ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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.
Reply
Old 16th October 2017, 01:51 PM   #201
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,699
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Why are we able to detect the chromosome fusion from chimpanzees to humans?
Strictly speaking, though it doesn’t affect the principle, from a common ancestor, not from chimps.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 02:08 PM   #202
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Genetics is probably the most elegant of designs.

Self-repairing units, capable of incredible creativity and skill, and designed to maximize their ability to manipulate their environment. As well as create amazing art, music and dance.

The army has copied the mule as a carrier of goods. Robotics are copying humans as example of skillful multi-functional versatile units.

To think otherwise is simply denial by focusing fake perceptions of faults.

Car to speculate PartSkeptic on the motives of the designer of this elegant design? To what purpose? To what final goal?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 02:09 PM   #203
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So, I take it you've never worked in genetics or looked into it in any detail then?

Even microbial genetics are a cobbled together mess of duplicate genes, non-functional genes, remnant virii, unneeded transposons etc.
Eukaryotic genetics is far worse as it also contains half inserts from mitochondrial DNA, fully non-functional expression systems and a very clunky method to prevent cells from multicellular organisms from dividing unchecked, which when it goes wrong leads to cancer and it can go wrong in a LOT of ways.

Now, evolutionary this is all explainable as natural selection has no goal, no purpose and doesn't care about elegance and we can learn a LOT from it.

But if you examine it as something *designed* by and *intelligent* agency we can only conclude the designer was malevolent, utterly incompetent, high as a kite or a combination of the three when it designed life.

I mean, take a program designed by committee, then run trough a nations government to be adopted by a hostile government, ran trough another committee and then given to corrupt burocrats and you'de still end up with something better designed than the genetics of life as it is.
3.5 billion years of random events acted upon by natural selection can explain that, but design? No.
Thanks for this post.

I find it kind of absurd to think that A designer decided to build this universe. A universe that is mostly inhospitable to life. I mean, what a waste of space.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 02:25 PM   #204
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
For me everything that didn't make sense about evolution "clicked" perfectly when I was introduced to the gene-centered view of evolution.

You are not evolving. People are not evolving. Individual organisms are not evolving. Species are not evolving.

Our genes are.
Yep!

__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:14 PM   #205
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Car to speculate PartSkeptic on the motives of the designer of this elegant design? To what purpose? To what final goal?

Logically there is only one answer.

What does a solitary Cosmic Intelligence think about or do?

Create the Ultimate video game in it's mind. We are all just an illusion. A game that gets more and more complex. There is no limit to the layers on the onion. Perhaps in revision/re-run one gazillion, the "wasteful" genes will be eliminated. Whether the wasteful genes have some purpose or not does not make human any the less miraculous.

As for the suffering and pain - that is part of how mankind rises to greater heights. Atheists like Dawkins do not see the greater grandeur. They focus on the ticks on the legs of mankind.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:24 PM   #206
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks for this post.

I find it kind of absurd to think that A designer decided to build this universe. A universe that is mostly inhospitable to life. I mean, what a waste of space.

The chances of humans getting to the point we have is almost beyond measure, even using incredibly large cosmic numbers.

To get to the point humans got to 10,000 years ago took a huge series of serendipitous events. Then to have earth go through a "Goldilocks period" where the climate was just right, with no major asteroid strikes or human extinction events was also required.

You believe in your law of large numbers, with no explanation of the prime cause, and I chose to believe in a Cosmic Intelligence - because 1) I get benefits from doing so, and 2) I have personal evidence (your anecdotes).
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 04:24 AM   #207
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

As for the suffering and pain - that is part of how mankind rises to greater heights. Atheists like Dawkins do not see the greater grandeur. They focus on the ticks on the legs of mankind.
I think the belittles and demeans the levels of suffering in play here.

And I would say a profound lack of empathy.

Imagine you were born a caterpillar. A caterpillar that unfortunately had a wasp lay its eggs in you. Now, you’re paralyzed as the eggs hatch and you’re slowly eaten from within.

Too many other examples to even begin to list. What sort of monster would “design” such a scheme?
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 04:26 AM   #208
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The chances of humans getting to the point we have is almost beyond measure, even using incredibly large cosmic numbers.
No.

The odds of it happening are 1 in 1.

Because it happened.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 04:55 AM   #209
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Logically there is only one answer.

What does a solitary Cosmic Intelligence think about or do?

Create the Ultimate video game in it's mind. We are all just an illusion. A game that gets more and more complex. There is no limit to the layers on the onion. Perhaps in revision/re-run one gazillion, the "wasteful" genes will be eliminated.
So you're agreeing that the designer is an incompetent hack?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 05:28 AM   #210
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The chances of humans getting to the point we have is almost beyond measure, even using incredibly large cosmic numbers.

To get to the point humans got to 10,000 years ago took a huge series of serendipitous events. Then to have earth go through a "Goldilocks period" where the climate was just right, with no major asteroid strikes or human extinction events was also required.

You believe in your law of large numbers, with no explanation of the prime cause, and I chose to believe in a Cosmic Intelligence - because 1) I get benefits from doing so, and 2) I have personal evidence (your anecdotes).
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
No.

The odds of it happening are 1 in 1.

Because it happened.
I understand a little bit of what Part Skeptic is saying. Eddie's correction though is spot on.

If part Skeptic had said the chances of any specific species of biological organism advancing so far is obviously astronomically rare. I would agree since there are millions perhaps billions of different species in a Universe that is mostly very inhospitable to life as we know it.

That said, the universe is immense estimated to have ten trillion galaxies and our own galaxy is said to have 100 billion stars with an unknown number of planets associated with each star. You do the math. It's one hell of a lot of planets. Personally, I'm of the belief that the universe is filled with life and almost certainly more advanced creatures than man. But admittedly I don't know and I am skeptical that man will ever find out considering the distances involved.

Skeptic is pulling out of his ass the idea of a cosmic intelligence or that the Universe requires a prime cause. To start with, he has NEVER experienced intelligence of any kind outside of living organism with a brain. Second, the prime cause argument is silly because if the universe requires a cause doesn't this cosmic intelligence requires a cause? If he makes the typical argument that this cosmic intelligence is eternal, he then is engaged in special pleading. Third, all the evidence shows that more complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms and that heavier more complex atoms are the result of interactions between lighter less complex atoms. So it is less likely that a complex intelligence can precede simple matter.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:16 AM   #211
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
No.

The odds of it happening are 1 in 1.

Because it happened.

So when you bet on a horse race, the odds on your horse before the race are 1000 to 1 but when it wins and you go to collect they tell you your odds were actually 1 to 1?

I take it you never took a course in statistics and probability? Ask Pixel 42 to give you some lessons.

And what about the scientists who say the odds of many of the serendipitous values in nature are incredibly unlikely???
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:22 AM   #212
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So when you bet on a horse race, the odds on your horse before the race are 1000 to 1 but when it wins and you go to collect they tell you your odds were actually 1 to 1?
No, they were 1,000 to 1 before the race.

They collapsed to 1 to 1 after the outcome was known.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:23 AM   #213
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So you're agreeing that the designer is an incompetent hack?
No. Entertainment need not meet an atheists level of expectation of perfection. How boring would that be.

The Cosmic Intelligence is getting a lot of entertainment out of debates about the meaning of perfection.

Let me ask you this question. If you could design a "perfect robotic employee" would you make it perfectly ethical, or would you teach it to be cunning, devious and unethical so as to maximize profit?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:24 AM   #214
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

And what about the scientists who say the odds of many of the serendipitous values in nature are incredibly unlikely???
Things simply are as they are.

If they were different, they’d be different.

Seems trivial to say that, but I think your argument is that trivially easy to shoot down.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:25 AM   #215
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The chances of humans getting to the point we have is almost beyond measure, even using incredibly large cosmic numbers.
So what? The a priori odds of humanity achieving sapience may be, metaphorically speaking, astronomically large; but the potential number of attempts is, literally speaking, astronomically large.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:26 AM   #216
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
No, they were 1,000 to 1 before the race.

They collapsed to 1 to 1 after the outcome was known.
Explain "collapsed"?

What were the odds of humankind getting to where it is now - BEFORE the odds collapsed to 1 to 1? And at each stage BEFORE each stage?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:27 AM   #217
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Let me ask you this question. If you could design a "perfect robotic employee" would you make it perfectly ethical, or would you teach it to be cunning, devious and unethical so as to maximize profit?
Based on Christian morality, I should probably design it to be cunning, devious and unethical, then sack it for ethics violations.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:29 AM   #218
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So what? The a priori odds of humanity achieving sapience may be, metaphorically speaking, astronomically large; but the potential number of attempts is, literally speaking, astronomically large.

Dave
So you are a law of large numbers follower, then. It explains anything and everything. Even supernatural events. And miracles too. No limits.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:30 AM   #219
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Based on Christian morality, I should probably design it to be cunning, devious and unethical, then sack it for ethics violations.

Dave

And let your competition hire it? And put you out of business?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:43 AM   #220
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,841
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I take it you never took a course in statistics and probability? Ask Pixel 42 to give you some lessons.
Fast Eddie is right.

We exist, therefore the probability that the universal constants are compatible with our existence is 1.

This is the point of Douglas Adams' famous puddle analogy. Marvelling that the universal constants are right for us to exist is like the puddle marvelling that the hole it finds itself in is exactly the right shape for it.

The universe is not as it is in order that we can be as we are. We are as we are because the universe is as it is.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 09:49 AM   #221
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
(snip)


Skeptic is pulling out of his ass the idea of a cosmic intelligence or that the Universe requires a prime cause. To start with, he has NEVER experienced intelligence of any kind outside of living organism with a brain. Second, the prime cause argument is silly because if the universe requires a cause doesn't this cosmic intelligence requires a cause? If he makes the typical argument that this cosmic intelligence is eternal, he then is engaged in special pleading. Third, all the evidence shows that more complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms and that heavier more complex atoms are the result of interactions between lighter less complex atoms. So it is less likely that a complex intelligence can precede simple matter.

Out of where? How did you arrive at that conclusion. Ideas come from minds. Excrement comes out the rear end. At least in my case it does.

Normally it is atheists who argue that the there is no need for a cause for the universe - that is simply "IS". I submit that my claim is that your mental processes are part of the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence that simply "IS". They are equivalent as to un-caused origin.

Now you claim that intelligence somehow formed from dumb particles after the Big Bang. I submit that it is simpler to assume that the Intelligence was always there.

As for experiencing the Cosmic Intelligence, I have, and I retained the memory.

It also explains the supernatural and God and Satan because nothing is impossible, despite the rules being fairly consistent. My explanation is the equivalent of the law of large numbers where nothing is impossible except I don't make the axiomatic assumption that the laws of physics just "ARE" and always "WERE".
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 10:11 AM   #222
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Fast Eddie is right.

We exist, therefore the probability that the universal constants are compatible with our existence is 1.

This is the point of Douglas Adams' famous puddle analogy. Marvelling that the universal constants are right for us to exist is like the puddle marvelling that the hole it finds itself in is exactly the right shape for it.

The universe is not as it is in order that we can be as we are. We are as we are because the universe is as it is.

The hole-puddle analogy is a bad one irrespective of its infamy. It is simple everyday physics that determine the shape of the puddle in the hole. I see no relevance to a proper philosophical debate. Puddles and flying teapots and spaghetti monsters are to impress the masses - they are in the same category as the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Wow!

The probability of something happening BEFORE an event is calculated by the number of possibilities existing before the event.

If a universal constant has to be correct to 10 decimal places for our current universe to exist as we find it, then the odds are calculated by asking a person BEFORE the event what the odds are that it is exactly that number and not that number plus 0.00000000001 or some other number.

Can you tell me WHY the constant is "just right"? Other than to say it "JUST IS."

When I do experiments, I repeat them under varying conditions until I get the constants in my control software to the point that the controls work. Why could a cosmic intelligence not do the same? That is a better analogy than a puddle.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 11:09 AM   #223
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
)
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Out of where? How did you arrive at that conclusion. Ideas come from minds. Excrement comes out the rear end. At least in my case it does.

Normally it is atheists who argue that the there is no need for a cause for the universe - that is simply "IS". I submit that my claim is that your mental processes are part of the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence that simply "IS". They are equivalent as to un-caused origin.

Now you claim that intelligence somehow formed from dumb particles after the Big Bang. I submit that it is simpler to assume that the Intelligence was always there.

As for experiencing the Cosmic Intelligence, I have, and I retained the memory.

It also explains the supernatural and God and Satan because nothing is impossible, despite the rules being fairly consistent. My explanation is the equivalent of the law of large numbers where nothing is impossible except I don't make the axiomatic assumption that the laws of physics just "ARE" and always "WERE".
No, I DON'T KNOW if the Universe has a cause and NEITHER DO YOU. NEITHER DOES ANYONE.

But we can see the development of intelligence in the evolution of biological organisms. We can see through both the DNA and embryology the the trail of our ancestral organisms. We can see babies in the womb growing hair all over their bodies like other primates. And then shedding that hair. We can see a yolk sack in the human embryo like a chicken. We can see the beginning of a tail that does not grow. We can see that humans have the DNA code to make Vitamin C even though it is switched off. We can see the fused chromosome number 2.

If I had to guess about the beginnings of the universe I would posit that all the matter and energy is eternal and the universe as we know it is the result of interactions between matter and energy. That said, I don't know and that is ok. I'd love to know. But an answer pulled from someone's ass whether that be yours, mine, Moses' or St Paul's is simply smelly excrement.

Not knowing and searching is more interesting to me then insisting I know an answer that I have no reason to claim and being satisfied.

What the religious person does is simply plug the holes of human understanding with a magical invisible being. Usually some deity posited by bronze or stone age humans who understood almost nothing about the natural world. The moronic part of this is modern human beings following the morals and lessons of their dumbass deity and ignorant ancestors.

When do modern intelligent human beings wake up to the fact there is no difference between all the gods throughout history in that they are ALL simply the creation of man.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th October 2017 at 12:36 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 11:10 AM   #224
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,841
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The hole-puddle analogy is a bad one irrespective of its infamy. It is simple everyday physics that determine the shape of the puddle in the hole. I see no relevance to a proper philosophical debate.
The point of the puddle analogy is simply that it is not an amazing coincidence that the hole is exactly the right shape for the puddle. Likewise it is not an amazing coincidence that the universal constants are right for our existence. It's a simple point, but one which a surprising number of people seem to have trouble grasping.

Quote:
The probability of something happening BEFORE an event is calculated by the number of possibilities existing before the event.

If a universal constant has to be correct to 10 decimal places for our current universe to exist as we find it, then the odds are calculated by asking a person BEFORE the event what the odds are that it is exactly that number and not that number plus 0.00000000001 or some other number.
People only exist because the universal constants are right for their existence. So the very fact that people exist tells you what the values are, you don't need to ask one about the odds.

This is what makes this probability calculation different to analogies like your winning horse example. Is the better's existence contingent on the horse he bet on winning the race? No? Then it's not a suitable analogy for the probability calculation we're discussing.

Quote:
Can you tell me WHY the constant is "just right"? Other than to say it "JUST IS."
Because if it wasn't neither of us would be here having this discussion. Maybe some other life forms whose existence is contingent on a different set of values for the constants would be here having the same discussion, but we wouldn't be.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 11:54 AM   #225
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The hole-puddle analogy is a bad one irrespective of its infamy.
It's purpose is to get one to look at the impression of design from both sides; from the positive space and the negative space. It's like those images of a duck/rabbit. You seem to only see one and not the other.

Quote:
Can you tell me WHY the constant is "just right"? Other than to say it "JUST IS."
Quite apart from the other good replies, there's also: "I don't know."

It's likely that we—science and human ken—do not know. So what?

This is another two-sided situation. The extreme thinking you display is like those paddles with a ball on an elastic cord. It whips back and forth without lingering in the middle.

Spend some time in the middle; in doubt.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 12:06 PM   #226
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
I spent some time mentally composing a post involving analogies and thought experiments and touching on fallacious thinking.

But I have come to the conclusion it would fall on deaf ears, so to speak, and as such would be a waste of time.

So, you’ll have to carry on without me for a while, at least until something more interesting pops up.

Have fun!
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 01:56 PM   #227
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The hole-puddle analogy is a bad one irrespective of its infamy. It is simple everyday physics that determine the shape of the puddle in the hole. I see no relevance to a proper philosophical debate. Puddles and flying teapots and spaghetti monsters are to impress the masses - they are in the same category as the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Wow!

The probability of something happening BEFORE an event is calculated by the number of possibilities existing before the event.

If a universal constant has to be correct to 10 decimal places for our current universe to exist as we find it, then the odds are calculated by asking a person BEFORE the event what the odds are that it is exactly that number and not that number plus 0.00000000001 or some other number.

Can you tell me WHY the constant is "just right"? Other than to say it "JUST IS."

When I do experiments, I repeat them under varying conditions until I get the constants in my control software to the point that the controls work. Why could a cosmic intelligence not do the same? That is a better analogy than a puddle.

Perhaps I can explain this so you can understand PartSkeptic.

If you were contemplating a state of nothingness, and predicted that a universe would form, wherein one galaxy a planet like ours would develop life of our kind, and an intelligent humanoid would develop, then the chances of that happening as predicted would be huge.

However looking back from the perspective of we are in now, and saying the chances of this happening just like this is nonsense. It could be the chances of some life form not developing somewhere may be huge. The puddle analogy given by Pixel42 is a good one.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:13 PM   #228
nota
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 436
if we teach the jewish version in schools +darwin
don't we also have to teach every other made up creation myth ?
why only the christian/jewish version and not all the others ?
if one fairytale deserves equal time with science then they all do

btw how many creation myths do we have ?
and how many were lost as the religion died or was wiped out
was there ever a religion without one ?
nota is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:24 PM   #229
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Perhaps I can explain this so you can understand PartSkeptic.

If you were contemplating a state of nothingness, and predicted that a universe would form, wherein one galaxy a planet like ours would develop life of our kind, and an intelligent humanoid would develop, then the chances of that happening as predicted would be huge.

However looking back from the perspective of we are in now, and saying the chances of this happening just like this is nonsense. It could be the chances of some life form not developing somewhere may be huge. The puddle analogy given by Pixel42 is a good one.
I'm on board big time with the puddle analogy as well. Although I think it is insane to start calculating probabilities of life in the universe or even our own galaxy when we have such a minuscule amount of information about the planets outside our solar system.

Much of this has to do with what factors you use in your math. Out of the one solar system we know about there is 1 species of intelligent literate beings. That is 1/1. Following that math there is around another 100 billion intelligent literate species in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

Now granted that would be a misapplication of math. But that is the crux of the problem. There is no way to do the math.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:26 PM   #230
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by nota View Post
if we teach the jewish version in schools +darwin
don't we also have to teach every other made up creation myth ?
why only the christian/jewish version and not all the others ?
if one fairytale deserves equal time with science then they all do

btw how many creation myths do we have ?
and how many were lost as the religion died or was wiped out
was there ever a religion without one ?
I think we should have to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:31 PM   #231
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,006
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The probability of something happening BEFORE an event is calculated by the number of possibilities existing before the event.
And how likely each one of them is. That's where the "fine tuning" argument goes wrong in at least two different ways: there's no clue at all how many choices there were (you just hope others will mistake an assertion of precision for the same thing), and there's no clue at all how likely any of them are (you just hope others will mistake a number of options, even if we did actually have such a number, for a denominator in a statement of odds as a fraction, as if all possibilities were equally likely).

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
the odds are calculated by asking a person BEFORE the event
No, you don't just ask somebody. You either find out for real from real-world observation, or admit the fact that you don't know.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Can you tell me WHY the constant is "just right"?
They actually aren't. Some of them would have had deleterious effects if adjusted on their own, but not if two or more were adjusted together in counterbalancing directions, and some of them would have actually yielded better results if adjusted slightly because the value we actually have is not right at a calculated ideal but merely close enough to be survivable. And that's just if you only pay attention to the ones that seem anywhere near right at all and completely ignore the ones that are obviously wildly off:
•Fraction of the universe's overall apparent timeline during which life was or will be impossible
•Fraction of the universe that is, even during this life-sustaining era, empty space, where we can't live
•Fraction of remainder that's stars or black holes, where we can't live
•Fraction of remainder that's planets where we can't live for a variety of reasons
•Fraction of any inhabitable planet that's wasted on uninhabitable internal volume instead of surface area
•Fraction of the only known inhabitable planet's surface that's uninhabitable, either to any life or at least to ours

You're looking at something the size of a stadium where life can exist on a single atom, and blathering about how marvelously fine-tuned for life the stadium is because it contains that atom. A truly finely-tuned stadium would be able to sustain life all over it, not restricted to an atom.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
When I do experiments, I repeat them under varying conditions until I get the constants in my control software to the point that the controls work. Why could a cosmic intelligence not do the same?
If it did, then there's nothing special about the constants in this universe anyway; this is just the latest of we-have-no-clue-how-many attempts that didn't work before and we just don't live in one of those others (because we can't)... which is completely indistinguishable from a scenario in which multiple universes exist or have existed without "creators" and we just don't live in one of those others (because we can't).
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:32 PM   #232
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by nota View Post
if we teach the jewish version in schools +darwin
don't we also have to teach every other made up creation myth ?
why only the christian/jewish version and not all the others ?
if one fairytale deserves equal time with science then they all do

btw how many creation myths do we have ?
and how many were lost as the religion died or was wiped out
was there ever a religion without one ?

A good point that I have made myself before.

The only reason the Christian/Jewish and arguably Islamic creation story is given air time, is because these religions are the flavour of the day, in most of the World.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:58 PM   #233
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,006
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The point of the puddle analogy is simply that it is not an amazing coincidence that the hole is exactly the right shape for the puddle.
That's what makes it a bad analogy for the subject of physical constants that could, with different values, have made life not just different but impossible. The alternatives on the cosmic side of the analogy and the puddle side of it are not equivalent: a universe where life can't possibly exist is not a universe where it could but would just be different, and a differently-shaped puddle is not physical impossibility of puddles.

The puddle story assumes going in from the start that wherever else the water could have ended up would have been another puddle, which, in the cosmic counterpart, is the equivalent of all possible universes being able to host life. Putting that assumption in at the beginning means you can't draw it as a conclusion at the end.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Genetics is probably the most elegant of designs.
You just said that, for example, the more elegant way to grow birds with no teeth is to give them genes for crocodile teeth and other genes to make those genes not work, rather than just not giving them genes for teeth in the first place. We must have opposite ideas of the meaning of "elegant".

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Normally it is atheists who argue that the there is no need for a cause for the universe - that is simply "IS". I submit that my claim is that your mental processes are part of the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence that simply "IS". They are equivalent as to un-caused origin.
But they are not equivalent in their numbers of entirely made-up, unnecessary, evidence-free components getting inserted. Ours is 0; yours is at least 1.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Now you claim that intelligence somehow formed from dumb particles after the Big Bang. I submit that it is simpler to assume that the Intelligence was always there.
No, adding 1 extra thing (or more in this case, when we consider a brain to carry out these cosmic intellectual functions, and a world for that brain to live in) makes it more complex, not simpler.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 03:13 PM   #234
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
That's what makes it a bad analogy for the subject of physical constants that could, with different values, have made life not just different but impossible. The alternatives on the cosmic side of the analogy and the puddle side of it are not equivalent: a universe where life can't possibly exist is not a universe where it could but would just be different, and a differently-shaped puddle is not physical impossibility of puddles.

The puddle story assumes going in from the start that wherever else the water could have ended up would have been another puddle, which, in the cosmic counterpart, is the equivalent of all possible universes being able to host life. Putting that assumption in at the beginning means you can't draw it as a conclusion at the end.

You just said that, for example, the more elegant way to grow birds with no teeth is to give them genes for crocodile teeth and other genes to make those genes not work, rather than just not giving them genes for teeth in the first place. We must have opposite ideas of the meaning of "elegant".

But they are not equivalent in their numbers of entirely made-up, unnecessary, evidence-free components getting inserted. Ours is 0; yours is at least 1.

No, adding 1 extra thing (or more in this case, when we consider a brain to carry out these cosmic intellectual functions, and a world for that brain to live in) makes it more complex, not simpler.
No, the point of the puddle analogy is simply that it is a post hoc analysis.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 05:20 PM   #235
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Out of where? How did you arrive at that conclusion. Ideas come from minds. Excrement comes out the rear end. At least in my case it does.

Normally it is atheists who argue that the there is no need for a cause for the universe - that is simply "IS". I submit that my claim is that your mental processes are part of the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence that simply "IS". They are equivalent as to un-caused origin.

Now you claim that intelligence somehow formed from dumb particles after the Big Bang. I submit that it is simpler to assume that the Intelligence was always there.

As for experiencing the Cosmic Intelligence, I have, and I retained the memory.

It also explains the supernatural and God and Satan because nothing is impossible, despite the rules being fairly consistent. My explanation is the equivalent of the law of large numbers where nothing is impossible except I don't make the axiomatic assumption that the laws of physics just "ARE" and always "WERE".
Do tell.


On the general subject of intelligent design, I have no problem with people who say they believe in cosmic intelligence, or God, or whatever. I have no problem with people saying that they don't think it's possible for life to have evolved without intelligent guidance. I disagree with them, but I can't prove them wrong. They are simply stating a part of their belief.

Where I get into a bit of a tiff, though, is when they say that this belief of theirs is some sort of scientific theory, that one can use science to demonstrate that there must be a God, because science proves that evolution without guidance is impossible. That claim is made by a lot of intelligent design proponents, and it is balderdash.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 05:34 PM   #236
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So you are a law of large numbers follower, then.
If, by that, you mean that I'm honest enough to admit that there are large numbers on both sides of the equation rather than just the side I want there to be large numbers on, then yes.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 11:19 PM   #237
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,841
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No, the point of the puddle analogy is simply that it is a post hoc analysis.
Exactly. Pointing out that it is not an exact analogy where it doesn't need to be an exact analogy is what PartSkeptic did too. It is an exact analogy for the point it is making. A different combination of values for the universal constants might have produced no life, different life, similar life or identical life, but we're here so the actual combination must obviously be one that's compatible with our existence. It is not an amazing coincidence.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 17th October 2017 at 11:25 PM.
Pixel42 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:33 AM   #238
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
And let your competition hire it? And put you out of business?
What's funny here is that you don't even realize you're agreeing with me.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:24 AM   #239
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,839
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Did our cell phones evolve, or did they evolve guided by intelligent design?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Are cell phones alive?
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
In a few decades they will be, and humans will be just memory. The robots will see themselves as products of intelligent design, not evolution. How long before their intelligent designer are worshiped?
You appear to have misread my post.
Are cell phones alive? Now, not in some speculative AI future.
Are they alive now?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:59 AM   #240
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
I am going to focus on one aspect at a time in the hope of getting away from the tactic of "Use the facts, when the facts fail, use logic, and when logic fails confuse the debate".

The Sub-topic here is The Fine Tuned (for Life) Universe argument.

A point has been made that the probability that the fundamental constants of the universe are what they are is 1.

Which expert atheist presents this argument? Thus avoiding any probability analysis. Please give me references.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 03:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.