Good Without God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…look pat, we’re not connecting here. I’m doing my best to explain what i mean, but somehow you are just not getting it. One more try: you cannot predict the charge of a particle that came from the core of the sun, interacted with countless other particles on it’s journey, changing it’s charge as a result of that interaction, and then made it’s way to earth to be measured by a scientist.

…that particle’s charge came about by chance, by random interaction with other particles in the seething nuclear furnace that is Ra, our glorious sun. Okay?

[/quote]

I get it, you are just wrong. It’s not random, there is a reason it behaves to way it does, we just don’t know why. True randomness has not predictable qualities period. The second you put constrictions on this supposed randomness, it ceases to be random. Our understanding is that it is “random” with in a constraint. That’s not true randomness. It comes from something or somewhere and it behaves the way it does for some reason. Not understanding the nature of something is not the same as random…It may appear random, but it is not.[/quote]

…what do you mean by behave? [/quote]

Why it does what it does.

142

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…

…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…

…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]

Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]

…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[/quote]

Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]

…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[/quote]

Fuck what? Whose reality? Everyone’s…how am I? Because it is observable in nature…by many different sources and people…

143

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
If I create a uniform superposition of states representing, say, the integers 1 to 10, and then make a measurement, the result is a random number. By all means predict what that will be, but you won’t do better than guessing.[/quote]

If you could understand the how and what part thermal variations that affect the phase, you could predict. But we don’t; yet.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand. Assuming the Born rule, then the probability that I observe, say, a five is exactly 1/10. How do I do better than that?

144

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…look pat, we’re not connecting here. I’m doing my best to explain what i mean, but somehow you are just not getting it. One more try: you cannot predict the charge of a particle that came from the core of the sun, interacted with countless other particles on it’s journey, changing it’s charge as a result of that interaction, and then made it’s way to earth to be measured by a scientist.

…that particle’s charge came about by chance, by random interaction with other particles in the seething nuclear furnace that is Ra, our glorious sun. Okay?

[/quote]

I get it, you are just wrong. It’s not random, there is a reason it behaves to way it does, we just don’t know why. True randomness has not predictable qualities period. The second you put constrictions on this supposed randomness, it ceases to be random. Our understanding is that it is “random” with in a constraint. That’s not true randomness. It comes from something or somewhere and it behaves the way it does for some reason. Not understanding the nature of something is not the same as random…It may appear random, but it is not.[/quote]

…what do you mean by behave? [/quote]

Why it does what it does.[/quote]

…do you understand i wasn’t talking about behaviour?

145

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…

…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…

…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]

Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]

…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[/quote]

Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]

…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[/quote]

Fuck what? Whose reality? Everyone’s…how am I? Because it is observable in nature…by many different sources and people…[/quote]

…it that is true then how do you explain that the USA still has the deathpenalty? All the other western first world countries abolished the deathpenalty for, amongst other things, being immoral. Does that mean you aren’t focussed in reality?

146

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…

…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…

…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]

Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]

…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[/quote]

Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]

…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[/quote]

Fuck what? Whose reality? Everyone’s…how am I? Because it is observable in nature…by many different sources and people…[/quote]

…it that is true then how do you explain that the USA still has the deathpenalty? All the other western first world countries abolished the deathpenalty for, amongst other things, being immoral. Does that mean you aren’t focussed in reality?
[/quote]

Sorry buddy, that is the State’s doing. I have voted against the death penalty, I find it immoral and repulsive that someone would think that killing one man would justify another man’s death. It won’t bring back the man or change the injustice of the act of murdering.

147

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]

…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[/quote]

Fuck what? Whose reality? Everyone’s…how am I? Because it is observable in nature…by many different sources and people…[/quote]

[quote]…it that is true then how do you explain that the USA still has the deathpenalty? All the other western first world countries abolished the deathpenalty for, amongst other things, being immoral. Does that mean you aren’t focussed in reality?

Sorry buddy, that is the State’s doing. I have voted against the death penalty, I find it immoral and repulsive that someone would think that killing one man would justify another man’s death. It won’t bring back the man or change the injustice of the act of murdering.[/quote]

…look pal, that doesn’t matter, does it? It simply means that, by your own standards, you’re more grounded in reality than the majority of voters. That includes people from within your own religion. But it’s good to know you’re against the deathpenalty. There’s hope for you yet!

148

“The obstacles I put before you show what I think of you.”

God wants us to think, to grow, to evolve. God’s process is to create thought.

Oh, and God said the above (in quotes) to me as I drove my son back to the airport so he can return to the Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Make of it what you will.

149

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…look pat, we’re not connecting here. I’m doing my best to explain what i mean, but somehow you are just not getting it. One more try: you cannot predict the charge of a particle that came from the core of the sun, interacted with countless other particles on it’s journey, changing it’s charge as a result of that interaction, and then made it’s way to earth to be measured by a scientist.

…that particle’s charge came about by chance, by random interaction with other particles in the seething nuclear furnace that is Ra, our glorious sun. Okay?

[/quote]

I get it, you are just wrong. It’s not random, there is a reason it behaves to way it does, we just don’t know why. True randomness has not predictable qualities period. The second you put constrictions on this supposed randomness, it ceases to be random. Our understanding is that it is “random” with in a constraint. That’s not true randomness. It comes from something or somewhere and it behaves the way it does for some reason. Not understanding the nature of something is not the same as random…It may appear random, but it is not.[/quote]

…what do you mean by behave? [/quote]

Why it does what it does.[/quote]

…do you understand i wasn’t talking about behaviour?
[/quote]

Your talking about the charge of the particle and how it got it. You’re saying it cannot be know and I am saying of you could understand all the variables involved, you can know where it came from, why it did what it did, and what the resultant charge will be. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. The fact that there are blanks present a very large problem for the whole “random” theory. You have to know all the variables involved and prove none to them apply. The problem is knowing all the variables, unless you can do that, you cannot prove it was random. The second you put constraints on a things behaviour it ceases to be random. For instance, “it” is always a sub atomic particle and the result is always a positive a negative charge. The particle comes from somewhere and it’s resultant charge is as a result of something, not nothing. There is a reason it is what it is. Random means there something is for no reason what so ever. That is not the case here…Random, is just a name for somrthing, it’s not truly random.

150

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
If I create a uniform superposition of states representing, say, the integers 1 to 10, and then make a measurement, the result is a random number. By all means predict what that will be, but you won’t do better than guessing.[/quote]

If you could understand the how and what part thermal variations that affect the phase, you could predict. But we don’t; yet.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand. Assuming the Born rule, then the probability that I observe, say, a five is exactly 1/10. How do I do better than that?[/quote]

I can’t tell you how to do better than that, I don’t know how and apparently nobody at this moment does. However, That doesn’t mean the remaining unknowns won’t be figured out in order to give more accurate measurements.
If we had the missing information we could be deadly accurate. We’re dealing with unknown variables requiring us to rely on probability. Not knowing all the info is not the same as same thing being random.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…do you understand i wasn’t talking about behaviour?
[/quote]

Your talking about the charge of the particle and how it got it. You’re saying it cannot be know and I am saying of you could understand all the variables involved, you can know where it came from, why it did what it did, and what the resultant charge will be. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. The fact that there are blanks present a very large problem for the whole “random” theory. You have to know all the variables involved and prove none to them apply. The problem is knowing all the variables, unless you can do that, you cannot prove it was random. The second you put constraints on a things behaviour it ceases to be random. For instance, “it” is always a sub atomic particle and the result is always a positive a negative charge. The particle comes from somewhere and it’s resultant charge is as a result of something, not nothing. There is a reason it is what it is. Random means there something is for no reason what so ever. That is not the case here…Random, is just a name for somrthing, it’s not truly random.[/quote]

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…

152

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…do you understand i wasn’t talking about behaviour?
[/quote]

Your talking about the charge of the particle and how it got it. You’re saying it cannot be know and I am saying of you could understand all the variables involved, you can know where it came from, why it did what it did, and what the resultant charge will be. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. The fact that there are blanks present a very large problem for the whole “random” theory. You have to know all the variables involved and prove none to them apply. The problem is knowing all the variables, unless you can do that, you cannot prove it was random. The second you put constraints on a things behaviour it ceases to be random. For instance, “it” is always a sub atomic particle and the result is always a positive a negative charge. The particle comes from somewhere and it’s resultant charge is as a result of something, not nothing. There is a reason it is what it is. Random means there something is for no reason what so ever. That is not the case here…Random, is just a name for somrthing, it’s not truly random.[/quote]

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…
[/quote]

Why do you give up rather than prove your case?

153

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…
[/quote]

Why do you give up rather than prove your case?[/quote]

…i’ve made my case pat, a case i can’t prove to be true for the same reason you can’t prove your side to be true. I give up because this discussion has become pointless, and i have no interest in persuing a pointless discussion. So let’s move on…

154

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…
[/quote]

Why do you give up rather than prove your case?[/quote]

…i’ve made my case pat, a case i can’t prove to be true for the same reason you can’t prove your side to be true. I give up because this discussion has become pointless, and i have no interest in persuing a pointless discussion. So let’s move on…[/quote]

There is no true randomness anywhere in the universe. It’s a big claim to say that out of a complete absence of all existence, something for no reason at all randomly poofed into existence. Randomness in the case of the science your presented and what I have researched on my own, is just a substitute for bizarre, not understood activity. This does not make it causeless. Just because said particle achieved its charge by interacting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,^999,999,999,999 other particles doesn’t mean it aceived it’s charge randomly. It may be an incalculable number but it’s resultant charge was caused by a series of events leading up to said point.

You’ve brought some evidence to make a case, but you have definitely not made your case. You have not proven that any sort of randomness exists.

155

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…
[/quote]

Why do you give up rather than prove your case?[/quote]

…i’ve made my case pat, a case i can’t prove to be true for the same reason you can’t prove your side to be true. I give up because this discussion has become pointless, and i have no interest in persuing a pointless discussion. So let’s move on…[/quote]

There is no true randomness anywhere in the universe. It’s a big claim to say that out of a complete absence of all existence, something for no reason at all randomly poofed into existence. Randomness in the case of the science your presented and what I have researched on my own, is just a substitute for bizarre, not understood activity. This does not make it causeless. Just because said particle achieved its charge by interacting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,^999,999,999,999 other particles doesn’t mean it aceived it’s charge randomly. It may be an incalculable number but it’s resultant charge was caused by a series of events leading up to said point.

You’ve brought some evidence to make a case, but you have definitely not made your case. You have not proven that any sort of randomness exists.[/quote]

…and your argument hinges on your assertion that, if the universe was caused, something else that happens in the universe can’t happen randomly. That’s bull. Can you prove that everything is ordered? You can’t. Can i prove that there’s an element of chance in the universe? No, i can’t. That is why this discussion is pointless…

156

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You can’t apply “chaos” to things we don’t know, that even worse than “God did it”.[/quote]

Does this make the God fallacy correct?

No.

The fact is, in 20 years, science will have a better understanding of how the universe began, and the religious side will still be beating that same dead horse.[/quote]

Much of our current “understanding” of the universe sounds supiciously like cosmological theorizing done in the middle and other ages. Just like we will laugh at SRRI’s and other pharmacology as the contemporary equivalent of the frontal lobotomy, we will jeer in 100 years at most of the current cosmology as hopelessly inadequate. If we are getting anywhere scientifically, it is very slow - and it increasingly comes up against limits that we will never penetrate.

157

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You can’t apply “chaos” to things we don’t know, that even worse than “God did it”.[/quote]

Does this make the God fallacy correct?

No.

The fact is, in 20 years, science will have a better understanding of how the universe began, and the religious side will still be beating that same dead horse.[/quote]

Much of our current “understanding” of the universe sounds supiciously like cosmological theorizing done in the middle and other ages. Just like we will laugh at SRRI’s and other pharmacology as the contemporary equivalent of the frontal lobotomy, we will jeer in 100 years at most of the current cosmology as hopelessly inadequate. If we are getting anywhere scientifically, it is very slow - and it increasingly comes up against limits that we will never penetrate.

[/quote]

This makes space genies right because?

158

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i checked how long it takes for a particle to travel from the sun’s core to it’s surface, and it’s 30.000 years. That’s a long time. I get it that if you believe there is a reason for this universe, everything has to have reason and there can’t be randomness, even in the case of this particle. We just have to agree to disagree pat, i don’t see any point in continueing this discussion tbh…
[/quote]

Why do you give up rather than prove your case?[/quote]

…i’ve made my case pat, a case i can’t prove to be true for the same reason you can’t prove your side to be true. I give up because this discussion has become pointless, and i have no interest in persuing a pointless discussion. So let’s move on…[/quote]

There is no true randomness anywhere in the universe. It’s a big claim to say that out of a complete absence of all existence, something for no reason at all randomly poofed into existence. Randomness in the case of the science your presented and what I have researched on my own, is just a substitute for bizarre, not understood activity. This does not make it causeless. Just because said particle achieved its charge by interacting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,^999,999,999,999 other particles doesn’t mean it aceived it’s charge randomly. It may be an incalculable number but it’s resultant charge was caused by a series of events leading up to said point.

You’ve brought some evidence to make a case, but you have definitely not made your case. You have not proven that any sort of randomness exists.[/quote]

…and your argument hinges on your assertion that, if the universe was caused, something else that happens in the universe can’t happen randomly. That’s bull. Can you prove that everything is ordered? You can’t. Can i prove that there’s an element of chance in the universe? No, i can’t. That is why this discussion is pointless…
[/quote]

I can prove that everything we can know about the universe is ordered. And by sheer logic, I can prove that pure randomness is impossible. For pure randomness to be true something has to exist out of nothing for no reason at all. You’ve taken the bigger challenge and I can prove my point.

159

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]

…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[/quote]

Fuck what? Whose reality? Everyone’s…how am I? Because it is observable in nature…by many different sources and people…[/quote]

[quote]…it that is true then how do you explain that the USA still has the deathpenalty? All the other western first world countries abolished the deathpenalty for, amongst other things, being immoral. Does that mean you aren’t focussed in reality?

Sorry buddy, that is the State’s doing. I have voted against the death penalty, I find it immoral and repulsive that someone would think that killing one man would justify another man’s death. It won’t bring back the man or change the injustice of the act of murdering.[/quote]

…look pal, that doesn’t matter, does it? It simply means that, by your own standards, you’re more grounded in reality than the majority of voters. That includes people from within your own religion. But it’s good to know you’re against the deathpenalty. There’s hope for you yet![/quote]

Catholics are staunchly against the death penalty. It’s a violation of humanity.

160

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Catholics are staunchly against the death penalty. It’s a violation of humanity.[/quote]

We are?..oops.