AFA Forums Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

#61
15th May 2017, 11:05 PM
 Strato What Me Deluded? Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: The Bellarine, Geelong. Posts: 5,211
Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

I feel I am being rather too combative with you MT.

Yet I am very sceptical with your reference to the "pompous critic who won't let me post on my own thread." What is that?

And secondly, one has no claim to ownership of a thread they might have initiated or provoked responses to.

With regard to the supposition, more like a schema that the universe is a cyclical mechanism, wheels within wheels as it were, there is a theory to that effect among the 9 or more Multiverse models proposed, the Cyclical Multiverse theory.

I conjecture symmetry is a principle in any viable universe, and in the totality of existence. Universes might come into existence and self cancel pretty much instantaneously as they failed to manifest and contain inherent symmetry. Those which do are sustained. Ours looks like continuing in its accelerating expansion under negative gravity.

Given this conceit of material or dimensional reality being a balancing act, dynamism also obtains. Universes arise, ours as a Big Bang from a singularity. So I also infer that a principle of 'tension and release' is continually at work, dynamism, perturbations, toing and froing . Perhaps materiality is proliferating; existence is fecund, it would seem.

This does not warrant the god proposition, a divine operational agency giving rise to all this stupefying dynamism and supersymmetry.

It was at least Strato of Lampsacus (d.269BCE), head of the Lyceum in Athens who said (paraphrased), 'the Universe is ultimate and self sustaining and there is no call to appeal to some divine explanatory principle outside it'.

Stratonician presumption. 'The claim that it is up to anyone wanting to postulate a God (or any other initiating or sustaining principle outside and beyond the Universe) to show sufficient reason for so doing. Why cannot the Universe's existence and fundamental characteristics be themselves the ultimates of explanation?"

A Pan Dictionary of Philosophy, Anthony Flew ed.

So my answer to the initial question is 'no'. There is still no evidence to support the God proposition and so there is also no qualifying character attendant to it. It is merely a meme and a schema abiding in a great many individuals' minds.
__________________
DNA is a coded description of ancestral environments, a 'genetic book of the dead'. Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist, Richard Dawkins.

Last edited by Strato; 15th May 2017 at 11:07 PM.
 bruce1937 liked this post
#62
16th May 2017, 12:19 AM
 SEG Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Hills District of Sydney Posts: 375
Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

Quote:
 odd said I got it the first time SEG - it wasn't nuanced or subtle, it was a cheap shot, we all make typos. Further, I don't appreciate you having a second go at it... Try it again and you will earn yourself another break.
I know we all make typos. Obviously the irony was lost on you.
#63
17th May 2017, 02:38 AM
 hackenslash Trust me, I'm not a doctor. Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes Posts: 1,535
Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

Quote:
Quote:
 hackenslash said So you got this notion of 'the popular conception of time' and 'forever' from Wikipedia, did you? What you clearly don't get is that the point of asking you how you're defining these terms is not so that you can point us to a dictionary, which doesn't absolve you of your discursive responsibilities, but so that we can ascertain precisely what you're talking about. Indeed, this is the entire purpose of semantics. So, what do you mean by 'forever'?
Thanks Hackenslash

My legal training re word meanings are what is says in the Australian Dictionaries unless there is a defined meaning in any appropriate legislation.

My Jounalism training, re words, is to use the words from a small pocket dictionary for easy reading in a single pass.

So I am happy with the Dictionary meanings - if I have a need to redefine words I will do so, and as a creative writer will make words up if I choose.

The Australian legal dictionaries are the Australian Collins Dictionary and the Maquarie Dictionary. You have to pay for the online Maquarie Dictionary but the Collins Dictionary English version is free. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...nglish/forever

Has gone on forever is obviously the past tense.

Re TIME

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/time

I am happy with the meanings of my words " time" and "forever" being as defined in respected dictionaries. And I am happy with what Wiki said on "TIME"

I know you want to argue "The ins and outs of a dog's bum".

I used words that are in any small pocket respected dictionary for example Collins Pocket Dictionary.

It ain't that difficult. (yes "ain't" is in the dictionary)
Well done for completely missing the point. I wasn't asking what some dictionary lists as the definition, I was asking what you mean.

I put it to you that these terms stand undefined, and pointing to a dictionary does absolutely nothing to get us anywhere near what you mean.

__________________

#64
17th May 2017, 02:41 AM
 hackenslash Trust me, I'm not a doctor. Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes Posts: 1,535
Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

Quote:
 Strato said I expect Hack, for one, who is writing a book (still, I hope) can comprehend the modern understanding of reality as it has been developed so far, and the theories, which are being subject to mathematical examination by maths nerd geniuses.
I am and I can.

Quote:
 It's clear Brian Greene can comprehend the big and small picture as far as is possible, and the alternative models of possible universes and the maths, algebra involved. The Hidden Reality, for one, deserves your time. https://www.bookdepository.com/searc...arch=Find+book The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene is a $10 Penguin. These books come with my highest recommendation, along with The Elegant Universe, which is mostly about M Theory. Brilliant all. __________________ #65 17th May 2017, 02:49 AM  hackenslash Trust me, I'm not a doctor. Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes Posts: 1,535 Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God Quote:  Madame Tarot said I am baffled tho by the pedantic response to the word Universe and it's definition being finite/specific/unchangeable but meanwhile I have complaints about me not defining another word "because it's meaning could extend beyond its Dictionary meaning." Actually, if memory serves, all we asked for was how you were using the word 'universe', because even cosmologists use the word to refer both to the post-Planck iteration and to the broader cosmos. As for the rest, there isn't any such thing as a 'dictionary meaning', because dictionaries are descriptive of current usage (and by current, I mean almost always somewhat out of date) and contain much ambiguity. Usage changes, hence the word 'prove' which used to mean 'test', now meaning 'show to be correct'. Quote:  Methinks the posters in here could learn from R Dawkins. Hahahaha. You're fucking kidding. You should be aware that quite a few of the posters here have first-hand experience of Dawkins, having been prolific members of his forum prior to its closure. What is it you think Dawkins could teach us about your failure to define the terms you're using? Quote:  When R Dawkins could not find an existing word that he wanted to use he coined his own - that word of course was "memes" and was supposed to be a mix of memory and genes. He's coined far more than just that one term. Perhaps you should reads some of his books. Quote:  So I think the pedants should accept English "as she is spoke" and defined and refrain when from pointing out when words are used wrongly, because if they can point that out then they must have known what the scribe meant. Nobody's pointed out an incorrect usage to my knowledge, because you haven't actually fucking specified your usage. Perhaps this will be useful to you: http://reciprocity-giving-something-...tfalls-of.html Quote:  Effective communication trumps grammer. spelling, punctuation and correct word use every time. You aren't communicating effectively, because you're throwing around undefined terms and then pointing to usage guides as if that absolves you of your discursive responsibility. __________________  odd, Strato liked this post #66 17th May 2017, 02:54 AM  hackenslash Trust me, I'm not a doctor. Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes Posts: 1,535 Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God Quote:  Madame Tarot said Terry Pratchet and two scientists mates wrote 3 books and to keep it all interesting TP threaded in his usual fantasy. These, the Science of the Discworld series, by Terry Pratchett, Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, also come highly recommended. Very funny, and hugely informative. __________________  wearestardust liked this post #67 6th July 2017, 11:26 PM  Strato What Me Deluded? Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: The Bellarine, Geelong. Posts: 5,211 Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God Quote: hackenslash said Quote:  Strato said I expect Hack, for one, who is writing a book (still, I hope) can comprehend the modern understanding of reality as it has been developed so far, and the theories, which are being subject to mathematical examination by maths nerd geniuses. I am and I can. Quote:  It's clear Brian Greene can comprehend the big and small picture as far as is possible, and the alternative models of possible universes and the maths, algebra involved. The Hidden Reality, for one, deserves your time. https://www.bookdepository.com/searc...arch=Find+book The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene is a$10 Penguin.
These books come with my highest recommendation, along with The Elegant Universe, which is mostly about M Theory. Brilliant all.
Thanks for recommending The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, 1999. So I got it and have finished it, plus the endnotes, for the mathematically inclined reader. Greene certainly is a talented explainer of quantum theory and theoretical physics in general.

Some education. Would that our friend Truth-Lover were found reading such a profound book.
__________________
DNA is a coded description of ancestral environments, a 'genetic book of the dead'. Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist, Richard Dawkins.
 The Irreverent Mr Black, hackenslash liked this post hackenslash thanked this post

 Bookmarks