Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Thanks, but you did not really answer the question whether or not it would be remarkable if Humans were the most advanced species in the entire Cosmos - including an alleged multiverse?

There are approximately 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Each one has 100-200 billion stars. And most stars almost assuredly have planetary systems orbiting them. So far, we've discovered 2796 extrasolar planets, just in the closest stars we can examine.

So no, I don't think it is very likely that humans are the most advanced species in the universe.

Not sure what this has to do with reasons why we don't believe your god claims., though.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

I don't think it is very likely that humans are the most advanced species in the universe.
.

This is quite an admission based on reasoned speculation I might add!

So, based only on only our single universe a "Higher Power" more than likely exists.

Was that so hard to admit???

And you didn't even include a multiverse in your determination.

Lets speculate a bit further -

If there is a Multiverse, then am I correct to say that the existence of an even more advanced species is likely?

If the Multiverse is infinite (infinite universes, infinite stuff, infinite chemistry sets) - then existence of a really really really (?infinite "really's") advanced species is likely??

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

This is quite an admission based on reasoned speculation I might add!

So, based only on only our single universe a "Higher Power" more than likely exists.

Was that so hard to admit???

And you didn't even include a multiverse in your determination.

Lets speculate a bit further -

If there is a Multiverse, then am I correct to say that the existence of an even more advanced species is likely?

If the Multiverse is infinite (infinite universes, infinite stuff, infinite chemistry sets) - then a really really really advanced species is likely??

I am not sure what you think was hard for me to admit?

All I am 'admitting' is that it is likely other advance beings exist in our universe.

They are NOT in any way god like, or supernatural. If they exist, they are every bit as natural occurring as humans are.

Again, even if a "really really really advanced species is likely" to exist in the multiverse, where does that get us?

Are you claiming that your god is nothing more than a really, really advanced, (naturally occurring) species mistaken for a supernatural god by primitive humans? Again, where are the supernatural attributes attributed to gods?

You sound like you are in ancient astronaut territory now.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

.

They are NOT in any way god like, or supernatural. If they exist, they are every bit as natural occurring as humans are.

I agree they are not "supernatural" - I don't really believe in this term - all that exists and all that really takes place in my world is natural.

But - But - But - how can you, with such certainty, declare they are in "now way God like"?????

To be "God Like" from our perspective, or from the perspective of a first century Jew - doesn't have to be all that great does it?? Change water into wine (simple molecular manipulation), cure the dead back to life (advanced medicine), walk on water (anti-gravity technology) etc.

Simon Moon wrote

Again, even if a "really really really advanced species is likely" to exist in the multiverse, where does that get us?

I sense your discomfort here. I suppose you agree with the reasoned speculation that if a higher power likely exists in universes = (1), that there is even more chances for an even greater higher power to exists in universe = (>1). Its OK to say it.

Where does it get us?? Well - it gets us to a greater level of certainty that a higher power exists, and the realization that the more universes the more likely and more advanced the life form becomes.

Simon Moon wrote

Are you claiming that your god is nothing more than a really, really advanced, (naturally occurring) species mistaken for a supernatural god by primitive humans? Again, where are the supernatural attributes attributed to gods?

YES YES YES - this has always been my position. See my other posts. I am not a typical Theist. My reasoned speculation on God is interestingly refuted by Theists, because I believe in some form of Evolution to explain the origin of God - evolution stemming from an infinitely old, and very very large, if not infinitely large Cosmos.

Shall we schedule you a baptism now Sir?

[dogpet]

[Simon Moon]

dogpet wrote

Yeah, Andrew's thinking is even less coherent than I suspected.

[Kinich Ahau]

He's tried on this load of shit before with equally laughable results.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

Yeah, Andrew's thinking is even less coherent than I suspected.

What happened to our nice conversation? - I was clearly making ground and now you intellectually cower away from it.

Don't let Atheistic partisanship get in the way of your pursuit of the truth.

If it makes you feel better, the argument for existence of a "God like" being based on progressive evolution stemming from a very (if not infinitely) old and very (if not infinitely large) Cosmos is not based on Scripture, but rather free and rational speculative thought.

As I said before, my God is the Atheist's God!

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

I agree they are not "supernatural" - I don't really believe in this term - all that exists and all that really takes place in my world is natural.

But - But - But - how can you, with such certainty, declare they are in "now way God like"?????

To be "God Like" from our perspective, or from the perspective of a first century Jew - doesn't have to be all that great does it?? Change water into wine (simple molecular manipulation), cure the dead back to life (advanced medicine), walk on water (anti-gravity technology) etc.


I sense your discomfort here. I suppose you agree with the reasoned speculation that if a higher power likely exists in universes = (1), that there is even more chances for an even greater higher power to exists in universe = (>1). Its OK to say it.

Where does it get us?? Well - it gets us to a greater level of certainty that a higher power exists, and the realization that the more universes the more likely and more advanced the life form becomes.




YES YES YES - this has always been my position. See my other posts. I am not a typical Theist. My reasoned speculation on God is interestingly refuted by Theists, because I believe in some form of Evolution to explain the origin of God - evolution stemming from an infinitely old, and very very large, if not infinitely large Cosmos.

Shall we schedule you a baptism now Sir?

All I see here is some sort of Pantheism.

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

What happened to our nice conversation? - I was clearly making ground and now you intellectually cower away from it.

Don't let Atheistic partisanship get in the way of your pursuit of the truth.

If it makes you feel better, the argument for existence of a "God like" being based on progressive evolution stemming from a very (if not infinitely) old and very (if not infinitely large) Cosmos is not based on Scripture, but rather free and rational speculative thought.

As I said before, my God is the Atheist's God!

I don't believe in any gods.

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

What happened to our nice conversation? - I was clearly making ground and now you intellectually cower away from it.

Don't let Atheistic partisanship get in the way of your pursuit of the truth.

If it makes you feel better, the argument for existence of a "God like" being based on progressive evolution stemming from a very (if not infinitely) old and very (if not infinitely large) Cosmos is not based on Scripture, but rather free and rational speculative thought.

As I said before, my God is the Atheist's God!

You weren't making any 'ground'.

The only thing that would make 'ground' with me, is if you are able to support any of your speculations with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

Until then, all you have is unsupported speculations. And if you want to base your beliefs on unsupported speculations, fine.

But don't expect those of us with a modicum of critical thinking skills go along with you.

I want to have as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs.

Please let me know, by what method should I use to determine if your speculations are likely to be true.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

You weren't making any 'ground'.

The only thing that would make 'ground' with me, is if you are able to support any of your speculations with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

Until then, all you have is unsupported speculations. And if you want to base your beliefs on unsupported speculations, fine.

But don't expect those of us with a modicum of critical thinking skills go along with you.

I want to have as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs.

Please let me know, by what method should I use to determine if your speculations are likely to be true.

Well you did go along at first...

You were fine with speculating that Humans were more likely than not, NOT the most advanced species in our universe.

Only when I went bigger (multiverse - a common speculation of rationally minded atheists) with the suggestion that there was enormous potential for some really really really impressive life forms out there (an obvious conclusion - the bigger the cosmos, more likely to find more impressive life forms) that you shut down your speculative enquiry - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE WHERE THE ENQUIRY WAS LEADING.

Speculative thinking is not irrational, and has value in finding truth in our real world.

If a miner has grounds for speculation there is Gold in those there hills rational people expend effort and go dig for it. If a medical researcher has grounds to speculate a certain drug or procedure may offer a cure, grant money gets procured and tests are done to find out. If a religious person has grounds to speculate a Higher Power may exist, its not unreasonable to go to Church and play Pascal's wager.

Its not a sin or backward to speculate.

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Well you did go along at first...

You were fine with speculating that Humans were more likely than not, NOT the most advanced species in our universe.

Only when I went bigger (multiverse - a common speculation of rationally minded atheists) with the suggestion that there was enormous potential for some really really really impressive life forms out there (an obvious conclusion - the bigger the cosmos, more likely to find more impressive life forms) that you shut down your speculative enquiry - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE WHERE THE ENQUIRY WAS LEADING.

Speculative thinking is not irrational, and has value in finding truth in our real world.

If a miner speculates there is Gold in those there hills rational people expend effort and go dig for it. If a medical researcher speculates a certain drug or procedure may offer a cure, grant money gets procured and tests are done to find out.

Its not a sin or backward to speculate.

Yes, speculating is fine, even encouraged.

Speculative thinking itself is not irrational. Where it becomes irrational, is when one decides to believe (accept as true, or likely true) the speculation before it is supported by evidence.

Your problem is, not that you speculate, it is that you make the jump to believing the speculation without evidence and reasoned argument to support it.

If a miner speculates there is Gold in those there hills rational people expend effort and go dig for it. If a medical researcher speculates a certain drug or procedure may offer a cure, grant money gets procured and tests are done to find out.

Great!

So now you've come up with examples of different speculations, and the methods to find out if they are true.

Again I ask, what method should I use to find out if your speculation about a god is true?

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Only when I went bigger (multiverse - a common speculation of rationally minded atheists) with the suggestion that there was enormous potential for some really really really impressive life forms out there (an obvious conclusion - the bigger the cosmos, more likely to find more impressive life forms) that you shut down your speculative enquiry - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE WHERE THE ENQUIRY WAS LEADING.

Oh please...

Don't flatter yourself thinking that you were making me uncomfortable

I never said that I have any problems speculating that the universe or multiverse may contain beings extremely more technologically advanced than humans.

I just would not put the "god" label on them. The phrase I would use is "extremely more technologically advanced" than humans.

But, just because I am fine speculating about such a civilization, does not mean I believe they exist.

As Hume once said, "the wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence".

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

What happened to our nice conversation? - I was clearly making ground and now you intellectually cower away from it.

Don't let Atheistic partisanship get in the way of your pursuit of the truth.

If it makes you feel better, the argument for existence of a "God like" being based on progressive evolution stemming from a very (if not infinitely) old and very (if not infinitely large) Cosmos is not based on Scripture, but rather free and rational speculative thought.

As I said before, my God is the Atheist's God!

It seems that on this thread, you are arguing for a god arose from within the universe or multiverse.

Yet you have previously argued the fine tuning of the universe.

Aren't these concepts contradictory?

If a god arose within the universe, how can it be responsible for the fine tuning of the universe?