Timeline for Are agent explanations better than non agent explanations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11 at 15:27 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | When looking at a possible crime scene, we know that criminals exist. When looking at a possible universe, we don't know that gods exist. All these arguments assume that the thing they are trying to prove the existence of exists. Is that a good assumption? Maybe we should establish that first. | |
| Apr 11 at 14:57 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Stella You describe a deterministic universe that cannot evolve. Therefore it must be designed. I suggested a regular evolving universe to represent the non-agent option. | |
| Apr 11 at 14:42 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | The word design isn’t in the question. Stop reading what you want. | |
| Apr 11 at 14:17 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Stella Only a divine being can design the initial (and all subsequent) conditions of a deterministic universe. That is why I suggested a regular universe that evolves, does not need a designer. | |
| Apr 11 at 14:09 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Having initial conditions lead to an event does not imply divine design. What the hell are you talking about? | |
| Apr 11 at 13:11 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Stella What's the point of eliminating the most probable explanation beforehand? What's the point of having both explanations imply a divine designer? | |
| Apr 11 at 13:04 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Because that’s the point of the example | |
| Apr 11 at 12:37 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Stella Why would I have to assume that? | |
| Apr 11 at 12:18 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | The whole point is that you have to assume it’s not possible for a human/alien to have done it | |
| Apr 11 at 11:22 | history | answered | Pertti Ruismäki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |