The Problem of evoL

[Edgarcito]

32 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm back again, Ed.

 

So, could you please help me out by addressing the above?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

A finite universe and associated understanding would mean complete predictability and 100% certainty.  We, given the ability to account for all the associated factors, could calculate how it all plays out.  Conservation of space, time, void, etc. was completely accounted for.....this singularity accounted for this universe, perfect.

 

An infinite universe might present itself two-fold.  One, our inability to account for certainty, and two, our inability to define a limit. 

 

Does that help? 

[Edgarcito]

27 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps the Prof thinks that god has the power to make himself known and understandable to us on our terms?

 

That god can simultaneously demonstrate his omnipotence and his benevolence in a way that we can understand?

 

That if god cannot or will not do this, then he is not who and what he claims to be?

 

That god can effortlessly overcome any of our mental obstacles of definition or undefinition because he's god?

 

That god should have no problem showing his omnipotence and omnibenevolence to a scientist on a scientist's terms?

 

That because god hasn't done this yet, this indicates that god isn't who he claims to be?

 

 

The bottom line here Ed is that whatever objection you can come up with, god should be able to overcome it.

 

Otherwise he isn't god, right?

 

 

 

(Sorry if I've overstepped the mark Prof and attributed things to you that you don't agree with.)

 

Let's go back to the osmosis part of the diagram.  Per the story, there was a time where man and God resided together and man should have picked up holiness through osmosis.  Seems like God has already made Himself known and man rejected Him.  Speaking of "overcoming"....

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Au contraire, Ed.

 

Going back to the observable universe again; our best measurements indicate that the geometry of the universe is flat.

 

Flat universes do not curl up upon themselves to become enclosed and finite volumes of space.

 

They go on forever.  They are boundless and unbounded.  They are not confined or limited at all.

 

 

And I'm quite happy to live in an infinite universe and to be uncertain about a great many things.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

But weren't you the one that wanted to discuss that the unknown really doesn't play a factor?  Did you see my post about tabula rasa?  Are you going to please address that post?

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

A finite universe and associated understanding would mean complete predictability and 100% certainty.  We, given the ability to account for all the associated factors, could calculate how it all plays out.  Conservation of space, time, void, etc. was completely accounted for.....this singularity accounted for this universe, perfect.

 

An infinite universe might present itself two-fold.  One, our inability to account for certainty, and two, our inability to define a limit. 

 

Does that help? 

 

Well, not really.

 

Even if we live in a finite universe, it's still one where quantum uncertainty makes calculation of all factors impossible.

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to simultaneously know both the position AND the velocity of a given particle.

 

Unless you are denying that such quantum uncertainty exists?

 

?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's go back to the osmosis part of the diagram.  Per the story, there was a time where man and God resided together and man should have picked up holiness through osmosis.  Seems like God has already made Himself known and man rejected Him.  Speaking of "overcoming"....

 

We are speaking here about the Prof, who is not part of a story.

 

He is real.

 

Appealing to a story to answer questions from real people may be ok on a symbolic or allegorical level, but I can't see how it works on a real and realistic level.

 

Unless you have some way of demonstrating that this story is actually real history, how does appealing to it help?

 

You might believe the story is real history by using your faith, but faith doesn't make stories into reality.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But weren't you the one that wanted to discuss that the unknown really doesn't play a factor?  Did you see my post about tabula rasa?  Are you going to please address that post?

 

I'm sorry Ed, but I didn't understand it.

 

Could you try again please?

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, not really.

 

Even if we live in a finite universe, it's still one where quantum uncertainty makes calculation of all factors impossible.

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for us to simultaneously know both the position AND the velocity of a given particle.

 

Unless you are denying that such quantum uncertainty exists?

 

?

 

 

It was just a thought....

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We are speaking here about the Prof, who is not part of a story.

 

He is real.

 

Appealing to a story to answer questions from real people may be ok on a symbolic or allegorical level, but I can't see how it works on a real and realistic level.

 

Unless you have some way of demonstrating that this story is actually real history, how does appealing to it help?

 

You might believe the story is real history by using your faith, but faith doesn't make stories into reality.

 

 

You were the one invoking that god (unreal) should intervene.  That makes mentioning God in my example valid.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Ed, but I didn't understand it.

 

Could you try again please?

No sir, maybe another day.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You were the one invoking that god (unreal) should intervene.  That makes mentioning God in my example valid.

 

Yes, that's the mentioning of him, Ed.

 

But by mentioning Batman in this thread I don't cause him to become a real person, like the Prof.

 

The Prof is a real person in the real world, talking about the real world.

 

Mentioning the god of the bible without supplying evidence of his reality in this thread places god on the same footing as Batman in this thread.

 

So far here, no evidence has been presented for the reality of either Batman or the god of the bible.

 

And so the Professor's real world concerns remain unanswered and unaddressed.

 

And will continue to do so in this thread until god becomes as real as the Prof is.

 

 

Ed, beyond mentioning god, can you present any evidence here to make him as real as the Prof is?

 

So that the Prof's real world questions and concerns can be answered and addressed in a real world way?

 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, that's the mentioning of him, Ed.

 

But by mentioning Batman in this thread I don't cause him to become a real person, like the Prof.

 

The Prof is a real person in the real world, talking about the real world.

 

Mentioning the god of the bible without supplying evidence of his reality in this thread places god on the same footing as Batman in this thread.

 

So far here, no evidence has been presented for the reality of either Batman or the god of the bible.

 

And so the Professor's real world concerns remain unanswered and unaddressed.

 

And will continue to do so in this thread until god becomes as real as the Prof is.

 

 

Ed, beyond mentioning god, can you present any evidence here to make him as real as the Prof is?

 

So that the Prof's real world questions and concerns can be answered and addressed in a real world way?

 

No, I go on faith…. Please address to early request.  It’s rude to make me restate it when you at least haven’t given it a shot.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I go on faith…. Please address to early request.  It’s rude to make me restate it when you at least haven’t given it a shot.

 

Now I'm confused, Ed.

 

Are you saying that you invoke god by faith, to address the Prof's real world concerns?

 

Given that the Prof has no faith to accept your faith-based assertion of god's existence?

 

So, how are his real world questions and concerns being addressed if he cannot use faith to see that god is the solution?

 

?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, how are his real world questions and concerns being addressed if he cannot use faith to see that god is the solution?

I'm using a knowing, which is the same as faith. 

 

 

I'll see myself out, now...

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm using a knowing, which is the same as faith. 

 

 

I'll see myself out, now...

Glad you understand… or you might go ahead and submit otherwise…

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Glad you understand… or you might go ahead and submit otherwise…

 

And you have summed up the great disconnect right there, Ed.

 

 

As mentioned earlier, because he's god, nothing at all is impossible for him.  There are no barriers or obstacles that he cannot overcome.  So, he knew before he created the universe exactly what evidence the Prof would need to believe in his existence.  Showing that evidence to the Prof should be no problem at all for god.

 

But, according to his word, he chooses NOT to do this.

 

Even though he knows the Prof's terms and can easily fulfil them, god requires that the Prof SUBMIT to him first and believe that he exists on god's terms.  This tells us that even though god has the power to do all things, he is not willing to do all things.  That even though he can create and sustain a universe, he won't lift a finger to do certain things.

 

He won't lift a finger to spare the Prof from eternal hellfire, even though doing that would be ridiculously easy.  Worse still for the Prof, he's caught in a trap created by the bible contradicting itself.

 

John 20 : 30 & 31.

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

James 2 : 19 - 24.

 

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 

21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 

22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 

23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 

24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

 

So what does the Prof do to be saved?

Does he submit and believe what is written in the bible and so have life in Jesus's name?

Or does he submit and believe and also do good deeds so that he is considered righteous in god's eyes?

 

?

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And you have summed up the great disconnect right there, Ed.

 

 

As mentioned earlier, because he's god, nothing at all is impossible for him.  There are no barriers or obstacles that he cannot overcome.  So, he knew before he created the universe exactly what evidence the Prof would need to believe in his existence.  Showing that evidence to the Prof should be no problem at all for god.

 

But, according to his word, he chooses NOT to do this.

 

Even though he knows the Prof's terms and can easily fulfil them, god requires that the Prof SUBMIT to him first and believe that he exists on god's terms.  This tells us that even though god has the power to do all things, he is not willing to do all things.  That even though he can create and sustain a universe, he won't lift a finger to do certain things.

 

He won't lift a finger to spare the Prof from eternal hellfire, even though doing that would be ridiculously easy.  Worse still for the Prof, he's caught in a trap created by the bible contradicting itself.

 

John 20 : 30 & 31.

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

James 2 : 19 - 24.

 

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 

21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 

22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 

23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 

24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

 

So what does the Prof do to be saved?

Does he submit and believe what is written in the bible and so have life in Jesus's name?

Or does he submit and believe and also do good deeds so that he is considered righteous in god's eyes?

 

?

Walter, how in the fk did this conversation turn to faith and works.  

 

You wanted to know why God didn't intervene.  He did.  It is the Old Testament.  Now as a human, with it written down, you STILL don't get it.  And, to boot, I've given you a scientific discovery as an example that both of you could understand.  Maybe God sent me to help your dumb ass.  

 

Now Walter, we are discussing the proposition of a reality that is a math proof.  Try to imagine that.  If that were so, you would have no choice, your trajectory would end up in a finite spot, just a matter of calculating where you'd land.  The fact that our reality appears infinite suggests, to me anyway, that we do have a choice.  It's really pretty interesting, but you don't choose to enter into the exercise, rather deflect and get angry and abusive and all kinds of petty shit, because you don't have the gonads to do more.  A fk child Walter.  Man up and answer honestly to everyone's questions and quit being a little bitch.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, how in the fk did this conversation turn to faith and works.  

 

Yes, you are right, ed.  I shouldn't have taken this tangent.  Sorry about that.

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

 

You wanted to know why God didn't intervene.  He did.  It is the Old Testament.  Now as a human, with it written down, you STILL don't get it.  And, to boot, I've given you a scientific discovery as an example that both of you could understand.  Maybe God sent me to help your dumb ass.  

 

I think that this intervention deserves it's own thread, don't you?  So perhaps we should just leave that aside for now.

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Now Walter, we are discussing the proposition of a reality that is a math proof.  Try to imagine that.  If that were so, you would have no choice, your trajectory would end up in a finite spot, just a matter of calculating where you'd land.  The fact that our reality appears infinite suggests, to me anyway, that we do have a choice.  It's really pretty interesting, but you don't choose to enter into the exercise, rather deflect and get angry and abusive and all kinds of petty shit, because you don't have the gonads to do more.  A fk child Walter.  Man up and answer honestly to everyone's questions and quit being a little bitch.

 

 

Umm... I'm getting a little lost here, Ed.

 

Eighteen hours ago, when I pointed that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP) makes calculation of all factors impossible, it seemed as if you accepted defeat on that.  You replied... 'It was just a thought.'

 

But if we are now discussing the proposition of a reality that is a math proof, the UP still makes all such calculation impossible.  For exactly the same reason as before.  And you can't arrive at a mathematical proof if you can't perform the calculation.  So, it really doesn't matter if our reality is finite or infinite, the UP makes calculating all of the relevant factors impossible.

 

I would also like to point out that it's impossible for us to actually know if the universe is infinite or not.  The visual horizon at the 'edge' of the observable universe sees to that.  Beyond that horizon the universe could extend forever.  Or it could have a closed geometry and be finite, but with such a vast volume that the geometry of our tiny little observable portion just looks flat and infinite to us.

 

Given these two points I can't quite see where you are going with your idea that you can calculate if we have free will or not.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You wanted to know why God didn't intervene. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I think that this intervention deserves it's own thread, don't you?  So perhaps we should just leave that aside for now.

Wasn't that the original purpose of this thread?  The proposition that god has the ability to intervene but not the willingness?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 The proposition that god has the ability to intervene but not the willingness?

 

Non-beings don't have a will. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I'm reading a book about an idea of where "God" came from.  Ed, why don't you read, ANCIENT ALIENS IN THE BIBLE.  I think I see some possibilities there.  But I have an idea you will tell me to go to Hell without considering possibilities.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Wasn't that the original purpose of this thread?  The proposition that god has the ability to intervene but not the willingness?

 

Well, if you, as this thread's creator say that it's kosher Prof...

 

 

 

Ed claims that god did intervene. 

 

Yet, by his own admission (No, I go on faith....) he uses faith to believe that god did this.  

 

But, his claim is meaningless to those who do not share in his faith.  

 

We sceptics do not accept that god intervened then and we see no evidence of him doing so today.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks, @walterpthefirst.

 

@Edgarcito, would you like to offer a rebuttal?

[Edgarcito]

17 hours ago, Weezer said:

I'm reading a book about an idea of where "God" came from.  Ed, why don't you read, ANCIENT ALIENS IN THE BIBLE.  I think I see some possibilities there.  But I have an idea you will tell me to go to Hell without considering possibilities.

Truthfully Weezer, I just think you're a lost old man...

[Edgarcito]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, if you, as this thread's creator say that it's kosher Prof...

 

 

 

Ed claims that god did intervene. 

 

Yet, by his own admission (No, I go on faith....) he uses faith to believe that god did this.  

 

But, his claim is meaningless to those who do not share in his faith.  

 

We sceptics do not accept that god intervened then and we see no evidence of him doing so today.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makes me think of Forrest Gump....."are you stupid or something?"  Either you accept where we are in the story or you don't.

[Edgarcito]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thanks, @walterpthefirst.

 

@Edgarcito, would you like to offer a rebuttal?

I've been working.  Am going to read and return, thanks.