Media/Hollywood's anti-Christian campaign

[sidis 9832]

44 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Methodists are just Baptists who can read. 

cite sources please.

[sidis 9832]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have been a member of a Methodist church for 50 years.

holy shit...i thought you were my age (mid-late 30's) based on posting.  it always disturbs the hell out of me when it turns out my mental images of other posters is so wildly off.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

holy shit...i thought you were my age (mid-late 30's) based on posting.  it always disturbs the hell out of me when it turns out my mental images of other posters is so wildly off.

53 to be precise.  40 as a confirmed member, the prior 13 probably don't really count.

[David Dennison 18993]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I am going to get down the brass tacks for my purposes and pose to you a metaphysical position.  From the numerous times I've had the discussion on the fundamental base and origin of reality, I think the primary litmus test question can be given as follows:  do you believe the origin/source of reality, whatever that may be, is capable of selecting options with intent from the sea of possibilities/realm of the potential?  In other words, is it capable of making choices and deliberate selections?  Theists would say yes, and nontheists would say no.  I suppose agnostics would say that they have no idea.  

So the positive case that I would like to pose to you is that I don't believe it is possible for the origin/source of reality to make random selections without any purpose, intent, or choice.  The reason I think this is because the realm of potential worlds would be perfectly symmetrical from an actualization point of view (i.e. no possible world is more likely to exist than any other) and so anything that is incapable of making a choice would not be able to break this symmetry.   In order to break this symmetry, a choice must be made.  Consequently, the origin of all reality must be capable of choice.

Unless there is no origin.

[workswithseed 2121]

@Axiom of Choice I knew you'd be back.

[sidis 9832]

18 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I am going to get down the brass tacks for my purposes and pose to you a metaphysical position.  From the numerous times I've had the discussion on the fundamental base and origin of reality, I think the primary litmus test question can be given as follows:  do you believe the origin/source of reality, whatever that may be, is capable of selecting options with intent from the sea of possibilities/realm of the potential?  In other words, is it capable of making choices and deliberate selections?  Theists would say yes, and nontheists would say no.  I suppose agnostics would say that they have no idea.   

So the positive case that I would like to pose to you is that I don't believe it is possible for the origin/source of reality to make random selections without any purpose, intent, or choice.  The reason I think this is because the realm of potential worlds would be perfectly symmetrical from an actualization point of view (i.e. no possible world is more likely to exist than any other) and so anything that is incapable of making a choice would not be able to break this symmetry.   In order to break this symmetry, a choice must be made.  Consequently, the origin of all reality must be capable of choice. 

state this in a formal logic structure.  i want to understand your definitions and axioms.  i am not sure i am following the jump to a break in the symmetry of all possible worlds (or series of events) being necessary for any particular world to actually exist...

by the way, that is the most random response to my post to twicehorn i can possibly imagine so you truly did break the symmetry here.

[F250 28883]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

cite sources please.

Their father was a Reformed Minister and obviously had issues with Wesleyan-Arminian Methodism, I always assumed the phrase referred to Baptists mixing Calvinist and Arminian concepts in an inconsistent manner. As Methodists, like the Reformed we stay in our swim lane but Baptists are all over the place as if they never read anything about what they believe.

Then again it was probably just a throw away line from a movie.

[David Dennison 18993]

So if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice?

[sidis 9832]

9 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Here is a rough drafting:

• Definition 1:  W is the realm of possibilities, including all possible worlds, states within the worlds, possible entities, etc. Each possibility within W is named P1, P2, P3..., each set of contingent combination of possibilities is named C1, C2, C3... 
• Premise 1:  Bivalence of possibility.  I.e. Every combination of possibilities comprising a comprehensive reality is either possible or it is not possible; every possible combination of possibilities is thus fully possible to be exemplified. 
• Theorem 1:   All Cs are in the same category of possibility of exemplification (each is fully possible to be exemplified), thus they are all equal and symmetrical in regards to the property of possibility of exemplification.    
• Definition 2:  R is the contingent combination of possibilities comprising our comprehensive reality (i.e. the universe and whatever else it may be connected with, such as the multiverse).  
• Theorem 2:  R is some C within W.  
• Definition 3:  A choice is a selection among equally possible options with no selection mechanism or algorithm using predetermined criteria.   
• Premise 2:  R was either selected randomly from W via some selection mechanism or was selected via choice. 
• Premise 3:  All selection from equal or symmetrical options within a category requires either a choice or a selection mechanism which selects via some set of properties it uses to sort.   
• Premise 4:  If R was selected via some non-intentional selecting mechanism, then that mechanism and its selective criteria properties also require selection from within W.   
• Theorem 3:  Thus, the selection of R among W must ultimately be rooted back in a choice.
• Theorem 4:  Thus, the origin or source of reality must be capable of choice. 

I believe this captures the basic idea, but this is a first past draft so allow me to modify for clarity or correction if needed.  I haven't gone through the exercise symbolically, so I probably need to add a line between premise 4 and theorem 3 to make it fully valid.  In any case I think it is semantically valid with some good faith gap filling. 

To give a rough analogy of the point I'm trying to make, a computer cannot really select or produce a truly random number.  It can give a pseudorandom number through some algorithm, but this algorithm in turn requires some external selection.  A computer can also produce a "true random number" by referencing some source outside its program.  However, there is no "outside" the primeval ontological soup to reference.  So the reality/world selection process must have ultimately required a choice.  

 

premise 2...why can it not occur randomly instead of being chosen (regardless of intent or not)?  you are creating a premise that requires a choice and then saying the choice can be chosen randomly or it can be chosen with intent...but then saying that's irrelevant because regardless, a choice is made so something had to drive the decision whether it was made at random or with intent.  then you jump from there to origin has to be a result of a choice when a slight adjustment to premise 2 allowing for R to be to also be a random outcome without a choice undermines everything after definition 3.  ultimately, you're just saying that choosing something with intent or not is still a choice.  how is this helpful?

[Pescado_Rojo 19452]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Here is a rough drafting:

• Definition 1:  W is the realm of possibilities, including all possible worlds, states within the worlds, possible entities, etc. Each possibility within W is named P1, P2, P3..., each set of contingent combination of possibilities is named C1, C2, C3...
• Premise 1:  Bivalence of possibility.  I.e. Every combination of possibilities comprising a comprehensive reality is either possible or it is not possible; every possible combination of possibilities is thus fully possible to be exemplified.
• Theorem 1:   All Cs are in the same category of possibility of exemplification (each is fully possible to be exemplified), thus they are all equal and symmetrical in regards to the property of possibility of exemplification.   
• Definition 2:  R is the contingent combination of possibilities comprising our comprehensive reality (i.e. the universe and whatever else it may be connected with, such as the multiverse). 
• Theorem 2:  R is some C within W. 
• Definition 3:  A choice is a selection among equally possible options with no selection mechanism or algorithm using predetermined criteria.  
• Premise 2:  R was either selected randomly from W via some selection mechanism or was selected via choice.
• Premise 3:  All selection from equal or symmetrical options within a category requires either a choice or a selection mechanism which selects via some set of properties it uses to sort.  
• Premise 4:  If R was selected via some non-intentional selecting mechanism, then that mechanism and its selective criteria properties also require selection from within W.  
• Theorem 3:  Thus, the selection of R among W must ultimately be rooted back in a choice.
• Theorem 4:  Thus, the origin or source of reality must be capable of choice.

I believe this captures the basic idea, but this is a first past draft so allow me to modify for clarity or correction if needed.  I haven't gone through the exercise symbolically, so I probably need to add a line between premise 4 and theorem 3 to make it fully valid.  In any case I think it is semantically valid with some good faith gap filling. 

To give a rough analogy of the point I'm trying to make, a computer cannot really select or produce a truly random number.  It can give a pseudorandom number through some algorithm, but this algorithm in turn requires some external selection.  A computer can also produce a "true random number" by referencing some source outside its program.  However, there is no "outside" the primeval ontological soup to reference.  So the reality/world selection process must have ultimately required a choice.  

 

[sidis 9832]

also, as i read it, this is also requires an acceptance of fatalism.

[Huckleberry 33163]

13 minutes ago, sidis said:

premise 2...why can it not occur randomly instead of being chosen (regardless of intent or not)?  you are creating a premise that requires a choice and then saying the choice can be chosen randomly or it can be chosen with intent...but then saying that's irrelevant because regardless, a choice is made so something had to drive the decision whether it was made at random or with intent.  then you jump from there to origin has to be a result of a choice when a slight adjustment to premise 2 allowing for R to be to also be a random outcome without a choice undermines everything after definition 3.  ultimately, you're just saying that choosing something with intent or not is still a choice.  how is this helpful?

Yeah, skimmed at a red light but seemed at first glance like Premise 3 begged the question. In Premise 2 randomness is possible and then in Premise 3 it's not.

Next red light and I see that Premise 2 also misrepresents randomness, or rather begs the question in a way by stating randomness must be the result of a selection mechanism. This non-required mechanism inserted by the proof's author eventually becomes the basis of the conclusion.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Eggo 3997]

As a lifelong believer in the teachings of Christ, I fully support the secular world's warranted critical and suspicious view of the Christian church. If Christians spent less time telling other people why and how they're going to roast in hell, we'd probably have a lot less movies made about evil fucking pastors. 

[sidis 9832]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Premise 2 was intended as just a statement of excluded middle.  What I was trying to say is that if something is selected, then it was either selected randomly or it was not.  

fair enough, i should have really lodged my objection to the combination of premise 2 and 3.

[Huckleberry 33163]

4 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't believe that is the case with this argument.  Any metaphysical view based on true choice entails a rejection of fatalism.  The reason for this is that the summation of outcomes is dependent upon choices and choices are not metaphysically necessary.  For example, according to the argument our would was dependent upon a choice and could have not been exemplified; thus it does not exist by necessity according to this view.

 

Randomness is simply meant as some selection with no intent or choice involved.  But all selections of possibilities require some sort of selecting mechanism.  For example, suppose we wanted to select a random real number from the set of all reals.  We could write a program to do so, but there is simply no way for it to "randomly" select a number without some selection process.  We could give it an algorithm to go by or tell it to select along some sequence of numbers of given properties (primes, for example), but there must be some selection process in place for it to follow, even for what we call random selections.  Everything in our would, even the things that appear random, has some selection process or mechanism behind it.  Premise 3 is merely a statement of this fact.  If we were to write the premise as it applies to the real number selection, we could word it as follows:

The selection from symmetrical options within a category (e.g. any real within the set of all reals) requires either a choice (e.g. someone can just pick a number) or a selection mechanism (some program with rules to follow in order to make a selection).  

Like I said, begging the question. You are assuming the existence of a selector in your proof of why there must be a selector. Randomness does not require a selector. I understand that you are saying it does as a premise, and that is why I'm saying the proof fails.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Huckleberry

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

4 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Methodists are just Baptists who can read.

And take a drink in the parlor instead of the basement.

Names for when the UMC splits? 

I vote New Methodist and Rhythm Methodist.

[Huckleberry 33163]

Crystal Methodist, obv.

[F250 28883]

13 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

And take a drink in the parlor instead of the basement.

Names for when the UMC splits? 

I vote New Methodist and Rhythm Methodist.

Going back to being the Methodist Episcopal Church and joining the Anglican Communion.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, F250 said:

Their father was a Reformed Minister and obviously had issues with Wesleyan-Arminian Methodism, I always assumed the phrase referred to Baptists mixing Calvinist and Arminian concepts in an inconsistent manner. As Methodists, like the Reformed we stay in our swim lane but Baptists are all over the place as if they never read anything about what they believe.

Then again it was probably just a throw away line from a movie.

Shit, I thought they were just highland Scots.

[Huckleberry 33163]

52 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is a big difference between a conclusion following from a set of premises vs being included in the premises.  Begging the question occurs when a statement A is in one of the premises and then pops back out in the conclusion.  If I were to write it symbolically, no such thing would occur.  I don't see how one can claim that "All selection from equal or symmetrical options within a category requires either a choice or a selection mechanism which selects via some set of properties it uses to sort" is an equivalent claim to  "Thus, the origin or source of reality must be capable of choice."  I think you disagree with the view on randomness, but the rejection of a premise is a different thing than a begging the question fallacy.  

To be fair I initially said begs the question "in a way" for a reason. You are trying to develop a proof that the origin or basis of reality must be capable of choice. To do so you have essentially defined randomness to be a selection/choice. It's basically saying that "reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness is also a selection/choice, therefore reality is created by something that can choose." 

If it's not begging the question then it's awfully close, hence my initial phrasing. I suppose it's also sort of an equivocation fallacy, but I'm not an expert on technical logical fallacies by any stretch.

[Lucid 3]

OP has missed the forest for the trees. The real ‘anti christian campaign’ in the media is its neverending campaign to subvert the traditional values of our culture. Considering the current state of things, the campaign has been wildly successful thus far. I can’t wait to see what comes next

[F250 28883]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Shit, I thought they were just highland Scots.

Well, being a Scottish Presbyterian is about as common as an Irish Catholic.

[Nivek 17013]

"If you meet the Buddha on the path (of enlightenment), Kill him." - Zen Koan

Why?

[Huckleberry 33163]

13 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is also the possibility that there is no fallacy, but that you object to some of the definitions and premises.  That is a perfectly valid form of objection and I think the source of disagreement in this case.  You aren’t even certain of which fallacy you think it commits, so there is really no point in throwing some out there as a rebuttal.  Also, the way you phrased my argument is not an accurate summary.  It would be better to word it “reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness requires some process that guides it.” 

What I think is the primary point of disagreement is that you and sidis believe that a random selection implies that there is no reason for the selection. In other words, a random action, selection, entity, etc, is one that occurs for no reason whatsoever.  It just simply happens.  Is this correct?  If so, can you give any counter examples of selections or things which occur for no reason and/or without mechanisms determing what occurs?

Well yes, we believe that random selection implies randomness. That's the definition of the word (and why I mentioned equivocation fallacy of which the redefinition fallacy is a subset - but you can call it definist fallacy, persuasive definition, or whatever because in the end the name doesn't matter). The definition of random is that it happens without method or choice. You are redefining it to require method or choice.

[David Dennison 18993]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Well yes, we believe that random selection implies randomness. That's the definition of the word (and why I mentioned equivocation fallacy of which the redefinition fallacy is a subset - but you can call it definist fallacy, persuasive definition, or whatever because in the end the name doesn't matter). The definition of random is that it happens without method or choice. You are redefining it to require method or choice.

Are you saying that philosophical arguments often involve shifting definitions?

I'm skeptical. 

[BrickHorn 18298]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you saying that philosophical arguments often involve shifting definitions?

I'm skeptical. 

Every argument for free will certainly does. The strategy is to define something that is not really free will as “free will,” prove that the something that is not free will exists, claim you’ve proven “free will” exists, and then imply that you’ve proven that free will exists.  

To illustrate, let’s prove unicorns exist.

Premise: Unicorns exist.

1. A “unicorn” is any animal with a single horn.

2. Rhinos have a single horn.

3. Per 1 and 2, Rhinos are “unicorns.”

4. Rhinos exists (for now).

5. Per 3 and 4, “unicorns” exist.

6. Thus, unicorns exist.  QED.

 

[David Dennison 18993]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Every argument for free will certainly does. The strategy is to define something that is not really free will as “free will,” prove that the something that is not free will exists, claim you’ve proven “free will” exists, and then imply that you’ve proven that free will exists.  

To illustrate, let’s prove unicorns exist.

Premise: Unicorns exist.

1. A “unicorn” is any animal with a single horn.

2. Rhinos have a single horn.

3. Per 1 and 2, Rhinos are “unicorns.”

4. Rhinos exists (for now).

5. Per 3 and 4, “unicorns” exist.

6. Thus, unicorns exist.  QED.

 

I love philosophy. You can prove literally anything with the right definitions and parameters.

[David Dennison 18993]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You think the definition of random event necessarily entails a violation of the principle of sufficient reason?  I disagree. The word seldom means that in common usage.; it often simply means a selection done by some impartial evenly distributed physical process and not by conscious decision, which is how I used it.  Roulette wheels select numbers at random, but there is some mechanism behind them that determines what number gets selected and they do not violate the PSR.  In fact, every such random event has a process behind it.  You say that I am "redefining it to require method," but that is how all random selections work.  The premises are just an acknowledgement of this fact.  As I mentioned on the last post, provide an example of a random event that violates PSR and has no process or mechanism behind it.

Oh, you're talking about nature.

[F250 28883]

What in tarnation is going on in here?

Something something deterministic universe, randomness doesn't exist but psuedo-randomness mimics randomness through deterministic methods to attempt to create some kind of statistical randomness but this isn't actually random hence the term psuedo-random.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I love it when the ontological snobs take over on a Texas sports forum.

[Huckleberry 33163]

46 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You think the definition of random event necessarily entails a violation of the principle of sufficient reason?  I disagree. The word seldom means that in common usage.; it often simply means a selection done by some impartial evenly distributed physical process and not by conscious decision, which is how I used it.  Roulette wheels select numbers at random, but there is some mechanism behind them that determines what number gets selected and they do not violate the PSR.  In fact, every such random event has a process behind it.  You say that I am "redefining it to require method," but that is how all random selections work.  The premises are just an acknowledgement of this fact.  As I mentioned on the last post, provide an example of a random event that violates PSR and has no process or mechanism behind it.

It's a lot more simple than that. I think the principle of sufficient reason is bunk.

[David Dennison 18993]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I love it when the ontological snobs take over on a Texas sports forum.

ISWYDT

[sidis 9832]

17 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't believe that is the case with this argument.  Any metaphysical view based on true choice entails a rejection of fatalism.  The reason for this is that the summation of outcomes is dependent upon choices and choices are not metaphysically necessary.  For example, according to the argument our would was dependent upon a choice and could have not been exemplified; thus it does not exist by necessity according to this view.

it isn't fatalistic as it relates to the selection mechanism, it is fatalistic as to the constituent parts of W (P1 through P∞) that is chosen based on R.  once the selector has chosen R and its constituent P's and C's, everything becomes inevitable.  Another set of P's and C's aren't possible once the selector has chosen R.

15 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is also the possibility that there is no fallacy, but that you object to some of the definitions and premises.  That is a perfectly valid form of objection and I think the source of disagreement in this case.  You aren’t even certain of which fallacy you think it commits, so there is really no point in throwing some out there as a rebuttal.  Also, the way you phrased my argument is not an accurate summary.  It would be better to word it “reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness requires some process that guides it.” 

What I think is the primary point of disagreement is that you and sidis believe that a random selection implies that there is no reason for the selection. In other words, a random action, selection, entity, etc, is one that occurs for no reason whatsoever.  It just simply happens.  Is this correct?  If so, can you give any counter examples of selections or things which occur for no reason and/or without mechanisms determing what occurs?

no, i think it is just that you are setting a premise in 2 and 3 that the only two options for the origin is a selection mechanism period and forcing a random outcome to be the result of a choice.  so inherently, you are accomplishing nothing in the argument beyond saying that because something made a choice based on intent or based on randomness, they still chose and thus, an intent to do so was necessary.  that isn't particularly helpful as i read it.  your premises and your theorem are circular.  if you created room for a truly random origin that requires no selector, it would undermine the whole thing.

you are just saying that because you aren't aware of an exemplar of why things happen without some preceding reason, that it must be necessary for their to be intent in the whole universe when the universe itself could possibly be an the exemplar you are looking for.

also, why is the selector of R from W not subject to infinite regress?

[F250 28883]

55 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I love it when the ontological snobs take over on a Texas sports forum.

Glass houses...

[Nivek 17013]

4 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It's been debated for many years, by a lot more wise and mindful folks than me, but I think the general idea is that the walk towards a full consciousness/spiritual consciousness (whether that is called Nirvana or enlightenment or Walking with Jesus or whatever your region or understanding characterizes it as) is never really something that can be obtained in our current physical manifestation in our broken states in a fallen world. You can strive for it and should walk on the path but if you meet Buddha on that path, kill your idol and ideas of what you think you know and keep moving forward.

I don't know, notice me senpai, notice me.

I thought it was because the Buddha one sees, becomes a distraction on your path to enlightenment and it is easy to fall into the trap of attachment to a Buddha which will remove one from the path.    I thought this was a parallel message to one of the 10 commandments which referred to idols, in so far that the cross, fish, or other secular symbols (save Longhorn flag) are distractions from God, whereas the goal in Christianity was enlightenment/salvation through God not by the worship of idols of God.  

 

But I am just an agnostic and I have not really thought on this for years.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I liked this thread better when it was conservative pantswetters crying about the persecution of white christians and everyone else pointing and laughing at them.

[Bat Guano 359]

27 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

All random selection and number generation can be done in one of three ways:  pseudo-random number generating algorithm, using subtle asymmetries in initial conditions (such as dice or roulette), or referencing the external environment.  All three ways have some process behind them.  

Those are all the ways humans have used to generate approximations of random numbers. I am not sure it says anything about the hypothetical case of a universe springing into existence out of nothingness, which is, I think, where this discussion is coming from. Quantum theory provides a different explanation of randomness from your three, and that is what would apply in the case of universe-origination. It's something that's hard, maybe impossible, for humans to truly comprehend, starting with the idea of true nothingness: no space, no time, no anything, that would be the starting point.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Bat Guano
clarifying

[Huckleberry 33163]

I don't think it is possible that there was ever true nothingness.  

If that's the case then no creator (or selector) is necessary.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

This claim is similar to a commonly given objection on the use of the PSR to the the universe itself (i.e. that even if we allow that the PSR applies within the universe, we don't know if it applies to the universe).  To this claim I would argue that if the universe came into existence for no reason, then it can cease to existence for no reason.

On quantum randomness, the assertion is that it is not knowable and not determinable from initial conditions on whether a quantum event happens one way or another (e.g. why a radioactive atom decays before its half life).  But there is some mechanism in place behind the decay process of an atom.   

I don't think it is possible that there was ever true nothingness.  

Maybe there is a mechanism. Or maybe the end state is unknowable because there is no mechanism - it's just random.

Why do you think nothingness is impossible?

[Coors yellow belly 105]

This thread smells like farts

[David Dennison 18993]

22 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Maybe there is a mechanism. Or maybe the end state is unknowable because there is no mechanism - it's just random.

Why do you think nothingness is impossible?

The first law of thermodynamics?

[sidis 9832]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I see.  The way around fatalism as outlined here is that the selector could enable the ability of choice for agents operating within a given world.  So the selector could select some category of C with multiple possible states, and then a set of agents within that category make decisions which ultimately determine which state (or which exact C) it ends up being.  For example, you select the game of chess for your kids to play, but they determine which exact chess game gets played out.  

  

For the sake of clarity going back to your last point on your previous posts, I would word premise 2 and 3 as follows: 

• Premise 2:  R was either selected from W via choice or it was not. 
• Premise 3:  All selections from equal or symmetrical options within a category that are not made via choice requires a selection process or mechanism. 

On the objection, I'm not claiming that "something made a choice based on intent or based on randomness," but instead I'm claiming that the original selection which initiated our reality could not have been produced by a selection mechanism, because then we could just ask what selected this mechanism.  So in the end the theist will appeal to choice of a conscious selector and the nontheist will appeal to some sort of process/mechanism free "randomness."  However, if we evaluate this two claims in detail, I think that we will find is that they are in fact the same claim.  The selection of a particular from a symmetrical group of many by some entity with no mandated/binding guiding process, either due to some chosen preference or for no real reason whatsoever, is exactly what we think of as a choice.  It is very difficult to draw a distinction between choice and true randomness (i.e. selection for no reason or with no mechanism behind it).  Usually doing some requires appeals to intent, but can there really be a truly process/mechanism free selection without what we would in any other case categorize as intent?   The things that we perceive as acting without intent are exactly those things which have a binding mechanistic process.  If an entity or system was free to make a range of choices without being bound by a mechanistic process, then when given its selection we would view it as a choice made by the system.  On final review, I don't think there is much distinction on the stripped down ontological view between the theists and the nontheists other than the insistence of whether or not there was choice or intent behind the universe, but the appeal to randomness to avoid choice/intent by the nontheists has the same properties of a choice when analyzed in detail.           

Regarding the infinite regress of the selector, I think that whatever the selector is (personal who acts with intent or impersonal with no intent), it must be necessarily exemplified to get out of the infinite regress.  What requires selection are the contingent realities.   

So what ultimately, what you are saying is that the selector chooses P1 and then sets all the rules for C1 to the end of time and just let the experiment play out.  ultimately, here is a universe with certain physics, rules such as hydrogen is going to have these properties and this potential and wow, look at that, when you fuse them, it's a star!  And 14 billion years from now, humans will evolve on one of the trillions+ of rocks floating around the universe...  So ultimately, R is really just P1 with a bunch of contingencies.

regardless, in your revised premise 2, are you saying r was either selected or not, or are you saying that it was selected via "choice" or not?

if the former, then that is a large departure from your original premise 2.  if the latter, then you are back to my same criticism.  you are requiring the origin to be selected and then coming back and saying "well, it was selected either way so there was a choice."

i have no idea if, in fact, the origin had no reason or mechanism behind it.  but you ask if it is possible and i say, sure.  why not?  just because our perception in life and in relatable analogies can always ultimately be extrapolated back to the genesis of the earth itself, that doesn't mean that existence itself requires the same causal chain.

and i think the infinite regress remains a problem as the selection mechanism's selection of the R may actually just be a C2 of another R.

[Mole 4333]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

Glass houses...

But did the glass house appear by chance or can we assume there was a builder?

[sidis 9832]

28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The infinite regress explanatory problem only applies to things which require external reasons for their existence, i.e. contingent things that can possibly exist or possibly not exist.  Necessary entities do not require external reason for their existence as their necessary existence is contained within their nature, thus there is no infinite regress of external explanations because they need no external cause/explanation.  

i guess i didn't see that the selector was a necessary being in your logical argument but i suppose it should have been assumed.

28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Yes, this is more or less what I'm getting at.  My view is that the necessarily existent Player plays the game of games (the fundamental metaphysical rules) and that this Player can select subgames (i.e. the universe game in our case) within the game of games and is free to select players to play those games (conscious beings within a universe).   So the Player selects a game, but not necessarily the specific outcomes of the games.  There can be numerous players within a game who contribute to the game states.  

 

yeah, of course that begs the question...to what end?

28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm claiming the latter - that it was selected via choice or it was not.  My claim is that there are only two types of selection that can be made:  those made by choice and those made by some selection mechanism/process.  There is no tertium quid.  So let's say that selection by choice is option A and selection not by choice is option B.  Option A is possible and can be tied off to the discretion of a necessarily existent entity capable of such a choice.  However, option B only pushes the problem back to the mechanism itself and has the problem of infinite descent, and therefore is not a valid explanation.  In other words, ultimately a choice is required to break the symmetry of selecting this reality and not some other.  You may claim that such a symmetry breaking selection can be via randomness, but my answer back would be that some free/non-bound selection made by the discretion of some system or entity is synonymous with choice.  

 

This is the crux of the matter for me.  What I'm getting at is that when we dig down to the base details of the theist and nontheist positions are not radically different from each other.  For the answer to the question of why this universe and not some other, a theist would appeal to the divine providence of God.  A nonthiest would appeal to the providence of the randomness of nature.  Both divine providence and the randomness of nature are viewed by some as fundamental to our reality, they both are often offered as brute facts, and they both are at the whim or discretion of the origin or basis of reality.  The only significant difference is that the theist claims that God has reasons and purposes for decisions (so even though they may not be known to us, every fact and decision has an explanation), while a nontheist claims that nature has no reasons nor purposes behind its random intent-free selections made via some manner as equally mystical and unknowable as divine choice.  A strong advantage of the theist position is that you get reason built in at the basis of reality, while you do not with the atheistic position.  The reasons and explanations for the random selections of nature are not merely unknowable - they are nonexistent. 

well then i am back to the circularity.  you are distinguishing between selection and choice for purposes of your premises but then saying...meh, they are essentially the same thing and so the argument holds that a choice is made regardless because a selector has to exist...whether it is god or a necessary governing system of chaos.  the system of chaos had to come to be in some fashion so thus, it is effectively the same thing.

i don't disagree that the theist and non-theist both acknowledge that there is likely some sort of origin.  they aren't "radically different" in that sense.  but the distilled difference you highlighted as to what the source and intent of the origin is a fairly big one. your advantage is one that comforts you but it is no more likely because of that.

[elfenix 34364]

9 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Am I the only one who hates how quotes are handled on this site? 

no, it completely sucks.  the asshats over at invision decided that there was no reason to ever need to edit bbcode directly and so we're left with this mess. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Interesting to see that a thread started by a dunked on troll/tjhooker sock has actually evolved into a philosophical discussion way above my pay grade. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I love it when the ontological snobs take over on a Texas sports forum.

Can you say ironical ?

[Anastasis 23471]

I for one am glad that @Axiom of Choice has returned and appreciate reading the exchange with @Huckleberry and @sidis even though I have no fucking idea what they are talking about. 

 

Rip quacks. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Anastasis

[Cacti 191]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I for one am glad that @Axiom of Choice has returned and appreciate reading the exchange with @Huckleberry and @sidis even though I have no fucking idea what they are talking about.  

Same here. These type of exchanges are a refreshing break from the usual discussions; discussions which often are nothing more than pictures, gifs, re-tweets, and one-line barbs.  

[Huckleberry 33163]

Plenty of interest but it requires more attention than most message board BS so don't really have the time right now.