If I would have

@indonesia-phil said
I'm not sure what makes you think that I'm 'complaining' about anything. Your posts so often remind me of an old joke: Person A asks person B the directions to somewhere, where after person B says 'If you're trying to get there, you're starting from the wrong place.' Everything you write here begins with the assumption that there is a god, and you fit the world that yo ...[text shortened]... g by way of reading or writing in the forums for a couple of weeks. I leave you with my best wishes.

`Well, I hope you have a safe and enjoyable trip.

I am simply pointing out that what you say cannot happen, only cannot simply due to your very own definition, which means, you can assume anything you want, for or against, but in the end, you are assuming.

@kellyjay said
`Well, I hope you have a safe and enjoyable trip.

I am simply pointing out that what you say cannot happen, only cannot simply due to your very own definition, which means, you can assume anything you want, for or against, but in the end, you are assuming.

We are talking about the origins of the universe. The fact of the matter is that no one knows what the origin of the universe was or why it originally came to be able to work in the way it does. No one knows, KellyJay. Not you, not me, not Indonesia Phil.

You can subscribe to whatever "narrative" you want, but your certainty that you're right does not add to how convincing it is.

Indeed, the fact that you are a busted flush as a commentator on the topic of morality - as has been demonstrated in public many times by various interlocutors here - certainly doesn't help the things you've stacked ontop of your "narrative" in terms of their credibility.

@kellyjay said
There is also the picking and choosing of what evidence you will accept, and how much weight you give to each piece. Simply having an odds calculator doesn't help you find truth without those data points in play being correctly analyzed. The everything from nothing question, the information driving universe, life from non-life, error checking in life, morals, consciousness ...[text shortened]... snakes, or some offense spotted in the scripture, and the questions go untouched and insults begin.

Your fixation on origins is noted. We don’t have to know who the first person was who invented chess (chaturanga) in order to know how to play chess now, or to fathom the deepest principles of strategy. We don’t have to know how or where the first salt crystal formed in order to know how salt crystals form now or what the properties of salt are. We can study the laws of nature right now and understand how nature works without speculation about origins. Because one of the options is that the universe had no origin. It may have existed forever, uncreated, without beginning.

If time is infinite and the number of elements is finite, then the particular combination of elements we call “life”, including life which is conscious of itself, must occur with 100% certainty. No God required.

@josephw said
Tea and biscuits, and friendly conversation. Though there be contentious debate here with some, it is in my heart not to make enemies of any. I am but an ordinary person with no particular credentials to speak of, I simply came across this forum some 15 years ago looking to play chess, but found myself embroiled in this ageless debate unawares.

So here I sit with you enjoy ...[text shortened]... ne assumes, though forgone conclusions are reached on both sides of the debate.

Moving forward...

“For every question there is an answer which simple, neat, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

EDIT But if simplicity is what twiddles your diddle, the SIMPLEST answer is: no origin and no God, the universe existed forever.

@moonbus said
“For every question there is an answer which simple, neat, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

The thing about correct and right answers, they are unique with a quality not found in all of the wrong and mistaken ones.

@kellyjay said
The thing about correct and right answers, they are unique with a quality not found in all of the wrong and mistaken ones.

Yes, quite. and the quality of right and true answers depends on the evidence for them, not on whether anyone happens to believe them.

@moonbus said
Yes, quite. and the quality of right and true answers depends on the evidence for them, not on whether anyone happens to believe them.

No, not true, right and wrong answers are just that regardless if we can identify them or not.

@moonbus said
Yes, quite. and the quality of right and true answers depends on the evidence for them, not on whether anyone happens to believe them.

The trouble with this assessment is, that if we rang a bell for every right answer we identified, we would only be ringing it due to confirmation bias. If someone says something we think is true we would ring it. Truth, and correctness, wouldn't matter only consensus. This is why logic is so important, we cannot have 'truth' that contradicts other things we know are truthful, if that occurs we have issues with something we believe to be true when it is not.

@moonbus said
“For every question there is an answer which simple, neat, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

EDIT But if simplicity is what twiddles your diddle, the SIMPLEST answer is: no origin and no God, the universe existed forever.

To your edit, no, the simple answer to the universe's existence is it exists because God created it, simple is not an eternal uncaused one that has in it rules about entropy where everything is winding down and degrading. Neither did it create itself out of nothing, your simple answer is much more complex than God did it.

@moonbus said
Your fixation on origins is noted. We don’t have to know who the first person was who invented chess (chaturanga) in order to know how to play chess now, or to fathom the deepest principles of strategy. We don’t have to know how or where the first salt crystal formed in order to know how salt crystals form now or what the properties of salt are. We can study the laws of natur ...[text shortened]... life”, including life which is conscious of itself, must occur with 100% certainty. No God required.

If you don’t know how it begins then you can only look at the current processes and see what they do. This creates an huge gap in understanding about the whole system, leaving great holes in our ability to reason out cause and effect! To borrow another’s analogy having a mechanic with perfect knowledge of a Ford engine does not dismiss the need for Henry Ford.

@josephw said
I'll respond to your post above this one as soon as I find time.
I gotta think about it for a while.

Still thinking? 😀

@kellyjay said
To your edit, no, the simple answer to the universe's existence is it exists because God created it, simple is not an eternal uncaused one that has in it rules about entropy where everything is winding down and degrading. Neither did it create itself out of nothing, your simple answer is much more complex than God did it.

And even yet, both can be right.

Edit: I'm convinced that people who pick just one of the two and insist that's the way it was, just want to fight. Just acknowledging that both can be true goes a long way towards reducing the aggravation.

@kellyjay said
The trouble with this assessment is, that if we rang a bell for every right answer we identified, we would only be ringing it due to confirmation bias. If someone says something we think is true we would ring it. Truth, and correctness, wouldn't matter only consensus. This is why logic is so important, we cannot have 'truth' that contradicts other things we know are truthful, if that occurs we have issues with something we believe to be true when it is not.

Let's start with the age of the universe, shall we? The preponderance of evidence indicates it is billions of years old, not merely thousands, and that contradicts a whole lot of what you believe. Let's look at the phenomena of life, shall we? The preponderance of evidence indicates that primitive life forms appeared first, and that complex ones appeared later, millions of years later. It doesn't matter HOW, just look at the time scales. That contradicts what you believe, that simple and complex life forms all appeared at the SAME TIME, about 6,000 years ago. Saying 'Goddidit' does not make that contradiction go away. It means either science is wrong, or the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, they cannot both be right.

@suzianne said
And even yet, both can be right.

Edit: I'm convinced that people who pick just one of the two and insist that's the way it was, just want to fight. Just acknowledging that both can be true goes a long way towards reducing the aggravation.

With two answers that are in direct conflict with each other, you are correct they both cannot be right; however, they both can be wrong. So without bias, we need to look at the most reasonable non-contradictory answer to find what best fits. Reducing aggravation doesn't come into play, that is just accepting a point of view to get along it is not seeking the truth in any manner. Consensus is not a measure of truth, only how many are going along to get along, accepting because they don't want to think about it, fear, greed, etc. Human feelings don't play a part, we don't feel our way into truth, not suggesting you are saying that.