|
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. |
8th May 2012, 06:06 PM | #281 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Argument from in-credulousness. You don't understand how DNA could have developed, ergo Woo.
And you still are refusing to address issues people have brought up with your base. So the mythical "DNA Creating Intelligence" doesn't require a more complicated cause then the cause it's supposed to be the solution too? DNA is too complicated to have arisen on it's on, but the magical super power the created it could have. That... makes... no... sense. Your entire argument hits the death spiral of infinite regression. It is self defeating. It is flawed on a base level. |
__________________
"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. |
|
8th May 2012, 06:07 PM | #282 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:10 PM | #283 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
exacatly. In the same way, i do not believe, a computer code , or a book, could have as origin chance or physical necessity, so i don't believe, the codified information in DNA and RNA has chance or physical necessity as origin. Why do you believe, chance or physical necessity is a better explanation ?
Quote:
|
8th May 2012, 06:12 PM | #284 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
tell it these guys.....
George Ellis (British astrophysicist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer) “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” George Greenstein (astronomer) “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” Tony Rothman (physicist) “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? … Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.” Ed Harrison (cosmologist) “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” Edward Milne (British cosmologist) “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” Barry Parker (cosmologist) “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist) “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” |
8th May 2012, 06:14 PM | #285 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:15 PM | #286 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:15 PM | #287 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:16 PM | #288 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence that the physical constants could possibly have been any different than they are? Or that they were random? Or that if they were different, it would not have forbidden carbon chemistry but allowed some other, even better process?
Quote:
But in any case, these are rules we have created based on instincts that have evolved, to allow us to live in social groups. It is no different from the way insects will behave in a certain way within an insect colony, or wolves will behave a certain way within a wolf pack. Nothing about them indicates the presence of some knowledge implanted into us by a god. |
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
8th May 2012, 06:16 PM | #289 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:18 PM | #290 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:21 PM | #291 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
well, i have a very defined way to understand who God is:
God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal. |
8th May 2012, 06:21 PM | #292 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:23 PM | #293 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:26 PM | #294 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Entropy... no really. No ID, no God, no engineer. Entropy. You're making this brutally easy, just read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html |
__________________
"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 |
|
8th May 2012, 06:31 PM | #295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Ah then your God isn't the Christian God. All this you've said about God, about being an unimbodied mind and all such other nonsense...that's not the God of the Bible nor is it from Bronze Age scripture. That's a new God, one you made up. You better hope YWHW really doesn't exist, for his name is Jealous...
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th May 2012, 06:33 PM | #296 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
Who told you that is the goal of intelligent design arguments ?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...lligent-design
Quote:
|
8th May 2012, 06:34 PM | #297 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 06:36 PM | #298 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
But you don't understand God is special, because he says so.
You see because he doesn't understand where reality came from, he makes up a magical super being that somehow comes from nowhere to create the thing he doesn't understood how it came to be. And this makes perfect sense. |
__________________
"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. |
|
8th May 2012, 06:43 PM | #299 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
8th May 2012, 06:44 PM | #300 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Wait wait wait....that's the same guy who said this?!:
Originally Posted by Lee Smolin
Anyways, the odds are irrelevant as they do not prove impossibility. We have entropy to explain it, it's observed. God is not. God is a useless hypothesis and that's why naturalism is a better explanation. Your questions are answered, though I'm sure your doubts are not. Don't worry, oblivion isn't as bad as it seems. |
__________________
"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 |
|
8th May 2012, 06:49 PM | #301 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
You have a couple of problems with this argument:
1.) if we take your premise at face value, than regardless of mechanism, god can't explain the origin of the universe. Afterall, you state that from nothing nothing arises. Well, the universe came from nothing. So saying god made it happen (through unknown processes) still violates your premise. It violates the premise as much as saying the universe just happens spontaneously. 2.) we have evidence of things coming from nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle 3.) As time started WITH the universe at the big bang, saying it "came" from nothing is a meaningless comment. |
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:00 PM | #302 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:01 PM | #303 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:03 PM | #304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
This is idiocyfor obvious reasons, if you wish to educate your self as to why :
_Explain why the constants in the universe would have the variation Smolin postulates. Then read http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...o/FineTune.pdf IS THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNED FOR US? |
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:08 PM | #305 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Gibhor,
This is just ridiculous! You don't understand evolution, or physics, but are just quote mining, often from scientists who are professed atheists. You are rejecting scientific arguments with no facts or rationale to do so, but then simply state your beliefs as if that settles the argument. You state your god has no beginning, so no infinite regression is necessary. Okay, my universe has no beginning and/or no cause, so no infinite regression is necessary. See- it's easy! I can detect and measure my reality in a thousand different ways- all of which are reproducible and anyone else can verify my observations. You, instead, have an invisible, undetectable god, the nature of which no two theologians agree on, and whose properties you make up as you go along. Your argument is that "believing" in what we can actually see, smell, hear, and understand through our scientific instruments, and that always repeats when we repeat the experiment, is not the best explanation of our universe, but that an invisible, intelligent entity that behaves indistinguishably from chance is. And you think that is a higher level of logic?? Doesn't that sometimes seem at least a little silly to you? |
8th May 2012, 07:08 PM | #306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Lets me get this,
-if a god created the universe: it behaves consistently, right? -if a god did not create the universe it behaves consistently, right? -if the universe is a science fair project it behaves consistently, right? - if the universe if the result of a committee of gods it still behaves consistently, right? So naturalism works. Unless you have evidence of the inconsistency of the universe. And want to pretend to know things you can'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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:10 PM | #307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:12 PM | #308 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Funny how you did not present an argument, just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions.
Try reading Stenger's paper. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...o/FineTune.pdf |
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:14 PM | #309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:15 PM | #310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:18 PM | #311 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:20 PM | #312 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 07:22 PM | #313 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Gibhor,
Just two more points about biology: 1. We and all other living creatures are fine tuned to the conditions on the Earth by natural selection; this is an inherent prediction of evolution. The Earth is not fine tuned to us. Puddles of water fit the depression in the road, not the opposite. 2. Similarly, the code in our DNA was not generated at random: it was generated by random mutation followed by natural selection. Over evolutionary time the code expands due to mutation, and then narrows down to the code that works well biologically. There are computer programs that show this happening in front of your eyes. Easy example for you to understand: imagine a random mix of big and small marbles that roll into a sieve under the effects of gravity. You come by latter and notice only the big marbles are on top of the sieve, and only the small ones under it. That's a form of code- must you deduce an intelligent designer created it? Similarly, sand travels further in a stream than pebbles; pebbles further than gold nuggets. Coming on this pattern later, you see a code- small and light deposits are downstream further than large and heavy ones-did an intelligent designer do the sorting? |
8th May 2012, 08:53 PM | #314 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
"Chance" and "physical necessity" are NOT compelling answers to me.
I prefer "predictive aspects" and "productive considerations" to be much more compelling. "Chance" implies it can't be predicted. Naturalism strives to do better than that, whenever possible. It might not always be possible, but we get better at this, all the time. "Physical necessity" means nothing. That would be arguing: "It is that way because it is that way". We can do much better. How about: "We might not know why this physical process is 'necessary', but by studying it, we can put it to good use." Naturalism leads into that sort of innovation-driven in thinking. It doesn't matter where it came from. It matters more where it is going. Some people just choose explanations for existence that are helpful for getting interesting or important things done. That's all. Can you give us some examples of how non-naturalistic thinking can be productive in any important way? Can it help us gain new empirical knowledge? Can we develop better ways to fight or manage diseases? Can we predict or manage natural disasters in any better manner? Can it help us fly to Mars (whether or not you think that's important)? Anything? |
__________________
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!!!! |
|
8th May 2012, 09:28 PM | #315 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
So that IS possible for something as infinitely complex as a moral reasoning intelligent ultra powerful being, but impossible for a dense amount of energy without any extra super powers?
Now if there were any evidence of such a being ever intervening in the universe that would be different, but that has never been found. Again, please tell me how religion can be used to research medication. Or proof of prayer working. Biochemistry using the theory of evolution HAS produced hundreds of active medicines, some of which even you've probably used. |
8th May 2012, 11:51 PM | #316 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
9th May 2012, 12:01 AM | #317 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
9th May 2012, 12:02 AM | #318 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
9th May 2012, 12:05 AM | #319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
9th May 2012, 12:31 AM | #320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|