For The Undecided Populous, Who Are Reading All These Threads....

[Josheb]

Got an example of this inherent meaning which occurs in nature apart from human observation?

Don't mean to split hairs, but it's inherent information, not inherent meaning.


Sure. DNA. It's common to all life and exists without a single human ever needing to discover it. YAny textbook, any research study, and professional treatise on DNA can be picked up, read, and readily observed to speak of the information inherently contained in DNA. Even noted atheist apologists treat it thusly.

The magnetic field surrounding the earth appears to be another form of already-existing information. We humans aren't aware of it but there are many other creatures that navigate the globe based on what appears to be meaningful data, or information. It could be simple changes in the field to which the creature assigns relative meaning, but our best efforts so far have yet to prove such conditions.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure. DNA. It's common to all life and exists without a single human ever needing to discover it. YAny textbook, any research study, and professional treatise on DNA can be picked up, read, and readily observed to speak of the information inherently contained in DNA. Even noted atheist apologists treat it thusly.

I certainly do not want to 'straw man' you. I've heard God arguments, relating to 'DNA'. If you would not mind, could you furnish an article or video, where some 'atheist apologists' concede or entertain such a discovery?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Don't mean to split hairs, but it's inherent information, not inherent meaning.

You made the distinction that information is different from data in that information has meaning. So if there is inherent information, then, according to you, there's inherent meaning. Right?

The magnetic field surrounding the earth appears to be another form of already-existing information. We humans aren't aware of it but there are many other creatures that navigate the globe based on what appears to be meaningful data, or information. It could be simple changes in the field to which the creature assigns relative meaning, but our best efforts so far have yet to prove such conditions.

Finding use for something does not imply that the thing has inherent meaning. That's a bizarre line of thinking.

I'm quoting you out of order here because I want to start off with this weaker point, rather than end with it. I would say that this is a terrible argument that you should remove from your collection.

Sure. DNA. It's common to all life and exists without a single human ever needing to discover it. YAny textbook, any research study, and professional treatise on DNA can be picked up, read, and readily observed to speak of the information inherently contained in DNA. Even noted atheist apologists treat it thusly.

This is a line of thinking that I'm much more partial to, if for no other reason than my own ignorance in the field of biology. It's just not my field. Is there inherent meaning in DNA? Hmm, not sure. In my understanding, it's just a chemical reaction.

Here's how I understand information: it doesn't have to be relayed in just one specific medium. I can write "A" in crayon, I can write "A"in sharpie, I can whisper "A", I can shout "A", I can build a wooden statue of "A", I can use my finger to draw an "A" on your back.

Does DNA adhere to this? I'm not sure. Yes, I know that there is a range of foods I can eat to survive on. But arsenic is poisonous because it is directly below phosphorous on the periodic table, which means that its outer electron shell is the same, which is why our bodies mistake arsenic for phosphorous and then try to use it in our DNA (it is the outer part of the helix used for structural support), and doing so inevitably fails. This indicates to me that DNA is not information and is merely a chemical. It is a complex chemical and that allows it to participate in complex chemical chain reactions. But it is just a chemical.

 

[Josheb]

I certainly do not want to 'straw man' you. I've heard God arguments, relating to 'DNA'. If you would not mind, could you furnish an article or video, where some 'atheist apologists' concede or entertain such a discovery?

Nope. Digressive. Also runs the risk of competing appeals to authority (I post an article, then you post one and we're arguing over which is the most veracious, causing further digression).

Do you understand DNA as an example of inherently existing information, or data with inherent meaning?

 

[Josheb]

You made the distinction that information is different from data in that information has meaning. So if there is inherent information, then, according to you, there's inherent meaning. Right?

Words have meaning. I won't be persuaded to use different words, even if the choices are synonymous. Your inquiry is digressive.

Finding use for something does not imply that the thing has inherent meaning. That's a bizarre line of thinking.

The use was not "found." The use existed all along. The use was, is, and will continue in use. It does so whether humans are around to "find" use.

I'm quoting you out of order here because I want to start off with this weaker point, rather than end with it. I would say that this is a terrible argument that you should remove from your collection.

Except it's not a "weaker argument" on my end. The teleology is not in dispute, or if you dispute it then I'll simply acknowledge we disagree and move on. Humans didn't find the use of DNA. We have added to our ability to use DNA, but that is only because that functionality already exists. We didn't "find" the use, we use what has already been in use by the individual organisms apparently since the beginning of life's existence. So, NV, while I appreciate the critical thinking I'd encourage you 1) not to take an adversarial approach and search for holes but instead build from consensus, and 2) you discard this misguided idea humans "found" the use of DNA when in fact DNA is and has been used by organisms apart from human existence for millennia.

This is a line of thinking that I'm much more partial to, if for no other reason than my own ignorance in the field of biology. It's just not my field. Is there inherent meaning in DNA? Hmm, not sure. In my understanding, it's just a chemical reaction.

Here's how I understand information: it doesn't have to be relayed in just one specific medium. I can write "A" in crayon, I can write "A"in sharpie, I can whisper "A", I can shout "A", I can build a wooden statue of "A", I can use my finger to draw an "A" on your back.

Excellent example. An "A," preceded by a "P," and followed by an "R," then followed by an "L," followed by an "E" are identical whether written in crayon or Sharpie, whispered or shouted, built of wood, etc. Those litters, in that order mean the same thing no matter what they are written in. Those letters in that order mean something in English. That is perhaps a meaningless order of letters in Somalian or Japanese. If we were someone who didn't understand English the word those ordered letters form would be meaningless but that word has meaning. Once we understand how to read or hear English we understand the meaning of the ordered letter but it was not our understanding of English that gave the ordered letters meaning. It was our learning English that enabled us to understand the meaning of the word - the meaning that had always existed in that word, whether written in crayon of built of wood.


Something or someone "spoke" a "language." That language is evidentially the oldest language ever discovered by humans. It's written in very, very small letters, not with crayon or Sharpie, but with nucleotides. We didn't know what it was and when discovered we didn't know how to "read" it, or understand it because we didn't know the language. The meaning was not assigned. The meaning already existed.

Yes, I know that there is a range of foods I can eat to survive on. But arsenic is poisonous because it is directly below phosphorous on the periodic table, which means that its outer electron shell is the same, which is why our bodies mistake arsenic for phosphorous and then try to use it in our DNA....

(josh grins) That DNA "tries"? lol. You're not assigning motive, intent, or volition to chemicals are you? This is part of the problem, NV. Watch for it. Even the most ardent of antitheists use language poorly when they speak of these kind of issues. Chemicals don't actually "try" anything. At least not in a strictly materialistic paradigm they don't. If there is some sort of already-existing programming involved then there is a reason affinities for arsenic and phosporous exist. Your particular example speaks of one of the other concerns I broached in my op-reply but I'll stick with the existence of inherent information.

Arsenic is an example of ordered chemical structure. It's not very complex, either. You cannot rearrange the chemicals in arsenic and it still be arsenic. It is not an example of ordered chemicals with meaning. Humans use arsenic attributively. Humans do not assign the meaning of DNA to DNA; we use that meaning functionally, meaning that has already existed long before we understood it.

Those aforementioned letters can be re-arranged to "say" PEAR, instead of PARE, or they can be arranged to say RAPE or PEER or REAP and all still have meaning within the context in which they occur, not a context humans assigned after the fact. RPPR is meaningless in English, so it is a limited analogy (I'm not aware any sequence of CGAT is wholly meaningless).

Does DNA adhere to this? I'm not sure.

Then I encourage you to investigate the matter and to do so as objectively as you can. The existence of inherent information is one of the most resonate arguments for the existence of pre-existing intelligence. Maybe one day that will change, but for now it's a reason for you to reconsider the existence of God and perhaps treat your nihilism nihilistically .

 

[cvanwey]

Nope. Digressive.

?? You made a claim. You stated "Even noted atheist apologists treat it thusly." And by "it", you seem to mean "information inherently contained in DNA".

I'm simply asking you, so that I know exactly what these 'atheists' are conceding, or at least lending credence or weight upon?

Also runs the risk of competing appeals to authority (I post an article, then you post one and we're arguing over which is the most veracious, causing further digression).

Well, you made a claim, regarding an 'appeal to authority' However, DNA is quite a robust topic. I admit I'm not a biologist. Are you?

Let me ask you this....? If I were to pick up a copy of say... "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins.... Would he concede, or treat thusly, what you are claiming in this thread? If not, why not?

The reason I use him, is because he seems to be of the polar opposite, when compared to say... a Christian apologist. I'm not 'appealing to authority'. I just want to know exactly what about inherent information within DNA many noted 'people in the know' are conceding?

Do you understand DNA as an example of inherently existing information, or data with inherent meaning?

Again, I'm not a biologist. Are you? What about it specifically do I need to understand, to relate as such to a claimed "information giver", if that is ultimately what you are claiming?

 

[Josheb]

?? You made a claim. You stated "Even noted atheist apologists treat it thusly." And by "it", you seem to mean "information inherently contained in DNA".

I'm simply asking you, so that I know exactly what these 'atheists' are conceding, or at least lending credence or weight upon?

No, that is not what you are simply asking. Neither did I state atheists "concede" anything. Please take of the kind of thinking that would replace the word "treat" with the word, "concede." Ask yourself "Why is this about conceding or not conceding for me?"

What you are doing is asking for the two of us to get off-topic from the point of discussion. The matter being discussed is the existence of inherent information in the universe, not whether atheists ever said what I say they said. I made that comment as an aside and you are now asking me to prove the aside instead of discussiing the substance upon which the aside is based.

And if the intent is to then argue, "Well since the atheists were never shown to say such a thing then everything else posted must be incorrect," that is a false cause fallacy.

So how about we not do that?


Do you understand DNA as an example of inherently existing information, or data with inherent meaning?

Again, I'm not a biologist. Are you? What about it specifically do I need to understand, to relate as such to a claimed "information giver", if that is ultimately what you are claiming?

What you need to understand has already been posted. What you need to understand is DNA is an example of inherently information existing in the universe. What you need to understand is the existence of inherent information implies a pre-existing intelligence. What you need to understand is biology so you saying, "I'm not a biologist," is irrelevant.

What you need to understand is you are asking me questions I have already answered.

What you need to understand is the fact I don't take kindly to posters asking questions that have already been answered because asking questions that have already been answered is evidence; it is evidence that either the posts are not be read in entirety, the posts are read but not given much thought, or the posts are read, considered, and then the content ignored. None of which is conducive to cogent discourse.




The existence of inherent information is one of the most resonate arguments for theism. If you don't already know about this then I encourage you to investigate this on your own AND to do so objectively AND to do so considering the arguments from both sides, not just the atheist position and definitely not solely from the antitheists' perspective.



So it looks like we're nearing the end of this discussion. What I am receiving is increasingly digressive. I'll assume that was not intentional because the posts indicate manners and respect and that's appreciated. I, personally, don't have much tolerance for digression or fallacy so when content gets ignored, questions already answered get asked, false causes, appeals to authority, and other fallacies creep in then it's time to move on.

The op asks about the most resonate arguments and I answered that inquiry. It appears these matters are new to you so I again encourage you to explore them and give them the consideration they are due. If you have something new and op-relevant or op-reply relevant to post then I'll consider it but I'm not doing more of the above.


Perhaps later, when I have the time to do the work I'll post some quotes from atheists but I won't be discussing the authority of their claims. The veracity of inherent information can be discussed without that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Words have meaning. I won't be persuaded to use different words, even if the choices are synonymous. Your inquiry is digressive.

The use was not "found." The use existed all along. The use was, is, and will continue in use. It does so whether humans are around to "find" use.

Except it's not a "weaker argument" on my end. The teleology is not in dispute, or if you dispute it then I'll simply acknowledge we disagree and move on. Humans didn't find the use of DNA. We have added to our ability to use DNA, but that is only because that functionality already exists. We didn't "find" the use, we use what has already been in use by the individual organisms apparently since the beginning of life's existence. So, NV, while I appreciate the critical thinking I'd encourage you 1) not to take an adversarial approach and search for holes but instead build from consensus, and 2) you discard this misguided idea humans "found" the use of DNA when in fact DNA is and has been used by organisms apart from human existence for millennia.

Excellent example. An "A," preceded by a "P," and followed by an "R," then followed by an "L," followed by an "E" are identical whether written in crayon or Sharpie, whispered or shouted, built of wood, etc. Those litters, in that order mean the same thing no matter what they are written in. Those letters in that order mean something in English. That is perhaps a meaningless order of letters in Somalian or Japanese. If we were someone who didn't understand English the word those ordered letters form would be meaningless but that word has meaning. Once we understand how to read or hear English we understand the meaning of the ordered letter but it was not our understanding of English that gave the ordered letters meaning. It was our learning English that enabled us to understand the meaning of the word - the meaning that had always existed in that word, whether written in crayon of built of wood.


Something or someone "spoke" a "language." That language is evidentially the oldest language ever discovered by humans. It's written in very, very small letters, not with crayon or Sharpie, but with nucleotides. We didn't know what it was and when discovered we didn't know how to "read" it, or understand it because we didn't know the language. The meaning was not assigned. The meaning already existed.

(josh grins) That DNA "tries"? lol. You're not assigning motive, intent, or volition to chemicals are you? This is part of the problem, NV. Watch for it. Even the most ardent of antitheists use language poorly when they speak of these kind of issues. Chemicals don't actually "try" anything. At least not in a strictly materialistic paradigm they don't. If there is some sort of already-existing programming involved then there is a reason affinities for arsenic and phosporous exist. Your particular example speaks of one of the other concerns I broached in my op-reply but I'll stick with the existence of inherent information.

Arsenic is an example of ordered chemical structure. It's not very complex, either. You cannot rearrange the chemicals in arsenic and it still be arsenic. It is not an example of ordered chemicals with meaning. Humans use arsenic attributively. Humans do not assign the meaning of DNA to DNA; we use that meaning functionally, meaning that has already existed long before we understood it.

Those aforementioned letters can be re-arranged to "say" PEAR, instead of PARE, or they can be arranged to say RAPE or PEER or REAP and all still have meaning within the context in which they occur, not a context humans assigned after the fact. RPPR is meaningless in English, so it is a limited analogy (I'm not aware any sequence of CGAT is wholly meaningless).

Then I encourage you to investigate the matter and to do so as objectively as you can. The existence of inherent information is one of the most resonate arguments for the existence of pre-existing intelligence. Maybe one day that will change, but for now it's a reason for you to reconsider the existence of God and perhaps treat your nihilism nihilistically .

Let me highlight this part:

"(josh grins) That DNA 'tries'? lol. You're not assigning motive, intent, or volition to chemicals are you? This is part of the problem, NV."

Hmm. You are hyper-focused on semantics to the point that you're saying information is different from data (you're wrong) because information is what we glean from data (conclusions are what we glean from data, and data is synonymous with information), and you're saying that information (by which you mean conclusion) has meaning. You then say that there is inherent information in nature, and it then follows from your own argument that there is inherent meaning in nature. Yet you dispute this.

And despite all of this, all of your supposed attention to detail, you can't even get right what I said. Go back and read it again. See that? I said our bodies try to make use of arsenic. I didn't say DNA tries to do anything. My post is unedited.

Not only are you wrong in nearly everything you say, but you aren't even consistent in following your own argument nor in applying the same level of semantics to mine that you attempt to apply to yours.

So now that you've lost this game of being a smart aleck, let's cut through all your ramblings and get to the heart of the issue. You agreed with my characterization of information (that it can be relayed in multiple media) and you didn't answer my question (can DNA be relayed in multiple media?). Instead, you told me to do my own research.

Well here I am, doing online research. I'm asking the expert. You're saying there's inherent information in nature. You said that DNA is an example. You've agreed that information can be expressed in multiple media. Now, square this circle for me please. Thanks!

 

[cvanwey]

You again, appear very hostile. You are making assumptions about me, and then attacking them; when in fact, are not my intended arguments, points, or responses for which I'm trying to convey. Please re-read what I say again, and please understand... I'm merely trying to gain a more clear grasp, as to exactly what you are implying... See below...

No, that is not what you are simply asking.

Yes it is, unless you know me better than I know myself.

Neither did I state atheists "concede" anything. Please take of the kind of thinking that would replace the word "treat" with the word, "concede." Ask yourself "Why is this about conceding or not conceding for me?"

I simply want to know what specific point(s) some atheists, in the public arena, are lending discussion to? This way, I can see exactly WHAT point(s) of reference [you] are coming from? Again, I do not want to 'straw man' you. I need further clarification above and beyond your brief description thus far. See below...

What you are doing is asking for the two of us to get off-topic from the point of discussion.

Not the reason I am asking... I'm asking so I know exactly what guided points you are interested in, within this seemingly vast topic?

The matter being discussed is the existence of inherent information in the universe, not whether atheists ever said what I say they said. I made that comment as an aside and you are now asking me to prove the aside instead of discussiing the substance upon which the aside is based.

Negative. As stated from post #26: "I just want to know exactly what about inherent information within DNA many noted 'people in the know' are conceding?" And instead of 'conceding', I'll adjust the word to 'exploring', 'considering', other... :)

And if the intent is to then argue, "Well since the atheists were never shown to say such a thing then everything else posted must be incorrect," that is a false cause fallacy.

Nope... See above

So how about we not do that?

Do you understand DNA as an example of inherently existing information, or data with inherent meaning?

Hate to answer a question with a question, but I feel it deserves it's due...

Do you understand intentional agency?
Do you understand free will?
Do you understand democracy?
Do you understand faith?

Not to digress... I could say yes to all of the above. But I would first like to hear more about your specific point(s) before I offer a response. Because like I stated, the subject is broad, and we might not focus on the same pieces within the inter-workings of the topic, as a whole.

I'm making every effort to hear your entire argument before I response. And like I stated prior, if I so happen to agree, then the debate may be short to none?.?.?

If you are not willing to offer any more, than I'm almost positive you will not like my response; to what you have provided thus far

 

[Josheb]

You again, appear very hostile.

And now you've made it personal.

NH apparently thinks, "Hmm. You are hyper-focused on semantics..." is a cogent response.

So guys, I appreciated the cogent discourse while it lasted but it's run its course. I don't know why the difficulty staying on topic occurred but I don't much care about the why. I've said my piece and see no reason to stick around for more fallacious replies. Inherent information, creatures knowing the knowable and the simultaneous existence of both chaos and (immensely complex and structured) order are three of the most resonate arguments in the apologetic debate between theism and non-theism and I encourage you to explore them.

 

[cvanwey]

And now you've made it personal.

NH apparently thinks, "Hmm. You are hyper-focused on semantics..." is a cogent response.

So guys, I appreciated the cogent discourse while it lasted but it's run its course. I don't know why the difficulty staying on topic occurred but I don't much care about the why. I've said my piece and see no reason to stick around for more fallacious replies. Inherent information, creatures knowing the knowable and the simultaneous existence of both chaos and (immensely complex and structured) order are three of the most resonate arguments in the apologetic debate between theism and non-theism and I encourage you to explore them.

I'm trying to explore the first one here, with you.

And who says I haven't explored them? I have, but yet, to of found an argument entirely too compelling for theism. But maybe I have yet to hear an angle, for which you have heard? If you do not care to extrapolate, then I guess we are done?

 

[Josheb]

I'm trying to explore the first one here, with you.

No, you are not. There are simply too many fallacious responses to support such a claim. Now defensiveness can be added to the list.


Do you understand the concept of inherent information?

Do you understand DNA as an example of inherent information?

 

[cvanwey]

No, you are not. There are simply too many fallacious responses to support such a claim. Now defensiveness can be added to the list.


Do you understand the concept of inherent information?

Do you understand DNA as an example of inherent information?

Yes

Yes

Okay, now can you elaborate upon your point(s)? If not, please look to my prior responses, which shed light as to why I'm treading lightly here

 

[Josheb]

Yes

Yes

Okay, now can you elaborate upon your point(s)?

What is it you think needs elaborating? I read an affirmation of the existence of inherent information (as I defined the term) and I read an affirmation of DNA as such an example.

Perhaps I should as this:

Do you understand the existence of information (data with meaning) to imply some prior existing intelligence?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sad.

 

[cvanwey]

What is it you think needs elaborating? I read an affirmation of the existence of inherent information (as I defined the term) and I read an affirmation of DNA as such an example.

Perhaps I should as this:

Do you understand the existence of information (data with meaning) to imply some prior existing intelligence?

Good bye

 

[Ophiolite]

Here's my question(s) to all the ones, whom are legitimately undecided....

Does the apologetics forum arena lend any 'knowledge', and possibly persuade or facilitate any particular position one way or the other? Or are you folks here merely for entertainment, other?

Is there any arguments, which resonate more-so than others? If so, how so? And what might those arguments and/or subject matter be?

Although you say you are interested only in the responses of the undecided you also ask are we here "merely for entertainment, other?" That created sufficient ambiguity for me to reply. (In one sense I am undecided, in that I am always ready to change my mind if sufficient reasons are provided.)

One reason, perhaps the reason I visit any forum, is to expose myself to alternate views. In the Apologetics section I find the variety of arguments in defence of some or all aspects of Christianity quite fascinating. Some of these arguments are simplistic, fatuous, rambling, offensive, some possibly even heretical, while others are incisive, informative, inspiring, engaging, penetrating, skilfully constructed and elegantly presented.

The former simply remind that there are fools everywhere and the latter make me proud to be part of a literate humanity. Neither, so far, have moved me further or closer to Christianity, but they have all extended my understanding of people. That's not a bad return for 1/2 hour every now and then.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Good bye

I wasn't reading the back-and-forth all that much between you two. Did you get him off his script also? Because between me and him, it was just basically one left hook and he dodged my uppercut by crashing his head into the mat for a KO. Lol.

Kinda sad to see him tuck tail and run like this though. Would've liked to see more willingness to pursue the logic wherever it goes, but of course we got the usual attempts to funnel the logic into the predetermined conclusion instead.

 

[cvanwey]

I wasn't reading the back-and-forth all that much between you two. Did you get him off his script also? Because between me and him, it was just basically one left hook and he dodged my uppercut by crashing his head into the mat for a KO. Lol.

Well, we didn't even get that far. I found the exchange quite bazaar? I gathered his specific point could possibly be construed in a number of directions... Kind of like if someone stated they believe in 'free will'. It is a huge topic. I was actually trying to completely narrow the field, before I even would attempt to offer my view. In the end, I still felt that maybe his view would be nothing more than fallacious (i.e.) 'argument from ignorance' or 'god of the gaps'. I didn't want to even suggest this response, as of yet. I wanted to grant him every opportunity to demonstrate otherwise first. He instead appeared very frustrated, made accusations, and seemed quite irritated.

But yea, seems as though he wanted to promote a specific angle, and never wanted to divulge exactly what that angle was; and when it did not go exactly how he thought, or how he wanted it to go, he wasn't going to have it....

I learned a while ago, that conversations hardly ever go 'as planned.'

Kinda sad to see him tuck tail and run like this though. Would've liked to see more willingness to pursue the logic wherever it goes, but of course we got the usual attempts to funnel the logic into the predetermined conclusion instead.

Yea, I was hoping for a more fruitful exchange. Seemed like too much emotion got in the way of any possibility

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But yea, seems as though he wanted to promote a specific angle, and never wanted to divulge exactly what that angle was; and when it did not go exactly how he thought, or how he wanted it to go, he wasn't going to have it....

I learned a while ago, that conversations hardly ever go 'as planned.'

So basically, as I thought, we got him off the script and he had nothing from there. Seen it a billion times.