Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[The Valkyrie]

We do have testable evidence for ID (not necessarily God). The universe and biological system contain the Hallmarks all other ID systems. These Hallmarks are functional fixed (can not evolve) elements (FFE). The universe has FFE with the constants, and biological systems have FFE with the conserved elements.

With the universe you can start by proving that the constants could have been anything else than what they are. All the possible variants are thought experiments. We don't know why the constants hold the values they do, but it does not follow that they could be anything else. A good case can be made that the values of the universal constants are a necessary consequence of a universe with an energy budget of zero. With the biologicial systems you seem unaware that conserving necessary elements is done by natural selection. Genetic variations that do not possess a necessary function do not survive to reproduce (or, usually, even survive to be born).

These are elements that must remain frozen in place or the system will not function Just as your car engine, PC codes, a bicycle, carnival rides etc.. all have functional elements that are fixed in place and do not evolve.

That's why there's only one kind of car engine, PC code, bicycle, and carnival ride; eh?

And because 100% of ID systems have FFE, we can deduce the conclusion that the universe and biological systems were also ID, from the premise that all ID systems also have FFE.

Unfortunately, 'FFE' is characteristic of what is expected from evolution and is an argument from ignorance regarding the universe.

Stable function is impossible without fixed elements firmly established.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true.

Liar.

And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this.

You're confused about who it is that lacks understanding.

You know a creationist is lying when his hands are on a keyboard or his mouth is moving.

[Mister Agenda]

Just as the unimaginably small atom was proven to mimic a solar system -a concept that would have been laughably ridiculous 200 years ago-, the entire universe can also be a "single cell" in a much larger system.

It's laughably ridiculous now. The resemblance between an atom and a solar system is so superficial that it's very close to being entirely false. Clue: atoms don't really look like that, it's a gross oversimplification for the benefit of minds still in grade school.

Your problem is your mental scope is extremely narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the fact that, SIZE HAS NO RELEVNCE at all to the potential existence of a system or a life form or intelligence. Now expand your mind and comprehend what I just said. And you can start this mental expansion by researching “universal fractals”. Everything that exists, patterns, systems,, and life, exist on unimaginably small and large scales.

Your problem is that your mental scope is too narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation.

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.

Therefore, no evidence is needed for the contrary claim to be rational.

Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept.

The former definitely has evidence, which is the cause of it being accepted. The latter remains hypothetical pending evidence one way or another.

If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.

The vast majority of things that can logically exist, don't.

And I have logical inferences for my position, a fact that has blown right over your head.

I strongly doubt that anything you've said thus far has gone over anyone's head.

Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere.

That's true.

Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence.

Which is why we don't rule them out of existence.

If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not.

You should at least eliminate erosion as an explanation. Tool marks would be a good thing to have before you conclude design. You like logical possibilities so much, you should know that erosion resulting in something looking like a statue of an elephant is a logical possibility. It's a possibility that could probably be eliminated if the statue really is an artifact of intelligence.

And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design.

If there are tool marks, the nonID hypothesis will have been falsified.

Now if you want to be inundated with "appearance of design" quotes from evolutionary science, ill be happy to give them to you.

I'll take your word for your ability to be educated enough to be aware of them while simultaneously being ignorant enough not to see how to apply them.

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does.

That's not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's the state of not holding any beliefs that any gods are real.

If God is logically possible, it then goes without saying to reject what can be logically possible is illogical in its self, just as rejecting all other possible life in the universe (big or small) is illogical.

It's logically possible that there is no God. By your reasoning that means it is illogical to reject that proposition. The problem isn't with logic itself though, but your misuse of it.

Oh but you do, because you believe a primordial soup gave rise to a single cell, and a single cell gave rise to progressively more intelligent life forms with a wider range of attributes. Therefore your own theory (if true) indicates it is "physically possible".

A god-like intelligence? It's theoretically possible, which doesn't mean that it's actually possible. I expect it is, though. It's not within the normal bounds of theism, you'll be hard-pressed to find another theist who considers advanced aliens to be gods. However, you can find atheists who do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

I observe a wide range of intellects co-existing, thus logically assume a wide range can exist throughout the universe, and beyond. Which is independent of how they became a wide range of intellects.

A wide range CAN exist and probably does. A superhuman intelligence might exist. That wouldn't make it God. We'll probably have superhuman intelligences at our beck and call in thirty years (unless that goes horribly wrong). Mere intelligence doesn't make something worthy of worship.

Merely creating a universe doesn't either, btw. Here's a couple of scenarios for a non-god intelligent creator: a technician at a supercollider creates a universe by accident. A physicist at a supercollider creates a universe on purpose. A programmer presses the 'simulate universe' app on a smart phone 300 years from now. It's hard to think of any being that creates a universe using a apparatus as a god in the sense meant by deists and theists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Y'know, when MrA has issued a bitchslap, a bitch really gets slapped.

[rexbeccarox]

Systematically Dismantling Atheism

How's that working out for you?

[The Valkyrie]

Systematically Dismantling Atheism

How's that working out for you?

Very badly, it would seem.

If he's trying to dismantle us like he would an engine I would recommend bringing real tools and not a kiddies' plastic toy set.

[IDScience]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist until man defined it. Entropy is a property of the universe.

Things don't exist until they are defined? Seriously?. Things can't be defined until they are first conceptualized theorized to exist. So by your definition the laws of quantum physics did not actually exist until we defined them into existence, and the earth was not actually round until it was first believed and defined as such. That's a good one

Yes entropy is a property of the universe, and the universe is not eternal, that's why I said "before the singularity"

Did you know that the sum of all energy in the universe is calculated to be zero? Therefore, none of it existed before the Big Bang, which was not necessarily a singularity. In Hawking's no boundary proposal "there would be no singularities, and the laws of science would hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe.

In order to know the sum of all energy in the universe is "calculated at zero", you would need to be able to measure all the negative and positive energy in the universe, which can't be done, so the "zero energy” universe is not testable, thus not scientific. Also you would need to be able to simultaneously calculate and measure all the energy in the other dimensions of string theory, and/or other universes of inflationary cosmology to insure no energy was being borrowed, which also can't be done.

The "zero energy" universe is a unfalsifiable non-testable theory invented by atheists, because they need a "something from nothing" hypothesis so they don't need to explain the cause.

But the causeless "something from absolutely nothing" universe hypothesis creates another big problem for atheistic science. If something can actually pop into existence from literally nothing, and without a cause, then all things just popping into existence become equally probable. The flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, or a God, all have the exact same probability of popping into existing as the universe does because there is no initial cause to derive a conclusion from

If you are going to explain why a flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, or a God do not have the exact same probability of popping into existing from nothing, you must be able to explain "because" or be-the-cause. And since you claim there is no cause to make predictions from, all things, no matter how absurd, become equally probable

Therefore by your logic, it might be a good idea for you to get a flying spaghetti monster auto insurance policy, just in case one does not pop into existence in front of your car while your driving. I bet you could get a good rate.

That is woo for which there is no evidence. Do you have a proposed mechanism?

And the "something from nothing" universe also has no evidence and can't be tested. My theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, and simply uses eternal energy coupled with mathematical odds. If it was proven our universe existed forever in its current state, the chances of abiogenesis in a primordial soup would become 1/1 simply by virtue of odds+eternity=absolute certainty

Must? Really? How does it do that?

How does any life arise and evolve from non-life?. If your going to argue against the tenets of your own theory, I cant take you seriously anymore

Must? Your conclusion does not follow.

And all of evolutionary science disagrees with you. Time and chance is the hero of the evolutionary plot. They all agree, the more time you have, the greater chances you have. Thus all eternity = absolute certainty

[Losty]

Go fuck yourself.

And your fucking god.

That statement did not refute my argument, but only prove your emotional attachment to your position of atheism

[Tartarus Sauce]

How's that working out for you?

Very badly, it would seem.

If he's trying to dismantle us like he would an engine I would recommend bringing real tools and not a kiddies' plastic toy set.

For he gazed upon his completed strawman, and he saw it was good.

But alas his strawman was but a false idol, one of illusory pride and feigned intelligence. And the Straw Lord was angry at his creation's hubris, and so he sent a swarm of ravens to destroy his strawman.

[IDScience]

I think you're mixing belief with reality. Yes, in reality either the cake exists or it doesn't.

However, my belief over the existence of the cake has more than two states.

I'll give you an example straight out of Quantum mechanics.

This gives rise to the many worlds hypothesis to prevent the violation of the 1st law. Most quantum physicists believe when the wave function collapses into what we observe, all other possible variations also collapse into a definite reality in another quantum world. So every superposition is a reality waiting to be observed. Not just a possibility

You either believe there is an invisible pink unicorn in the box with schrodinger's cat or you don't believe it. If you don't believe there is a invisible pink unicorn in the box, you must believe (not know) there is not a invisible pink unicorn in the box with the cat

Remember, we are not taking about what we know reality is, or what will eventually be proven reality, we are talking about what you believe reality is

And if you don't believe reality is X, you must believe (not know) reality is not X. If you believe there is any chance God could be a reality, then being an atheist is illogical, your better off remaining undecided (or agnostic). If you do not believe God exists, then have some intestinal fortitude and admit you believe God does not exist because that is the logical extension what your position is

[ManMachine]

It's a little more subtle than that, Schrodinger is not telling us that we are uncertain about it's state but that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of the state in which Quanta exist.

MM

No, that is not at all what he was saying. He was making fun of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The problem with invoking the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' is that it is not a neat, well defined set of principles but a loose collection of views developed by physicists and philosophers throughout the early part of the 20th Century. Your statement is very slippery and obfuscatory, while technically not wrong, it is vague enough as to be largely irrelevant to my point.

It would be impossible and meaningless to have any discussion about Quantum Physics and ignore or exclude an expression of the mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain complementary variables can be known simultaneously, in other words, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

I'd also suggest that 'making fun' is a broad interpretation, he certainly intended it as a discussion of what he saw as the problems inherent in the strange nature of quantum superpositions as discussed in the EPR article and it took shape in letters exchanged between Einstein and Schrodinger.


MM