MintPlumbing Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I don't know why you keep saying this no matter what evidence is presented to you. Believe whatever you want. It won't hurt you or anybody else. The evidence for a non-deterministic universe is overwhelming and freely available. Either learn about it or don't. You haven't presented any evidence which proves the universe is random and not deterministic, you have simply done the same as I and expressed your opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The universe being a deterministic systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system Right, so you're not actually talking about predetermination (in the sense that everything in the universe is already planned out and we cannot choose our own 'path')? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MintPlumbing Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Right, so you're not actually talking about predetermination (in the sense that everything in the universe is already planned out and we cannot choose our own 'path')? Planned implies intelligence, everything that happens is inevitable, it can't happen in any other way than the way it is going to happen and rewinding time wouldn't change the outcome of what is destined to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Do you believe that quantum behaviour and radioactive decay are deterministic? Despite there appearing not to be as far as we can tell? ---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 13:54 ---------- You haven't presented any evidence which proves the universe is random and not deterministic, you have simply done the same as I and expressed your opinion on the matter. Here you go Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[1][2][3][4] Pretty easy to find wasn't it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay References 1 - 4 "Decay and Half Life". Retrieved 2009-12-14. Jump up ^ Stabin, Michael G. (2007). "3". Radiation Protection and Dosimetry: An Introduction to Health Physics. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-49983-3. ISBN 978-0387499826. Jump up ^ Best, Lara; Rodrigues, George; Velker, Vikram (2013). "1.3". Radiation Oncology Primer and Review. Demos Medical Publishing. ISBN 978-1620700044. Jump up ^ Loveland, W.; Morrissey, D.; Seaborg, G.T. (2006). Modern Nuclear Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience. p. 57. ISBN 0-471-11532-0. ---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 13:55 ---------- T but because we don't have the ability to explain everything thing that happens. Scientists haven't and can't test the idea that the universe is a deterministic system. What makes you think that you've explained it, and/or discovered the answer, when you accept that science can only establish that certain processes appear to be random? It sounds like you've just decided that they aren't random, despite the best evidence we have that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MintPlumbing Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Do you believe that quantum behaviour and radioactive decay are deterministic? Despite there appearing not to be as far as we can tell? ---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 13:54 ---------- Here you go Pretty easy to find wasn't it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay References 1 - 4 "Decay and Half Life". Retrieved 2009-12-14. Jump up ^ Stabin, Michael G. (2007). "3". Radiation Protection and Dosimetry: An Introduction to Health Physics. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-49983-3. ISBN 978-0387499826. Jump up ^ Best, Lara; Rodrigues, George; Velker, Vikram (2013). "1.3". Radiation Oncology Primer and Review. Demos Medical Publishing. ISBN 978-1620700044. Jump up ^ Loveland, W.; Morrissey, D.; Seaborg, G.T. (2006). Modern Nuclear Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience. p. 57. ISBN 0-471-11532-0. ---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 13:55 ---------- What makes you think that you've explained it, and/or discovered the answer, when you accept that science can only establish that certain processes appear to be random? It sounds like you've just decided that they aren't random, despite the best evidence we have that they are. I think the universe and everything in it is deterministic. I don't think I have explained or discovered the answer, I don't know why some things do what they do, I don't understand everything about how the universe works, and I have no reason to assume that which I don't understand is random and without cause. You can't prove that an event is random and I can't prove that it isn't, you have your opinion and I have mine, but that is all they are, opinions and we will very likley never know which of us is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I think the universe and everything in it is deterministic. I don't think I have explained or discovered the answer, I don't know why some things do what they do, I don't understand everything about how the universe works, and I have no reason to assume that which I don't understand is random and without cause. You can't prove that an event is random and I can't prove that it isn't, you have your opinion and I have mine, but that is all they are, opinions and we will very likley never know which of us is right. You have your opinion, and we have ours. Ours is shared by the entire field of experts on the subject and is the result of decades or research, experimentation, maths, analysis and falsifiable predictions. Yours is a vague gut feeling you have. Don't pretend they're equally likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 In the same article it references Huxley Yes, I think Huxley was the root source of my definition too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I think the universe and everything in it is deterministic. I don't think I have explained or discovered the answer, I don't know why some things do what they do, I don't understand everything about how the universe works, and I have no reason to assume that which I don't understand is random and without cause. You can't prove that an event is random and I can't prove that it isn't, you have your opinion and I have mine, but that is all they are, opinions and we will very likley never know which of us is right. Yours is contrary to the best observational science we have, mine isn't... That doesn't guarantee that I'm correct by any means. But I can't understand how you've formed a contrary opinion on the basis of nothing and in defiance of what we can see happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I don't see how a rational mind could ever conclude anything other than disbelief in God(s) (ie atheism). That's my point. No proponent of the Scientific Method - the best available model for explaining the universe around us - can make a logical conclusion about the existence of God, either way. This is because it cannot be demonstrated empirically. You're free to believe whichever side you so choose, but you're not doing so on an evidence-backed basis. On balance of probabilities, sure, it's unlikely in the extreme. A rational mind would therefore have to adopt a position of agnosticism, as defined by the inventor of the term and accepted by the relevant philosophical reference materials (and the Oxford English Dictionary, I have since discovered). ---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 16:04 ---------- Good post. It's interesting, it presents a different definition of 'athiesm' to the one presented by posters on this thread... Anyhow, just for reference, here's an article on Theological Non-Cognitivism: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ Interesting article, thanks. I actually find this a really rewarding debate to have - it's like application of first-principles logic to the problem. Cyclone had a post about assuming a non-deterministic universe so as to avoid existential despair - whilst I completely disagree (I would imagine the universe almost has to be deterministic, I think, from a quantum physics point of view), I find the discussion very intellectually stimulating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 That's my point. No proponent of the Scientific Method - the best available model for explaining the universe around us - can make a logical conclusion about the existence of God, either way. This is because it cannot be demonstrated empirically. You're free to believe whichever side you so choose, but you're not doing so on an evidence-backed basis. On balance of probabilities, sure, it's unlikely in the extreme. A rational mind would therefore have to adopt a position of agnosticism, as defined by the inventor of the term and accepted by the relevant philosophical reference materials (and the Oxford English Dictionary, I have since discovered). Which god are you refering to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now