Well, it was in the middle of one of our debates that he offered me his proof of the existance of a higher being. Hold on, because this 'proof' was actually so.... I dont even have the slightest idea of how to describe it. So I now submit it to anyone who might want to take a shot at it, as I cannot seem to find the words.
His proof was this: God exists because there is no such thing as random.
To which I just stared at him with incredulity. But he went on to say that everything happens due to a concrete reason. You throw a rock, and it lands where it lands due to foreward motion, velocity, wind variation, etc. According to him, randomized outputs from a computer are not technically random because they are still outputs from a machine that controls its outputs, by its very nature.
Now, this guy is actually very intelligent. He's successfully started two businesses, recently made E5 during a tough exam cycle, and just last month found out that he had gotten picked up for the officer program as a pilot. So this seems to me to be a bit incongruous to his character. Or maybe its just me.. because it sounds like he's trying to use logic to justify god.
Is this just a weird form of intelligent design?
You can't logically argue "The big bang had to be caused by something because everything has a cause EXCEPT GOD because God doesn't have a cause because it says so in the Bible"
I found this on the old google, seems to be a nice little back and forth on the issue.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8768.htm
quote:
Azakias screamed this from the crapper:
Is this just a weird form of intelligent design?
No, it's just stupid. There is indeed such a thing as random. Argument over.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
For example, let's say you see a speck of dust floating in the air. You know the air has lots of little wind currents, that will cause the dust to move around. However, you do not know what those wind patterns are, unless they in turn come from a source you recognize, such as a desk fan. So instead of trying to trace every single source of every minute wind current, you just call them random wind currents. The movement of the dust is subsequently regarded as random movement.
Now, your friend may have been referring to human actions and decisions. Again, the same principle applies. People are affected subconsciously by numerous factors. These factors then affect the people's decisions, whether those people realize it or not. Since the source of every subconscious influence cannot be consciously traced, they are 'unknown' influences, on the basis of which people make 'random' choices.
If your friend believes so firmly in cause and effect, ask him what caused the existence of God. It's one of those little quandries that religion loves to dismiss by making God the exception to every rule. (Like the benevolent deity who allows people to suffer horrible diseases regardless of merit.)
quote:
Karnaj needs the precioussses:
No, it's just stupid. There is indeed such a thing as random. Argument over.
This too. The thing is you can take a good number of situations and make a detailed statistical analysis accounting for every affecting force on the possible outcomes that, if done perfectly, will give you the most probable result... but that is only the most probable outcome, not a certain outcome.
Electrons, for instance, are randomly located on their shell. We can statistically determine that they are likely to be in set areas, but we can't even measure where they are, let alone positively determine their position at any given future time.
The universe, it turns out, is based on randomness.
Further, even if we accept his argument, it leads to the conclusion that there's no such thing as free will, since determinism and omniscience are both incompatible with the notion of free will.
So, in short, your buddy's clueless.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Or the other version...
OMG, There is TOO a such thing as random. *Shakes tiny fist*
Prove it!
"OMG, Cause I SAID so. And books exist, so if you disagree, you're just dumb"
"Because" is not debunking.
Now, I'm not calling anybody wrong.. I'm just saying the argument lacks convincing evidence.
Kegwen fucked around with this message on 03-20-2008 at 02:42 PM.
Besides try to walk with a hurt spine
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Kegwen got served! Kegwen got served!
You can't refute tomes of scientific evidence by saying, "yeah, well what if it isn't!?"
You didn't get the email? As it turns out, if you're ignorant in something, you get to say that the evidence for that something doesn't exist. That's how we atheists have been swinging for years, pretending we're correct. We're actually just ignorant of all the evidence for God.
I'll remember to CC you next time. Sorry about that. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Kaiote absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Randomness DOES exist...
Oh yeah, Prove it.
Randomness is unpredictable which proves it is random.
So, since you can't prove it exists by example, because of the nature of randomness being random.. in order to prove it is random, it would have to be predicted, which would in essence make it disproven.
Yeah, thats right...Or the other version...
OMG, There is TOO a such thing as random. *Shakes tiny fist*
Prove it!
"OMG, Cause I SAID so. And books exist, so if you disagree, you're just dumb"
"Because" is not debunking.
Now, I'm not calling anybody wrong.. I'm just saying the argument lacks convincing evidence.
You're that stupid little kid that followed every answer with another, "Why?" over and over and over and over again until you got smacked upside the head and told to go to bed without dinner and STFU, aren't you.
Because the fact remains, as Karnaj once again pointed out, that your ignorance doesn't disprove our argument. "It does exist--go read quantum theory," is a perfectly valid answer. Nothing in my contract with the universe mentions I have to do your math for you just because you're too fucking lazy to go read up on something that's been common knowledge among anyone with a decent education for quite some time.
Besides, as I pointed out, claiming determinism as an argument for the existence of God causes more problems for the arguer than it solves even if it were correct, since it also does away with the basis for free will which is the fundamental argument for why God has to keep his existence a secret instead of growing a spine and simply proclaiming Himself in the street with more concrete proof. So, either way it's a dumb argument.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
So to say.
I'm a determinist at heart. But I view determinism as a bid that God does not exist -- order can exist without a divine hand behind it. We just don't know all the variables of this natural order yet. Nina fucked around with this message on 03-20-2008 at 03:56 PM.
quote:
Quoth Nina:
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."So to say.
I'm a determinist at heart. But I view determinism as a bid that God does not exist -- order can exist without a divine hand behind it. We just don't know all the variables of this natural order yet.
Einstein was wrong.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The EPR paradox and other things that he put fourth about quantum mechanics have since been disproved empirically.
Because we'll be having an Inquisition that makes the Spaniards' look like a polite inquiry. Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 03-20-2008 at 10:48 PM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Bloodsage obviously shouldn't have said:
You're that stupid little kid that followed every answer with another, "Why?" over and over and over and over again until you got smacked upside the head and told to go to bed without dinner and STFU, aren't you.Because the fact remains, as Karnaj once again pointed out, that your ignorance doesn't disprove our argument. "It does exist--go read quantum theory," is a perfectly valid answer. Nothing in my contract with the universe mentions I have to do your math for you just because you're too fucking lazy to go read up on something that's been common knowledge among anyone with a decent education for quite some time.
Besides, as I pointed out, claiming determinism as an argument for the existence of God causes more problems for the arguer than it solves even if it were correct, since it also does away with the basis for free will which is the fundamental argument for why God has to keep his existence a secret instead of growing a spine and simply proclaiming Himself in the street with more concrete proof. So, either way it's a dumb argument.
Dude. Decaf.
Never called you wrong. Just wanted something other than "Because".
Quantum Theory... It was boring in high school, and is useless in my line of work, so, yeah.. I don't feel the need to brush up on it.
And yes, as a kid I did ask "Why". I was fortunate enough to have parents that encouraged an inquisitive mind.
Anyway, I didn't think about how you argue before I responded. Insult me as much as you need to in order to verify your existance. I'll just go ahead and say it again in this thread.
"You win"
It's not actually required for us to do the math and explain all the examples in excruciating detail for people too stupid or lazy to do their own homework. Willful ignorance isn't an excuse, so grow up. If you can't be bothered to read up on a subject, you really shouldn't be arguing about it.
Don't you think?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
I love how people have taken the time to explain quantum mechanics to a person like me who can't understand it unless it's in cartoon form.
quote:
Khyron probably says this to all the girls:
favorite youtube videos
FUUUUUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK
quote:
Bloodsage thought about the meaning of life:
If you're too goddamned lazy to do your own reading on the subject, it's not my fault and points to no holes in my argument. The answer isn't simply, "Because," at all. The answer is, as everyone has said, "Randomness does exist, and here are a bunch of examples if you have further questions."It's not actually required for us to do the math and explain all the examples in excruciating detail for people too stupid or lazy to do their own homework. Willful ignorance isn't an excuse, so grow up. If you can't be bothered to read up on a subject, you really shouldn't be arguing about it.
Don't you think?
What part of "You win" do you not understand?
Here, let me explain it for you. I was not arguing the existance of God, as you assumed in your first response to me. So, you win on there.. even if it was an argument we were not having. I don't feel like going and reading up on quantum theory, because it is boring as all hell, and I haven't used it since I learned the shit in high school. The only purpose in doing so, would be to understand your point of view. And, your point of view being that it proves randomess, and therefore disproves the existance of god. We have established before that you and I have different beliefs on the subject. Neither of us is going to change our beliefs, regardless of anything the other says, and as you seem hellbent on winning an argument...
You Win.
quote:
Kaiote had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
What part of "You win" do you not understand?
Here, let me explain it for you. I was not arguing the existance of God, as you assumed in your first response to me. So, you win on there.. even if it was an argument we were not having. I don't feel like going and reading up on quantum theory, because it is boring as all hell, and I haven't used it since I learned the shit in high school. The only purpose in doing so, would be to understand your point of view. And, your point of view being that it proves randomess, and therefore disproves the existance of god. We have established before that you and I have different beliefs on the subject. Neither of us is going to change our beliefs, regardless of anything the other says, and as you seem hellbent on winning an argument...You Win.
tl;dr version: the point Kaiote brought up is essentially the argument Azakias would have been apt receive in response if she used the undetailed reasoning provided by Bloodsage. As this thread's purpose was to have Bloodsage explain a rebuttal, it'd be better to reason it out instead of offering what amounts "You ought to go read quantum physics and chaos theory."
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Damnati absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
tl;dr version: the point Kaiote brought up is essentially the argument Azakias would have been apt receive in response if she used the undetailed reasoning provided by Bloodsage. As this thread's purpose was to have Bloodsage explain a rebuttal, it'd be better to reason it out instead of offering what amounts "You ought to go read quantum physics and chaos theory."
No, it's not required to give detailed equations and explain every detail when one can refer to something that's already proven. That is the point. Anyone who comes back, as numbnuts did, by saying it has to be spelled out completely has, to paraphrase Gandalf, left the path of logic. It's simply not rational.
"I'm ignorant on that subject, therefore your argument is invalid," is stupid on the face of it, as is asserting that there's no such thing as randomness.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
No, it's not required to give detailed equations and explain every detail when one can refer to something that's already proven. That is the point. Anyone who comes back, as numbnuts did, by saying it has to be spelled out completely has, to paraphrase Gandalf, left the path of logic. It's simply not rational."I'm ignorant on that subject, therefore your argument is invalid," is stupid on the face of it, as is asserting that there's no such thing as randomness.
I have to ask this because, lacking this information, I can't make any sense of your posts: where, in this specific thread, has anyone offered a serious, valid dispute to the validity of your argument? Kaiote's initial post consists of example responses, not questions of validity.
As far as I can see, just about everyone agrees with the argument you present on some level or another. Despite that, you continue with your self-gratifying "neener neener, I needn't explain my argument" bullshit. Azakias asked you debunk an argument, the least you could have done is explained your reasoning clearly and concisely. I can't remember the specific occasion but I know you've bitched at people for doing the same thing you're doing here. That is to say, it's up to you to provide the information to support the argument, not up to us to "study up" so we can understand you. Damnati fucked around with this message on 03-22-2008 at 04:14 AM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Check out the big brain on Damnati!
That is to say, it's up to you to provide the information to support the argument, not up to us to "study up" so we can understand you.
So you do, what? Send the dumbest, least informed motherfucker you can find and thereby hope to make so much work for the other side that they finally throw up their hands and say, "Screw it. It's not worth the effort"?
I don't think so. If you're going to debate complex issues, it presupposes at least a certain level of intellect to ride the ride. Perhaps we need one of those "Your IQ must be at least this ------> high to be in this discussion" signs. Callalron fucked around with this message on 03-22-2008 at 08:10 PM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Callalron said:
So you do, what? Send the dumbest, least informed motherfucker you can find and thereby hope to make so much work for the other side that they finally throw up their hands and say, "Screw it. It's not worth the effort"?I don't think so. If you're going to debate complex issues, it presupposes at least a certain level of intellect to ride the ride. Perhaps we need one of those "Your IQ must be at least this ------> high to be in this discussion" signs.
You're right; we should take away everyone whose IQ is under 150's right to speak.
Not just the right, their ability too. Cut out their tongues.
If you're going to argue a subject, it helps to have at least a passing familiarity with the subject at hand. You don't have a constitutional right to have the basics of a subject spoon-fed to you by the opposition. If you want to argue black hole theory, you better know what one is and how it operates. Don't expect your opponent to give you a quick and dirty Astronomy 101 as part of the argument.
Choosing to stay uninformed doesn't invalidate the other side's argument.
quote:
Callalron stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Learn to read.If you're going to argue a subject, it helps to have at least a passing familiarity with the subject at hand. You don't have a constitutional right to have the basics of a subject spoon-fed to you by the opposition. If you want to argue black hole theory, you better know what one is and how it operates. Don't expect your opponent to give you a quick and dirty Astronomy 101 as part of the argument.
Choosing to stay uninformed doesn't invalidate the other side's argument.
I completely agree with this.
What I don't agree with, however, is your earlier statement of "you have to be this smart to debate issues."
IQ doesn't really have anything to do with whether you decide to learn what you're debating.
If anything, you should change your statement to "you must not be this ----> lazy to be in this discussion." or something similar.
Thinking is hard work, but it really is an option available to any healthy person willing to make the effort.
If you want to talk about it but don't want to inform yourself first, sure--but why not go put on the dunce cap and sit in the corner instead? It achieves the same results, but with even less effort. Everyone wins!
Thanks for the info, by the way. I'll be sure to use it in my arsenal.
But I do have a question of my own curiosity that this discussion brought up.
'Sage, how is omniscience and free will incompatible? I know that sounds like a dumb question, but wouldnt omniscience be the ability to know all possible outcomes, and free will would be to choose the outcome that is most natural?
From what little I can glean about quantum physics (which admittedly is not much) it seems like when you think you have a fact nailed down, it turns around and does something completely 180 from what it was doing before. Do you have to abandon conventional thinking to understand things at a quantom level?
And on a somewhat similar note, I just heard about some mathematical problem or theorum being solved. It is truly possible to come up with a mathematical problem that cannot be solved readily, whether by computer or human mind? And if so, how is that possible? It seems to me that since math is based on logic, there would always be a logical next step to take, so to speak... so how could it be unsolvable?
