https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichne umonidae#Darwin_and_the_

File: fnbkGET.jpg (532KB, 3283x1850px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 3283x1850px

botfly maggots have got to be among the most disgusting things in the world

>>2450573
Holy fuck, that is horrifying. More relevant of course is the fact that there is a HUMAN botfly species.

That alone is 100% proof that there is no God that is both omnipotent and benevolent. A God that doesn't meet either of those criteria? Sure, but whoever made those things is either incompetent or cruel, or both.

File: Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg.png (316KB, 1000x957px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1000x957px

>>2450581
So there are a handful of bug species on this planet that cause humans a minor inconvenience. Time to throw out our Bibles since such an absolutely horrid thing must mean God can't possibly exist.

Let's completely ignore the astounding fact that just 3 types of particles — up-quarks, down-quarks, and electrons — if they get into the correct pattern, can produce a concious being.

>>2450573
Did they eat its eyes?

>>2450601
>minor inconvenience

This fucking guy right here.

>>2450601
>>2450601
People in the 1800s began to realize the truth, yet even now there are people who turn a blind eye to reality. Unbelievable

>>2450601
No, you should throw out your bible because it's fucking dumb.
>you should believe in god because science provides an explanation for the existence of intelligent life
What point are you even trying to make you fucking moron?

File: Archaeopteryx_lithographica_(Berlin_specimen).jpg (241KB, 800x1081px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x1081px

>>2450567
that's bullshit and here's why:
Theologians have been engaged in explaining the existence of evil since before Jesus was born and Christianity was even a thing. They were well aware of the problem before discovering parasites, since at least the Riddle of Epicurus.

In fact theologians had an entire branch of study dedicated to explaining why their gods made things like parasites and Trump supporters. This study was and still is called theodicy.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

In reality the Christianity of the day was brought down by much humbler animals, mostly this one. When it became clear that birds evolved from dinosaurs the public declared the finding of a "missing link." This required the church to acknowledge that the bible isn't literally true. This admission caused greater loss of faith than any evil ever did.

>>2450703
OP here. I know the term theodicy, though I'll admit I've never delved into too many details there. Off the top of my head I recall the notion of relativizing evil as not being what it actually is, or leading to good in the long run, or being required for there to be good, etc.; and that is just asinine.

If you could summarize an actual non-asinine theodicy then please post it here. And I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm genuinely curious but too lazy right now to read anything more than Cliff's notes.

>>2450732
all theodicy is asinine, just like all theology is asinine.

god doesn't exist so there's no need to justify his lack of action against evil.

>>2450736
>god doesn't exist so there's no need to justify his lack of action against evil
the next obvious step is that evil also doesn't exist.

ichneumonids aren't evil. Neither is the antisocial individual that murders your family. There are things you like in the world and things you don't like. But your opinion doesn't make those things magically good or evil.

So just as the idea of god is a selfish mental masturbation, so are the concepts of good and evil.

>>2450601
To say that's evidence of a god is sort of a logical fallacy though. There could be a vast number of universes where those particles do not occur, and no conscious mind exists. But obviously in those universes, there are no conscious beings to reflect on that fact.

Because we are conscious beings, it only makes sense that we would exist in a universe where conditions are right to allow conscious beings to exist.

>>2450601
>watchmaker fallacy
>>2450762
>strong anthropic principle response

i dont believe in a christian, hebrew or muslim god.
perhaps i do believe in a creator of some kind. the existence of any abrahamic god is easily discounted by facts, historical data and paleontology, but the notion of an allfather of sorts i think cannot be entirely disproven either.

>>2450762
>Could
The assumption that more universes could exist that we can never visit requires the same amount of faith as religion.

>>2450792
I don't have much of a background in physics, and I won't pretend that I really understand the arguments for or against the idea of a multiverse.

But the fact that the hypothesis is frequently entertained among actual theoretical physicists who study this makes it pretty clear that there is at least some supporting evidence for the theory. So I wouldn't place the assumption of multiple universes on par with religious faith.

>>2450825
>But the fact that the hypothesis is frequently entertained among actual theoretical physicists who study this makes it pretty clear that there is at least some supporting evidence for the theory.

>Appeal to authority fallacy.

the anon makes a valid point.
1. there is no evidence of non-amenable universes.
2. By their very nature as non-amenable to conscious life there can be no evidence of them
3. Non-amenable universes are invoked to explain phenomena for which other explanations exist.

Now if you substitute "God" for "non-amenable universes" in these three statements you'll see that in fact God and universes not amenable to conscious life are both supported by the exact same lack of evidence, lack of ability to produce evidence, and utility in filling in gaps in knowledge.

in fact the strong anthropic principle has only one thing going for it, and that is the failure of God as an explanatory power in the past. Every time religious said "God did it" they've been proven wrong. There's no particular reason to predict this case is different.

but then we encounter the problem of induction, a function scientists are intensely conscious of.

>>2450825
This can also be taken up as an argument from analogy-

>we know of places that used to be amenable to conscious life but no longer are.
>This implies that our current amenable universe will eventually replaced by non-amenable ones

However this falls to the same argument from analogy that kills the watchmaker argument-
that is, exceptions to the analogy exist.

>>2450825
Finally universes non-amenable to conscious life fall to the same philosophical question that kills gods-

>Does a thing which produces no observable effects at any point in time actually exist?

The answer may be yes or no but it ultimately doesn't matter. If neither gods nor alternate universes can be detected they don't exist, sensu stricto. Things are said to exist only when they or their effects can be detected.

>>2450825
We find the same situation in alien life- most scientists believe we'll find not just life on alien planets, but conscious life like our own.

there is no evidence of this.
the only reason scientists believe this is because the alternative is that the creationists are right.

>>2450825 here

I should say that when I'm talking about religious faith in my post, I'm referring to the idea of god in the way that religions tend to describe it (i.e. a benevolent, omnipotent being that wants to be worshipped and cares about the random personal details of people's lives).

I don't reject the idea of a god. But I'm not religious, either. Every religion that I know of relies on much more extensive assumptions than just the existence of a god.

So while my argument relies heavily on an assumption, I wouldn't say that the assumption is on the same level as religious faith. I guess I'm just being pedantic here though.

>>2450845
>Every religion that I know of relies on much more extensive assumptions than just the existence of a god.
true but the same can be said of the multiverse-

we're not just invoking the existence of other universes, but many of them, and ones constructed in ways we cannot even imagine, some of which must also not allow for the existence of life or consciousness.

this is a string of unsupported assumptions, not just one.

>>2450846
I suppose you're right. If I knew more about theoretical physics, I might be able to cite some actual evidence (if there is any) for my assumptions, but it's kind of pointless for me to argue about something I don't really understand.

File: IMG_2896.jpg (42KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 450x450px

>>2450703
>parasites and trump supporters

>>2450741
>because there's no magical all-powerful sky man controlling us all, clearly the concept of good and evil also doesn't exist
>the concept of evil can be summarized by "i don't like it"
You just made a lot of huge jumps that make no sense.

>>2450862
The concept absolutely exists.

It just has no objective basis. We can't point to a thing and say "that thing is evil," or "that thing is good," and have everyone agree. Because good and evil are subjective and intersubjective opinions, not objective facts.

Opinions certainly exist, but they have no objective reality. They don't exist outside of human heads.

File: facetrip.gif (4MB, 625x352px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 625x352px

Consciousness and empathy are faults only found within humans. To the parasite it is simply living and carrying out the function it was created to do. There is no good or evil in nature. We put that idea there because that's the way our society has developed.

I understand people want to be smart, and study lots of complicated things. I'll admit I'm not the smartest man myself, but no man can imagine infinity. No man knows what came before anything. What we consider to be knowledge is nothing compared to creating and destroying matter.

Imagine getting into a space ship and flying in one direction. Forever. For. Ever. Will you ever hit a wall? Your brain cannot even fathom the idea of infinity yet we sit here and claim to understand the possibilities of the world around us. In reality we are still babies, most of us still fail to understand simple logic. If you really want to lose faith in God go read Youtube comments. Nature, if anything, is the purest form of life. Consciousness is a poison and a curse.

>>2450868
>They don't exist outside of human heads.
and for them to exist outside of human heads would require them to exist in a non-human head.

traditionally this role was given to God. It was his job to tell us what was objectively good or evil. His failure to do that job leaves us with no objective morality aside from whatever people prefer. And preferences change.

The Abrahamic God hated shellfish and faggots. People nowadays are mostly ok with both. Because concepts of good and evil change. They just reflect what people prefer.

>>2450871
>and for them to exist outside of human heads would require them to exist in a non-human head.
...What?

>>2450874
Opinions don't exist floating around loose in nature. They only exist in conscious minds. Since none of the conscious animals is considered wise enough to inform our opinions we need something alien if we want opinions fed to us from a superior mind.

File: 1468397945944s.jpg (4KB, 124x102px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 124x102px

>>2450601
>but muh bible
>cites fundamental particles
>inexplicably absent from said tome

>>2450836
>the only reason scientists believe this is because the alternative is that the creationists are right.

Anthropocentric creationist logic. Scientists believe sentient life probaly exists elsewhere because the statistical likelihood is that it does - billions of galaxies - incalculable trillions of stars - over billions of years (many galaxies are likely to be at least double the age of our own) = not very likely that there has only ever been one "Goldilocks" planet.

Might even be some high-functioning acid-blooded ichneumonid-alikes out there for a future Ripley to encounter...

File: 1392181468494.jpg (678KB, 800x4266px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 800x4266px

>>2450869
>Consciousness is a poison and a curse.
That's why most people are only partly conscious.

Just conscious enough to experience pleasure and pain, but not conscious enough to seriously consider why. They swallow easy premade confections like "god wants you to," or "this is just training for your next life."

The reality they're working so hard to ignore is that consciousness is the most horrifying thing a person can imagine for any creature, and it's entirely and completely pointless. But anyone conscious enough to realize that will quickly find ways out of their predicament. It's no accident people spend most of their lives trying to avoid their lives.

the weird part is we really want other animals to be conscious too. Like it's some gift to be not only tortured by existential angst but to be hunted and diseased and cold and uncomfortable on top of being unable to communicate their feelings or use technology to alleviate their suffering. Misery loves company I guess. Or people aren't conscious enough to be miserable.

>>2450910
>Anthropocentric creationist logic.
I'm not a creationist.

I am a scientist. And as a scientist I can tell you that if one thing exists that does not say anything about how many of those things exist.

yes, it's extremely unlikely that we're the only life in the universe. but that doesn't mean it's not true. Extremely unlikely things also happen sometimes. And the anthropic principle is a natural collection bias- we can only observe those times when we exist. This says nothing about how often that happens.

Scientifically there's no particular reason to believe there is life anywhere else in the galaxy until we actually observe some. That would be a religious belief, not an empirical one.

File: life-is-pain.jpg (16KB, 320x229px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x229px

>>2450911
>>2450914
And to tie these two seemingly disparate points together,
>consciousness is suffering
>it's possible we're the only conscious life in the universe
we could further hypothesize that consciousness isn't the normal outcome of evolution because organisms that become conscious quickly find ways to end themselves both as individuals and as a group.

It's possible we don't see signs of conscious life because conscious life by its very nature always manages to quickly destroy itself.

>>2450703
>Trump Supporters
Tipped your hat just a little too early there Juan, time to go back.

File: scientists are 6% republican.gif (3KB, 262x261px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 262x261px

>>2450928
Like 94% of American scientists I'm not a republican.

>>2450928
As a trump supporter you probably don't understand percentages. Let me rephrase.

10 out of 10 scientists in the US hate trump. This is more than the number of dentists that recommend chewing dentine gum.

>>2450703
>Trump supporters
Go back to >>>/pol/

>>2450928
The really funny part is republicans assume that people MUCH SMARTER THAN THEM cannot understand the free-rider problem and are too disconnected in their ivory towers to see efficient markets.

In real life we understand the free rider problem and agree with you, but feel that in any efficient market CEO's and politicians wouldn't earn millions of times what their employees do. We know markets aren't efficient, the ultra-rich prove it.

But god forbid people that disagree with you might actually be smarter than you. Surely they're just isolated from reality....

>>2450703
>parasites and trump suporters
muh sides

>>2450944
grow a funny bone

>>2450929
>Conservative
>Moderate
>Liberal
>Very Liberal

>>2450954
the grading curve is skewed far to the left because almost nobody in academia is conservative.

at all. We range from political moderates to hard core communists. Always have.

>>2450929
>>2450932
Knowledge and wisdom are unrelated concepts. The majority of the people who voted for Trump aren't angry shotgun-wielding rednecks, but people who see the behavior of the "left" as a threat to the principals and boundaries that held together civilization for so long. They trust the judgement of the country's founders above all else, and see the opposing political climate as a malevolent cabal, to the point where supporting them rather than ANYONE else (including Trump, despite all his flaws) simply is not worth the risk. I'm sure many good, respectable scientists are Trump supporters, they just know that telling anyone would ruin their careers, their credibility, and possibly even their lives. If you were wise, you would not encourage divisive and tribalistic behavior, or post sourceless information while arguing in the name of "science."

>>2450962
>I'm sure many good, respectable scientists are Trump supporters, they just know that telling anyone would ruin their careers, their credibility, and possibly even their lives.
the survey is and always has been anonymous.
>If you were wise, you would not encourage divisive and tribalistic behavior, or post sourceless information while arguing in the name of "science."
Pew is the name of the source. They're not anonymous nor are they divisive.

Republicans usually argue for indoctrination or alienation or culture to explain why they have no scientists. The fact that they have no scientists isn't usually disputed.

>>2450962
>sourceless information
I assume a simple google search would reveal the source to any non-retarded person.

However Trump supporters are retarded, so here's the source:
>http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/

>>2450567
>I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
>or that a cat should play with mice
Post cats.

>>2450929

The republican party has terrible stances on most sciences, they've been cutting science budgets for decades. Of course scientists are going to be on one side if the other side is taking their job/money away.

>>2450988
Yes, you are exactly right.
Republicans are viewed as anti-science because they have taken anti-science stances whenever they can.

Their complete lack of support from scientists isn't surprising in this light.

>>2450988
It's also not surprising that so many scientists are socialists or communists-
Our paycheck comes directly from taxpayer dollars. Science in the US is almost entirely socialized.

>>2450992
>Science in the US is almost entirely socialized.
though that's not the only reason.

Our military is also entirely socialized, but our soldiers aren't mostly socialists. Even though they work in a socialist field they aren't smart enough to know that. So they campaign against their own survival.

Scientists on the other hand aren't as stupid as soldiers. We know where our pay comes from.

>>2450922

You're confusing your own symptoms of clinical depression with some form of existential reality.

>Protip: happiness is a choice. Albeit one that requires you to stop thinking like an edgy teenager.

>>2451002
>You're confusing your own symptoms of clinical depression with some form of existential reality
yes, that is probably true.

however it isn't just me. Suicide rates increase with IQ. Fecundity decreases as IQ increases.

the smarter a person is the less likely they are to reproduce or even survive. Not because society pressures us to not have sex or quit living, but because high intelligence itself will kill you.

>>2450914
>I am a scientist.

I find this assertion unlikely my LARPing buddy given you confuse a a hypothesis with religious dogma.

>>2451004
>I find this assertion unlikely my LARPing buddy given you confuse a a hypothesis with religious dogma.
it's AN hypothesis, not A hypothesis.

An hypothesis without data (evidentiary support) is not an hypothesis at all.

and if it's not an hypothesis but you believe it anyways, what is it?

religion is the usual default.

Unless you have evidence of alien life or other universes? Yes? No?

that's what I thought.

>>2451003

It is an alarming trend, and there *is* much to dismayed about in a world that can elect the likes of Trump.

The Stupid is Strong in these people.

One of many things the bible is painfully wrong about: it's not the meek that shall inherit the Earth, it's the stupid - they breed faster...

>>2451007
>it's not the meek that shall inherit the Earth, it's the stupid - they breed faster...
kek
exactly
and that's why intelligence is a disease, not the future of mankind. The simplest humans are also the most fit.

>>2451005

If you have to correct someone's grammar, at least be right about it.

Oh, and while you're checking what the correct determinative actually is, read the full definition of what a hypothesis is before you embarass yourself again.

HTHs

>>2451009

I wasn't merely being glib when I said happiness is a choice, like happiness, civilisation is also a choice - one that's been made a number of times in human society, albeit one that is being somewhat set-aside in the present day.

This last is no accident of wayward human behaviour, rather it's one that is actively encouraged by vested-interests: media, marketing and politics - all of whom benefit from mass uncritical thinking...

>>2451011
http://linguistlaura.blogspot.com/2011/11/hypothesis-or-hypothesis.html

I'm perfectly familiar with how academia uses jargon. Perhaps you should read more science. You'll see any number of BE usages and flavours.

>>2451007
>promote trump because he's a loose cannon
>heavily rig the primary in your favor
>campaign strategy is to stay out of the limelight so people don't realize how awful you are
>current president urges non-citizens to go vote for you
>lose election horribly
It's amusing how people try to single out one man as a villain in a villainous industry.

>>2451013
My point is it doesn't matter if depression is caused by intelligence or merely correlated with it.

either way intelligence reduces fitness.

Many intelligent people choose to be happy, but they do it by choosing to be less intelligent. Alcohol is the primary mechanism, but other drugs and hobbies can work too.

>>2451015
>It's amusing how people try to single out one man as a villain in a villainous industry.
>fallacy of equivocation

>>2451017
Yeah yeah take all your trump shitposting to /pol/.
Fuck what a terrible thread.

>>2451018
the funny thing is the same mods that won't ban you for supporting trump outside of /pol/ won't ban me for opposing him.

>tu quoque fallacy

>>2451015

He merely exemplifies a corrupted system that is failing the majority, nothing more.

>>2451014

Well done, Anon, you found one person whose wrong opinion coincides with your wrong opinion. Very scientific of you.

>>2451023
lol
read more. My view is the common one even if it's not up to your prescriptivist standards.

and ultimately jargon is a democratic endeavor, your rules don't matter.

>>2451024
>endeavor
endeavour
>lol
kek

Well this has been a productive thread...

>>2451028
not to state the obvious but you failed to post an animal that fits OP's criteria while at the ver same time criticizing others for the exact same failure.

>>2451016
"Tfw too intelligent to succeed"
Intelligence is a tool, if you wasn't taught how to use or can't figure it out yourself don't it's your problem. Intelligence let us expand outside of our habitat, you probably confuse 2deep4you Rick and Morty angst with it.

>>2451030
>Intelligence let us expand outside of our habitat
not really.

the intelligence of one autistic person whom you exploit and then torture to death lets you expand outside your habitat.

if everyone were as intelligent as the guy that designed your iPhone humanity would've died out a long time ago.

You aren't that smart, so you have no idea what it means to be that smart.

A bunch of fucking fedoras in this thread lol
>Intelligence is a disease
>can't let drumpf get the nuclear codes
>IM A SCIENTIST!!!!11

Lmao... pseudo intelectual trash.

>>2451032
exactly

mock and fail to recognize people that are way smarter than you. Pretend they're your equals or even beneath you. But then work most of your adult life to pay them for the things they've given you.

do you know who designed your microwave oven? It doesn't matter, but they made more money than you ever will.

>>2451034
>do you know who designed your microwave oven?
Certainly not you, fucking autist... Nobody loves you, nobody wants to hang out with you because you are so fucking insufferable. Enjoy your "Intelligence " autist.

>>2451029
>not to state the obvious
>States the obvious anyway.
FWVLIW my tongue was firmly in my cheek, kinda hard to convey sometimes.

>>2451030
>"Tfw too intelligent to succeed"
Yep, the most neckbeardy fedora-toting thing I've read in a while. Mild depression =/= above average intelligence.
Indeed, most whiny neckbeards are just self-absorbed, self-pitying social cripples of very average intellect, who are too idle and cowardly to change their lives.

>>2451036
>Certainly not you, fucking autist... Nobody loves you, nobody wants to hang out with you because you are so fucking insufferable. Enjoy your "Intelligence " autist
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

Take the fruits of the autistic person's mind and then mock them until they die! This is how the mediocre both benefit from and kill the intelligent.

what you don't realize is we can afford to destroy you using the very same money you paid us for our innovation. We just don't see the point.

>>2451037
>most whiny neckbeards are just self-absorbed, self-pitying social cripples of very average intellect, who are too idle and cowardly to change their lives.
indeed.

but what of most intelligent people?
ahhhh. Maybe we need a Venn Diagram?

>>2451037
>Mild depression =/= above average intelligence.
>most depressed people aren't geniuses
>therefore most geniuses aren't depressed

this is an almost autistic level of false dichotomy.

not the idiot savant type of autistic either, just the plain old mentally handicapped sort.

>>2450601
Australia kind of makes one wonder if Noah's Ark is true because who in the world would save any life form on that island?

fucking religifags

I like Christianism. There's this god who was really at fault baiting people with that tree faith test and who ended with the scheme to pay for that sin himself. It's cute. I also like it how it's foolproof. God does nothing? Because free will. Because humanity needs to witness all the most horrible shit to stop asking "what ifs" in heaven. Or so i was told. From that point of view it's not even antagonistic to any science. But in the end it eats itself, like that serpent: if my primordial sin is knowledge of to not care about things after my death because they are impossible to check beforehand, well the conversation just stops here.

File: butthurting.jpg (27KB, 280x265px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 280x265px

>>2451042

The hurting of your butt has been a glorious thing to behold.

>>2450567
Guys the biological medium is earned in blood and death and adaption. We men are subject to the benevolence of a universe's song of cause and effect. The sum god of all mans potential is subject to the God of all our medium in balance. A rock exists for example but cannnot whine about it, cannot move itself, cannot acidently destroy itself believing it is immune to the natures that created it. I dont envy the rock today.

>>2451769
I enjoy explaining philosophy and science to you.

To make me mad or waste my time you'd have to choose a topic I don't enjoy talking about. Which isn't possible in this case because I chose the topics.

>>2450581
>there is no god becuz some spooky bugs exist
He made them to specifically spook you

>>2450601
>le survivorship bias

>>2450768
Amen.

File: 59a.gif (609KB, 262x198px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 262x198px

>>2450573
Is that birb daijoubu?

>>2451823
Now that's an emotional reply if I've ever read one. You know who bases their entire lives on their emotions? Three-year-old kids. And dogs. You know what else three-year-olds and dogs do? Shit on the carpet. An obsession and overinvestment in emotion fails us for the simple reason that emotions never last. Whatever makes us happy today will no longer make us happy tomorrow, because our biology always needs something more. A fixation on happiness inevitably amounts to a never-ending pursuit of “something else”—a new house, a new relationship, another child, another pay raise. And despite all of our sweat and strain, we end up feeling eerily similar to how we started: inadequate.

>>2450703
Your hot take on politics is not wanted. Please fuck off

>>2450581
>>2450662
>>2450681
>>2450703
>>>/r/eddit

>>2450830
>there is no evidence
But there is. See David Deutsch. Again, literally the most advanced physicists in the world are working on technologies using equations beyond most people's comprehension, but some fags on a Chinese sewing image board think that listening to them is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. As though your failure to understand something means it's not real.

File: 20120321.gif (289KB, 576x2992px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 576x2992px

>>2453176
David Deutsch is evidence of the existence of alternate universes that cannot support life? Or do you somehow think the success of his work hinges on the reality of alternate universes that cannot support life?

either way I'm certain he'd laugh at you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

>>2453187
>>2453176
>>2450830
Why is this even an argument? The anthropic principle doesn't rely on the existence of a multiverse. It is a simple and completely valid retort to the claim that "because X is true" and "X being true is extremely unlikely (not impossible) by random chance" then "X being true is sign of some other unknown factor (a god, usually) made it so". If "X is false" means no life, or no intelligent life, than observing "X is true" was always the only real possibility. Thus this observation provides NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY for long odds or the existence of a god.

Ultimately it comes to this: proving a negative such as "god does not exist" or "bigfoot doesn't exist" is not literally possible without omniscience. Thus lack of evidence is reason enough to presume the negative claims of bigfoot or god or whatever until valid objective evidence is obtained to prove the positive claims.

>>2453336
It's an argument because anon upthread used the anthropic principle to answer a watchmaker fallacy (variety- fine-tuned universe).

The fine-tuned universe arguer implied that the amenability for life indicates a creator.

the anthropic principle anon implied that this is false.

The only way the anthropic principle can be used to counter a fine-tuned universe watchmaker fallacy is if we imply that a multiverse exists and at least some of the universes aren't amenable to life. Otherwise the anthropic principle on its own just agrees with the creationist by admitting that the universe is fine-tuned without commenting on why that is.

The irony of course is that by shifting the analogy to universes, of which we have observed only one, and non-amenable universes, of which we cannot observe,
the creationist shifts the atheist onto grounds of faith no stronger than those the creationist himself is arguing from.

We cannot know if universes exist that aren't amenable to life, that's a matter of faith.

>>2453336
As to specifically why I'm arguing with the appeal-to-authority anon, I'm hoping he'll delve deeper into physics where he'll discover:
1. we don't actually have evidence of a multiverse, it's just one of several as-yet unproven interpretations of quantum physics.
2. even if we did find evidence of a multiverse, every universe we could tangentially observe would be entwined with our own, and thus amenable to life.
3. it is possible that parts of our own universe are unamenable to life.
4. it is also possible that our universe will suffer Vacuum Collapse, a chain reaction that causes the physics of the universe to become unamenable to life.
5. but even if other universes or parts of our own universe or even our whole universe were indeed unamenable to life, we would never observe that fact because we'd be dead.

>>2453449
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

>>2453336
To add to the weirdness there is the fact that the anthropic principle is self-defeating in physics and philosophy:

1. a common view in both physics and philosophy is that things don't exist until we observe their effects. Many physicists for example believe that the past is an amorphous area of non-reality in which events only crystalize into reality when we observe their effects.
2. Universes unamenable to life cannot be observed by any natural person from this universe.
3. Universes unamenable to life cannot be observed by any natural person from that universe because there is no living person in them.
4. Quantum physics and the anthropic principle both seem to suggest the existence of universes unamenable to life.
5. Since universes unamenable to life would need to be observed in order to exist, and no natural person can observe them, this implies a supernatural person. A supernatural person would be a god.

Thus the very argument that our universe is amenable to life by mere chance also implies that there is a god above it. This is one reason physicists have a much higher rate of belief in gods than do any other branch of hard science and almost all branches of soft science.

The anthropic argument against god is self-defeating from the standpoint of current physics.

>>2453336
Finally there's the problem that the anthropic principle as you voice it is tautological.

If it doesn't imply anything about gods or multiverses then it's just a statement of the obvious. A tautological truism. The lack of utility in argument also makes the principle completely meaningless.

>>2453448
>>2453449
>>2453462
>>2453465
>>2453462
>that things don't exist until we observe their effects
This argument is a natural consequence of an evidence based philosophy that built the models of the fundamental properties of the universe. Evidence requires observation, thus for anything to exist and contribute it must be observable. It makes total irrelevancy equivalent to nonexistence.

To make observation some central and profound property of the universe because of this is to mistake your philosophy for a fundamental nature of the universe.

Thus the suggestion, by models or anthropic arguments, of the existence of universes or whatever else that can not be observed by their very nature does not mean there is either a supernatural being capable of observing them or that they do not truly exist, it means that the prediction is not relevant to progress science and it's models and should be ignored. The prediction of god is irrelevant to science and should be ignored.

Ultimately the anthropic argument's purpose is not to imply anything more than that the watchmaker argument is false on the basis that the life amenable universe is the only observable universe, not a sign of design.

>>2453743
We're discussing quantum physics, where a quantum field exists in multiple states until it is observed, at which point it collapses into a single state.

it does not exist as such until it is observed.

This is the principle that gave rise to the idea of the multiverse in the first place. If a particle exists in 3 states prior to being observed, and when it's observed it collapses into only one of those, what happened to the other 2 states?

as a joke some people proposed they exist in other universes.

>>2453743
>this is to mistake your philosophy for a fundamental nature of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

>>2451059
The bees are cuddly and don't have stingers how could you say such a horrible thing

>>2450567

Yeah well those larvae that are eaten alive are incapable of feeling pain.

>>2450703

Go back to /r/eddit you rat faced Jewish cuck.

Good point on Archaeopteryx - though the truth is what makes birds' lineage from dinosaurs obvious is the hip bones.

>>2450567
The Patrician took a sip of his beer. “I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”

>>2450869
>Imagine getting into a space ship and flying in one direction. Forever. For. Ever. Will you ever hit a wall? Your brain cannot even fathom the idea of infinity

Well, its not that hard to imagine. If you were really going forever, at that point it would just seem to you that you weren't really moving at all, and perhaps the universe was moving around you, and besides, you wouldn't know the difference between a very long but repeating display of constellations, or a random one, or a truly unique one. It wouldn't make a difference.

I don't think any of this is gonna make sense