Jump to content


Photo

The God Debate


  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#221 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 12 May 2013 - 04:57 PM

Thats where you get lost. I don't HAVE to prove anything. !00% of the burden of proof is on the one proposing that god exists. So I in no way have to provide any proof or evidence to support my position. My position is already supported by the lack of evidence. If there is a god then by all means I will convert if I see proof. However there is none so until proof is provided my stance is atheistic. I have never stated that there is a zero possibility of there being a god. I am saying there is zero reason to believe there is a god. You need to make the distinction of that. 

Really? well I thought you were debating that we all needed to default to athiesm, or was I wrong on that? you state that I should not have reason to believe in this because you see zero reason to believe in that. to state this you must give some sort of evidence that your side has something better to offer me, while my side i say do as you will and I will do as I will. :/ this leaves us able to choose whichever course we want and leaves no default.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#222 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:07 PM

I thought we were arguing about the possibility of gods here, not quantum physics. And even there I am pretty sure they dont state something can come from nothing.

 

You need to start reading more carefully, my friend. I was not arguing about quantum physics, but merely pointing out that scientific speculation would about cosmology would have an appreciation of that field, which is very important when understanding those events. And yes, there are models of the universe in which the universe arises out of nothing but quantum fluctuations, which is the closest you can get to nothing at this point. 

 

This means that a scientific theory is more trustworthy than a biblical source.

 

1. Really? I was under the impression that there was quite a bit of thought put into whether these dragons or manticores existed, heck people are still even looking for Atlantis. So I miss your point here.

2. really? there can be no common ground within religious texts? this seems a little far fetched now. I will however agree that there is incorrect information within these text, due to human error.

3. So if something contradicts what you know it is now automatically wrong? I thought this was why we tested things throughout science, to see where things that contradict our current views are correct.

 

1) The point of 3) was that our knowledge of the world quickly eliminates the possibility of dragons existing. The same is not done for people coming from the dead and so on. Why not? The point of 1) was that we know there's a lot of fiction out there and we can recognize this as fiction, but we can't do the same for religious texts. Why not?

2) Very well. Which is the incorrect information, and how do we know what's correct and what's not? Also, why does being correct matter, given that human beings can be correct from time to time?

3) The Bible contradicts what we know of evolution. That doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. It's wrong because it doesn't have evidence supporting it, whereas evolution does. 

 

 

ah a conspiracy theory on religion >_> well there are conspiracy theories for everything.

 

http://en.wikipedia....lical_criticism

 

This page might be useful as a starting point. Read the part about sources.

 

Also, David Hume, "Of Miracles" is an interesting read.


That being said, here we are! Sentient beings debating our origins from all around the world while not even being next to each other. So I suppose it wasn't so improbable that it couldn't happen, right? Well, aside the fact that if the universe is in fact infinite, this would lead to infinite chances for the possibility to occur... my personal beliefs come into play here. I'd say it's not unreasonable to think that, considering the probability that "mankind" miraculously evolves from bacteria (nevermind the fact that living bacteria had to develop SOMEHOW and I don't see any theoretical explanations for that), that there was probably some guiding force (eg: God or whatever religious figure you'd prefer) that led to the eventual development of mankind. Discounting even the facts that why the big bang occurred has no clear explanation (and the possibility that God caused it), it's hard to say evolution itself isn't a "creation story" considering the probability factors involved. I prefer to think that we didn't get lucky down to an almost impossible figure.

 

 

There are a lot of theories, actually: http://en.wikipedia....#Current_models

 

All of them, however, are reliant on the fundamental mechanism of evolution. From simple to complex, that which survives and replicates best continues on in the future.

 

About the rest of your post: What you're pointing out parallels the fine-tuning argument that uses the cosmological constants to arrive at a similar conclusion. I agree that we're very improbable, but read this first.

 

Imagine 1056 people. All of these take part in a lottery. One of them wins.

 

The odds of a particular person winning are astronomically small. 

 

Now, the analogue of the believer in this case would say that the odds are so improbable, that the only way this person could have won was if in fact all of it had been probable after all (note this is exactly what you said), because the lottery was somehow rigged in his favour. From there, the analogue of the believer believes the lottery was rigged and would, given the chance, accuse the winner or the lottery makers of a crime. 

 

Do you see the problem?


Edited by Tale, 12 May 2013 - 07:39 PM.


#223 Machabees

Machabees

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:00 AM

 

Believing that the universe had a beginning is logical, yes, though at the moment I don't think there's actual proof of an absolute beginning. Believing that the first cause was a god, however, is not as rational.

 

  First of all you have to accept logic and reason as objective methods to arrive at truth or facts, whatever you prefer. The beginning of the universe has to be an absolute being. The "god" I am referring to is the "first cause" which is one(alone), infinite, eternal, necessary(self-existent), and immutable(unchangeable). By now I am sure you are familiar with the argument of causality, which I will use as my first proof, but I will reiterrate it for the sake of the debate. I'll begin by basic definitions.

 

Cause - that which contributes in any manner to a production of a thing

Effect - the thing produced by the cause

Causality - the relation of a cause towards its effect

Infinity(philosophical)  - the state of unboundedness(having no limits)

Perfection - 1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts; 2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better; 3. which has attained its purpose.

 

 

Facts: 1) Causality exists in the world, i.e Tale punches Machabees who proceeds to cry. Tale's punch is the cause and Machabees crying is its effect. 2) The effect of one cause may become the cause of further effects, i.e To stop Machabees from crying Tale gives him a lolipop. The effect of Machabees crying became the cause of him getting a lolipop, its effect. 3) The chains of cause and effect may be crossed and interwoven at innumerable points, so that many causes may convergeto produce one effect, and the influence of one cause may be found in various effects, i.e. Machabees' crying also caused PlasmaWolf to yell shut up. 4) Everything that exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence. i.e Tale exists because of the magical stork.

 

To expound on point #4: If a thing exists, then it either 1) has received its existence by the action of some cause or causes or 2) it is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent.

 

To expound on point #4.2: If a thing is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent then it is self-existent. A self-existent thing contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. Since it must exist by reason of its own essential perfection, it has no cause, it is eternal, it is necessary being(it necessarily exists), and not contingent(dependent) upon the action of any producing cause. If a being has received existence by the action of some cause(s) it is not a necessary being but a contingent one, for it depends on the action of its producing cause.

 

Facts: 5) There are only two kinds of beings possible 1. eternal, uncaused, necessary, being and 2. contigent being, which is caused. 6) Contingent beings must be traced back to a first cause, which is necessary and uncaused.

 

To expound on point #6: There must be a first cause as it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of events(cause and effect). We would never get to the present because there would always be one event before the "now". Also a finite event added to a finite event can never equal the infinite.

 

Facts: 7) There can only be one first cause.

 

To expound on point #7: For a being to be so perfect that it must exist in turn must have the fullness of perfection in a wholly unlimited manner. This is because such a being is self-existent and wholly independent of causes. Causes do two things: 1) make an effect what it is and 2) they limit the effect so as to mark off its perfections(qualities, attributes) from those of other things. Hence a being independent of causes, a necessary being, is independent(unconstrained) by the limitations which causes impose. Thus the first cause is free from limitation, in other words, the first cause is infinite. An infinite being is unique, there cannot be more than one such being. If there were more than one there would be a distinction of being between or among them. This distinction would be a limitation and none would be infinite. For example, Tale and Machabees are both infinite beings, both having their perfections in a wholly unlimited manner. If Tale and Machabees are not identical(if identical then they are one and the same) --(off topic: maybe I shouldn't have used us as examples here...) -- then there is a defect and limitation in Machabees as he does not have all the perfections that are properly Tale's and vice versa. Thus, unless Tale and Machabees are identical and one, neither is infinite.

 

In summary, there must be a first cause, God, that is eternal, one, necessary, and infinite.

 

If there is anything I have failed to explain coherently please let me know and I will clarify it.



About the rest of your post: What you're pointing out parallels the fine-tuning argument that uses the cosmological constants to arrive at a similar conclusion. I agree that we're very improbable, but read this first.

 

Imagine 1056 people. All of these take part in a lottery. One of them wins.

 

The odds of a particular person winning are astronomically small. 

 

Now, the analogue of the believer in this case would say that the odds are so improbable, that the only way this person could have won was if in fact all of it had been probable after all (note this is exactly what you said), because the lottery was somehow rigged in his favour. From there, the analogue of the believer believes the lottery was rigged and would, given the chance, accuse the winner or the lottery makers of a crime. 

 

Do you see the problem?

There is a problem with your lottery example. In a lottery (unless its rigged but that is beside the point) there always has to be a winning number. There has to be one winner. It is predetermined by the creators of the lottery. In evolution there is no "winning number". By this I mean there is not one set of odds spread out over all the potential life forms. Each inanimate form has the same astromical odds (the odds are insane) against it to reach life. And the odds do not get better over time, they stay the same. To believe otherwise is gambler's fallacy. And that is presupposing that all the conditions are continued to be met which only increases the odds.

 

If I have failed to understand the usage of this example I apologize.

 

Finally, to quote Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

 

EDIT: I will be busy for the next two days as I have a funeral to go to so I won't be able to respond until after that.


Edited by Machabees, 13 May 2013 - 07:55 AM.


#224 Samurai Yoru

Samurai Yoru

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:09 AM

Not really. First, you don't know what the intentions of the original believers/inventors of the various religious movements were, nor can you properly summarize the place of religion in the lives of all believers in a single sentence. You just can't, unless you had some reliable statistical study (whose methodology would have to be cleverly constructed).

Also, you're reading me entirely upside down. The logical conception of God I was talking about would be built from the ground up and updated constantly, not something that is placed ad hoc as a label for something that is not explained. In the latter case, you have "God" as a shrinking plug for the hole in scientific matter. In the former (what I was speaking about), you're actually constructing the idea of a unified "origin" and "order", something that grows alongside your knowledge.
 

We have that. Its called Science. 

From a locally historical perspective, maybe. But globally, and totally, there's no reason to say that. For science to address the total concept of "god", you'd literally have to look at ALL conceptions of god in their metaphysical form and then address each and every one of them. You can't just cherry pick, say, the polytheistic and monotheistic conceptions that everyone knows, and ignore the more deistic versions, for example (and the Deist version from the time of the Enlightenment isn't the only non-interventionist conception of God, either).
 

I am confused as to the point your getting at. The idea fits for all of them. You must provide evidence for your claim. No claim of any god ever to my knowledge has provided proof or evidence to back up the claim. I'm not cherry picking. I may have used a few specific ones as examples but it applies to all. 

 

You're missing the fundamental point. This is one system of logic that YOU created, and is not "universal" or "right" at all unless you qualify it with some sort of motivation before hand. If you said "I will create a logical decision system that must adhere to these principles:

1. Claims must have observable pieces of evidence to support them.
2. I have X and Y criteria for judging the merit of said pieces of evidence.
3. I will opt for the simplest explanation.
. . . .
Etc."

THEN, you can claim all Gods aren't "logical" according to your criteria. But otherwise, your claim about "fundamental logic" doesn't even make sense.
 

I didn't create this system. Logic IS universal. And all claims must be supported or else they can be dismissed without counterpoint. That is "basic" logic if you would rather I use that term. My criteria stands. 

Do you ever wonder why some people won't look at that "force" and simply call it a "force"? That goes back to what I spoke of before: decision criteria to what you're looking for and what you value in your set of beliefs and understandings in the first place.

Otherwise, of course everyone else is stupid and wrong, and you're totally right. You deemed it so a priori--but it's not "universally" right. That's not how things work.

I can give you several explanations of why someone would refuse to see a naturally occurring process as god rather than the scientifically described system. Doing so would probably be very offensive. But you have made the mistake of thinking my criteria is based on anything. That I have somehow constructed the criteria in a way that disproves god. That isn't the case. This is the basic logical criteria for any claim. It just so happens that god is being used in this particular case and its fails the test. I had no preconceived notions to set this up that way. It simply is that way. 

 

I'm not throwing some crazy curve balls out there at anyone. The criteria is the same as every claim ever. Not just god. Try going to apply for a job and say you have a masters degree Law from Harvard and see if they don't want proof. What I am getting at is there seems to be this misconception that religion is exempt from these basic principles of reasoning. I say they do not and put them up to the same questioning as anything else. 

 

And that IS how things work. 



Really? well I thought you were debating that we all needed to default to athiesm, or was I wrong on that? you state that I should not have reason to believe in this because you see zero reason to believe in that. to state this you must give some sort of evidence that your side has something better to offer me, while my side i say do as you will and I will do as I will. :/ this leaves us able to choose whichever course we want and leaves no default.

I feel strongly that everyone *should* default to atheism as its most logical. However I'm not going to forceably convert someone. 

 

And you don't understand what the Default means here. In the case of presented claims one must provide evidence of the claim. If no evidence is provided then it can and should be dismissed. The default isn't what "sounds better" or what "feels better" or "what I want to believe". The default is the logical standpoint which is Atheism or a more vague Agnostic standpoint. 



#225 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:25 AM

  First of all you have to accept logic and reason as objective methods to arrive at truth or facts, whatever you prefer. The beginning of the universe has to be an absolute being. The "god" I am referring to is the "first cause" which is one(alone), infinite, eternal, necessary(self-existent), and immutable(unchangeable). By now I am sure you are familiar with the argument of causality, which I will use as my first proof, but I will reiterrate it for the sake of the debate. I'll begin by basic definitions.

 

I'm totally out of my depth in philosophy, but I'll give this a shot. I might learn something on the way. 

 

I assume you wanted to write "beginning" where I bolded. (If not, then correct me.) Some theories say that the universe rose out of quantum fluctuations. I have no idea what these are, but they would antedate the universe. (The word "antedate" here is dangerous. Since time relies on the existence of the universe, the quantum fluctuations would be atemporal.) Since a scenario like this is possible, you have to show why the first cause must necessarily be a being.

 

 

To expound on point #4: If a thing exists, then it either 1) has received its existence by the action of some cause or causes or 2) it is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent.

 

 

I think you have to defend one of your premises here. I assume the premise would be phrased like:

 

1) Everything has a cause.

 

or

 

2) Something cannot come from nothing.

 

Am I wrong to think your argument is reliant on this? If so, you will have to defend it, because this is where cosmological arguments are weakest, I think.

 


 

Facts: 7) There can only be one first cause.

 

 

Why? Is this an application of Occam's Razor or are you just pointing to an absolute first cause even if what caused the universe is not god?

 


There is a problem with your lottery example. In a lottery (unless its rigged but that is beside the point) there always has to be a winning number. There has to be one winner. It is predetermined by the creators of the lottery. In evolution there is no "winning number". By this I mean there is not one set of odds spread out over all the potential life forms. Each inanimate form has the same astromical odds (the odds are insane) against it to reach life. And the odds do not get better over time, they stay the same. To believe otherwise is gambler's fallacy. And that is presupposing that all the conditions are continued to be met which only increases the odds.

 

If I have failed to understand the usage of this example I apologize.

 

 

You've understood my example but didn't see how it applies to fine-tuning arguments.

 

First, it was meant to show the fallacy in believing something was fine-tuned just because what we have now is improbable, by showing that while it is possible that the lottery was rigged (or the universe fine-tuned or life directed), there's zero evidence backing up that possibility in that argument. 

 

Second, I know there's no winner in evolution and I see that my lottery example could have been confusing in this regard. I don't think there's a winner in evolution. I just think fine-tuning arguments about life make that assumption themselves when they're stated. People think, "Look at how improbable our existence is. The fact that we're here must mean the lottery was rigged in our favour."

 

Their intelligence allows them to look at the fact of their existence in hindsight, just like a person might look at the winner of the lottery in hindsight and think of the improbability of the reality, and draw a fallacious conclusion. I could decide to focus on sheep and say that they're so improbable that the fact they're here must mean the universe or evolution was set off with sheep in mind. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

 

Each inanimate form has the same astromical odds (the odds are insane) against it to reach life. And the odds do not get better over time, they stay the same.

 

 

Now, specifically about this.

 

Yes, it's immensely improbable that a fully-fledged bacteria can arise out a soup of chemicals I make. But this is one of the main problems that evolution does not face.  

 

Many of the building blocks of life (amino acids and so on) can be synthesized in both laboratory and non-laboratory conditions out of inanimate matter.

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

http://en.wikipedia....hison_meteorite

 

The first step isn't that improbable, since it happens regularly and can be demonstrated in experiments.

The second step, while very improbable, would be rendered less improbable by virtue that the building blocks required to create it are there, created in the first step.

And so on, until a single molecule or proto-organism gets lucky and develops the capacity to replicate itself. 


Edited by Tale, 13 May 2013 - 04:16 PM.


#226 Machabees

Machabees

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

I'm totally out of my depth in philosophy, but I'll give this a shot. I might learn something on the way. 

 

I assume you wanted to write "beginning" where I bolded. (If not, then correct me.) Some theories say that the universe rose out of quantum fluctuations. I have no idea what these are, but they would antedate the universe. (The word "antedate" here is dangerous. Since time relies on the existence of the universe, the quantum fluctuations would be atemporal.) Since a scenario like this is possible, you have to show why the first cause must necessarily be a being.

 Hopefully I will be able to communicate my ideas properly as I too am merely a novice when it comes to Philosophy.

 

I fear I jumped the gun when I used the word "being" and  "god" as we have not progressed far enough with the arguments to come to that conclusion. Regardless, the first cause, regardless of what it is considered to be, must be one, eternal, necessary, and infinite as my argument proves. Already you can see why such a thing may be considered "god".

 

I think you have to defend one of your premises here. I assume the premise would be phrased like:

 

1) Everything has a cause.

 

or

 

2) Something cannot come from nothing.

 

Am I wrong to think your argument is reliant on this?

 

 

My argument is reliant on neither although it uses both. Your #1 would suggest an infinite number of causes, an impossibility. #2 could also be used to question the existence of a first cause and come to the same impossibility. My argument is reliant on Fact #4: Everything that exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence. I will restate my arguments relating to this point.

 

To expound on point #4: If a thing exists, then it either 1) has received its existence by the action of some cause or causes or 2) it is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent.

 

To expound on point #4.2: If a thing is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent then it is self-existent. A self-existent thing contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. Since it must exist by reason of its own essential perfection, it has no cause, it is eternal, it is necessary being(it necessarily exists), and not contingent(dependent) upon the action of any producing cause. If a being has received existence by the action of some cause(s) it is not a necessary being but a contingent one, for it depends on the action of its producing cause.

Why? Is this an application of Occam's Razor or are you just pointing to an absolute first cause even if what caused the universe is not god?

 

This is not an application of Occams's Razor although you could use it I suppose to achieve the same conclusion. As previously stated, the use of "god" is premature as of now. What I am arguing for is that there is one, infinite, eternal, and necessary first cause. Eventually when this is sufficiently proven I will go on to prove that it is indeed god. I will reiterate my argument that there can only be one first cause.

 

To expound on point #7: For a being to be so perfect that it must exist in turn must have the fullness of perfection in a wholly unlimited manner. This is because such a being is self-existent and wholly independent of causes. Causes do two things: 1) make an effect what it is and 2) they limit the effect so as to mark off its perfections(qualities, attributes) from those of other things. Hence a being independent of causes, a necessary being, is independent(unconstrained) by the limitations which causes impose. Thus the first cause is free from limitation, in other words, the first cause is infinite. An infinite being is unique, there cannot be more than one such being. If there were more than one there would be a distinction of being between or among them. This distinction would be a limitation and none would be infinite. For example, A and B are both infinite beings, both having their perfections in a wholly unlimited manner. If A and B are not identical then there is a defect and limitation in A as it does not have all the perfections that are properly B's and vice versa. Thus, unless A and B are identical and one, neither is infinite and therefore cannot be the first cause.

Now, specifically about this.

 

Yes, it's immensely improbable that a fully-fledged bacteria can arise out a soup of chemicals I make. But this is one of the main problems that evolution does not face.  

 

Many of the building blocks of life (amino acids and so on) can be synthesized in both laboratory and non-laboratory conditions out of inanimate matter.

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

http://en.wikipedia....hison_meteorite

 

The first step isn't that improbable, since it happens regularly and can be demonstrated in experiments.

The second step, while very improbable, would be rendered less improbable by virtue that the building blocks required to create it are there, created in the first step.

And so on, until a single molecule or proto-organism gets lucky and develops the capacity to replicate itself.

 

Even with the existence of amino acids, which have been taken into account already by the scientists coming up the odds, the odds are still off the chart. Understanding RNA and DNA play a key role in this and sadly I am no expert but feel free to look them up if it interests you.  Two scientists, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated that the odds are are 1 in 1040,000 .  In 30 billion years, Dawkins surmises that the world is 4 billion years old, there are less than 1018 seconds. Obviously there are many different numbers being thrown around but all are unbelievably high. Sir Frederick Hoyle, an evolutionist and a well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist,

stated, "The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."



#227 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:22 AM

 Hopefully I will be able to communicate my ideas properly as I too am merely a novice when it comes to Philosophy.

 

I fear I jumped the gun when I used the word "being" and  "god" as we have not progressed far enough with the arguments to come to that conclusion. Regardless, the first cause, regardless of what it is considered to be, must be one, eternal, necessary, and infinite as my argument proves. Already you can see why such a thing may be considered "god".

 

Why must the first cause be without limitations?

The only features I see as necessary are that it is atemporal (given that time began at some point), that it must be either self-causing or uncaused (which is contradictory with casual arguments, but you've got a way around that), and that is capable of initiating/creating a quantum event.

 

Though I don't see why the universe can't have these properties itself.

 

My argument is reliant on neither although it uses both. Your #1 would suggest an infinite number of causes, an impossibility. #2 could also be used to question the existence of a first cause and come to the same impossibility. My argument is reliant on Fact #4: Everything that exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence. I will restate my arguments relating to this point.

 

Alright, it seems you're relying on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. (That's new to me, but I'll accept it.)

 

To expound on point #4: If a thing exists, then it either 1) has received its existence by the action of some cause or causes or 2) it is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent

 

 

Since I'm not capable of criticizing the use of sufficient reason here, I'll have to attack causation and perfection. 

 

First, since you said you're using both "something cannot come from nothing" and "everything has a cause", you'll have to support them.

 

Let's begin with "something cannot come from nothing". How would you justify it? I don't see any way to support this premise, because there's no empirical basis for it and I'd have to grant it as a legitimate a priori assumption, which I won't. Basically, the only instance we in which something might have come from nothing is the beginning of the universe, and since we don't actually know what happened, it's not safe to say that something can't come from nothing.

 

To expound on point #4: If a thing exists, then it either 1) has received its existence by the action of some cause or causes or 2) it is so perfect that it must exist and cannot be non-existent.

 

First, you'll have to define what you mean by "perfection". There are various definitions, and some limit themselves to describing only one quality. If you're just going to say "a thing without limits", nothing you've said so far entails something like that creating the universe.

 

Second, I don't think you can say it's "so perfect", since it's either perfect or it isn't. 

 

This is not an application of Occams's Razor although you could use it I suppose to achieve the same conclusion. As previously stated, the use of "god" is premature as of now. What I am arguing for is that there is one, infinite, eternal, and necessary first cause. Eventually when this is sufficiently proven I will go on to prove that it is indeed god. I will reiterate my argument that there can only be one first cause.

 

Okay, you can go to the next step if you answer the above questions.

 

Even with the existence of amino acids, which have been taken into account already by the scientists coming up the odds, the odds are still off the chart. Understanding RNA and DNA play a key role in this and sadly I am no expert but feel free to look them up if it interests you.  Two scientists, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated that the odds are are 1 in 1040,000 .  In 30 billion years, Dawkins surmises that the world is 4 billion years old, there are less than 1018 seconds. Obviously there are many different numbers being thrown around but all are unbelievably high. Sir Frederick Hoyle, an evolutionist and a well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist,

stated, "The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order

 

Hoyle's calculation is fallacious, and is completely beside the point. It's based on the idea that a complex molecule or organism we see today arises by chance, which is not what evolution entails.

 

There are three possibilities for the origin of life:

1) Life could have arisen by chance.

2) Life could have been directed by an outside force.

3) Life evolved.

 

Hoyle's calculation addresses 1), but 1) is not evolution. Evolution does not say that life comes about by chance.

 

I tried to explain this in my previous post, by pointing to simple things that have a good chance of forming in certain conditions becoming more complex over time by adding little things and thus cutting the large improbability into a number of smaller improbabilities. Richard Dawkins, in his books about evolution, explains this very clearly. Climbing Mount Improbable is a book that discusses this. I don't have that particular book, but I have a couple of other books of his, so I might be able to find a quote and post it instead of fumbling around trying to explain it. 

 

This quote from that book makes my point rather eloquently:

 

It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinite to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees and enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbably and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.

 

By the way, Dawkins does not "surmise" the age of the world. The age of the world is calculated as explained here


Edited by Tale, 14 May 2013 - 08:21 AM.


#228 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:20 PM

To put it out there before I confuse anyone, I do believe in God.

 I already knew this since you've said it before...where was the confusion even supposed to come from anyway, did you say something that would lead me to believe you didn't?
 

Here is where I find fault with the argument of proposed scientific "theories" being superior over what you might consider unfounded beliefs (religion):

First of all putting theories in quotes does nothing to impair the factual nature of them nor do they help your point in the slightest. It's not so much that they are superior, the two aren't even on the same scale as each other. The latter is epistemologically empty, adheres to no reliable principles and doesn't resemble real knowledge in any sort of way. Compare the Germ theory of disease with the idea that illnesses are cause by evil demons/spirits as was commonly thought (and still is by some people), personally I consider the latter to be more than just unfounded but like most religious claims outright ridiculous with no substance to support it. Perhaps you give both ideas equal weight though.

 

although a theory indeed is based off reasonable speculation through physical, observable evidence

No it's not reasonable speculation, you're thinking of a hypothesis. Theories are what I said before "well supported postulates that are empirical, measurable and adhere to basic scientific priciples such as consistency, parsimony, and falsifiability." 
 

(I assume when you compare theories to "creation myths" you mean evolution vs. creationism in general),

Hehehe I have to say your assumption is pretty far off considering the fact that I didn't mention evolution even once whereas I talked about cosmology quite a bit. It seems you personally wanted to go on a tangent about evolution and used my post as an excuse to do so despite it having nothing to do with anything I said. I wasn't particularly interested in such a discussion at all but I'll bite for your benefit. It's my day off anyway...

 

what people tend to discount is the factor of probability.

That's because probability itself does not decide if something is true or not, it uses mathematics and logic to determine the likelihood of any given event or series of events. Likelihood and truth are not the same thing, an event can be calculated to be extremely unlikely and yet turn out to be true especially when random processess are involved. Also I don't think you're using that term in a proper mathematical sense but rather you find it so improbable out of an intuitive sense or because you think it doesn't feel right. That's something completely irrelavant however as that feeling can be caused by either ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
That's not even how it works anyway, a postulate is deemed true or not based on the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence that supports it. In that regard the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming in both amount and quality, it's literally as good as any theory or law that has ever existed. In comparison for all religious accounts of life, anywhere from Judasim to Aztec mythology, the amount of evidence supporting them isn't few or low in quality it's literally nonexistent. That said when you talk about evolution I take it you're actually refering to Abiogenesis since that's only context that would even make sense given what you're talking about. They aren't the same thing and your contention seems to be with the latter more than anything.

 

Sure, there's no way to test the probability that God exists in truth:

Why is that okay then, if you're going to criticize something for being improbable the fact that that is off the scale of probability all together should be even more alarming. 
 

what is the probability that a sentient species with free-will and the capacity to even CONSIDER their origins occurs?

I'd say the entropy rate is lower than you seem to think, but since you're such a fan of probability theory I'll let you calculate that yourself. Show me the stochastic process you used as well, I'm good at maths so I don't mind it and I'd be interested is such a thing anyway. Also you realize that no matter what view you subscribe to the probability is going to be low regardless. Your line of thinking seems to suggest that between something that has a low probability of occuring but a lot of evidence to support it and something else that also has a low probability of occuring but no evidence at all to support it that you would go with the latter which is almost nonsensical reasoning.
 

Our own evolution was not a "likely" event in any sense of the word. In essence, that probability is so tiny that it's basically as probable as there existing a higher power that created everything anyway

Not quite, for one thing you earlier said there was no way to calculate the probability of higher power to begin with which makes that statement false by default. Ignoring the obvious false dilemma here more the two ideas are not equally likely because the evidence that supports them are not equal or even close to such. The latter introduces an unprecedented and untenable aspect, which is the supernatural and it has no merit to it whatsoever. Supernatural causes have never been found to have been an acurate explanation for anything in the entirety of human history, there are plenty of things that were thought to be of supernatural cause from neurological disorders to extreme weather but were later revealed to have been naturally occuring phenomena explained by empirical observations. The reverse has never been true, even when one view in science has been shown to be wrong it has been replaced by improved more informed science...not once has a previously scientific view been revealed to actually have been the result of supernatural or magical occurence and supernatural claims in this regard have no more substance than any fictional or imaginary claim ever made.

Comparably evolution has it's basis in things far more realistic and well documented such as the fields of Molecular Biology, Genetics, Genomics, Paleontology, Biochemistry, and Organic Chemistry. It would be one thing if we were made of an unknown magical substance that we couldn't identify but that isn't the case, our chemical makeup, the carbon based molecules we processes and the organic compounds that we're composed of are all natural things. I'll take real knowledge over superstitious guesswork anyday...What is your contention with those fields anyway, specifically the first and last of them?
 

I'd say it's not unreasonable to think that, considering the probability that "mankind" miraculously evolves from bacteria

Miraculously evolving from bacteria sounds like outright speciousness but that's beside the point I suppose since that could be down to bad phraseology on your part. Technically any idea about the origins of life can be considered reasonable and conversely any idea can be made to sound ridiculous, that's just boils down individual preference as some people take to certain ideas more readily than other ones. That's irrelavant though, how reasonable or unreasonable something sounds to any person has no bearing on the truth of that thing. That instead is indicated by the amount of evidence that supports that idea. 
 

nevermind the fact that living bacteria had to develop SOMEHOW

Hehe nevermind the fact that your god had to develop somehow, and special pleading fallacies won't cut it. Personally I don't support any idea related to abiogenesis nor anything supernatural, since there isn't enough evidence yet to back them. My view is more I don't know which I find preferable to just making some **** up or believeing some random nonsense.
At any rate let's look at that idea and yours; we know factually that bacteria exist this is indisputable, we know factually that organic compounds exist currently and existed prior to and independent of life, we know that all living organisms are composed of organic compounds, we have factual knowledge that life can change forms based on mutations, radiation, or enviornmental pressure etc. I can continue but I think you can see where I'm going with this, that view at the very least has some merit even though incomplete. Now let's compare what we factually know about your god...nothing, at all. Not one single claim about your god or any for that matter can be substantiated to even a minimal degree. Now being skeptical of abiogenesis through natural occurences is not a problem, in fact it makes sense since the evidence for that is not yet sound since the fields we use to study that are all relatively new but to be open to something supernatural that has far less merit to go on is nothing short of astounding.
 

that there was probably some guiding force (eg: God or whatever religious figure you'd prefer) that led to the eventual development of mankind.

Again what you said isn't unreasonable per se, it's possible a deity was responsible (though it'd be unlikely to be your god specifically) just as much as it's possible that it was extra-dimensional aliens that visted our planet from the 7th dimension and brought life to this planet. The ideas themselves aren't unreasonable but there is no evidence of a guiding force or nothing to suggest that such a thing ever existed.

Humans have been successful for a variety of reasons, we are apex predators (I mean this relatively obviously there species that can kill and eat us but none that prey on us regularly and I'm excluding viruses and parasites even though there are plenty that kill us as their way of life since we aren't prey so to speak) which is far from a unique trait in the animal kingdom in fact nearly every ecosystem has one or several but those that are considered as such have great chances to thrive, in addition we're omnivores and have adapable tastes even evolving the ability to digest lactose and the genus has learned the ability to cook food prior to humans even becoming a species; We're social creatures like ants, bees, killer whales and elephants etc. but we have the high level of cognition, communication skills, bidpedalism, and intelligence that is common in great apes, furthermore of the four genera that form the Hominidae family Homo (which modern humans belong to) is the most intelligent and intelligence is phenotypic trait that is extemely beneficial for the fitness of any genera so it passes on throughout the evolution of one species to the next and becomes increasingly more intelligent over time. Even as far back as our earlier ancestors our genera had become the most intelligent in the animal kingdom and our trademark creativity, problem solving ability, curiosity began to show. Once we developed the capacity for language which was more advanced than previous communication abilities and the ability to use abstract reasoning there was no stopping us at that point. We can track the history of Homo sapiens and their activity pretty well, that's basically what Archaeology is and there's never been a guiding force of any sort recorded. Unless you buy into some of those ancient alien ideas but there's no evidence of that either.
 

and I don't see any theoretical explanations for that

Well regardless of what you see, several hypothesis for abiogenesis do exist. Though you seem like the type to go for confirmation bias quite a bit so I'm not surprised.
 

I prefer to think that we didn't get lucky down to an almost impossible figure.

That's just bias on your part then (and maybe a bit of wish fulfillment) but it has nothing to do with objective reality which is what determines wheter or not it's true not personal preference. I don't really have a preference either way, though a creator deity and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive in the first place ironically.
 

But mankind's gotta have had help from somewhere! We're too worthless a race to have made it this far ourselves anyway.

Again this like mostly everything you're saying is just a statement without merit, there's no factual basis to what you're saying just an unsubstantiated opinion on your part with nothing to back it. We're worthless based on what exactly?
 

it's hard to say evolution itself isn't a "creation story" considering the probability factors involved. 

Hehehe not at all, for one evolution isn't a story at all in the first place just description real life phenomena and more importanly evolution refers biological changes that occur in already existing organisms and doesn't say anything about creation or the origin of life to begin with. Again you confusing evolution with abiogenesis, calling evolution a creation story is like calling genetics a creation story and just reeks of ignorance.

 


Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#229 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:10 AM

Whilst I'm a big fan of evolution theory, to even call the abiogenesis thoughts hypotheses is at this point giving them a wee bit too much credit.

It's true that several experiments in early earth conditions have shown the ability to generate amino acids, and in some cases even small peptides and phospolipids, but there is still a massive gap between that and even the most basic self replicating "living" unit. Scientists in the abiogenesis fields have no real idea how early earth amino acids progressed into even basic cell structures and to imply otherwise isn't accurate.

Bear in mind the first amino acids were synthesised in these conditions in the late 60s (I believe) and despite massive leaps forward in technology and understanding of DNA/RNA and cell biology there is still forerunner idea that bridges the gap between the basic molecues and the basic cell.


Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#230 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:49 AM

Whilst I'm a big fan of evolution theory, to even call the abiogenesis thoughts hypotheses is at this point giving them a wee bit too much credit.

It's true that several experiments in early earth conditions have shown the ability to generate amino acids, and in some cases even small peptides and phospolipids, but there is still a massive gap between that and even the most basic self replicating "living" unit. Scientists in the abiogenesis fields have no real idea how early earth amino acids progressed into even basic cell structures and to imply otherwise isn't accurate.

Bear in mind the first amino acids were synthesised in these conditions in the late 60s (I believe) and despite massive leaps forward in technology and understanding of DNA/RNA and cell biology there is still forerunner idea that bridges the gap between the basic molecues and the basic cell.

 

The whole point of bringing abiogenesis into this thread is to show that there are naturalistic explanations which are likelier than their mystical counterparts. And they're not being given "too much credit" when scientists call their ideas hypothesis, because they fit the definition of hypothesis perfectly.

 

The issue that creationists or ID proponents have with evolution is that they think that gaps of knowledge undermine the whole idea. Simply saying that scientists are still figuring what happened between step one (inorganic molecules turning to organic molecules) and a simple replicator (like Spiegelman's Monster) makes them jump to either the conclusion that the proof of step one and the existence of simple replicators is completely irrelevant, or the conclusion that to get one step to the next, the world needed help. 

 

The fact that dots need to be connected doesn't ridicule the idea of abiogenesis in the slightest. 


Edited by Tale, 14 May 2013 - 08:52 AM.


#231 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:03 AM

The whole point of bringing abiogenesis into this thread is to show that there are naturalistic explanations which are likelier than their mystical counterparts. And they're not being given "too much credit" when scientists call their ideas hypothesis, because they fit the definition of hypothesis perfectly.

 

The issue that creationists or ID proponents have with evolution is that they think that gaps of knowledge undermine the whole idea. Simply saying that scientists are still figuring what happened between step one (inorganic molecules turning to organic molecules) and a simple replicator (like Spiegelman's Monster) makes them jump to either the conclusion that the proof of step one and the existence of simple replicators is completely irrelevant, or the conclusion that to get one step to the next, the world needed help. 

 

The fact that dots need to be connected doesn't ridicule the idea of abiogenesis in the slightest. 

 

I'm not ridiculing abiogenesis at all, I don't think it's stupid or a bad set of ideas.

I'm just saying the ideas surrounding abiogenesis  aren't complete enough to be called hypotheses, to use a recent example the Higg's Boson's existence, was a hypothesis but it was a strong concept and it was by and large proven before the particle itself was isolated.

No theory of Abiogenesis is yet complete enough to be called a hypothesis, since the only ideas put forward for what occurs between forming precursors, such as amino acids and phopholipids etc, and a basic "living" cell essentially amount to it just happens.

For it to be called a hypothesis it needs to have a testable concept that can be proven or disproved. To be clear though it's only the terminology used that I have issue with.


Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#232 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:09 AM

I'm not ridiculing abiogenesis at all, I don't think it's stupid or a bad set of ideas.

I'm just saying the ideas surrounding abiogenesis  aren't complete enough to be called hypotheses, to use a recent example the Higg's Boson's existence, was a hypothesis but it was a strong concept and it was by and large proven before the particle itself was isolated.

No theory of Abiogenesis is yet complete enough to be called a hypothesis, since the only ideas put forward for what occurs between forming precursors, such as amino acids and phopholipids etc, and a basic "living" cell essentially amount to it just happens.

For it to be called a hypothesis it needs to have a testable concept that can be proven or disproved. To be clear though it's only the terminology used that I have issue with.

 

Well, the issue with that is that there are too many different theories, each testing tiny bits and trying to build a larger theory out of them. There's no standard model, so to speak.


Edited by Tale, 14 May 2013 - 09:11 AM.


#233 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:17 AM

Well, the issue with that is that there are too many different theories, each testing tiny bits and trying to build a larger theory out of them. There's no standard model, so to speak.

Yes, which relates to my point, there is no theory out there "meaty" enough to be considered a full blown hypothesis, which is same given we're about 50 years on from the initial experimental success.


  • Tale likes this

Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#234 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,597 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:37 AM

Yes, which relates to my point, there is no theory out there "meaty" enough to be considered a full blown hypothesis, which is same given we're about 50 years on from the initial experimental success.

 

Then it's my fault that I misinterpreted what you meant. When you said "hypotheses" in the first post, I thought you were dismissing the different models themselves (plural), not the umbrella term (which I found a bit weird because I knew you wouldn't do that.) My bad.


Edited by Tale, 14 May 2013 - 09:37 AM.


#235 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:11 AM

Then it's my fault that I misinterpreted what you meant. When you said "hypotheses" in the first post, I thought you were dismissing the different models themselves (plural), not the umbrella term (which I found a bit weird because I knew you wouldn't do that.) My bad.

 

Not really, it's probably mine. I didn't word it very well and I suppose you could say I'm arguing semantics but they can be pretty important at times xD.


  • Tale likes this

Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#236 Machabees

Machabees

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:56 PM

Why must the first cause be without limitations?

The only features I see as necessary are that it is atemporal (given that time began at some point), that it must be either self-causing or uncaused (which is contradictory with casual arguments, but you've got a way around that), and that is capable of initiating/creating a quantum event.

 

Though I don't see why the universe can't have these properties itself.

 

The first cause must be limitless(infinite) because in order for it to be the cause of everything it cannot lack a single thing. If it lacks anything it has a limit and can in no way be the cause of that thing. For example, in a universe of numbers, the number set, infinity, is the first cause. All numbers must come from (be caused by) this set. The number set, 5 to 10, cannot be the first cause be cause it lacks 11,4, etc. It has limits and is caused by the set, infinity. To be caused by something imposes limits but the first cause has no cause, making it limitless. I hope this example helps.

 

As for the universe being the first cause, I'd rather not tackle that until we establish that there is in fact a first cause that posseses the inherent qualities of being infinite, necessary, one, and eternal. There is no point about debating about what a thing is if we don't even know if the thing exists.

 

Since I'm not capable of criticizing the use of sufficient reason here, I'll have to attack causation and perfection. 

 

First, since you said you're using both "something cannot come from nothing" and "everything has a cause", you'll have to support them.

 

Let's begin with "something cannot come from nothing". How would you justify it? I don't see any way to support this premise, because there's no empirical basis for it and I'd have to grant it as a legitimate a priori assumption, which I won't. Basically, the only instance we in which something might have come from nothing is the beginning of the universe, and since we don't actually know what happened, it's not safe to say that something can't come from nothing.

 

You just accepted the Principle of Sufficient Reason that states just this. Everything must have a reason for existing, therefore for something to exist for no reason is impossible. If you deny this, you deny reason and logic itself as well as all scientific progress to date, making debate

pointless. Evolution uses this principle as well. Why do we exist? Because of the chain of evolution led us to this point.

 

First, you'll have to define what you mean by "perfection". There are various definitions, and some limit themselves to describing only one quality. If you're just going to say "a thing without limits", nothing you've said so far entails something like that creating the universe.

 

Second, I don't think you can say it's "so perfect", since it's either perfect or it isn't.

 

Perfection - 1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts; 2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better; 3. which has attained its purpose.

 

There are two types of perfection: 

 

Absolute perfection - having no deficiencies, no limitations, and no lack of possible and thinkable actuality.

 

Relative perfection - suited to the end for which it was designed, i.e. a toothpaste that absolutely cleans the teeth

 

By saying "so perfect" I was referring to absolute perfection. I apologize for the confusion.

 

Hoyle's calculation is fallacious, and is completely beside the point. It's based on the idea that a complex molecule or organism we see today arises by chance, which is not what evolution entails.

 

There are three possibilities for the origin of life:

1) Life could have arisen by chance.

2) Life could have been directed by an outside force.

3) Life evolved.

 

Hoyle's calculation addresses 1), but 1) is not evolution. Evolution does not say that life comes about by chance.

 

I tried to explain this in my previous post, by pointing to simple things that have a good chance of forming in certain conditions becoming more complex over time by adding little things and thus cutting the large improbability into a number of smaller improbabilities. Richard Dawkins, in his books about evolution, explains this very clearly. Climbing Mount Improbable is a book that discusses this. I don't have that particular book, but I have a couple of other books of his, so I might be able to find a quote and post it instead of fumbling around trying to explain it. 

 

This quote from that book makes my point rather eloquently:

 

It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinite to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees and enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbably and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.

 

By the way, Dawkins does not "surmise" the age of the world. The age of the world is calculated as explained here.

 

 

First of all chance can never be a cause of anything leaving only 2) and 3). Secondly, whether or not life evolved does not explain its origin. You only have 2) left. Finally, Dawkins does not resolve anything. Remove the sophistry and this is what you have: Lifes probability is not 1/1,000,000 rather it is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10. The result is still the same.

 

The use of "surmises" was a bad choice of words on my part. I should have used "calculates".


Edited by Machabees, 14 May 2013 - 09:15 PM.


#237 HSHINJI

HSHINJI

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,607 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:06 PM

I can give you several explanations of why someone would refuse to see a naturally occurring process as god rather than the scientifically described system. Doing so would probably be very offensive. But you have made the mistake of thinking my criteria is based on anything. That I have somehow constructed the criteria in a way that disproves god. That isn't the case. This is the basic logical criteria for any claim. It just so happens that god is being used in this particular case and its fails the test. I had no preconceived notions to set this up that way. It simply is that way. 

 

I'm not throwing some crazy curve balls out there at anyone. The criteria is the same as every claim ever. Not just god. Try going to apply for a job and say you have a masters degree Law from Harvard and see if they don't want proof. What I am getting at is there seems to be this misconception that religion is exempt from these basic principles of reasoning. I say they do not and put them up to the same questioning as anything else. 

 

And that IS how things work. 



I feel strongly that everyone *should* default to atheism as its most logical. However I'm not going to forceably convert someone. 

 

And you don't understand what the Default means here. In the case of presented claims one must provide evidence of the claim. If no evidence is provided then it can and should be dismissed. The default isn't what "sounds better" or what "feels better" or "what I want to believe". The default is the logical standpoint which is Atheism or a more vague Agnostic standpoint. 

No offense but most logical? Based on what theory or solid logical reasong? There's stuff in this world that is clearly beyond science; order and chaos mixed together in perfect harmony, you probably have not read books or works by really great scientists like Einstein and others who were officially atheists (but most of them were not narrow minded; they admitted there is stuff that is so ordered beyond the point (that when reaches a certain level of awareness, you begin to objectively critique some even previously widely believed solid scientific theories or laws); the guy who was scientist a German i believe responsible for the random or entropy i believe with his hypothesis in Physics/Chemistry was ridiculed by so called respected scientists; 60-80 years after his death, that was when they started to scratch the surface of what he was talking about.

 

 

Even the guy who came up with freaking imaginary numbers officially (since sometimes the exact inventor or orginator of scientific discoveries is hard to accutately pin point); it might actually be the same German scientist he was called mad back then by what fellow scientists. After his death or after he was admitted to a mental institution is when the so called brain dead scientists started to think.

 

There is evidence that suggests my man who came up with upthrust and what's the name of the other priinciple named after him self (arguably the greatest known scientist for a pretty long time, he's Greek), the so called fact that Newton came up with Calculus first is on shaky ground as they've been some writings which show calculus being done exclusively or largely using the common greek system at the time of utilising triangles. Of course part of the the piece has been destroyed; but using fairly modern techniques (I can't seem to remember the established technique); Basically they subject it to specific range of light waves and use certain chemicals to as gently as possible aid in reading the writing piece.

 

 

No offense but your thinking process strongly suggests someone who is not open to possibilities beyond the norm; this is above religion or science.


Edited by HSHINJI, 14 May 2013 - 11:18 PM.


#238 Samurai Yoru

Samurai Yoru

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:13 AM

No offense but most logical? Based on what theory or solid logical reasong? There's stuff in this world that is clearly beyond science; order and chaos mixed together in perfect harmony, you probably have not read books or works by really great scientists like Einstein and others who were officially atheists (but most of them were not narrow minded; they admitted there is stuff that is so ordered beyond the point (that when reaches a certain level of awareness, you begin to objectively critique some even previously widely believed solid scientific theories or laws); the guy who was scientist a German i believe responsible for the random or entropy i believe with his hypothesis in Physics/Chemistry was ridiculed by so called respected scientists; 60-80 years after his death, that was when they started to scratch the surface of what he was talking about.

 

 

Even the guy who came up with freaking imaginary numbers officially (since sometimes the exact inventor or orginator of scientific discoveries is hard to accutately pin point); it might actually be the same German scientist he was called mad back then by what fellow scientists. After his death or after he was admitted to a mental institution is when the so called brain dead scientists started to think.

 

There is evidence that suggests my man who came up with upthrust and what's the name of the other priinciple named after him self (arguably the greatest known scientist for a pretty long time, he's Greek), the so called fact that Newton came up with Calculus first is on shaky ground as they've been some writings which show calculus being done exclusively or largely using the common greek system at the time of utilising triangles. Of course part of the the piece has been destroyed; but using fairly modern techniques (I can't seem to remember the established technique); Basically they subject it to specific range of light waves and use certain chemicals to as gently as possible aid in reading the writing piece.

 

 

No offense but your thinking process strongly suggests someone who is not open to possibilities beyond the norm; this is above religion or science.

 

You don't seem to know what your talking about or you didn't read my posts. Atheism is the default position. And yes there are things beyond the norm but that doesn't equal supernatural. It means we don't know. Not knowing is a good thing. Thats how we discover new things. But what do you mean by "above religion and science"? That actually interests me greatly. But no all of my point still stands and nothing you have said challenged my points. But please bring froth evidence and specific examples of this "beyond the norm" and we can evaluate it. 

 

The default position via logic is Disbelief. I do not believe a claim until there is sufficent evidence to believe it. God does not have a shred of evidence despite all the ravings of it. I"m not being close minded, its called being logical. I don't take offense to you statement as you haven't yet given me any reason to treat you as someone who could offend me yet. 


Edited by Samurai Yoru, 15 May 2013 - 12:14 AM.


#239 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:42 AM

You don't seem to know what your talking about or you didn't read my posts. Atheism is the default position. And yes there are things beyond the norm but that doesn't equal supernatural. It means we don't know. Not knowing is a good thing. Thats how we discover new things. But what do you mean by "above religion and science"? That actually interests me greatly. But no all of my point still stands and nothing you have said challenged my points. But please bring froth evidence and specific examples of this "beyond the norm" and we can evaluate it. 

 

The default position via logic is Disbelief. I do not believe a claim until there is sufficent evidence to believe it. God does not have a shred of evidence despite all the ravings of it. I"m not being close minded, its called being logical. I don't take offense to you statement as you haven't yet given me any reason to treat you as someone who could offend me yet. 

Earlier you claimed that the default could be more of a vague agnostical view that would be more of a we dont know s***. Am I wrong in saying this is the better default here? rather than a solid no or yes.

 

 

I feel strongly that everyone *should* default to atheism as its most logical. However I'm not going to forceably convert someone. 

 

And you don't understand what the Default means here. In the case of presented claims one must provide evidence of the claim. If no evidence is provided then it can and should be dismissed. The default isn't what "sounds better" or what "feels better" or "what I want to believe". The default is the logical standpoint which is Atheism or a more vague Agnostic standpoint. (see right here)

 

well then why *should* they, if we should then there should be quite enough of a reason for us to now shouldnt there. Now how is Athiesm the more logical standpoint, Until it has been proven that there is not a god or something similar to that, then the logical standpoint is to say we dont know. After taking this look then you may make a conscious choice on which you feel is best.

 

 

You need to start reading more carefully, my friend. I was not arguing about quantum physics, but merely pointing out that scientific speculation would about cosmology would have an appreciation of that field, which is very important when understanding those events. And yes, there are models of the universe in which the universe arises out of nothing but quantum fluctuations, which is the closest you can get to nothing at this point. 

But this is not out of nothing now is it? would not something have been needed to cause these quantum fluctuations? or are these just things that can come from nowhere to make s*** happen?

This means that a scientific theory is more trustworthy than a biblical source.

lol what? a theory is no more trustworthy than anything else. As a theory is just that, theoretical. Unless you have substantial proof, then your theory is not completely trustworthy.

 

1) The point of 3) was that our knowledge of the world quickly eliminates the possibility of dragons existing. The same is not done for people coming from the dead and so on. Why not? The point of 1) was that we know there's a lot of fiction out there and we can recognize this as fiction, but we can't do the same for religious texts. Why not?

We can only deem what is to be interpreted as fiction through research into such matters, not all of these matters are able to be fully researched into though, There is no complete elimination of there having ever been dragons ever upon the face of the earth because the earth recycles itself and in doing so makes us lose the ability to know all that was before upon that part of earth which has been recycled. Unless we have found a way to tell what was within even the magma within the earth >_> in which case I would retract that statement.

2) Very well. Which is the incorrect information, and how do we know what's correct and what's not? Also, why does being correct matter, given that human beings can be correct from time to time?

Well the way to know what is correct and what is not for the most part is almost impossible, we can look for the evidence of some of the events that are said to have happened, but we will not be able to find all of the evidence that we would need to either prove or disprove all that is within religious text.

3) The Bible contradicts what we know of evolution. That doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. It's wrong because it doesn't have evidence supporting it, whereas evolution does. 

Evolution still has its missing points within it (not saying that it is wrong), but this does not mean that all within the bible is wrong because it contradicts one area that is outside of it, as I have stated before as people tell stories over the ages some parts tend to become over exaggerated, or even lost within translation. People tend to like to add their own spin onto things, so unless we had all the original texts, with the original print that was upon them we would not know for sure if this was the way these things were actually stated from the beginning of said religion.

 

http://en.wikipedia....lical_criticism

 

This page might be useful as a starting point. Read the part about sources.

Hmm biblical criticism >_> I am sorry but I would rather beg off reading the conspiracy theories of parts within the biblical texts. Especially as most of this criticism is guess work. ( I did look at the wiki page though and that Is where I state most of it is guesswork from, heck some parts of it even claim for the bible rather than against it) I have even seen documentaries upon these sort of things to know where most of this goes. Some of it even goes into speculation on Aliens >_> does this mean that Aliens are what we know as god? or gods? Also you will find that there are quite a few more religious texts than just the bible. What I would like to do is be able to read all religious texts that I could get my hands on and try and find a common ground within these.

Also, David Hume, "Of Miracles" is an interesting read.

Not interested sorry.
 

                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#240 Samurai Yoru

Samurai Yoru

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:08 AM

Earlier you claimed that the default could be more of a vague agnostical view that would be more of a we dont know s***. Am I wrong in saying this is the better default here? rather than a solid no or yes.

 

 

 

well then why *should* they, if we should then there should be quite enough of a reason for us to now shouldnt there. Now how is Athiesm the more logical standpoint, Until it has been proven that there is not a god or something similar to that, then the logical standpoint is to say we dont know. After taking this look then you may make a conscious choice on which you feel is best.

That is my default. Disbelief is Disbelief. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Someone claims there is a god. We ask "why?" and when they have no answer we go on not believing in god. We don't start off believing in god. We don't start off knowing math or having any other belief. I didn't start off beliving in science. i learned science and learned why things work. I saw the proof and I saw the reasoning behind it. Religion simply doesn't have that. There is NO REASON to believe in religion. 

 

I challenge you to provide ONE reason to believe in god. Give me one. 

 

 

You seem to think that I"m pushing a solid "there is no god". I am not. I am saying "I have not yet seen reason to believe in a god. When I see the proof I will convert and be a priest". Some people call me agnostic. I still call myself atheistic because I strongly disbelieve all constructed religion. But the general concept of a god is "possible" but there is no evidence for it. The idea of a giant space duck that shits galaxies and lights suns with his farts is "possible" but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you understand what I am saying now? I don't require proof to be in the stance of disbelief as I have not made a claim. That is the essence of Atheism.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users