What was going through god's omniscient mind for an eternity before he created the universe? Or was he as thoughtless as a buddhist monk?

This is a form of a mind projection fallacy:

A second form of the fallacy, as described by Jaynes,[1] is when someone assumes that their own lack of knowledge about a phenomenon (which is a fact about their state of mind) as meaning that the phenomenon is not or cannot be understood (a fact about reality). (See also Map and territory.) - wiki

Interbane wrote:http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

This is not what I was questioning.
Ive seen this before.

The question actually is if rewinding the evolutionary clock to zero again would result in evolution as we know and it to be now.

Youre link is an answer for someone who denies aspects of evolution already determined by evidence.

Control your knees please.

Flann 5 wrote:Can it be shown that chaos theory, or more precisely his simple fundamental chaos can produce laws such as we find in our universe and a multiverse. He believes it can.

Based on the first three sections, I would argue that Carrier's thesis is very confused and suffers from a lack of focus. On one hand, he argues that a worldview should be based on empirical evidence. On the other hand, he's taking us into very speculative areas of science that are far from proven. The further we go into these speculative areas, the less any of this really matters to either side. Sure, Carrier makes a very valid point that "Goddidit" doesn't answer any questions, but only causes more complications. Is he going to keep saying this for the next three or four hundred pages? A naturalistic worldview is never going to hinge on one multiverse theory or another. Or whether time is infinite or finite. This point by point comparison of science versus religion grows very tiresome. As far as arguing that a materialistic worlview is more rational, and more based on evidence, he's already made his argument a thousand times over.

String theory and quantum physics and the existence of free will are all very interesting scientific/philosophical pursuits. But but by continually comparing the cutting edge of science with the God "thesis", Carrier is getting lost in the very gray areas that mires people like Deepak Chopra.

Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be. Of course human values can be expressed without citing scientific data. Carrier suffers from the same Mr. Gradgrind School of Hard Facts excrement that prompts Robin Williams to tell his students to rip out pages in their poetry books. Who is Carrier trying to convince in this book? His approach makes no sense.

"Its not the Bible you're not gonna go to hell for this." LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4

Control your knees please.

Huh?

The question actually is if rewinding the evolutionary clock to zero again would result in evolution as we know and it to be now.

The evolutionary algorithm would be the same. The path could have been different. I'm still not sure what you're asking, sorry.

The ad hoc assumption is this:

Rewind to T= 0, the theory of evolution predicts the inevitable rise of consciousness.

To say that it would is an assumption, not a theoretical law.

The algorithm would be the same???
Bull effin crap.

ant wrote:The algorithm would be the same???
Bull effin crap.

Why wouldn't it be? The algorithm is what makes evolution work.

ant wrote:Rewind to T= 0, the theory of evolution predicts the inevitable rise of consciousness.

Inevitable? Not at all. There are many things that could have wiped out life on our planet for good. A well aimed scouring blast from a supernova, or a meteor hitting us just right to knock us out of the goldilocks zone.

Hmm. Unless you mean inevitable in the sense that with infinite time, a habitable planet where abiogenesis has occurred will lead to consciousness. With infinite time, the probability is inevitable. But that's not a prediction the theory of evolution makes, unless I've missed something.

geo wrote:Based on the first three sections, I would argue that Carrier's thesis is very confused and suffers from a lack of focus.

I saw structure to it, but I agree that he spends way to much time arguing against religion.

geo wrote:Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

He stated clearly that his worldview was based on philosophy. He rambled about it for a while in the beginning of the book. Does he say something different further in?

Infinite time making evolution inevitable?
That is an ad hoc assumption to assist an anything can happen scenario.

The truth of infinite time has not been established scientifically.
Is this where the naturalist gets to retreat into metaphysics to win an argument?

Organisms are free to develop in many different directions.
Rewinding the clock would more than likely result in organisms developing differently with the possibility of tiny variations in play again, right?

What specific algorithmic model predicts organisms would develop the same way if the clock was set to zero again?

Its obvious the mechanism of evolution worked. Its unclear how it got started, but it worked. For us at least and not some poor extinct species.
The dinosaurs' obliteration helped a lot too or you might have had a tyrannosaurus head right now.

the theory of evolution explains how life evolved on earth. But is it a law?
Science seeks to uncover physical laws of nature. Does it not?
I say evolution is NOT a law of nature, like, say, gravity.

Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

Its impossible.
Thats why philosophy is not dead yet like some scientists say it is and why its Carrier's religion of choice.
Carrier dresses up most of his worldview as being empirically scientific. But its clearly not.
His is a wager that science is the only source of true knowledge and that it will provide answers to all future questions.
You know the saying about putting all your eggs in one basket, right?

Quote; Richard Carrier; "Still, both of the multiverse theories described above make a lot of sense of the idea that there was a beginning,a first moment of random chaos, which spawned, a tiny simple universe......."

And; " For the whole thing (the multiverse) just exists changeless and eternal."

O.k, Let's see if I can pick the mercury up with my fork this time.

Question 1; Did Richard's life have a beginning? A1; Yes of course it did,are you nuts or something?

Q2; Has Richard existed eternally? A;2 Why no,he came into existence some years ago, and happily is not an advanced model of Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Q3; Did our universe have a beginning? A3;Multiverse theories I kinda like, make a lot of sense of the idea that there was a beginning, I think I hear Richard say.
Q4; Did this really real multiverse exist eternally then? A4; Not a chance.
Q5; Why not? A5; Because it had a beginning, You're trying my patience here.

Objection; But if I could invoke a particular theory of time,couldn't this make Richard and the multiverse eternally existent? Answer; No it could not, because they both had a beginning.

Conclusion; Richard Carrier's belief that it could, is a useful fiction produced by his brain, to obscure certain unfortunate problems with his ideas, that exist in the real world.
Hawking and Krauss at least recognise that there is a real problem to solve. How do you naturalistically get something from nothing?
Carrier thinks that by shoveling the problem back via the multiverse to a first moment of random chaos he doesn't have to explain naturalistically how this random chaos and it's properties and constituents naturalistically emerged from nothing.
He thinks he can just wave the magic wand of his time theory and abolish nothing. Problem solved.
But if this is a process where time and space come into existence, and is measurable scientifically by expansion and every scientific indicator of times arrow then it is simply denial of evidence to pretend no problem exists.