Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Jenny A]

[Edwardo Piet]

[LadyForCamus]

[Edwardo Piet]

[I_am_not_mafia]

What really fucks up theists like Stevill is that our understanding of life and intelligence is practically useful precisely because of its explanatory power. This is because explanations allow us to not only understand a process but use it too.

What theists think have explanatory power (god-did-it) actually does not, and as a result can't be used practically.

The classic example is evolution. They think that intelligent design has greater explanatory power, yet none of them can explain how I can create a program on my computer to intelligently design something, say an electronic circuit. Yet it is far simpler for me to create a genetic algorithm to do this. The end result will be something very complex which would take a long time to understand but the evolutionary process behind it is actually very simple.

Because the theory of evolution has explanatory power I have been able to use that theory for over 20 years to evolve things.

The same applies to intelligence. Because it can be explained in terms of self organisation and consequently the laws of thermodynamics, I can use this to create very simple models of strong intelligence on my computer. Algorithms that adapt to unknown environments, that can relearn in real-time and which can be re-applied to different tasks. This allows me to obtain reproducible results that I can then write up as a paper and publish, allowing other scientists to do the same.

For a theist to then say that evolution is implausible and that intelligent design makes more sense is something I can recognise as incorrect because it does not provide any explanatory power. How can I write a program to intelligently design something? I am not saying that it can't be done, I have often tried to figure out how to do it myself, but the fact of the matter is that it is actually far harder to achieve than using an evolutionary algorithm.

For a theist to try to convince me that naturally occurring intelligence need not obey the laws of thermodynamics but without explaining how is equally useless. Such a statement has no explanatory power.

[Edwardo Piet]

[LadyForCamus]

No. You are asserting that a timeless, changeless, immaterial, supernatural being who has intelligence but no physical prescience, is capable of causing physical events and interacting with the physical world.  Boy, that’s quite a claim! I don’t know of anything in existence that isn’t subject to the laws of physics. You say there is one thing, and it’s God.

Nope. I am not making an argument (just picking one apart). So, I make no assertions. Mathilda originally said that God does not make sense because all intelligence is subject to the law of thermodynamics. My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception.

Your assertion is that god is intelligent. So yes, there is an assertion AND a contradiction here. You are assigning a physical property to a non-physical entity. If god, by definition, is supernatural and immaterial, how can he possess a quality (intelligence) that is rooted in the physical, material processes of a physical, material brain, within a physical, material universe? I’m simply asking you to explain how; to support your assertion. The answer you gave was, ‘because he’s god.’  That’s a non-answer. It elucidates nothing.

That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion).

Are you not at least making an assertion that god is intelligent?

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions.

Sure.  So, why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, if it can’t even be demonstrated to exist?

Consider this conversation:  [snipped for brevity]

Well, for starters

1. "Throwing" is an activity involving matter.
2. "Air" actually is matter
3. "Gravity" would not have an effect on something supernatural

So, by definition alone, I can rule out your analogy. But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic. She is stuck with the possibility that these are exceptions. I don't have to prove their existence to point out these are exceptions. She keeps demanding why? By definition.

The analogous point in my example is that I am asserting a thing exists, and following up by saying that the thing I allege exists requires no explanation, and cannot be understood.  On those terms, should anyone take seriously my claim that a Flim Flam exists at all?

[Ravenshire]

Well, for starters

1. "Throwing" is an activity involving matter.
2. "Air" actually is matter
3. "Gravity" would not have an effect on something supernatural

So, by definition alone, I can rule out your analogy. But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic. She is stuck with the possibility that these are exceptions. I don't have to prove their existence to point out these are exceptions. She keeps demanding why? By definition.

This bit right here completely blows up his own argument. He claims that his gawd, an immaterial, supernatural being created all of existence then in point three refutes the very idea that the natural and supernatural can interact.

Way to go there, Stevie.

[LadyForCamus]

Addendum to my previous reply to Steve:

Sorry for all the editing! Two years here and I still fuck up the quotation system regularly. ?

[SteveII]

Bullshit

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

I just did.  Are you deaf?  Exactly how is this a response to what I said?  Her latter statement is a clear example of an inductive argument.  The key word here is "implausible," which, despite your earlier misrepresentation of the definition of the word in an argument with me has "improbable" as one of its definitions.  

What are you talking about?!? Your:

 "All examples of intelligence we have are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, therefore we are justified in believing that all cases of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." 

is not what she was arguing. See above RED. 

Since every observation we have ever made is within the universe and the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, your statement is logically equivalent to: "the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics". What on earth information does that give us or what conclusion does that premise work toward. 

No argument against the existence of God that had the word 'thermodynamic' in it will ever make sense. It is a category error.

---

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

Yet you haven't provided a single way of refuting that statement. All you have done is come up with circular logic along the lines of:

"I postulate that X exists which I define as something as something contradicting your statement, but I am going to complain when you ask for evidence that X exists or even reason to believe that it exists."

Garbage in garbage out.

Your whole argument relies on the existence of X and without it your whole argument falls apart.

So again, I ask you to provide one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Again, you are unable to admit that you are unable to.

I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT! I cannot be arguing in a circle BECAUSE I HAVE NOT MADE AN ARGUMENT. Mentioning God's definition is NOT AN ARGUMENT.  Mentioning the definition of supernatural is not an argument. Can I be clearer? 

Every one of my points have been centered around definitions AND pointing out that your whole argument is the same as demanding that I prove the existence of God.  It has nothing at all to do with thermodynamics! You could have said "give me one example of advanced consciousness that isn't human". None of these types of arguments make any headway against the question of whether there is a God or not. Every one of them is constructed to demand that I prove you wrong. 

Your original statement above that started all this is huge category error. You cannot use natural laws to prove or disprove God's existence because by the very definition of God, they are meaningless to the question. I don't know how to say this any clearer.