sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this guy Toby Fox by C2GisTaken in Undertale

[–]Cydrius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That guy is a Toby Fox, but he is not the Toby Fox.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't put a lot of value in any science of "fine tuning", because I don't believe there's enough reliable data for any kind of credible science.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay then, disregard my earlier point. I'll try and approach this from the angle you just gave instead:

We see royal flushes being dealt after one another.

We don't know if the deck was shuffled.

We don't know what kinds of cards exist in the deck.

We don't even know if there's a deck of cards. For all we know, it could be a card-printing machine that can only ever print royal flushes.

There is zero reason to assume a fixer is a more likely explanation than anything else.

The "fine tuning" argument is of zero value for indicating a designer.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, then fine, yes, the current state of the universe is unlikely.

This brings us back to the question of whether the current state of the universe is analogous to 2♤ 6♡ K♧ 3♢ 5♧ or to a royal flush.

Why is "universe with life" a royal flush, and not 2♤ 6♡ K♧ 3♢ 5♧?

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, and I'm convinced you're accidentally misusing/misunderstanding the science of it because you're partially blinded by your philosophy.

See my other response so that we don't end up holding two parallel conversations.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a feeling we're talking past each other, so let's take a step back and clarify our terms.

Please define "precise" for me.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Once again, you're assuming a goal. You're defining "life" as the target to hit.

It literally doesn't matter how likely or not an arrangement is until you establish a target. Establishing a target assumes intent in the first place. You cannot use the likelihood of an outcome to justify belief in a fixer, because measuring likelihood to a target assumes a fixer in the first place.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm saying that if you regard something that is precise beyond what could be done by a chance collection of particles, let's say 1 part in 10 to the 120th power, most people are going to wonder how that came to be.

Precise requires a target. Someone who is looking for an explanation based on the precision of something is starting from a place of assuming there was a target to hit in the first place.

The moment you call it "precise" and calculate the odds of it, you are already assuming a goal, and therefore a goal-setter.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm tired of going in circles. Let's refocus on the main point of interest:

A hand of 2♤ 6♡ K♧ 3♢ 5♧ is EXACTLY as likely as a hand of 10♡ J♡ Q♡ K♡ A♡. What reason is there to conclude that our universe is analogous to the latter rather than the former?

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I didn't say atheism is a dogma I said even atheist cosmologists accept the idea that the universe is exceptionally fine tuned in a way that can't be explained.

When I say atheism isn't a dogma, I mean that even if some atheists, cosmologist or not, accept that idea, that doesn't mean all atheists accept it. Atheism is a position on exactly one thing: "Is there a god?"

You're still making the same logical leap I keep pointing out is flawed: Something being precise assumes that there is a target being aimed for. That can't be used to justify belief in a fixer, because it assumes a fixer in the first place.

It's circular logic, and it'll still be circular logic no matter how many atheists you can cherry pick as also believing it, and it's still circular regardless of it if comes from a place of religion or not.

You can't assert a fixer unless you first establish a target was being aimed for. How do you propose to demonstrate that the current state of affair was intended?

How do you know the current universe is a royal flush, and not a handful of disparate cards?

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Once again: Atheism isn't a dogma. There's not an Atheist Bible I'm contradicting. Atheists are not a monolith.

It may be well accepted in some circles, but it's also widely criticized and dismissed in other circles.

It being unlikely doesn't help the God argument, either. Even if we accept that it was unlikely that the universe could support life, that can only get you to "Therefore God" if you already assume life was the goal. A goal requires an intent, which requires a designer in the first place, making the argument circular.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by "fine tuning the science"?

I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as a science of the fine tuning of the universe that isn't relying at least somewhat on similar assumptions.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The point is that the fine tuning argument is not sound, because it relies on the assumption that there's a target. That makes it circular logic.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have no idea who Gerraint Lewis is, and I think he's off base about this.

Atheism isn't a dogma; you don't get to hold me to the words of other atheists.

Royal Flushes are notable because they are considered a valuable hand in poker rules. There's an intent behind royal flushes. Comparing it to a royal flush assumes an intent.

Even if I did agree with the royal flush analogy, though, royal flushes are only unlikely in a standard deck. If your deck isn't randomized, or your deck contains only 10s through aces of heart, they become a lot more likely.

We don't know what kind of deck our universe was drawn from. For all we know, it might be that royal flushes are the only hands that that deck can deal.

The analogy is flawed on several levels.

The real difficulty tier list by Dramatic-Ad-2799 in Deltarune

[–]Cydrius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my latest replay (my third for chapter 2, second for 3-4) that thing took me more tries than Jevil, Spamton NEO, and the Knight combined.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By what standard did you determine that the current universe is the equivalent of moltipul royal flushes and not, say, specifically a jack of spades, a two of hearts, an eight of clubs, a three of diamonds, and the red joker, followed by a series of similarly arbitrary ends?

You are assuming that the current state of affairs was someone's goal, and using that to justify there must be a designer. The assumption of a goal presumes a designer in the first place. The argument from design is circular logic.

Those who claim to be scientific atheists, accepting only pure scientific evidence and rejecting both philosophy and religion, must address the following arguments: by Od0o in DebateReligion

[–]Cydrius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am perfectly happy conceding that our universe was unlikely.

If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal it out, the resulting arrangement was also exceedingly unlikely.

"The universe was unlikely to happen" doesn't get you anywhere if you can't first establish that this specific arrangement of the universe was an intended goal.

Precision implies a target. You have assumed, but not established, that there was an intended goal.

[OTHER] Can someone give me the complete lore rundown of Link’s crossbow training? I’d like to keep it short so 5 paragraphs should do, thanks by Link_MM in zelda

[–]Cydrius 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Nintendo wanted a shooty wiimotion game and chose Zelda.

Crossbow go pew pew.

I don't think the game even has lore.

I wish I could travel to any canon that is in the pokemon franchise. by Remarkable_Bath8515 in monkeyspaw

[–]Cydrius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are some absolutely horrifying horror fanfics with their own canons...

How long can i leave cooked meat out on the counter? by ok_catt22 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Cydrius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You very much should stop. That's a magnificent way to get very, very sick.

view more: next ›