Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

But he wouldn't be Vlad if he was any different.

And if ever he changed tack and instead said, "You know what - I've actually considered what you actually said and I've actually decided to respond to that" my how we'd all miss him.

Be refreshing if he'd at least try though...

[Alan Burns]

It should be pointed out that Mr Alan Burns claims multiverse in his reality.
Maybe you should ask him?

Not sure where you got this from, but I have previously implied that the multiverse is just a human attempt to make sense of the incredibly fine tuned parameters needed to provide a suitable environment for life to exist.  There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

[Shaker]

Not sure where you got this from, but I have previously implied that the multiverse is just a human attempt to make sense of the incredibly fine tuned parameters needed to provide a suitable environment for life to exist.  There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

The irony.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not sure where you got this from, but I have previously implied that the multiverse is just a human attempt to make sense of the incredibly fine tuned parameters needed to provide a suitable environment for life to exist.  There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

Where does your soul reside?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Not sure where you got this from, but I have previously implied that the multiverse is just a human attempt to make sense of the incredibly fine tuned parameters needed to provide a suitable environment for life to exist.

Presumably what you meant to say there was, "...provide a suitable environment for the type of life that just happens to be observing it" rather than just "life"?

There is no "tuning" unless you have a cogent argument to show that our species specifically was an intended end game all along.

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

Same as your "God" then.

[Gordon]

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

Replace 'the multiverse' with 'gods' and you'll have hit the nail on the head - at last.

[Nearly Sane]

Where does your soul reside?

in Sriram's box.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just musing on AB's pretty much text book example of circular reasoning. On the one hand he thinks that the appearance of "fine tuning" must be evidence for a god who did it (what are the chances otherwise eh?), but on the other he also needs an "us" to be the intended outcome all along to do the observing (otherwise a sentient but different species entirely could draw the same conclusion about its god). The conclusion is merely in other words a re-stating of the premise, so the argument provides no new information.

No doubt he'll tell us that this is just a "clever" response and that, even if his thinking isn't "watertight", in some unspoken way it's still better than white noise rather then epistemically worthless but once again he'd be wrong to do so.       

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

Indeed. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (the God Delusion)

"A multiverse cannot be used to explain anything because any multiverse capable of causing our universe would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in its own right. A multiverse presents an infinite regress from which it cannot help us escape"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Indeed. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (the God Delusion)

"A multiverse cannot be used to explain anything because any multiverse capable of causing our universe would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in its own right. A multiverse presents an infinite regress from which it cannot help us escape"

As you've made it back here any chance of sharing those "special properties of truth" you mentioned a while back, and maybe too finally telling what you thought the "error" was in my post?

Ta.

[bluehillside Retd.]

PS

RD was addressing a different issue to the absence of evidence for a multiverse in any case – namely that the hypothesis doesn't answer anything. 

[Enki]

Indeed. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (the God Delusion)

"A multiverse cannot be used to explain anything because any multiverse capable of causing our universe would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in its own right. A multiverse presents an infinite regress from which it cannot help us escape"

Actually a multiverse is a description rather than a cause. It is simply the hypothetical set of all possible universes, Hence it does not seem to make sense to suggest that it is the 'cause' of our universe, unless you are maintaining that universes spawn other universes.  Actually, what Dawkins is examining in your strange paraphrase is not the multiverse at all, but who made God. So, here is what Dawkins actually said:

A designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape.

It seems however that you agree with AB when he says:

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

And, of course I would say the same thing about god(s).

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Presumably what you meant to say there was, "...provide a suitable environment for the type of life that just happens to be observing it" rather than just "life"?

There is no "tuning" unless you have a cogent argument to show that our species specifically was an intended end game all along.

Of course I believe that God intended us to be His creation.  Common sense tells me that billions of years of random, unguided, aimless forces could produce nothing but a chaotic goo - even with the right ingredients.  I see human scientific investigation as being just an an insight into God's creative genius.

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course I believe that God intended us to be His creation. 

Where does your soul reside?

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course I believe that God intended us to be His creation.  Common sense tells me that billions of years of random, unguided, aimless forces could produce nothing but a chaotic goo - even with the right ingredients.  I see human scientific investigation as being just an an insight into God's creative genius.

Common sense tells me that you are wrong!

[Alan Burns]

Where does your soul reside?

I do not see spiritual entities residing in the physical sense.  The soul perceives and interacts with the physical, but it is not in itself a physical entity.

[Shaker]

Of course I believe that God intended us to be His creation.  Common sense tells me that billions of years of random, unguided, aimless forces could produce nothing but a chaotic goo - even with the right ingredients.  I see human scientific investigation as being just an an insight into God's creative genius.

Ah.

The argument from special little cupcakeism.

Bog-standard monotheism, then.

Incidentally, science - the real deal; that thing of which you're so painfully ignorant as evidenced by your use of the foregoing terms - has a way of doing to "common sense" what birds do to freshly-washed cars.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not see spiritual entities residing in the physical sense.  The soul perceives and interacts with the physical, but it is not in itself a physical entity.

So where is this non physical entity?

[Gordon]

I do not see spiritual entities residing in the physical sense.  The soul perceives and interacts with the physical, but it is not in itself a physical entity.

So how does one detect a soul?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So where is this non physical entity?

It's not physical so how can there be a where? Like maths there isn't formulas or equations floating about spatially but they are manifest throughout nature.

Even materialism can't give us a where for certain things.

[Gordon]

It's not physical so how can there be a where? Like maths there isn't formulas or equations floating about spatially but they are manifest throughout nature.

Even materialism can't give us a where for certain things.

So, do you see souls as axiomatic?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, do you see souls as axiomatic?

I am not an illusion of self proponent.

[Gordon]

I am not an illusion of self proponent.

Good to hear: anyway, do you think souls are axiomatic (since you used maths as a comparison)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good to hear: anyway, do you think souls are axiomatic (since you used maths as a comparison)?

I merely used maths as an example of something that is but has no discernible location.
The self is really only discernible to yourself at the moment. We don't yet know that anything without a sense of self could act exactly like a human.

The self is at the moment one of those things that is but is not immeasurable.
Science needs to find the self not discount it or use the shite get out by pleading illusion.

[Gordon]

I merely used maths as an example of something that is but has no discernible location.

You used maths as a comparison to 'souls' - so in what ways do they compare?

The self is really only discernible to yourself at the moment. We don't yet know that anything without a sense of self could act exactly like a human.

In other words the 'self' is a component part of the human animal - is that what you are saying?

The self is at the moment one of those things that is but is not immeasurable.

Is it any more than an idea or thought?

Science needs to find the self not discount it or use the shite get out by pleading illusion.

I haven't mentioned 'illusion' but you have: in fact you've mentioned 'illusion' twice already this morning and it isn't even breakfast time yet.