Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: So the best you can do is offer a hypothetical which you don't actually think is true.
No, I don't happen to think either of those examples are true. But others do, and have advanced them as serious theories, with evidence to back them up. I'm holding off on judgement because I'm simply not well enough equipped yet to make that decision, but that's beside the point. The idea behind showing you these was to illustrate to you that there are more than two options here, whether you subscribe to them or not. Like it or not, other people believe different things, hence your dichotomy is false, either through your own ignorance of the alternatives, or dishonesty. I'd like to think it's just the former, but the fact that you continue to argue the same tired claim sort of shows me it's the latter.
Now, will you at least admit that there are other hypotheses other than design or chance?
Quote:Thats your story and your stuck with it. Of course you don't really believe this BS either right?
Incidentally, did you do any research into the theory before proclaiming it to be BS?
Quote:No I'm not going to say I am mistaken because you offer two hypothetical scenarios which I doubt even you believe actually exist. In the long run though it doesn't matter what I think or what you think it's what the reasonable impartial person who weighs our respective arguments thinks that matters. And even though you declare the dichotomy false, I doubt any reasonable person would. In peoples every day life experiences they note that something happens unguided and unplanned in which we say it was happenstance or by chance that it occurred, other wise something happens intentionally because someone planned it or designed it to occur in a particular fashion. And why do you go to such rediculous extremes to deny what is common sense? Because you don't want to defend the consequences of your own belief, that we owe our existence either to intentional planning and design which you reject or to happenstance and serendipity which amazingly you also seem to reject but in fact I don't think you do reject that either. You just want to obfuscate and cloud the issue because that's what atheists do in defense of atheism.
Hey, serious question: are you Ray Comfort? Because you seem to have a similar inability to alter your argument in the face of new information.
Quote:Again this is only the first two lines of evidence at this point, not the entire case. But for us to even have this discussion about whether we owe our existence to a Creator who intended us to exist or to mindless forces and happenstance (even though you reject the notion those are the only two choices) both a universe and life have to exist. The fact the universe by itself exists raises the question (that wouldn't be asked if it didn't exist) how did it get here? Did someone cause it to exist? Did it poof into existence uncaused out of nothing? Did it always exist? Was it caused by some other event that leads back to an endless recession of events? If it didn't exist we'd ask none of those questions. But now we have another piece of the puzzle, not only does the universe exist but it also allows life to exist. It may have even caused life to exist. The existence of both the universe and life raise the same questions again only now whatever the answer is it has to account for both phenomena. Was it as you suggest and unguided process like we observe in rock formations or was it intentionally caused to exist by a Creator? But if neither the universe or life existed the questions wouldn't be raised.
I quite agree, we can ask the question because we exist. But the fact that we do exist doesn't point directly to a creator, nor to random chance. It just points to the fact that we exist. Stop reading new information into things that can't support it.
Quote:We know that isn't true. Life adopted to the conditions on earth in a universe that has a plethora of other conditions that would allow the only type of life we know of to exist.
You're just pulling that out of your ass. Funny, I thought you said you weren't dealing in hypotheticals.
Because unless you're telling me you've visited every other planet in the universe and seen that they have no life, and to have visited alternative universes with different physical constants and verified a lack of life there, then you really have no basis to make that claim.
Quote:No but I have observed life coming from life. I haven't observed life coming from inert material. People can weigh for themselves the merit of our respective arguments. I know you think its up to you if my arguments and evidence carry weight but...it isn't.
Hear that? It's the sound of the point whistling right over your head.
Let me rephrase, then: you are saying that since we've never seen life coming from non life, that's an argument against our position, right? Then isn't it also true that the fact that you've never seen a god creating things also an argument against yours?
Quote:That's why theism is an opinion...as is atheism.
Yep!
Quote:Its an attempt to create a scenario that explains observations and allows testing of the scenario to see if it fact passes scientific muster. A confirmed theory through testing when it graduates to scientific fact is the highest status a theory can achieve.
Yes, okay. And we've confirmed the theory of evolution. It... it's been confirmed. We've confirmed it. Go and look it up, if you don't believe me.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Quote:Absolutely, but if Santa were defended by an apologist, the definition would be changed to something like 'a non-detectable being who sometimes delivers presents on Christmas in an undetectable way, and is the reason why sometimes there are presents labeled 'from Santa' that no one knows the provenance of. After all, God used to be the guy who floods worlds and stops the sun and parts seas so his chosen people can have a shortcut; but look at him now.
What I attribute to the existence of God is the universe and humans. It may not be much to go on, but its not nothing.
Quote:OK, but you cited other's lack of an explanation as supporting yours, that's pretty much the essence of the fallacy, that if someone else doesn't know something, you're more likely to be right just because you have an explanation. Explanations have to stand or fall on their own merits.
Exactly people have to decide for themselves based on their own personal experience which explanation explains best.
Quote:Fair enough. I don't consider being an atheist to be a virtue...I consider being a rational/scientific skeptic to be a virtue, though, which is basically the idea that one's beliefs should be proportional to the evidence for them. I realize that taking that position doesn't universally lead to atheism.
If all atheists had such an even handed response the issue would just be a discussion up for debate likes who's the greatest QB in the NFL. Most atheists frame the question as if its a 'no brainer' fact there is no God, that belief in God is on par with belief in Santa Claus but when questioned they all scurry to the position that atheism is a mere lack of belief and therefore they have no burden of evidence.
Quote:A theory is made of facts, and explains them. The theory explains the fact of the evidence that the universe was once very small and rapidly got very big.
The problem is you can't use a theory to support yet another theory.
Thats assuming the laws of physics and nature are necessary.
Quote:I'm not assuming they're necessary. I'm just not assuming they're NOT necessary, which is what you have to do to assert that happenstance and intention as the only options.
I've been going round and round on this issue and I still think its special pleading to claim that there could be some other option besides design and happenstance. Secondly I think its a red herring because I don't believe the folks pining for some other option actually believe that the universe was caused by some circumstance that would be neither design or plan, they're just running interference to obfuscate the issue. I suspect your actual take on this is that mindless forces without plan or design caused the universe to exist and life is just the accidental by product or the laws of physics. I suspect this is exactly what most atheists think. So why hide and obfuscate. I don't raise objections I myself don't actually beileve in. Its seems disengenous some folks do.
Even supposing that if a universe exists it has to have the laws of nature we observe (which isn't a fact) according to atheism there was no who engineered and designed the universe to be as it is. If trees in our observation instead of falling down fell up then that would be a law of nature.
Quote:There is no 'according to atheism' any more than there is an 'according to theism'. And yes, we would observe trees falling up if that was a law of nature, although there's no good reason to suppose that could be a law of nature. With only one universe to observe it's hard to make valid claims that another universe could be wildly different from our own: our universe is the only one we know for sure is possible.
Why? On what basis should the laws of nature make sense? Why does nature seem to act as if it is compelled by a set or rules? Scientists have found these 'laws' of nature not because they projected them into nature but because they really do exist. I plan to submit that fact as another line of evidence. We'll have to disagree on the issue of according to theism/atheism. At minimal according to theism, the universe and humans were caused to exist by a transcendent being and according to atheism...not so.
Unless your suggesting that the laws of nature aren't just what we happen to observe but in fact they really are laws written into the fabric of nature but wouldn't that be rather antithetical to the philosophy of atheism?
Quote:There is no 'philosophy of atheism', just as there's no 'philosophy of theism'. They are both single-topic opinions. And you're conflating laws of nature with written laws. Laws of nature are descriptions of how the universe behaves in certain circumstances that are reliable.
Correct most atheists would opine the laws we observe are not some blueprint the universe had to follow but are just patterns of regularity we happen to observe...unless they are raising an objection for instance to the argument of fine tuning in which case they do raise the objection that maybe in fact the laws of nature do have to be as we observe them, not that they actually believe that... but just because they don't actually believe something is true that's no reason not to raise it as an objection anyway and will argue the objection should carry weight even though they themselves don't believe the objection. I call it bullshit but thats just me.
Quote:Because what except a transcendent agent could dictate how nature behaves?
Quote:Even if I could think of no alternative, you'd only be left with an argument from ignorance: 'you don't know so I must be right'.
No, they'd decide for themselves if I am right regardless of an alternative.
Quote:But I think you're unnecessarily multiplying entities, like invoking undetectable voltage fairies as an explanation for current. It is possible that you're necessarily multiplying entities--that there does have to be a transcendant agent to determine what a universe's laws must be, but I note that 'explanation' can be invoked just as readily to 'explain' why universes would have radically different laws if that turns out to be the case.
Most people think Occams razor just means the simpliest explanation is best. but one can subtract entities below necessity.
Quote:Not to mention if the universe being the way it is requires a transcendant agent, surely the transcendant agent being the way it is would require a more transcendant agent, unless you're going with special pleading; which wouldn't make you wrong, it just means that if you're right, it's by coincidence.
Again its another phoney objection, the atheist doesn't think there was a creator to a creator anymore than they think there was any creator. My answer is I have no idea how the Creator came into existence or if in fact the creator was created. But even if the creator did require a creator, theism is still true no? However we can go down this line of thinking both ways. What created the universe? The singularity...what created the singularity? Some other unknown phenomena. The problem is for us to get to this point in time, we'd have to cross and endless recession of events. How could we? On the other hand the atheist could say something always existed...now they have attributed a divine characteristic to nature. Some atheists promote the notion this universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Its appears thats out of vogue now. But of course they always claim its not magic. Our existence and that of the universe no matter how you slice it is problematic.
Quote:Oh, and as an alternative to a transcendant agent if universes must be much the same, I offer 1) the laws of the universe are a brute fact, much as a transendant agent would have to be; or 2) the laws of the universe are what they are because that's what they must be in the absence of forces dictating that they must be different, similar to the way virtual particles come into existence essentially because there's no law of nature that says they can't.
Almost like the belief at one time that nature abhors a vaccum.
March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2013 at 1:43 am by i win you lose.com.)
(March 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Let's illustrate Mister Agenda's point in a slightly different way.
There are approximately 2 * 10 ^ 19 molecules in a grain of sand. Feel free to calculate the odds of each individual molecule being arranged exactly as it is - it's infinitesimally small. Yet, every one of the billions and billions of grains of sand on earth is arranged exactly as it is, despite those infinitesimal odds against such a specific arrangement. I'll add that despite those odds, the arrangement is wholly unremarkable, because nobody predicted it would occur.
Probability is useful for making predictions, not for analyzing events which have already occurred.
Incidentally, if you're going to copy-paste your argument from the internet (a practice that is frowned upon), the least you can do is attribute your source.
(March 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm)i win you lose.com Wrote:
Because of Chemical Evolution's inconceivable claims, some mathematicians set to work on calculating the probability that Chemical Evolution could have actually happened at all.
Experts tell us there are roughly 1080 particles (electrons and protons) in the entirety of our immense universe. That's 10 with 80 zeros behind it, or "one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion."
In other words, 1080 is a lot of particles.
Imagine for a moment (as some experts have estimated) that each particle in the universe could perform 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1020) events per second.
Also assume for a moment that the universe is more than 15 billion years old (about 1018 seconds)—also a generous approximation.
*If these numbers are reasonable, this means that in our universe there could have been, to date, no more than roughly 10118 chemical events (1080 x 1020 x 1018 = 10118)—in other words, 10118 "possible" interactions among all the protons and electrons in the immeasurable history of our universe. *
I say "possible" because it's quite certain there were far "less" than that. Why?
Because 1080 assumes every single proton and electron "in the universe" has interacted with every single "other" proton and electron. *Obviously, this is extremely overstated.*
In fact, most areas of the universe are totally isolated from the others, separated by immense expanses of outer space. They will never interact with matter outside of their close proximity. Even on our earth, the vast majority of protons and electrons will never get close enough to interact with the vast majority of "other" protons and electrons on earth.
What I'm trying to say is...10118 is the total possible chemical interactions IF every proton and electron interacted with every other proton and electron. Therefore it is obvious that 10118 far exceeds the actual number of chemical events that have in fact occurred in the universe to date.
In view of this—and still being extremely generous—*mathematicians have concluded that it is ridiculous to think an event with odds of less than 1 in 1050 will ever happen*.
Why? Because chances are, there have been far LESS than 1050 chemical events in the combined history of our universe.
It would therefore be impossible for a chance occurrence to happen that required MORE events than 1050.
This conclusion is called "Borel's Law of mathematical probability."
1080 = 10^80... 1018 = 10^18... 1050 = 10^50....etc...
Furthermore, let's go see what Borel himself had to say about (ab)using probabilities in this manner:
Probability and Certainty, Borel p124-126 Wrote:
The Problem of Life
In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.
Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.
I'll summarize what Borel said: probability estimates that don't account for non-random properties of matter (i.e. physics and chemistry) are meaningless.
So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please
Borels law of probability can be used to test the accuracy of theories. and since evolution is still a theory we can use it to test how accurate it really is
(March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am)i win you lose.com Wrote: So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please
(March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am)i win you lose.com Wrote:
(March 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
Let's illustrate Mister Agenda's point in a slightly different way.
There are approximately 2 * 10 ^ 19 molecules in a grain of sand. Feel free to calculate the odds of each individual molecule being arranged exactly as it is - it's infinitesimally small. Yet, every one of the billions and billions of grains of sand on earth is arranged exactly as it is, despite those infinitesimal odds against such a specific arrangement. I'll add that despite those odds, the arrangement is wholly unremarkable, because nobody predicted it would occur.
Probability is useful for making predictions, not for analyzing events which have already occurred.
Incidentally, if you're going to copy-paste your argument from the internet (a practice that is frowned upon), the least you can do is attribute your source.
Furthermore, let's go see what Borel himself had to say about (ab)using probabilities in this manner:
I'll summarize what Borel said: probability estimates that don't account for non-random properties of matter (i.e. physics and chemistry) are meaningless.
So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please
I never even mentioned evolution. You want empirical evidence, google is your friend. There's tons of it - if you can't find it, that's my problem. Whether you accept it or not, well, that's your business, and I could not care less.
I'm not even the least bit interested in discussing evolution at this time - my interest in this thread at this time is in pointing out that your argument is horribly flawed - and it's your argument that this thread is about. As you recall, the thread is "The Case for Theism" - and to make that case, you, well, need to make your case - and undermining a competing hypothesis does nothing for your case. This thread is not about evolution. You still have to make your own case.
Oh, and when I say "your argument" what I really mean is "the argument you plagiarized (spelling errors and all) from someone else" (referring to the Borel's law stuff, don't know if you did the same elsewhere or not).
(March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am)i win you lose.com Wrote: Borels law of probability can be used to test the accuracy of theories. and since evolution is still a theory we can use it to test how accurate it really is
No, it cant. It can be used to analyze RANDOM events.
Did you even read the excerpt from Borel's book that I posted? He states quite clearly that it cannot be used in this way - because interactions of matter are not random, but rather are in largely driven by deterministic processes (e.g. physics and chemistry). Do you understand the difference? Possible results affected by deterministic processes are not equally weighted, and those processes have not been accounted for.
I'll note also that theism does not depend on evolution being false. Perhaps some specific incarnations of theism do, but in the general sense it does not - because evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life at all, rather it speaks to change in existing lifeforms. It's a red herring, a non sequitur. It's nothing but a distraction from the fact that your argument fails to stand on it's own feet.
(March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am)i win you lose.com Wrote: So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please
(March 8, 2013 at 1:38 am)i win you lose.com Wrote: So now your claiming evolution as fact... since it "already accured" right? Show me some empirical evidence please
Now accepting that evolution is true with all its premises and ideologies that tag along with it, would it embrace the idea of social eugenics? apparently Darwin thought so "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168)
(March 8, 2013 at 2:57 am)i win you lose.com Wrote: Ok so you personally experienced this evidence with one or more of your five senses?
Moving the goalposts. You asked for empirical evidence, not for empirical evidence that has been personally examined. There it is. Go look at it yourself if you care to.
Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with reading about evidence that others have examined? Do you understand how the scientific peer review process works?
Ok so you personally experienced this evidence with one or more of your five senses? And no a computer screen doesnt count
So you experienced god creating the universe with one or more of your five senses? And no, the bible doesn't count.
So, you experienced the correctness of Borel's law with one or more of your five senses? And no, a computer screen doesn't count.
Do you see the flaws in your "logic" there? If we're just accepting sense experiences as evidence then you can't even verify the inside of your neighbor's house, unless you've been there. You can hardly verify your creation account.
The other important factor is that, if I wanted to, I could experience some of that evidence: I could even replicate the microbe and fruit fly experiments and watch the species evolve, if I want. Because scientific results are testable and replicable, but god is not.
So, if you really want to continue this line of reasoning then fine, but that does mean you'll have to admit you can't prove anything at all except your little sphere of experience either. And that means no god, and no evidence against evolution either unless you were there to see it.
So... really?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
