ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 27th January 2013, 03:13 PM   #3401
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 14,708
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So DNA stores codified, complex and specified information. Literally.
Since we can track back such information as coming always from a conscious mind, and natural processes never produce that information, we can conclude safely that the information stored in DNA comes from a mind.
What you seem to lack is abstract thinking.

What if DNA is NOT literally codified, complex and specified information?!

What MORE can we learn about DNA if we think of it in terms of NOT being literal information?

THAT is what a lot of scientists are doing, and if you read my last post, progress is being made in science through that idea.

That sort of exploration of other possabilities is something Intelligent Design and Creationism lacks! They lack the interest and insight into thinking about things in more abstract manner, than what they assume must be the literal truth.

(And, besides, we know natural processes can produce that kind of information. We can see how it does it in simulations, where the outcomes were not even what the programmers ever expected.)

I ask again: What is wrong with saying this:

Sometimes, one has to look at things a little differently, in order to learn more about them.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

Last edited by Wowbagger; 27th January 2013 at 03:18 PM.
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:15 PM   #3402
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No we can't. That's a non-sequitur for a number of reasons. A.) Your premise explicitly assumes the conclusion (circular argument). We CAN'T track back for DNA so the claim of "always" is fallacious. B.) If I grant for argument sake that the DNA was created by a mind then what? Supernatural explanations have never been shown to be correct. A natural explanation would be far more parsimonious. If I were to come to the conclusion that DNA was invented by a mind then it would be more reasonable to presume idealism and that we are all a computer simulation and the real nature of the universe is unknown to us. D.) Bayesian statistics all but rule it out. C.) Finally, the experts do not conclude that DNA must come from a mind. On the contrary. Over time the number of scientists who accept supernatural explanations has fallen sharply because the god of the gaps is losing ground quickly (also it violates parsimony and the statistics all but rule it out). There is very little room for god to hide in.
Interestingly, if we accept all of his arguments as true, then we must accept that the writer of DNA intentionally and purposely wrote disease into the code.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:15 PM   #3403
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,139
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So this thread is about you presenting the scientific evidence, that actually leads to naturalism as the best answer for our existence. Please present it.
But since you continue to bring up your made-up god, now you need to defend it. What created your god?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:24 PM   #3404
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,545
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Interestingly, if we accept all of his arguments as true, then we must accept that the writer of DNA intentionally and purposely wrote disease into the code.
Exactly. Of course anything can be explained if one has magic. Some argue that when Adam and Eve sinned it magically changed god's code. In other words, the code was rewritten without a mind. A mind is required to write the code but not to alter it. That's some mysterious dark magic. Call it "the dark side of the force".
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:25 PM   #3405
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,541
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So this thread is about you presenting the scientific evidence, that actually leads to naturalism as the best answer for our existence. Please present it.

Naturalism isn't an "answer" for anything, but rather the philosophical position upon which the scientific method is based.

What exactly is the question you want answered? The phrase "our existence" is not a question. I assume that the question you actually want answered is "what is the origin of our existence", but even that question is vague enough to be almost meaningless.

Do you mean, what is the origin the specific individuals participating on this thread? In which case, the answer is that our parents had sex and we were conceived.

Do you mean, what is the origin of the human race? In which case, the answer is that we evolved from less intelligent primates.

Do you mean, what is the origin of life? In which case, the answer is most likely that naturally occurring organic molecules happened to combine into a self-replicating structure, and that this simple proto-life evolved into true life.

Do you mean, what is the origin of the earth and the solar system? In which case, it formed out of dust and gas left over from ancient supernovae, gradually drawn together by gravitational forces over billions of years.

Do you mean, what is the origin of the known universe? In which case, it formed from the big bang.

Do you mean, what is the origin of the big bang? Unfortunately, the known laws of physics breaks down prior to the big bang, and so we can only speculate about what might have caused it. At the moment, the actual answer is unknowable.

Possibly someone might accidentally come up with the correct solution to the origin of the big bang, but they'd have no way of verifying the answer, and so they still wouldn't know if it's the actual answer. Consequently anyone claiming to know the answer is either a liar or deluded.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:30 PM   #3406
Toontown
Illuminator
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Over time the number of scientists who accept supernatural explanations has fallen sharply because the god of the gaps is losing ground quickly (also it violates parsimony and the statistics all but rule it out). There is very little room for god to hide in.
There is no "room" at all for god to hide in. To have "room" requires space, and the advancing frontiers of knowledge have forced GIBHOR's god outside of spacetime, where he perches precariously in the guise of a timeless moment.
__________________
SEARCH NOW THE SPHERES
PROBE THE UNIVERSE
SEND BACK WORD
WHAT FORCE SO IRRESISTIBLE
AS THE WILL OF FREE MEN
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 04:31 PM   #3407
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 14,708
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Consequently anyone claiming to know the answer is either a liar or deluded.
That might not necessarily be the case.

Someone might devise a manner in which to indirectly test various aspects of an origins-of-big-bang theory. Even if they can't test it directly, it will still tell us if the idea is on the right track.

Or, a new framework of thinking about the Universe's origins could yield predictions we can test directly, but would also transform what we think of the Universe, in a manner similar to what Relativity did.

Of course, we can't test any origins-of-big-bang theories, yet, but don't assume it will always be impossible.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 04:46 PM   #3408
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is no scientific warrant in metaphyics, and philosophy.
This thread is about naturalism not metaphysics nor philosophy.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I came to this conclusion, using my gray brain mass.......
In other words, you used naturalism but you dishonestly refuse to admit it.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 05:08 PM   #3409
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,120
Look this idea that DNA is actually a specific stored code is really just a variation of the whole idea of evolution in that you're seeing the peak of the mountain and ignoring the slope. DNA is demonstrably not information storage in the sense of a designed code; it's an aggregation of chemicals acting as allosteric binding sites. The fact that they have a sequence exists because the sequence themselves undergoes natural selection THAT is the slope of the mountain. You cannot try to compare it to a designed code because the two have demonstrable differences when you actually consider the continuum from which they came from.

So I deny that DNA is actually a code though it looks like one. It's an aggregate collection of allosteric binding sites. Their function is an emergent property of biochemistry, not a prerogative. It's as designed as a snowball rolling down a hill.

But again I'll answer GIBHOR's question again as to naturalism and origin of the universe. I don't know from where our Universe came from however right about the time it started was demonstrably from the big bang. I've provided that evidence to you maybe less than a year ago. The ways things are in the Universe is from natural laws (which naturalism is concerned with) so our existence is just the product of that. There seems to be no conscious drive in the organization of the universe because that demonstrably comes from entropy and there have been no observable exceptions. To introduce an exception (God) as necessary cannot be demonstrated in any serious way. Using the Bible is like using the Bhagavad Gita; they're both fables. Even Huckleberry Finn is demonstrably a fable even though the setting may be inspires (example: The Mississippi River exists). So we cannot use the words of the Bible as true to our origins. Second you have no ability to demonstrate there was a "nothing" that our Universe came from so your "nothing begets nothing" crap doesn't fly. Our universe could probably have existed ex materia.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 27th January 2013 at 05:16 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 05:33 PM   #3410
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,912
GIBHOR,

Your posts jump back and forth, and have left me confused as to the position you are taking. Just to clarify, do you believe that naturalism does not explain the vast majority of the current, day to day processes in the world around us (which sometimes appears to be your position), or are you only saying it does not explain the origins of the universe and of life (which appears to be your argument at other times)? It would help in this regard if you tell us how old you think the Earth is; that would clarify how your view compares to that of naturalism. Thanks!
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 05:50 PM   #3411
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,541
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Of course, we can't test any origins-of-big-bang theories, yet, but don't assume it will always be impossible.
That's why I used the phrase "at the moment" in the preceding paragraph.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:43 PM   #3412
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Supernatural explanations have never been shown to be correct.
how do you know ?

Quote:
A natural explanation would be far more parsimonious.
please provide then a example of codified information, that has a natural explanation.

Quote:
Over time the number of scientists who accept supernatural explanations has fallen sharply because the god of the gaps is losing ground quickly (also it violates parsimony and the statistics all but rule it out). There is very little room for god to hide in.
well, that is not a argument from ignorance. Quit the oposit is the case.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:49 PM   #3413
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how do you know ?
Frankly, your question is quite stupid.



Quote:
please provide then a example of codified information, that has a natural explanation.
It's been given to you many, many times now. It's quite obvious you're in this just to troll and not to learn anything about what naturalism is and how it works.


Quote:
well, that is not a argument from ignorance. Quit the oposit is the case.
Prove it then.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:59 PM   #3414
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post

Timelessness is a changeless moment in which everything that happens must happen at once, because sequential events are not timeless. Thus, that one timeless moment in which god presumably exists timelessly is his beginning - a beginning which exists acausally - which contradicts your earlier claim that god is "beginningless".
Thus, that one timeless moment in which god presumably exists timelessly is his beginning

there is no beginning in a timeless eternity.......

Quote:
If god need not be thought of as having a beginning, then the singularity, or the void, as the case may be, need not be thought of as having a beginning either.It was just there, timelessly, just like your hypothetical god. Without the layer of mystical dude-ism.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...s/grunbau.html

Quote:
The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.
Quote:
I won't get into the philosophical difficulty of the necessity of spacetime to allow a supposedly timeless entity to "know everything, past, present, and future". But essentially, you are postulating a timeless moment situated outside of spacetime, and you're calling that timeless moment "God".
No, i am not. There is also no timeless moment, since a moment requires time.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:03 PM   #3415
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Frankly, your question is quite stupid.
No , its not. You made a assertion, namely :

Supernatural explanations have never been shown to be correct.

Its a perfectly valid and lucid question to ask you to explain your assertion.
So how do you possibly know ???


Quote:
It's been given to you many, many times now. It's quite obvious you're in this just to troll
oh, i see.... trying to get out of the defence, and insulting me. Frankly, i don't see any reason to answer you further.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:06 PM   #3416
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
GIBHOR,

Your posts jump back and forth, and have left me confused as to the position you are taking. Just to clarify, do you believe that naturalism does not explain the vast majority of the current, day to day processes in the world around us (which sometimes appears to be your position),
the question is, if it is able to provide the best explanation for our origin.

Quote:
It would help in this regard if you tell us how old you think the Earth is; that would clarify how your view compares to that of naturalism. Thanks!
Either the earth, the moon, sun, galaxy, stars, universe, has a conscious powerful creator as origin, or our natural world is all there is, without a creator as cause. That are the alternatives. Its up to you , if you think a creator can be discarded, to provide positive evidence, that naturalism is the better explanation.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:18 PM   #3417
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,545
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how do you know ?
Tell me of one?

Quote:
please provide then a example of codified information, that has a natural explanation.
Argument from ignorance.

Quote:
well, that is not a argument from ignorance. Quit the oposit is the case.
That's exactly what it is. You don't know how DNA came about so you appeal to magic. Tell me how god did it? If you can't tell me then you are only using "god did it" to fill in for your ignorance. When you can tell me the mechanics of how god coded DNA then you will have something that isn't just an argument from ignorance.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:22 PM   #3418
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Look this idea that DNA is actually a specific stored code is really just a variation of the whole idea of evolution in that you're seeing the peak of the mountain and ignoring the slope. DNA is demonstrably not information storage in the sense of a designed code; it's an aggregation of chemicals acting as allosteric binding sites. The fact that they have a sequence exists because the sequence themselves undergoes natural selection THAT is the slope of the mountain.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth

Quote:
After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Quote:
So I deny that DNA is actually a code though it looks like one. It's an aggregate collection of allosteric binding sites.
What you deny, or not deny, is, to be frank, meaningless and irrelevant. What counts, is what science has found out and tells us.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t288-the-genetic-code

Quote:
It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, "Evolution Encoded," Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84-91.]
Quote:
But again I'll answer GIBHOR's question again as to naturalism and origin of the universe. I don't know from where our Universe came from however right about the time it started was demonstrably from the big bang. I've provided that evidence to you maybe less than a year ago. The ways things are in the Universe is from natural laws
Naturalism should be able to explain where these natural laws came from.....and why they are the way they are....

Quote:
There seems to be no conscious drive in the organization of the universe because that demonstrably comes from entropy
I didnt know that. Could you show a scientific paper to back up your claim ?


Quote:
Using the Bible is like using the Bhagavad Gita; they're both fables.
how do you know ?


Quote:
Our universe could probably have existed ex materia.
explain, how.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:26 PM   #3419
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

That's exactly what it is. You don't know how DNA came about so you appeal to magic.
No, its a rational deduction based on what we know, namely that codified information can be tracked back ALWAYS exclusively to a conscious mind. Chance cannot produce Shakespeares Hamlet, a computer code, and the information stored in DNA.

Quote:
Tell me how god did it?If you can't tell me then you are only using "god did it" to fill in for your ignorance. When you can tell me the mechanics of how god coded DNA then you will have something that isn't just an argument from ignorance.
I don't have to know HOW he did it. When i see a gold ring in a archeological site, i know there was someone from a ancient tribe that made the artifact. i do not need to know, how he did it.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:28 PM   #3420
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
This thread is about naturalism not metaphysics nor philosophy.
naturalism has a lot to do with philosophy......

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Quote:
Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:35 PM   #3421
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,545
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
No, its a rational deduction based on what we know, namely that codified information can be tracked back ALWAYS exclusively to a conscious mind.
False, you have not tracked back DNA.

Quote:
Chance cannot produce Shakespeares Hamlet, a computer code, and the information stored in DNA.
Yes it can.

Quote:
I don't have to know HOW he did it. When i see a gold ring in a archeological site, i know there was someone from a ancient tribe that made the artifact. i do not need to know, how he did it.
Buildings and rings do not replicate. There is no known means for such things to exist in nature without being manufactured.

In any event, a natural explanation is better than a supernatural one since every answer to every question answered to date has been natural. At least, you and don't know of any verified supernatural explanations.

So, if we did conclude that DNA was evidence of something then a more parsimonious answer is that we are a computer simulation. We know how computers work. We know that is theoretically possible. A god is not theoretically possible.

The proposition fails on all fronts. You are sticking god into the gaps. It's fallacious.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:35 PM   #3422
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,120
GIBHOR your first quote is completely stupid and even you should be able to recognize why.
Quote:
Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge.
You can't deny the interactions of mindless molecules in DNA and also realize that interactions occur everywhere else too. If the interaction of every protein in your body occurs and it's just as mindless as the interactions of DNA then you cannot take your elshamah bullcrap seriously. You can't make this statement and not be a hypocrite understand. Trying to make an exception for DNA is exceptionally stupid. Also the existence of viruses seems to destroy that entire statement.

As to your second one trying to conflate the beach sand writing and the script of DNA that in no way refutes what I've said in regards to DNA being an aggregate over time. The over time part is what matters here and its sequence is just a product of its history travelling THROUGH time. Its interactions are just biochemistry and its sequence is due to the fact that whatever survives with that sequence keeps it going obviously. So again your assertion to anything OTHER than DNA being an aggregate is flawed. DNA is just a big dust bunny.

Oh and thermodynamics explains it BTW.

star formation and entropy. There's an example for ya. There has been no proof that any formation in the universe isn't driven by entropy. Every star that formed and every planet that formed and every reaction in the universe is entropically driven. That is one of the cornerstones of naturalism and it's been spot on ever since. In fact I'll go so far as to say that every scientific paper will reaffirm this so that I don't need to look for any specific paper. It's up to you to find a paper that reasonably demonstrates otherwise (and is actually correct)

Oh and the Bible is a bunch of fables because Genesis is complete horse crap. Its descriptions on the origin of all animals and plants is demonstrably untrue. I don't even NEED the Theory of Evolution to disprove Genesis because the origin as described in the Bible cannot be true. Even if I can't replace Genesis' story with a true one I can still demonstrate Genesis to be false.

As for the universe probably having existed ex materia that is more a reflection of energy potential. Even at 0 energy there is still a potential which would mean an ex materia cause rather than an ex nihilo.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 27th January 2013 at 07:47 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:36 PM   #3423
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,139
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I don't have to know HOW he did it. When i see a gold ring in a archeological site, i know there was someone from a ancient tribe that made the artifact. i do not need to know, how he did it.
Do you have a link to a scientific paper showing any god made the universe?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:39 PM   #3424
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,545
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post

Quote:
Using the Bible is like using the Bhagavad Gita; they're both fables.
how do you know ?
I can't speak for the Bhagavad Gita but the Bible has wizards, witches, talking snakes, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc., etc.. You can't produce a talking snake or demonstrate magic.

It's mythology, urban legends and oral traditions.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:29 PM   #3425
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Thus, that one timeless moment in which god presumably exists timelessly is his beginning

there is no beginning in a timeless eternity.......
How interesting....
Tell me again, what color does the sun shine in Narnia?
Is never land another island or is it made of fairy wings?

Just exactly where is the corner of your imagination land?


The answers to these questions are about as meaningful as your timeless eternity answer.

So, once again. God doesn't actually provide any insight and answers no questions.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:32 PM   #3426
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,541
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t288-the-genetic-code

Quote:
It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

[...]
That's just silly. The "Mike loves Michelle" message....

1. Is written in a language
2. Uses symbols to convey information
3. Conveys abstract concepts such as names and emotion
4. Is a message

While DNA...

1. Is not a language (except metaphorically)
2. Does not employ symbols (the base pairs are equivalent to parts of a machine)
3. Does not convey abstract concepts
4. Is not a message

It's a completely absurd comparison.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Naturalism should be able to explain where these natural laws came from.....and why they are the way they are...
Are you even aware what naturalism is?

Naturalism is "A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes."

That's basically all there is to it. It's not a theory, it's not an explanation. It's simply a philosophy that can be utilized in the search for knowledge, and has proven to be very effective in the past.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:58 PM   #3427
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,912
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the question is, if it is able to provide the best explanation for our origin.



Either the earth, the moon, sun, galaxy, stars, universe, has a conscious powerful creator as origin, or our natural world is all there is, without a creator as cause. That are the alternatives. Its up to you , if you think a creator can be discarded, to provide positive evidence, that naturalism is the better explanation.
So can I assume that you are okay with naturalism explaining the current day to day workings of the universe? I would assume that's what your answer means, but then again you are denying in other posts that evolution is working today.

Your attempt to avoid a simple question as to your view of the age of the Earth is noted. Why?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 10:00 PM   #3428
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,274
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is no beginning in a timeless eternity.......
There's also no middle or end. Nothing even can change in such a construct, given that time is, fundamentally, a sequence of events.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What you deny, or not deny, is, to be frank, meaningless and irrelevant. What counts, is what science has found out and tells us.
Indeed. Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to understand the science and have a strong tendency to trust "sources" that have blatantly obvious propaganda spins. You're also arguing against several people who actually are experts in the relevant fields, by the looks of it. This doesn't mean that they're right, of course, but they've shown that they actually understand the subjects.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Naturalism should be able to explain where these natural laws came from.....and why they are the way they are....
Ahh, shoulds. So many of them are not reflective of reality. As it is, though, one or more viable explanations with far greater backing than your desired explanation have been put forth, for the relevant questions that you've asked, even if the backing tends to be that fundamentally, more useful methods of understanding reality are better than useless or less useful methods of understanding reality.

That, right there, though, is why it would be nigh impossible for you to "win" anything here. At very best, logically, your position is equally as likely as ones arrived at through naturalistic methods, when taken alone. When taken in context, methodological naturalism has produced useful results, though, extraordinary ones, while theology has been demonstrably wrong or useless, repeatedly and consistently. In short, the framework you rest your case on is untrustworthy, while the framework that methodological naturalism is based on is trustworthy. When the position isn't covered by methodological naturalism, which is what you're actually attacking in this thread, but rather goes to areas of philosophical naturalism where the two are not one and the same, things are not certain, and generally include implicit qualifications. Methodological naturalism's successes still lend credibility to philosophical naturalism, especially in light of theology's (and other systems and philosophies in general) consistent failures to produce useful results.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
naturalism has a lot to do with philosophy......

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism
It's worth bearing in mind that you've been attacking Methodological naturalism with quite a few of your arguments, and seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between that and philosophical naturalism, still, much less choose only arguments that even could validly be used to make a point about philosophical naturalism.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th January 2013 at 10:03 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 10:18 PM   #3429
Astreja
Springy Goddess
 
Astreja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So DNA stores codified, complex and specified information. Literally.
The so-called "information" is a consequence of DNA's structure, not the cause of it. It does not appear to have been "stored" in the sense of a design preceding the DNA and being recorded therein. It appears that the illusion of design is simply similar DNA structures producing similar things.

And I'll produce the scientific papers 5 minutes after your alleged god materializes in My study in physical form... And not an instant before.
__________________
Reality is a theory, not a hypothesis.
Astreja is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 12:03 AM   #3430
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,268
THIRD time of asking Gibhor.

What is your position on emergent behaviours?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 01:55 AM   #3431
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,650
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why are you assuming that mass and energy ever needed to be "created"?

Instead it may be the case that either mass or energy must inevitably exist.

Intuitively, that would certainly appear to be the case from everything we detect around us in the universe today.]

And what scientific evidence do you have to back up your claim ?]


In the above you were asked a direct & very simple question. But instead of making any attempt to answer the question, you tried to dodge it by asking me something else.

Can you first answer the simple question that you were asked, please -

Q. Why are you assuming that mass and energy ever needed to be "created"?



Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Not true at all.

It most certainly does not follow that our universe must have what you call an "external cause".

In states where quantum effects dominate, eg in a highly compressed state of the universe, particles and energies are thought to appear and disappear without any definable "cause".

The mechanism for how that happens is bound up with the idea of what "nothing" actually is.

So that brings me directly back to the question I’ve asked you twice before -


- what do you think "Nothing" actually is?


Quantum fluctuations cannot explain the origin of the universe.

from the book : a case of a creator ….

…. Followed by lengthy passage quoted from a creationist book …]


OK, you are doing it again - instead of honestly trying to answer the simple question that you were asked, you are trying to dodge the question completely and instead quote a passage about virtual particles from what seems to be a creationist book.

I did not ask you what any creationist book claims about vacuum fluctuations.

I asked you what you think “Nothing” actually is. That was the question.

Are you incapable of finding any answer?

Here is the question again, it’s still waiting for your answer -

Q. What do you think "Nothing" actually is?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:00 AM   #3432
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
In the above you were asked a direct & very simple question. But instead of making any attempt to answer the question, you tried to dodge it by asking me something else.

Can you first answer the simple question that you were asked, please -

Q. Why are you assuming that mass and energy ever needed to be "created"?
because all scientific evidence points towards that fact.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t199...ad-a-beginning

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

Quote:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Quote:
I asked you what you think “Nothing” actually is. That was the question.
thats very simple to answer. Nothing is the absence of any thing.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:02 AM   #3433
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
THIRD time of asking Gibhor.

What is your position on emergent behaviours?
you might first explain what that is.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:05 AM   #3434
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Astreja View Post
The so-called "information" is a consequence of DNA's structure, not the cause of it.
the structure of a hard disc does not determine the information it stores. You can literally store ANY information in it. The same happens with DNA. Scientists today do even store the information of books in DNA :

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...-a-851519.html

So there is absolutely no relation between the structure of the hardware, DNA, and software, the information stored in it. .
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:09 AM   #3435
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
So can I assume that you are okay with naturalism explaining the current day to day workings of the universe?
ONe thing is to explain the current day working of the universe. A quit different thing is to explain and deduce the origin, based on what we do know.

Quote:
I would assume that's what your answer means, but then again you are denying in other posts that evolution is working today.
I don''t deny adaptation to the environment. Thats however quit different than common ancestry.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:21 AM   #3436
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,541
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because all scientific evidence points towards that fact.

Wait... you ignore scientific evidence in regard to everything else, but in this one specific instance it suddenly applies?

The Big Bang is supposed to have begun in a singularity, and the known laws of physics break down in a singularity. Consequently you can't really say for certain what can or cannot happen in this situation.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:22 AM   #3437
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because all scientific evidence points towards that fact.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t199...ad-a-beginning

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:






thats very simple to answer. Nothing is the absence of any thing.

Why do you link to a "proof of God" forum when using another person's works as a source of evidence?

You're also grabbing quotes from web pages without links and context. Have you read "Many Worlds in One"? Or did you just pinch that bit from William Lane Craig's site?

Also, if you're going to use Wikipedia as a source why not link to it and let people know you're quoting it?
__________________
"Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was."
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 04:31 AM   #3438
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,545
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
ONe thing is to explain the current day working of the universe. A quit different thing is to explain and deduce the origin, based on what we do know.
Since the Greek Philosophers we have resolved many things, answered many questions. We learned that the firmament isn't firm, that the sun doesn't go around the Earth, that the Earth isn't flat, that the Universe is billions of years old, that time has a speed limit, etc., etc.. In the past god was the answer for volcanoes, the movement of planets, etc., etc.. Not once when humanity came to understand an important principle did the answer turn out supernatural.

The experts like Krauss and Hawking state unequivocally that god is not needed to explain the origins of the universe. Evolutionary biologists say we don't need a supernatural explanation for the diversity of life. To date, after answering thousands of questions, not once was a supernatural explanation found (that has been documented and is emperical).

God did it is no more an answer for anything than is the matrix or some kids homework for her computer class. At least that speculation doesn't require unexplainable entities using magic.

God did it is superstition and is lazy thinking. If we had accepted "god did it" and not searched for real answers we would not know calculus and perturbation theory. We would still believe in geocentrism and wouldn't understand germ theory or evolution, both of which are critical to modern medicine.

"God did it" is ignorance. It tells us no more than "aliens did it" or "our lives are computer simulations". At least those explanations are natural.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 28th January 2013 at 04:33 AM.
RandFan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 05:03 AM   #3439
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the structure of a hard disc does not determine the information it stores. You can literally store ANY information in it. The same happens with DNA. Scientists today do even store the information of books in DNA :

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...-a-851519.html

So there is absolutely no relation between the structure of the hardware, DNA, and software, the information stored in it. .
Your analogy is 100% wrong. For DNA, The structure is completely tied to the information it has.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
you might first explain what that is.
Once again, your ignorance is exposed.
You offer nothing except dark age ignorance and mysticism.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 05:15 AM   #3440
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,274
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
you might first explain what that is.

Here's a wiki link on the general concept. Incidentally, a likely overly simple summation of the concept from the article is

Quote:
Goldstein initially defined emergence as: "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems".


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the structure of a hard disc does not determine the information it stores. You can literally store ANY information in it.
Questionable statement. The structure of a hard disc very much does matter, at a few levels. Any information is rather questionable, as well, depending your usage of the term.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The same happens with DNA.
At a superficial level, at best. There are significant differences in nature, method of storage, method of expression, methods of replication, and so on.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Scientists today do even store the information of books in DNA :

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...-a-851519.html
I'm afraid that I'm not fluent in German. That said, arbitrarily assigning values to particular structures and being able to demonstrate that one can arrange them as desired is an excellent advancement that can, once again, be attributed to methodological naturalism. I'm going to assume that that's roughly the contents of the paper unless reasonably informed otherwise. This is not, I'm afraid, good evidence of what you want to demonstrate, though.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So there is absolutely no relation between the structure of the hardware, DNA, and software, the information stored in it. .
You're seriously making the argument that the structure of DNA is absolutely irrelevant and unrelated to "information" and expression? Pretty sure that that you'd be laughed out of even simple inorganic chemistry, let alone chemistry that deals with more complex organic molecules.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.