Emergence

[mibn2cweus]

Perhaps R&S should be retitled the "Youtube" topic? -

[naomi24]

No khandro. Best to tell the truth and say you don’t know ....

[Old_Geezer]

Seems to me that the concept of a universe is getting more and more blurred. First we reckon there's nothing and then part of the nothing expands and that is the universe. Then, in order to claim the universe is infinite the idea thst there was always something, and part of it expands, implying multiple universes in an already existing infinite universe. Mix in a few multiverses and a natter about branes and how the heck do we know how to define anything and agree on it ?

[Khandro]

//Best to tell the truth and say you don’t know ....//
Tell your friends Hawkin & Dawkins* that.

*Sounds like a Victorian music-hall act - come to think of it ...... :0)

[naomi24]

They don’t claim
to know, Khandro.

[naomi24]

Khandro, you consistently disappoint me. Clearly a man of some intellect and yet you’re willing to forego truth in favour of preferred fantasy ...

[Old_Geezer]

Decent video lecture, but still no explanation on why particular structures feel. I think the conclusions he draws are not the only ones that could be. This 'why feeling' question may be enlightening if answered.

[Khandro]

"The universe that we observe has exactly the qualities one expects when there is no plan behind it , no intention, no good or evil , nothing but blind, merciless indifference ."

Your guru is such a prat.

[Khandro]

^ to naomi

[naomi24]

Khandro, I don’t have a guru - but in the absence of anything sensible to say declaring someone a prat is not a sound argument.

[Theland]

Naomi - The article you listed is full of self contradictory claims and counter claims.
It should have been printed on Andrex.

[naomi24]

Thelsnd, no ‘claims’. The link refers to a debate between people seeking the truth.

[Khandro]

n. //......a debate between people seeking the truth.//

Well good luck with that. On the never-ending subject of whether God exists, you cannot say, "There is no God" (or there is) because in order to do so would require absolute knowledge of the universe in all its aspects from beginning to end (if such terms are applicable).
If you are sceptical, better to say, "There probably is no God"
rather than feign your innocent neutrality sitting back requesting 'proof' - which you know is an impossible request & you only continually to reiterate in order to appear smart, but isn't.

[naomi24]

Khandro, what are you talking about?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//So what you're sayin' is....

cats get run over and people get toothache, so there ain't no God?//

I love your hommage to Cathy Newman, Khandro.

Well, what I'm actually saying is that the painful death of a cat is not obviously consistent with the claim that the creator God is both all-powerful and loving, and could constitute a powerful argument against that proposition if you're feeble-minded like me.

[nailit]

//Well good luck with that. On the never-ending subject of whether God exists, you cannot say, "There is no God" (or there is) because in order to do so would require absolute knowledge of the universe in all its aspects from beginning to end (if such terms are applicable).
If you are sceptical, better to say, "There probably is no God"
rather than feign your innocent neutrality sitting back requesting 'proof' - which you know is an impossible request & you only continually to reiterate in order to appear smart, but isn't.//

What a load of gobbledegook!

[Old_Geezer]

The painful death of a cat is related to the need for creatures to self preserve by having an incentive to rest and not aggravate injuries. Can't have it for something that can heal yet not for something that doesn't without constant interference. The system kicked off evolves to be as good as it can. Has no bearing on how loving a deity might be. In any case the deity would be aware that suffering is vanishingly short compared to a neverending existence.

[Old_Geezer]

Inside a universe the illusion of time emerges. Outside, where any deity would be, the universe is unchanging, so time doesn't exist for the universe. Everything that can be already is

[vetuste_ennemi]

Cleverer blokes than me can explain the apparent contradiction to their own satisfaction if not to others. E.g. C. S. Lewis in "The Problem of Pain". Can't remember if your mate Polkinghorne had a go in the book whose name I've forgotten.

The brighter than any of those David Hume allowed (in his "Dalogue Concerning Natural Religion") that any amount of suffering [i]could['i] be consistent with any amount of power and love, but then this is just such a level of open-mindedness as you might expect from the man who denied causation at least in the logical sense: no number of B follows A observastions, or successful prediction of the same constitutes a final proof that the correlation inevtable.

In the Dialogues, Hum, arguing through his fictional surrogate Philo, doesn't claim that suffering disproves the Christian God. He argues in a different way: assume an intelligent moral being from a different universe were presented with ours, and informed of a single fact, namely, that this universe was an intelligent construct, what inferences could be derived about the power and goodness of the creator and the possible limits of either?

As a thought experiment (or as the Michigan pilot and old earth creationist - can't remember his handle - called it, I think, "ein Gedankenexperimente" - is that a real word, Khandro?), I invite anybody to answer Hume's question.

[vetuste_ennemi]

could be

[vetuste_ennemi]

//The system kicked off evolves to be as good as it can. Has no bearing on how loving a deity might be. In any case the deity would be aware that suffering is vanishingly short compared to a neverending existence.//

I don't understand the point you're making, OG. ( I'm not necesarily blaming you for that.) However, can you rephrase it, please, and especially the last sentence?