matthew wrote:This is cheap Nietzsche.

And simply calling it "cheap" isn't an argument.

jlamour wrote:

matthew wrote:

jlamour wrote:They can't.
The idea of a supernatural universe, utopia, god, heaven is simply something that Plato brought to a conceptual level thousands of years ago and has been rehashed via ANY religion

This is cheap Nietzsche.

Of course but Plato believed this obviously long before Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a Platonist.

Yep. I agree to an extent. Plato was.......oddly enough.....an intellectual poison in some respects.

Big topic.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:But you have to admit, Steve, that this sort of thing that you describe would have to happen trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times...the mind reels at the number..........and happen juuuuuust RIGHT, mind you.......for there to be a cosmos (as I defined it) as there is today. Your model falls short...way short.

If some chance event in the past came out differently, the universe wouldn't cease to be, it would just be different than it is now.

However, there would still be an order albeit a DIFFERENT order. Furthermore, it is INDEED TRUE that if SOME THINGS were not as they are, there would indeed not be the cosmos we see around us.

To look around you and say, "it couldn't have ended up like this by chance," is to mistakenly assume that nothing about the universe could have ever been any different than how we know it.

Sure it could have different. There's no question. But it isn't. And if it were, there would still be order. I repeat myself.

Miami on Tuesday couldn't be any warmer than it was, not by one degree. That acorn couldn't have fallen one centimeter to the left... That is the scale of difference we're talking about being "chance," and I think it is perfectly reasonable, given that we observe it all around us[Matt's emphasis].

No, I don't think it is reasonable given the incredible specificity and order in, for example, the most basic biological structures and functions. The wind blowing one way or another or a forest fire opening up an acorn is one thing (were you watching that show about Yellowstone too?)......but for example RNA synthesis....that's something else.

Of course things could be different, but this is how they are. It is a mistake to assume that someone decided that it should be precisely like this.

I don't think it is. Why is it a mistake?

...because it is a massive assumption, and people might think you are a crazy person to go about your life making decisions on the basis of a massive assumption.

careful now

jlamour wrote:

matthew wrote:

This is cheap Nietzsche.

Of course but Plato believed this obviously long before Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a Platonist.

Jlamour, what are you talking about? In what sense was Nietzsche a Platonist?

Nietzsche thought Plato was a 'slanderer of life' and a 'falsifier of reality.' Nietzsche was stridently anti-Platonic, critiquing Plato's theory of suprasensible forms and aligning it with the idealism and transcendentalism of Judeo-Christianity (which he deplored). Flip to the index of On the Genealogy of Morals and follow the page numbers for "Plato."

Nietzsche wrote:. . . that Christian belief, which was also Plato's belief, that God is the truth, that the truth is divine. . . But what if this self-same idea is becoming increasingly incredible, what if nothing any longer reveals itself as divine, apart from errors, blindness, lies--what if God himself proves to be our oldest lie?

And what's your point about Marx in the context of religion?

ivan wrote:...because it is a massive assumption, and people might think you are a crazy person to go about your life making decisions on the basis of a massive assumption.

careful now

It is an assumption based on a great deal of evidence, Ivan, and any assumption based on solid evidence is reasonable even if it is not necessarily 100% correct. Is it more sane to assume that all around us is meaningless, when massive evidence points to functionality, order, and design in the cosmos? That is rather such an insane assumption that it defies words! Sure there may be piles of Steve-o's hypothetical beans around, but someone had to grow the beans in the first place, not to mention throw them.

YOU be careful! Sheesh.

matthew wrote:

ivan wrote:...because it is a massive assumption, and people might think you are a crazy person to go about your life making decisions on the basis of a massive assumption.

careful now

It is an assumption based on a great deal of evidence, Ivan, and any assumption based on solid evidence is reasonable even if it is not necessarily 100% correct. Is it more sane to assume that all around us is meaningless, when massive evidence points to functionality, order, and design in the cosmos? That is rather such an insane assumption that it defies words! Sure there may be piles of Steve-o's hypothetical beans around, but someone had to grow the beans in the first place, not to mention throw them.

YOU be careful! Sheesh.

try googling "Chaos Theory." there's just as much evidence in that direction.



mmmmmm....delicious Entropy.........

matthew wrote:someone had to grow the beans in the first place, not to mention throw them.

Just because nature is ordered does not suggest "someone" has designed it. Anthropomorphising nature is a fundamental flaw in the approach to understanding it. It's easy to anthropomorphise natural phenomena because it puts them into a familiar, understandable context, but that only works as a metaphor, and precludes empirically testable truth, and so it has nothing to do with science (which is the topic of this thread, or so I thought.)

matthew wrote

Is it more sane to assume that all around us is meaningless

I understand why you believe what you believe, its the very basis of cristianity ie: who did this? - answer - an immortal being upon whose image humans are modelled. So a giant unseen superman arranged the universe, and you will interpret all evidence only within this framework.

Personally i am not disappointed that the universe was not created intentionally. It doesnt take away from the specialness of life the universe and everything that they were not created by an old white guy. It does not rob my existence of meaning that the universe is a dangerous and random place, rather it makes me feel lucky and grateful to be here at all. Compare this view with cristian nut jobs who feel that the planet's environment does not matter because the rapture is imminent.

To make such an assumption takes insane risks on the basis of no evidence.

And if you want evidence that the universe was not created by an all knowing, all loving man-shaped architect, how about the fact that practically all of it would kill you instantly were to try to walk around it. Or the fact that one day the sun will explode outwards engulfing the earth in flame. Or the fact that by going forth and multiplying as we were told, we have completely scewed the planet.

matthew wrote:But you have to admit, Steve, that this sort of thing that you describe would have to happen trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times...the mind reels at the number..........and happen juuuuuust RIGHT, mind you.......for there to be a cosmos (as I defined it) as there is today. You model falls short...way short.

so basically, what you are saying is that since the chance of steve's Snoopy thing happening (and i would love to see this experiment, i'll bring the nutterbutters!) is possibly 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1, that it is impossible?

the fact that there is a X to 1 Chance of something happening proves that it IS possible to happen.

sure, it may take thousands of tries, but it is possible.

i guess one of the hangups of talking evolution with christians (or insert other dopey religoius folk) is explaining that evolution takes place over millions of years, and well, they think the earth is about, what is it now? 4000 years old?

the first post of this thread reminded me of the last chapter of "the code book" by simon sinh - and i concur with the other poster, everybody go pick up some richard dawkins, i'm gonna go with the Blind Watchmaker or the Selfish Gene on this one.

andyk