The Problem with Christians

[robvalue]

OK...

Well, this is fun.

What actually is the distinction here, between designed and non-designed?

Designed means... it's magic? It means... things came out of nowhere? It means... some unseen force was directing what was happening?

What? I mean... are we argueing for creationism here? Are you guys suggesting humans were created out of nothing? Or that evolution was given outside assistance, without which it would have failed? After all these pages, I'm no closer to understanding what your position even is.

I dunno man. To clear up my beliefs: evolution appears to be an excellent model for how life develops over time. Study of abiogenesis seems to suggest natural transition is possible between life and non life.

But is there some intelligence behind this all, either now, or at some point in the past? Were all these systems set up to work how they do? Was nature designed? Is this all an artificial reality? I have no idea. I have no beliefs about this.

Do I believe humans were created out of nothing by magic? No. That's ridiculous. If that's too simple, then please explain what you actually do believe.

[AJW333]

Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

No, I'm not going to let you switch tracks on me. You wasn't talking about complexity of living systems or random chemicals - you made three specific assertions, viz:

When God created the universe, he created the dimension of time. He is not subject to age in the way we measure it because he is outside of time. Therefore it is not necessary that God has a creator - he is eternal.

and I want to know how you know this. Don't play Dolphinetics with me - I invented the term.

I'm not switching tracks as the two arguments are integral to each other. I start with the observation that life is too complex to have occurred by random chance and this leads to the conclusion that there is a designer and creator. The creator of the universe must be separate from it since he existed before it came into being. We know that time is a dimension that exists within the universe and therefore anything (eg God) that exists outside the universe is therefore not subject to it.

[AJW333]

I seem to remember some skunk monkey did a video about all this "outside of space and time" malarkey recently. That's right, malarkey. Look it up.

http://youtu.be/baoHEPkixhQ

Not to mention the fact that if we grant that god does exist within his own set of time and space, then we are going backwards into infinite regress again - who created god's time; god's reality; yada yada...

Infinite regression is not required when you step outside the dimensionality of time.

[AJW333]

Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

Again, NOT!  However complex life seems to you, it is far less complex than the god that you propose that popped up without a designer.  If it is possible, beyond the realm of possibilities, (which you keep insisting), then why is it not possible for the universe and life (which are not as complex as your god, therefore higher probabilities) to exist without a "designer"?

You assume that God is subject to the same laws of nature that you and I are. The laws of our universe do not apply to God who exists outside our realm of existence.

[LadyForCamus]

Not to mention the fact that if we grant that god does exist within his own set of time and space, then we are going backwards into infinite regress again - who created god's time; god's reality; yada yada...

Infinite regression is not required when you step outside the dimensionality of time.

How convenient for you.

[IATIA]

Infinite regression is not required when you step outside the dimensionality of time.

How so? Your god had to have a first thought, that requires causality which requires time. What was your god doing before it's first thought?

[The Grand Nudger]

You assume that God is subject to the same laws of nature that you and I are. The laws of our universe do not apply to God who exists outside our realm of existence.

How did you acquire knowledge of a being that exists outside of our universe, or what the laws of that other x might -or- might not be?  You probably don't have any knowledge of me, or what laws I live under...and I'm in the universe talking to you. To be blunt, if god exists outside of our universe, then his existence is moot, as it's functionally identical to non-existence in -this- universe. If god isn't in my "realm of existence", why should I give a shit about god stuff?

[AJW333]

Entropy and disorder also have associations with equilibrium.[9] Technically, entropy, from this perspective, is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium — that is, to perfect internal disorder.[2] Likewise, the value of the entropy of a distribution of atoms and molecules in a thermodynamic system is a measure of the disorder in the arrangements of its particles.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%2...isorder%29

So, wait: now you've switched again. When you first mentioned entropy I gave a lengthy response detailing how thermodynamic entropy doesn't apply to the Earth or anything on it, and in reply to that you told me you were using the definition of entropy as used in information systems, which is completely different. Now when pressed, you're back to using the thermodynamic definition as though you hadn't used a different one just a few days ago and acted completely mystified that I would respond to it using terms applicable to the thermodynamic model. Can you maybe stick to a definition, instead of swapping between them at random?

Are you even aware that entropy is a radically different thing, depending on whether you're discussing information or thermodynamics?

Radically different?

"There are close parallels between the mathematical expressions for the thermodynamic entropy, usually denoted by S, of a physical system in the statistical thermodynamics established by Ludwig Boltzmann and J. Willard Gibbs in the 1870s, and the information-theoretic entropy, usually expressed as H, of Claude Shannon and Ralph Hartley developed in the 1940s. Shannon, although not initially aware of this similarity, commented on it upon publicizing information theory in A Mathematical Theory of Communication. This article explores what links there are between the two concepts, and how far they can be regarded as connected."    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in...ion_theory Emphasis mine.

[IATIA]

The laws of our universe do not apply to God who exists outside our realm of existence.

You insist that your god created this universe, therefore it must be within your god's realm.

[AJW333]

Better than abiogenesis and better than the vast multitude of species all evolving from pond slime by pot luck.

First of all, "pot luck" is a strawman, as I've already explained multiple times how we're not dealing with a totally randomized process, so you can stow that dishonesty right now.

Second of all, can you do more than just lazily assert that the odds are better? How did you derive those odds? How can you derive a positive probability for a thing you cannot possibly have observed and have consistently failed to provide positive evidence of?

And in fact, why should we even care, given that you've demonstrated clearly that you have no idea what positive evidence even is?  

 Mutations that occur are the result of random chance. We never know what part of the DNA is going to be damaged, how bad that damage will be, or by what mechanism the damage occurs. To that extent, the process of evolution is ultimately driven by "pot luck" mutations.

Natural selection does not influence the occurrence of DNA mutations, only the ability of the organism to survive them. They are still "pot luck."

Concerning positive and negative evidence, let's say that the answer to the question, "is there a God?" is either yes, or no. Now suppose I have a coin in my hand and I toss it and ask you to choose head or tails, and before you answer, I say to you, "let me give you a tip, it isn't tails." Now is the evidence for heads positive or negative? Does it really matter?

What does it matter that I choose God because the evidence for evolution is so bad?