The Narnia Code

[Rabbie]

If you assume, for whatever reason, that the universe was created for a purpose, then the idea of a creator obviously makes sense. Other than that, as you say, it's just an unnecessary added step.

Looks like another unjustified assumption to me. If the universe was created with a purpose then I would agree there must have been a creator.

I repeat - and apologise if I am becoming tedious - that there is no evidence that the universe has a purpose or that there is a creator. If a creator could just be then the universe could also just be.

 

[Alc]

Looks like another unjustified assumption to me. If the universe was created with a purpose then I would agree there must have been a creator.

I repeat - and apologise if I am becoming tedious - that there is no evidence that the universe has a purpose or that there is a creator. If a creator could just be then the universe could also just be.

I agree with you. I was trying to preempt one of the arguments against coincidence.

The assumption here seems to be - in spite of no evidence - that there is a purpose, therefore there must be a creator.

 

[Alc]

Eliminate all the countless attempts that would be needed by chance.

I realise you've got a real 'down' on anything happening by chance, but to use one of the examples you're so fond of:
Imagine if the combination of items required for the universe to exist were a lottery ball. Also that all other combinations were lottery balls.

There is an equal chance of any one of these balls being the first one drawn, correct?
So who's to say that this 'correct' combination wasn't the first attempt?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Well you said that it's definition resided within the object itself. Now you seem to be saying that it resides in it's perception. You're losing me a little.

The more we've discussed this, the less clear things have become on both of our parts. What do you mean by the definition of an object?

Here is your post that I'm referring to. Link. I'll leave it to you to explain how I may or may not have misconstrued your point.

Fair do's - I don't think you've misconstrued that (others might have, though). However, the notion of multiple tries is already implied, if there are to be calculated probabilities of our universe ending up the way it has.

We know that the conditions are correct here (i.e. in the universe) for the existence of elements (because there are elements)

It's no surprise that the conditions are consistent across the universe, as nobody has opined that the universe arose or was created piecemeal.

We don't know if those conditions could have been different enough that elements could not exist.

We don't know if different conditions could have given rise to some other sufficiently complex system, like elements, but different.

We don't know whether our universe is the only try at this, or if it represents one of many, varied tries.

All we know is that it is the way it is. I don't see this as sufficient justification or support for the view that someone made it that way on purpose. Even if it could have been different, and the chance of it being the way it is works out to be minuscule, it happened.
Calculating a tiny probability FOR some event that has already taken place just doesn't tell us anything useful about how it took place.

My point is that if n attempts are required to create a universe that we exist within, how is it that the concept of n can operate outside of our universe and yet be perceived from within it? Remember this is your merry-go-round not mine.

That's a fair point, and I don't know the answer - but I don't think it really makes a difference.

 

[Mike375]

I realise you've got a real 'down' on anything happening by chance, but to use one of the examples you're so fond of:
Imagine if the combination of items required for the universe to exist were a lottery ball. Also that all other combinations were lottery balls.

There is an equal chance of any one of these balls being the first one drawn, correct?
So who's to say that this 'correct' combination wasn't the first attempt?

Well that might be the case.

Let's face it, this whole area is a very big "we don't know"

Personally, I believe whether you are an atheist or a believer (to a greater or lesser degree) those two positions are probably a reflection of how you do other things that are completely unrelated to this topic.

For example, I think in general the believer would be more likely to take on a business venture where all the evidence (and odds) suggested it would fail. And perhaps that could be because at the back of his mind if he goes all out and it feels right then he might get a helping hand from above so as to defy the odds.

 

[Alc]

For example, I think in general the believer would be more likely to take on a business venture where all the evidence (and odds) suggested it would fail. And perhaps that could be because at the back of his mind if he goes all out and it feels right then he might get a helping hand from above so as to defy the odds.

You may well be right on that point - certainly sounds sensible - but I've never seen any stats on the number of atheistic vs thiestic entrepeneurs.

 

[Mike375]

You may well be right on that point - certainly sounds sensible - but I've never seen any stats on the number of atheistic vs thiestic entrepeneurs.

I I think I have a reasonable feel for it. Firstly, the combination of being in insurance where death, disabity, trauma etc is the subject plus my interest, I have the discussion plenty of times.

Although atheism is like believing in the sense there are great variations on the degree of keeness. For example, plenty of atheists could not care less about being caught up in belief Vs lack of belief etc. In fact some don't even know they are atheist until the subject is raised.

Selling a policy to a keen atheist is different to a keen believer and with the same occupation. I don't think that has anything do with "afterlife" at the back of the mind. The reason being is the difference is in the process or the track the sale goes down and for someone like a medical specialist it couldbe severa interviews, written material and lots of time between first interview and sign up.

In general the believer tends to be more of a concept buyer and will focus on only one or two points of the policy wording and not worry about any problems or issues in other areas. If you think about it that is similar to the situation we have on these threads. In my case I believe in a supernatural and that is all I worry about.

 

[Rabbie]

For example, I think in general the believer would be more likely to take on a business venture where all the evidence (and odds) suggested it would fail. And perhaps that could be because at the back of his mind if he goes all out and it feels right then he might get a helping hand from above so as to defy the odds.

Well more fool him in that case. The only justification for taking on a "business venture where all the evidence (and odds) suggested it would fail" is because you can see a way to make it work that others can't. In my experience of business relying on a helping hand from a supernatural is not a valid way to make a success of things.

 

[Mike375]

Well more fool him in that case. The only justification for taking on a "business venture where all the evidence (and odds) suggested it would fail" is because you can see a way to make it work that others can't. In my experience of business relying on a helping hand from a supernatural is not a valid way to make a success of things.

But I think it might be at the back of the mind which in turn allows for the decision to be made. Of course such ventures have a high failure rate and sometimes a huge success and that huge success leads to the next group trying.

 

[Rabbie]

But I think it might be at the back of the mind which in turn allows for the decision to be made. Of course such ventures have a high failure rate and sometimes a huge success and that huge success leads to the next group trying.

And I think that the successful ones are due to the fact they have seen a different way of making things work regardless of their belief system.

 

[Mike375]

And I think that the successful ones are due to the fact they have seen a different way of making things work regardless of their belief system.

That is tue but I think the believer is more likely to give it a go when the odds don't look real great.

Anyway, this little believer is heading to bed. I will slot in a prayer for you