IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


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 10th May 2012, 02:41 PM   #521
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why could they not ? could the earth not be more distant from the sun, for example ?
Are you familiar with Douglass Adams' 'Sentient Puddle' analogy?

You seem to think that life had to evolve on this planet. Current estimate place the number of stars in the universe at between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion. That's a staggering number of potential planetary systems that could harbor who knows what varieties of life. It may be highly unlikely for one individual to win the lottery, but when millions of people are buying tickets the odds that someone will win get pretty darn good. Acceptance of the fine tuning argument seems to go hand in hand with a poor understanding of probability and statistics.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 10th May 2012, 02:45 PM   #522
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why could they not ? could the earth not be more distant from the sun, for example ?
Sure it could have, so?

It wasn't.

100 billion stars per galaxy, billions of galaxies.

How many planets don't have life?

We don't know.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 02:46 PM   #523
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Just because you assign there are two categories, doesn't mean the categories are equally probable.

For instance, the sun will either rise in the morning or it won't.
Using your logic, you would have to assign a 50/50 probability that it would rise in the morning. This is simply false as we have a back catalog of evidence to support that.


Now, we look at the universe. We have a back catalog of evidence for naturalistic origins for a number of spontaneous generating events (e.g., planets, evolution, virtual particles, self assembly...) As such, it is simply not logical to assign equal probability between creation vs. spontaneous generation.
This is a common misconception, in fact the evidence you refer to for the naturalistic origin is only circumstantial we cannot determine if the same natural consistency is not the way a constructed universe would be. Due to our only having one example to study it is impossible to determine or compare with any other scenario.

Conforming to a natural law is not conclusive as to whether the origin is spontaneous or constructed, as either one is likely to conform to natural law.

Back to 50/50 I'm afraid.
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 02:48 PM   #524
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
This is a common misconception, in fact the evidence you refer to for the naturalistic origin is only circumstantial we cannot determine if the same natural consistency is not the way a constructed universe would be. Due to our only having one example to study it is impossible to determine or compare with any other scenario.

Conforming to a natural law is not conclusive as to whether the origin is spontaneous or constructed, as either one is likely to conform to natural law.

Back to 50/50 I'm afraid.
If I have a fair dice, and will give you twenty dollars if it rolls a six, there are two things that could happen concerning your financial situation; You could receive twenty dollars, or you could not. What is the chance of you getting twenty dollars?
Twiler 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 10th May 2012, 02:48 PM   #525
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
No that is a fallacy to assume an unknown state would have 50/50 distribution.
Yes, I am generalizing to an extent, which is all we can do from our position within the universe.
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 02:50 PM   #526
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes, I am generalizing to an extent.
Why? What's wrong with just 'We don't know.'?
Twiler 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 10th May 2012, 02:51 PM   #527
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
This is a common misconception, in fact the evidence you refer to for the naturalistic origin is only circumstantial we cannot determine if the same natural consistency is not the way a constructed universe would be.
If we had ANY evidence for a non-naturalistic event, then I would agree with you. As yet, none exist. As such, you have to explain WHY this is any different.
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Due to our only having one example to study it is impossible to determine or compare with any other scenario.
Name 1 single event that can not be explained by a natural mechanism. Put another way, if everything in the universe is easily explained by natural mechanisms, there is no reason to presume the universe itself isn't explained by natural mechanisms. to think otherwise is nothing other than special pleading.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Back to 50/50 I'm afraid.
Statistics do not work that way.
__________________
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 10th May 2012, 02:52 PM   #528
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
Why? What's wrong with just 'We don't know.'?
Because that's where the Woo goes.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 10th May 2012, 02:52 PM   #529
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
please explain, why you think any of following dimensions, sizes, and distances could not be different :

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-...earth-apr-2004
Quote:
SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
And so there could not be life in the clouds of Jupiter because it would be crushed at the sort of surface?
Amazing.
Quote:
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
What is that amount exactly, does it have to be 75% of the surface?
Quote:
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
There could be plenty of planets in plenty of galaxies. Wrong any how.
Quote:
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
Hmm, how much interstellar oxygen is there, is there like a shoratge?
Quote:
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
Wrong, name one.
Quote:
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
What does average mean?
Quote:
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
Yeah, so?
Quote:
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
No volcanic is not responsible for elements.
Quote:
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
No we don't live in the outer rim.
Quote:
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
So?

Would life be as we know it, no.
again there is only so much stupid I can take
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 02:56 PM   #530
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
That is still a false dichotomy.

You leave out :

-inadvertent creation by accident 1/3
-unintended consequence 1/4
-glitch in the system 1/5
-act of terrorism 1/6
-...

Just use you imagination, to say that all possibilities funnel down to 1/2 is silly.
These all fall into the constructed category. Glitch in the system might at first sound as though it would fall into either group, but in the spontaneous grouping it would just be a spontaneous or natural glitch.

Anyway look at these debates do they not polarise into these two camps?
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 02:58 PM   #531
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
These all fall into the constructed category. Glitch in the system might at first sound as though it would fall into either group, but in the spontaneous grouping it would just be a spontaneous or natural glitch.

Anyway look at these debates do they not polarise into these two camps?
What about a creator repeatedly creating new universes randomly until they get one that they like?
Twiler 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 10th May 2012, 02:58 PM   #532
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Anyway look at these debates do they not polarise into these two camps?

No. If you read the original "creation" story in Genesis, it doesn't fall into either of these camps, regardless of how GIBHOR tries to twist it.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 10th May 2012, 02:59 PM   #533
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
If we had ANY evidence for a non-naturalistic event, then I would agree with you. As yet, none exist. As such, you have to explain WHY this is any different.

Name 1 single event that can not be explained by a natural mechanism. Put another way, if everything in the universe is easily explained by natural mechanisms, there is no reason to presume the universe itself isn't explained by natural mechanisms. to think otherwise is nothing other than special pleading.
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


Quote:
Statistics do not work that way.
We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 03:01 PM   #534
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
Could you, as a personal favour, stop saying that? It's causing me severe discomfort.
Twiler 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 10th May 2012, 03:03 PM   #535
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.
I have parsimony AND previous experience. what more do I need?
You do not even have that.

every topic is initially "truly unknown".

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
ALL of the evidence is evidence in my direction.
It is strange you would ignore this.
__________________
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 10th May 2012, 03:03 PM   #536
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
Could you, as a personal favour, stop saying that? It's causing me severe discomfort.
Ok, I'll just say equal probability from now on. Anyway its late here I'm going to sleep on it.
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 03:04 PM   #537
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
I have parsimony AND previous experience. what more do I need?
You do not even have that.

every topic is initially "truly unknown".


ALL of the evidence is evidence in my direction.
It is strange you would ignore this.
See my previous point, the evidence is only circumstantial.
punshhh 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 10th May 2012, 03:05 PM   #538
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
I need to address this point from GIBHOR's link:

Quote:
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
This claim is utter crap. To many form of anaerobic life, oxygen is actually a poison. The fossil record shows that the earliest life did not require oxygen, but produced it as a toxic waste product. It wasn't until much later that other forms of life evolved to utilize oxygen in their metabolisms.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 10th May 2012, 03:08 PM   #539
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
See my previous point, the evidence is only circumstantial.
calling it circumstantial doesn't make it so.

all events following the big bang are naturalistic. No supernatural argument has been needed. it takes a rather severe case of special pleading to claim that supernatural arguments are needed to intiate the universe, even if there is such a thing as initiating the universe.
__________________
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 10th May 2012, 03:09 PM   #540
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
Wha?????? I'd nominate this for a Stundie, if I didn't suspect that it was a Poe.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 10th May 2012, 03:10 PM   #541
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
On the question of whether my garbage cans are being torn into at night by raccoons or dragons, we have to acknowledge that we have plenty of evidence for raccoons and their proclivity for scavenging, but absolutely none for dragons. The same is true regarding the question of natural vs. supernatural causes. You can believe that the odds are 50/50 all you want, but that wouldn't stop you from failing any entry level course on probability and statistics.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 10th May 2012, 03:10 PM   #542
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
I need to address this point from GIBHOR's link:



This claim is utter crap. To many form of anaerobic life, oxygen is actually a poison. The fossil record shows that the earliest life did not require oxygen, but produced it as a toxic waste product. It wasn't until much later that other forms of life evolved to utilize oxygen in their metabolisms.
Yup.
http://www.eu-hermione.net/news/scie...ife-discovered
__________________
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 10th May 2012, 03:28 PM   #543
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Therefore, God cannot be uncaused.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th May 2012, 03:31 PM   #544
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
This is a common misconception, in fact the evidence you refer to for the naturalistic origin is only circumstantial we cannot determine if the same natural consistency is not the way a constructed universe would be. Due to our only having one example to study it is impossible to determine or compare with any other scenario.

Conforming to a natural law is not conclusive as to whether the origin is spontaneous or constructed, as either one is likely to conform to natural law.
And it's therefore logical to assume a naturalistic explanation unless evidence for a non-naturalistic one presents itself.

Quote:
Back to 50/50 I'm afraid.
I'm curious, is it that you don't understand the explanations as to why 2 choices need not have 50/50 probabilities, or are you choosing to ignore them because not doing so would mean you'd have to admit you are wrong?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th May 2012, 03:35 PM   #545
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Hmm, how much interstellar oxygen is there, is there like a shoratge?
Actually, it doesn't matter. Life existed on this planet long before the atmosphere contained oxygen. Contrary to what GIBHOR's source states, oxygen is not necessary for life.

Quote:
What does average mean?
Whatever it means it's wrong. Our sun is on the small side. VY Canis Majoris has a radius between 1,800 to 2,100 times that of our sun. No matter whether you're talking about the mean, the median or the mode, our sun is not average sized.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 10th May 2012 at 03:38 PM.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th May 2012, 03:39 PM   #546
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Anyway look at these debates do they not polarise into these two camps?
So you're saying that you believe that you've only got a 50% chance of being right?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th May 2012, 04:09 PM   #547
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
On the question of whether my garbage cans are being torn into at night by raccoons or dragons, we have to acknowledge that we have plenty of evidence for raccoons and their proclivity for scavenging, but absolutely none for dragons.
It's neither raccoons nor dragons -- it's God.

After all, God works scavenges in mysterious ways.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
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 10th May 2012, 06:16 PM   #548
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
After all, God works scavenges in mysterious ways.
Stolen for sig.
__________________
"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
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 10th May 2012, 06:18 PM   #549
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Whoa... whoa... wait a minute. Time out.

The Bible says the Bible is true? Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this? Well this changes everything!

X = True, Proof is X. It's mathematically sound people!
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 10th May 2012, 06:42 PM   #550
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.
I buy a ticket in the lottery. I will win or I won't. 50/50 right?

I looked in my backyard for a fairy 2000 times without seeing one but it could be there or not this time I look. 50/50 right?
tsig 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 10th May 2012, 06:43 PM   #551
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
I don't believe the universe was caused.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231


Quote:
This point in time we call "now" is actually future with reference to all of the past. We agreed you cannot get to any infinite point in the future by adding as events one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. Here's another way of putting it. If you can't get into the infinite future from a fixed reference point (the present) by adding consecutive events one by one, you cannot get into the infinite past by subtracting consecutive events, one by one, from a fixed reference point (the present).
Time is a characteristic of the universe. So it didn't exist before the universe did.

If your argument applies, any hypothetical creator must have had a creator, because otherwise it would have an infinite history, which this argument says is impossible.

If the hypothetical creator does have a creator, that leads to an infinite regress.
If the hypothetical creator does not have a creator, then you're engaging in special pleading, which is a fallacy.

Applying your quoted argument to an already-existing universe, there can be no time.
There is no upper limit on the number of events that can happen in a second. If you can't get into the infinite future by adding consecutive events, you can't get into a finite future (one second from now) either.

However, I predict that you will be here a second from now.

Still here?

Your argument is refuted by observation.
TjW 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 10th May 2012, 06:46 PM   #552
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I buy a ticket in the lottery. I will win or I won't. 50/50 right?

I looked in my backyard for a fairy 2000 times without seeing one but it could be there or not this time I look. 50/50 right?
Yeh, I truly do not believe he doesn't understand this.

Im now calling poe.
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 10th May 2012, 07:07 PM   #553
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
These all fall into the constructed category. Glitch in the system might at first sound as though it would fall into either group, but in the spontaneous grouping it would just be a spontaneous or natural glitch.

Anyway look at these debates do they not polarise into these two camps?
No, most of us say that naturalism is a pragmatic stance, that does not fit the dichotomy at all. Many of us don't take an extreme stance, that is just more straw on GIBHOR's part.

It doesn't matter, as usual, if it is natural then it is natural, if it is not natural then it acts as though it is natural.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 07:08 PM   #554
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
All you have is parsimony, I'm talking about the truly unknown.


We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.

I don't think you know what unknown means, you keep place false assumptions upon it. If it is unknown then it would be foolish to characterize it.

The words evidence and alternatives do not apply to the unknown.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 07:12 PM   #555
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Ok, I'll just say equal probability from now on. Anyway its late here I'm going to sleep on it.
No, it is unknown and therefore the probabilities are unknown.

It could be 'cow' or 'horse' : 50/50

It could be 'red', blue' or 'orange' : 33.3/33.3/33.3

It could be 1,2,..., n : 1/n/1/n...1/n
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 10th May 2012 at 07:14 PM.
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 07:13 PM   #556
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
See my previous point, the evidence is only circumstantial.
And any evidence against naturalism?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th May 2012, 07:55 PM   #557
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
No, it is unknown and therefore the probabilities are unknown.
I disagree.

Obviously the probabilities *are* weighted, as there is no evidence for anything supernatural. So while the probabilities are unknown, you could make the case that they are heavily weighted towards "naturalistic".

ETA: Actually, I would probably make the case that the supernatural doesn't exist by definition, as once something "supernatural" was identified and it's effects known, it is no longer "supernatural" - but I disgress.....
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas

Last edited by devnull; 10th May 2012 at 07:59 PM.
devnull 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 10th May 2012, 09:29 PM   #558
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Back to the OP though.

This is a gene of from yeast naturalism helped people explain its function. Please show the relevant function without using the theory of evolution

MKLDTSHMRYLTTDDFRVLQAVEQGSRSHEVVPTPLIHQISGMRSQSGTN RAISDLAKLSLISKMRNVKYDGYRLTYNGIDYLALKTMLNRDTVYSVGNT IGVGKESDIYKVSDKNGNPRVMKIHRLGRTSFHSVRNNRDYLKKSNQGAN WMHLSRLAANKEYQFMSMLYSKGFKVPEPFDNSRHIVVMELIEGYPMRRL RKHKNIPKLYSDLMCFIVDLANSGLIHCDFNEFNIMIKDKLEDENDCGFV VIDFPQCISIQHQDADYYFQRDVDCIRRFFKKKLKYEPKPDSSMLDTEGF GDGYKYAYPDFKRDVKRTDNLDELVQASGFSKKHPGDRGLETAVESMRNA VYNSDDDMSNDEAEEENGEGDYSEEDEYYDSELDNESSEDDSEDAQEEEN ERIIEALSSGVENLKMDKLGNYILE

We know we need to run the clocks on our satellites slower than on earth to keep our GPS system working correctly. Please detail how much slower without using the naturalistic method.

Data is transferred trough fiberoptic cables. These are made of translucent material that still manages to contain light. Explain how this works without using the naturalistic method

We know nuclear fusion of deuterium is possible (unless you subscribe to the "nuclear weapons are fake" CT). Explain how without using the naturalistic method.

We know it is possible to burn a fuel and turn it into work. Explain how without using the naturalistic method.

Electrical current and magnetic fields are connected. Explain how without using the naturalistic method.

Why does water have a boiling point far higher than the weight of a water molecule would allow? Explain how without using the naturalistic method.


These are just a minute amount of questions which the o so reviled naturalistic method had no problems answering and predicting. Reading a religious text, not so much.
As for your "why does the puddle of water fit the hole" questions. Of course we are well adapted to life on this planet in this universe. Nothing in the naturalistic method would suggest otherwise. Now if we were to find life where current scientific knowledge would suggest none could exist, THAT would be a good indication of a supernatural entity. Can you show us a forest on the moon, where your god keeps an atmosphere intact in defiance of all natural laws?

Until you do that, to me naturalism is far more convincing that someones (pre) bronze age myths and legends.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 10th May 2012, 10:18 PM   #559
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Stolen for sig.
I'm honored, thank you!
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
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 10th May 2012, 10:55 PM   #560
Rougarou
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
<snip>
ETA: Actually, I would probably make the case that the supernatural doesn't exist by definition, as once something "supernatural" was identified and it's effects known, it is no longer "supernatural" - but I disgress.....
This is why I tend to avoid asking people to prove there is a God.
Rougarou 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

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 07:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.