one of those conditions for the morally valued (valued as "to be protected and nurtured") sapience and sentience to exist becomes refraining from performing an action to interrupt the causal chain that we know to a high degree of certainty will lead to sentience and sapience.

I don't see why I should care before it starts to exhibit sentience and sapience in some form.

When I not only interrupt the boot-process, but destroy the system, the artificial intelligence, am I committing murder?

The boot process doesn't seem particularly relevant to your question, it seems like just a stretch to attempt to make it analogous to your original abiogenesis question. I do understand what I'm saying, and I think that I grasp the implications. I don't need it explained, or redefined into numerous similar hypotheticals. If it was a released sentient and sapient machine, then yes, if it merely had the potential but had never been turned on then no.

then a human being in cryostasis, not conscious, not showing signs of intelligence, sentience, sapience - who has the potential for sentience/sapience/intelligence... which develops as he wakes up... it would mean that you would have to consider it morally neutral (not "morally forbidden") to interrupt the process of "unfreezing", of "waking up" - to keep it forever frozen or even kill the person in cryostasis. After all, there is no intelligent behaviour, no sentience and sapience.

Now it is just getting silly. I don't know if this is even possible in principle, nor do I know what their brain activity would be like while they are in such a state, and neither do you. Also, why am I in such a situation? Are there just a bunch of frozen people in front of me and I'm thinking of turning their machines off for a larf? I would think that they have some form of agreement with with whoever has frozen them, so my actions would be likely criminal even if I didn't think it was a moral issue. This hypothetical is far too contrived, and holds far too many unknowns. It also appears to be designed to elicit an emotional response. Like asking if you'd eat a mushroom that looks, feels, and is every well like a puppy, only it is not sentient in any sense, would you eat it? And then when I say no use that as an argument for not eating mushrooms.

but we already agree that have an obligation to our grandchildren and perhaps to other species as well not to destroy the planet's biotopes...

To the ones that are alive, yes, but not to potential things. Any obligation I might feel beyond that is not a moral one.

"you are in a trolly, it has gotten out of control and only you can control it. If you do nothing, it will kill one kind and gentle person, but you know this person will procreate and produce a new Stalin who will bring terror on the world. But if you pull a lever, you know it will run into a gas-truck and hundreds of people will die, one of which would have given birth to the inventor of a cure for AIDS, had he lived. How do you decide?

So the first option only one person dies, but in the second one hundred people die? Clearly the nice guy would be getting it.

The hypothetical isn't a real dilemma though, it is an invented hypothetical that one would never ever be faced with. Might be fun brain candy, but it has no real moral implications over your decision making.

814. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283286 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 11:14 am

313. Comment #283278 by al-rawandi

If you have two explanatory models of the universe. One with a single universe, and the other with a multiverse, but the multiverse model is simpler. Which do you pick?

If you pick the single universe model because that is all that you see, then you are making an assumption that there isn't anything beyond the readily apparent.

You can argue that the multiverse model doesn't work, or isn't simpler, but you can't reject it because it involves more than one universe AND claim that you aren't making the assumption that there is only one universe.

815. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283275 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 11:02 am

221. Comment #283264 by phatbat

I'm actually a vegan, so I avoid killing, and exploiting animals whenever reasonable, and possible.

I do allot them moral consideration, but it isn't because they are alive, it is because they possess certain mental faculties that I consider relevant to my moral considerations. So -- no one has actually corrected me yet, so I haven't felt the need to expatiate -- I'm not a proper vegan. I just say it because I am closer to one than I am a vegetarian, but my reasoning, is somewhat different.

It would be difficult -- because I love my cat a lot -- but if I had to chose between a person I didn't know and my cat I'm afraid that her life would be forfeit. I would feel awfully terrible about it though.

816. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283257 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 10:27 am

216. Comment #283235 by hungarianelephant

Yes I'd shoot the last elephant. It's doomed even if it is the last breeding female. Besides, all species will eventually go extinct, I'd be merely postponing the inevitable -- and in the case of your last breeding elephant, it would not be postponing it for long.

Though I would avoid killing anything whenever possible, I don't value elephants as much as people.

817. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283251 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 10:18 am

217. Comment #283239 by MPhil

Yes. How could it be a moral question exactly? Morality is a system of interacting between beings. I don't know how you view morality, but for me, there has to be something capable of being wronged before I can wrong it.

Because it may become such a being someday, if lucky, is of little interest to me.

I would avoid terminating the abiogenesis because it would be informative to study, it is rare and interesting, and because I think that one should avoid destroying whenever possible.

Sagan discussed teraforming in Pale Blue Dot, and gave the opinion that destroying a planet's service in order to achieve this is regrettable, and that other means should be pursued. I agree with him. The planet's service would undoubtedly have many interesting, unique, and ancient features that it would be regrettable to destroy.

This doesn't mean that I feel moral obligation to landscape. Not all value is moral.

818. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283245 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 10:09 am

302. Comment #283240 by al-rawandi

It may not follow deductively, but it does inductively. When an assumption has failed almost every single time when applied to everything else -- I think that it is fair to conclude that one should avoid that assumption.

It may be correct, but based on past experience it tends to be false. If you deny inductive validity then you might as well throw parsimony, rigor and occam's razor out alone with them. It cannot be deductively shown that they work. We use them as principles of investigation because they have served us well in the past. Past experience has shown that we arrive at true conclusions much easier if we heed such principles, and avoid forms of reasoning that have historically not served us well.

819. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283232 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 9:47 am

I don't care about life or potential. I care about some attributes that life exhibit, but if something else exhibited them that was not alive I would care equally about it, so the being "alive" part doesn't appear to be relevant to my moral considerations.

Rarity and abundance also doesn't appear to have moral implications to me. We as a species seems to hold rarer things as more valuable, but I don't think that could be said to be a moral opinion.

Should we count all the groups of people on earth and offer more moral consideration to the minorities? How does rarity or abundance effect our moral considerations towards each other exactly?

820. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283030 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 3:34 am

277. Comment #283026 by MPhil

I'll read it, but I'm not sure that I'll understand it. Thanks for the links.

276. Comment #283022 by Tyler Durden

In your line, you forgot A. Africanus after A. Aferensis. H. Ergaster between H. Habilis, and H. Erectus. Also, H. Neanderthalensis is not part of our ancestral line. They lived contemporaneously with H. Sapiens up until about 30-40 thousand years ago. They merely went extinct.

821. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283016 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:57 am

271. Comment #283011 by Tyler Durden

Except that there was no "first man" or "first woman".

The transition from one species to another is gradual, and over thousands of generations. At no specific time does one species become another, or does one species give birth to another species.

The best you could say is take a graph, and say that generation 1 is a H. Erectus, while generation ten thousand is a H. Sapien. The generations between 1 and ten thousand are both and neither.

Hurray for the objectivity of taxonomy.

822. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283013 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:51 am

What is a "law" in the context of laws of nature is not an easy question to answer. There is tons of different takes on what is really meant by "law".

Personally I'd use an escapism and just say that "laws" are formal science, and "theories" are natural science.

If you wanted to oversimplify, I think you could probably get away with saying that a "law" of natural is a formalized phenomenological theory.

Though this is really a question I'm no where near qualified to answer. Steve or MPhil would undoubtedly be able to explain that far better than I can.

823. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283004 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:39 am

How come I don't hear anything about the "Law" of Evolution? I'm sorry, I don't buy into the "evolution is a fact" idea. Even if I were to buy into it, there still had to be a first homosapiens "man" and a first homosapiens "woman". Mankind is a distinct species. And once you have the first man and first woman, we are back to my original argument about intercourse between members of the same family.

*Face-palm*

There are some very intelligent people in this world who believe in intelligent design. You don't have to be an idiot to qualify.

None that deny that evolution occurred. Micheal Behe, and any other intelligent ID advocate all accept that evolution occurred, they deny that Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain it all.

He wouldn't like me, because now would be the right time to show my intellectual arrogance by asserting that one has to be doubly stupid to make that assertion without even knowing what Intelligent Design entails. Like every single creationist who has latched onto the term.

824. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282996 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:23 am

266. Comment #282994 by Quetzalcoatl

I know, I included myself. In fact it annoys me more when I do it. It takes a lot longer to get through.

825. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282992 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:16 am

263. Comment #282986 by Quetzalcoatl

It annoys me when anyone writes big posts. I'm a lazy,lazy fuck.

If he does continue with massive straw-man-laden nonsensical posts then I won't bother continuing.

I think you ask some good questions about his assertion about "scientific naturalism", you are just far more charitable than I am.

826. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282983 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 2:02 am

259. Comment #282946 by Dianelos Georgoudis

You made an awfully big post without understanding the context. I referenced Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument. That is where the type of evidence, and argument I am specifically talking about is outlined.

1) If God exists then God would be physically visible.

Nonsense, no atheist I've ever heard claims this. It is easy to dispatch of arguments you invent and attribute to the other side. Give a source of an atheist making this argument.

This is more like it:

1) If anything exists and someone claims to know about it or have reason to infer it then it has an discernible effect on the objective world.
2) Purported entity X has no evident or demonstrable effect on the objective world.
3) Dismissal of entity X is warranted, until evidence is forth coming.

1) If God exists then scientists would confront insurmountable obstacles while trying to model physical phenomena.
2) Scientists do not confront insurmountable obstacles while trying to model physical phenomena.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

Give a source of an atheist making this argument.

1) If God exists then we would observe theists perform miracles.
2) We do not observe theists perform miracles.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

Unfortunately I have heard atheists make this argument, but I have argued against its viability on several occasions, so bringing it up to me is a waste of time. Why are you even bringing all of these things up to me? Why not ask me questions? Ask my arguments? Why just assume my position on everything?

But this syllogism is easy to counter. After all even premise #2 is highly dubious: Arguably the very existence of the physical universe, the fact that the physical universe is intelligible, the "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics in science, the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants - theists have argued that all of these do represent objective evidence that wouldn't be there if God did not exist.

Anyone can argue anything unintelligibly. There is scientific evidence that is universally accepted everywhere on the planet, but there is no theistic "evidence" so accepted. The reason is that their evidence is ignorance. We don't know how A, B and C happened, therefore goddidit. Or charlatan assertions A, B and C simply cannot possibly have natural origins, thus goddidit. Neither is evidence. All because something can be argued to be evidence doesn't mean that it is. The very fact that the more intelligent and educated you are the less likely you are to think that is "evidence" shows the weakness of the claim. Evidence is something that can be demonstrated, not something that you say is true when we don't have any real answers.

1. If scientific naturalism is true then advances in science should make naturalism less problematic.
2. Advances in science do not make naturalism less problematic.
3. Therefore scientific naturalism is false.

I don't know what "scientific naturalism" even means. Is there a "scientific supernaturalism" I haven't heard of? What have they discovered, invented or explained with "supernaturalism"?

If there isn't then you have invented a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

827. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282965 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 12:50 am

492. Comment #282958 by cerebate

I never gave an opinion on it, so I doubt you have any clue what I think to judge. I merely pointed out your false caricature of what he said.

You're now saying something quite different.

828. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282953 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 12:16 am

489. Comment #282950 by cerebate

I think Bonzai is saying that he should have kept it to himself, not that he must keep it to himself.

Clearly it would be a contradiction to say what you have made it out to be.

829. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282491 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 9:32 am

236. Comment #282490 by Steve Zara

Well, I know that I've always thought so, and that I couldn't function in the world without it -- so perhaps you're right!

830. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282486 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

230. Comment #282481 by chewedbarber

It is currently unfalsifiable, but it isn't in principle. That is the important difference. Whether there is life elsewhere in the universe is currently unfalsifiable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to develop ways in which to falsify it, or that it is a useless idea.

Only ideas that are unfalsifiable in principle are useless. The ones that are just currently unfalsifiable can have potential.

831. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282480 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 9:18 am

224. Comment #282473 by al-rawandi

My theory of why I'm so damn great? I'm still working on it, sometimes it seems just inexplicable. Perhaps Quetz's theory of why I'm so great will be better.

832. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282476 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

223. Comment #282472 by Steve Zara

I once had someone argue to me that if other universe do exist, and they have natural laws that are different than our universe, then they would be supernatural with respect to our universe with regard to the definition of "unexplanatable by natural law or phenomena". A silly word game, but I thought that it was funny.

833. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282471 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 9:05 am

218. Comment #282465 by al-rawandi

The mulitverse kind of muddles how we traditionally talked about "the universe", as "all things known and supposed to exist".

I would say that the "universe" in this sense is still a closed system. There is just a hell of a lot more to it than is readily apparent.

834. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282456 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 8:24 am

212. Comment #282455 by al-rawandi

That is what I thought you meant, but I was just checking. So you are a multiverse convert then eh(qm)

Not quite, but I'm at the stage where I'm not going to make arguments that don't appreciate it as a possibility.

I laughed, this was a good analogy.

Not originally mine. I stole the analogy from someone. It originally involved cheese, but I changed it to my tastes.

835. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282451 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

202. Comment #282441 by al-rawandi

The local universes in a multiverse are not proper separate, they are part of a whole. Like facets in a diamond. The cause of the big bang then could have been an event in one of those local universes, and thus chronology would be in existence in some sense.

836. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282448 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 8:08 am

199. Comment #282433 by MaxD

I don't think you can say that no evidence means no x.

I didn't say that you could. In fact you're quoting me saying that it isn't proof. That would be the negative proof fallacy otherwise.

I say that it is evidence, in that it implies, not proves.

Sagan makes the argument that if there is zero supporting evidence, then one should assume the negative until evidence becomes available.

Also, I find the distinction to exist merely in words. In practice, when you look in your fridge for an apple, and you see no apples, you don't conclude that that doesn't mean that there are no apples in there. That is exactly what you conclude. It is always possible that you are mistaken, or have not looked hard enough, but if you search for something, and can't find it, you assume that it isn't there.

I'm a realist -- if what someone says doesn't translate into affecting their behavior, then it is all talk. Including arguments like this. In every day life, everyone behaves an awful lot like absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

837. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282426 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

186. Comment #282410 by Bonzai

Of course! It all makes sense to me now.

838. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282423 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 7:44 am

182. Comment #282396 by Quetzalcoatl

It is a good point that you make about it being illogical to talk about causality without chronology. Steve as got me considering that there likely is a multiverse, so I tend to leave that point alone these days, because if that is true, time would have preceded the big bang, at least in some form.

That argument is such a great "prime mover" destroyer too.

839. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282392 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 6:54 am

178. Comment #282385 by Tyler Durden

There are a few answers to this question that I know of, both scientific, and philosophical. I'll give what I think to be the best of both.

The scientific one is simply that it didn't. If quantum mechanics is correct, then the closest to "nothing" you get is a field of quantum instability, where spikes of random energy called quantum fluctuations "bring about" particles from the field. These particles were apparently already there, but they require something to "bring them out". So in short, it didn't, and the big bang does not even remotely suggest that "something came from nothing" as apologists like to claim.

The Philosophical answer is that it begs the question. By asking "how did something come from nothing" presupposes that the natural and original state of things is "nothingness", but nothing in our experience suggests this. There is always something, and nothing "comes into existence" except by definition alone. As far as we are aware, everything is just the reformation of preexisting material.

So in short, there is no good reason to think that "something came from nothing" so to ask how it occurred is a pseudo-problem. The question is thus dissolved.

840. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282377 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 5:33 am

I thought you might say that! Remember I said capable of evaluating their beliefs rationally, not that they always do!

I know, and I thought that you might say this!! I'm two steps ahead of you!

I'm not aware of it either, but absence of evidence and all that. Still, it doesn't really matter.

As much as it pains me -- I disagree with Sagan about that. I think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It just isn't proof of absence.

Also, if you have ever read his "The Dragon In My Garage" argument, I think that he even disagrees with himself there. That entire argument is that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

841. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282373 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 5:24 am

seemed to me that Bnonn Tennant was arguing for his god interpretation being the default explanation. I thought this could be tested by setting up a sort of 'Truman Show' scenario (ignoring the ethical issues!), providing a selection of children with no religious or scientific teaching. They should be kept separate from each other, to avoid cross-contamination.

Something similar was attempted a few times by a few different people to attempt to ascertain what language was spoken in the Garden of Eden.

It always turned out to be the language of the person performing the experiment. Go figure.

842. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282371 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 5:19 am

169. Comment #282365 by Quetzalcoatl

"where the entity in question is capable of holding beliefs and evaluating them on a rational basis"

There goes a rather large chunk of the human population. (^_~)

This is arguable, especially the "almost certainly" part. In particular the point needs to be made that most within those cultures would not have given any thought to the matter, and just trusted what they were told about it.

This could be true, but I'm unaware of any evidence of a single person that came to the conclusion of either heliocentricism or that the earth was round without evidence that questions the opposite position.

It is arguable that people may have come to those conclusions naturally, and first, but I don't think that it is evident that anyone in fact did. I could be wrong though.

843. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282363 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

167. Comment #282357 by Quetzalcoatl

You can argue that a child is atheist by default given that they are not born with belief in God. But I don't think you can say that atheism is therefore their basic belief/viewpoint, given that they have never really thought about it or been exposed to ideas about it.

This depends on how you define atheism. If you define it as the conviction that there are no god/s, then no, it is not a default position. That requires thought, and consideration of the proposition that there are god/s. If you define it as merely the lack of belief in god/s, then it is a default position...of course then rocks are atheists too. There is significant disagreement among atheists in my experience over which of these two definitions should be used. I opt for the former one.

In the same sense, it couldn't be argued that flat-earthism is a basic belief, any more than spherical-earthism would be. If someone has never thought about something then by default they surely have no position or belief about the matter.

I think that this is quite different. Since every culture in the world at one time thought that the world was flat, and that the sun went round it, I do think that it can be said that they all came upon this belief by operating in the world, and being fooled by their perception, and the fact that how their immediate surroundings appeared to operate did not translate to how things operated on a grander scheme. So, I think that the default position is to trust your senses, and think that your senses alone would almost certainly bring you to these false conclusions each time.

A properly basic belief? I don't know. I give my reason to MPhil why I don't think that it is. Default positions? I think so.

844. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282355 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 4:29 am

I still think that we are here for no other reason than we exist (as far as we are aware, lol)

Cogito ergo sum! (^_~)

As for the rest of what you said -- personally I don't know what the fuck I'm up to, but in retrospect I'll probably regret it.

845. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282351 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 4:25 am

don't ask me. though it could be argued that without education to critical thinking, some animism/supernaturalism is likely to occur as a default interpretation. Wishful and fantastic thinking is in the nature of children...

That's true. Though I thought that it only counted if we required it to function properly in the world as well?

Otherwise you could argue that dualism is a basic belief, or that the world is flat, or geocentricism. If basic beliefs are just any belief everyone tends to come upon then they still would need to be justified, as many of them are clearly wrong.

Though I only heard the arguments third hand, so you would know better than I would.

846. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282347 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 4:09 am

159. Comment #282344 by MPhil

Can that even be reasonably said about something you have to be taught though? How can a belief that you are taught as a child be both a properly basic belief, or a default position?

847. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282343 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:54 am

153. Comment #282336 by MPhil

I merely said that it was poor circumstantial evidence. I didn't say that it was proof.

I've heard the idea of "basic beliefs" used to address demand to justify a belief in the objective world. The idea that beliefs that one requires to operate in the world, do not require justification.

I've also seen this used to support theism...but rather nonsensically, because atheists exist and operate in the world just fine.

848. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282340 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:50 am

156. Comment #282339 by Steve Zara

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying Steve... I am not saying that the idea makes sense, is defensible, or anything like that, I am saying that you can't tell other people what they are saying.

If I tell you that two headed four-tailed invisible pink dolphins with 3 heads one tail and that is actually isn't pink exist. It does not matter that what I said makes no sense, that still doesn't allow you to redefine what I said. If you want to argue against the existence of my impossible, and nonsensical creature, then I'm sure you could easily, but redefining it is something you can't do, no matter how absurd it is.

849. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282337 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:40 am

151. Comment #282332 by Steve Zara

For one, they aren't supernaturalists at "infidels.org". Secondly, that is not a definition, it is taken from a paragraph explaining why science cannot include a "supernatural realm", and thirdly, in context it seems more like they're saying that if the "supernatural" is allowed into science then anything at all will get in, when they say "a game of no rules" -- taken into account what preceded that quote.

So...

850. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282328 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

148. Comment #282327 by Steve Zara

Find me a supernaturalist that agrees to the definition "obeys no rules". That is why I started by saying that I've never heard that definition before.

If you want to argue that if something doesn't follow laws than it is incoherent, and if it does than it is natural. Then that is different than saying that the supernatural means that, you are saying that it necessitates or implies that.

If that is what you were doing then I misunderstood you.