Logic..... anyone?

[Jet Black]

Once probability decreases to one in several thousand magnitudes, all scientific and philosophic thought DO equate it with zero. Statistically speaking, such an eponential probability is, by life itself, raised to literally the power of infinity; several times.

And to say "our existence necessiates the removal of PROBABILITY-ZERO from the body of scientific thought", exposes the bias behind the argument: THAT EVEN CONSIDERING HYPERDIMENSIONAL BIO-ENGINEERING-INTELIGENCE is by DEFINITION STUPID.

-------------------------------------

Of course, reading or listening takes a degree of "intellectual honesty"; a Willingness to listen to rational discourse. If someone is CLOSED-MINDED (which is the opposite of "scientific"), then no consideration will be given at all to "intelligent design"...

I will read those things later if I have time, apologies if I don't.

on with the debate:
when the probablility of something is so small, it is regarded as "vanishingly small" and in general, you are correct, in that it is regarded for practical purposes as zero. However the mathematical statement is never made that 10^-1000 = 0. it is still finite

incidentally, if you are going to use numbers and say several thousand magnitudes, and introduce infinities, then I would like to see them before I comment on them.

your final argument is also flawed: the very fact that life exists demonstrates that the processes that allow life to exist in this universe exist. Unless of course you are wishing to claim of course that there is some element in life that is external to the universe. You will of course need to provide some evidence for this on something really simple like a bacterium or a virus, or a strand of RNA. the removal of a probability of zero does force us to discard the possibility of an extra universal entity having started life off, but then the extra universal entity is then demoted to "just another possibility"

 

[tcampen]

When looking at odds within the biological framework of evolution, or even abiogenesis, it is easy to mislead.

Numbers like 1 in 10 to the 256th power make the probabilities of that event seem so distant, that they become too improbable to believe, thus making a supernatural cause more believable.

There are several flaws with this thinking. First, unless a numerical probabability can be assigned to the supernatural cause, it is intellectually dishonest to claim it is more probable.

Second, these astronomical odds are almost always misleading and do not represent current scientific thinking. They tend to skip many intermediate steps, going from nothing to a complex organizism, for example.

Third, even accepting such astronomical odds for the sake of argument, there is no requirement that all those zeros need be used up before the sought after result occurs. It could just as easily occur on the first try.

Finally, these probabilities are always addressed as sequential events, rather than simultaneous. The forming the simplest replicating protein may be one in a million billion, but when you have billions, or even trillions, of events happening simultaneously, and sequentially, the odds become essentially inevitable.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[vajradhara]

How about before calling oneself either atheist or christian (or what have you) a person is required to study... oh... Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, Russell, Quine, Barwise... etc. etc.

"Logic" is nice, important (vital, really).... but its the concepts that people use that terrify me. Its a severe barometer drop sometimes when people talk/post. Why? Has everyone gone "stupid?" I doubt it, I think folks are just overzealous (maybe like the starter of this thread?)

Namaste....

do i have to study western philosophers? can't i study the eastern philsophers like Shantideva, Nagarajuna, Bodhagusha and Lao Dan?

western philosophy always seem to be a mechanisitc view of things... whereas i have a LI view of things. Li is a Chinese worldview of things and is very different than that of the westerner.

though i do like Russell... and rather enjoy reading Hawkings works as well...

 

[Michali]

Well perhaps you could provide some reason to believe each (or any one) of the following claims:

Try to think far enough outside of the box to question just what all this is. Not really what it is made out of, but what existence IS. It's hard to explain in words. Try to think that someone had to invent all of this out of nothing- Think about my meaning on "nothing". Its kinda like trying to imagine an all new basic color. We can't. We always think of a color we've seen before. Could a blind man? No, he would not be able to grasp the concept of sight. Concieving existence would be like not being able to see and then imagining what it would be like. Or moving a point into a new dimension. When you think of that "nothing", you can think of existence as being a part of something.

It is very difficult to explain this.

 

[Brimshack]

You're all over the place. And asking someone you disagree with to think outside the box isn't very useful. It is entirely possible that you are the one trapped in conventional limitations. And the difficulty you are having putting it all in words is perhaps far more serious than you think. Until you can phrase what you are trying to say more clearly, I would invite you to ponder the very real possibility that you don't have any idea to put into words here at all. Mysticism always pretends its confusion hides a gem of wisdom, but often it isn't hiding anything at all.

 

[Ben johnson]

your final argument is also flawed: the very fact that life exists demonstrates that the processes that allow life to exist in this universe exist.

No, we agree that the PROCESSES that allow life to exist, EXIST. What I was sayin', is that the idea: "the EXISTENCE of life demonstrates that the probability of CHANCE EVOLUTION being greater than zero" --- is an example of circular reasoning. IOW, "the PROOF of evolution is that LIFE HAPPENED" (displaying disdain for considering any OTHER process THAN evolution). THAT LIFE EXISTS does demonstrate "life-processes-also-exist"; what remains to be debated, is whether those LIFE-PROCESSES have a greater likelihood of RAnDOM CHANCE OCCURANCE, or INTELLIGENT DESIGN...

Unless of course you are wishing to claim that there is some element in life that is external to the universe.

I think the concept of "irreducible complexity" provides just such an element. Those discussing "bio-genesis" have finally admitted that "a cellular wall must exist to contain and empower DNA, but no cellular wall occurs except FROM genetic processes". Thus far-fetched theories are proposed, such as "life may have evolved in porous volcanic cavities in rocks surrounding "BLACK SMOKERS"... (Ignoring that cellular walls are far more complex; with receptor sites, capable of passing fluids and nutrients, SELECTIVE admission, etc.)

Never forget that "spontaneous generation" occurred TWICE, SIMULTANEOUSLY; first a CELL, second MITOCHONDREA; then physical (and extremely WELL-AIMED) "accidents" introduced the two, commencing symbiosis...

(How many conversations do you have where you get to say things like "commencing symbiosis"?)

 

[Michali]

You're all over the place. And asking someone you disagree with to think outside the box isn't very useful. It is entirely possible that you are the one trapped in conventional limitations. And the difficulty you are having putting it all in words is perhaps far more serious than you think. Until you can phrase what you are trying to say more clearly, I would invite you to ponder the very real possibility that you don't have any idea to put into words here at all. Mysticism always pretends its confusion hides a gem of wisdom, but often it isn't hiding anything at all.

Oh well. That was the best I could do it.

Its a very real thought though: the nothingness. Nothingness not being absence of matter, but being absense of space itself. Too often we take for granted all that we consider fact. The only way to put it is think of reality as a creation and what there was before that.

What is all this? Matter is composed of charged particles. Negative, positive, and nuetral. Is everything just electrical in this universe? If so, what IS it: positive and negative.

I'm sorry if this isn't helping, but you're probably thinking my difficulty with explaining my theory is because it isn't worth explaining.

 

[theadroitoppressor]

I realize my post failed to justify my point. I did not want to take someone’s post and use it as my example. I felt that if I singled someone out without his or her permission would be wrong. Also I thought it would be a waste of time to try to predict every objection so I didn’t post a bunch of common rebuttals. So I was hoping to have some people post on here that might not believe in God and would be willing to debate his existence. Sorry for all the confusion.

Keep cool; Later
Dan

 

[Brimshack]

Actually, Michali, I'm just thinking that the concept you are trying to explain does nothing to advance a belief in God. Failure to understand how the universe came into being, or even if it ever had a beginning is just that lack of understanding. In and of itself it does nothing to point the way towards belief in God.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Logic??? nah...i am full on faith.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

Perhaps my post came across as a bit more confrontational then I had intended. But I fail to see anyone who has countered my point. If you honestly think that I "espouse the virtues of the abstract" then you abandon the most logical explanation of existence in the world. We know the Bible to be the most accurate documentation of its time period. As well as all the laws and provisions that are made able to be justified through logic. The reason for my post was to have a nice thorough debate with people who felt strongly against my acceptance of God. Not to slander them for disagreeing with me. I suppose it is easy to say I have abandoned rudimentary logic, or compare me to some Monty Python movie I have never seen. However you still fail to provide convicting evidence to disprove my ideal. Oh and I apologize if my posts are poorly worded. I have a very basic educational background.

Keep cool; Later,
Dan

How is it the most accurate...because interpretations are often subjective and misinterpreted for the personal purposes of the one interpreting...

I reject god in all forms, debate me

 

[tcampen]

No, we agree that the PROCESSES that allow life to exist, EXIST. What I was sayin', is that the idea: "the EXISTENCE of life demonstrates that the probability of CHANCE EVOLUTION being greater than zero" --- is an example of circular reasoning. IOW, "the PROOF of evolution is that LIFE HAPPENED" (displaying disdain for considering any OTHER process THAN evolution). THAT LIFE EXISTS does demonstrate "life-processes-also-exist"; what remains to be debated, is whether those LIFE-PROCESSES have a greater likelihood of RAnDOM CHANCE OCCURANCE, or INTELLIGENT DESIGN...
I think the concept of "irreducible complexity" provides just such an element. Those discussing "bio-genesis" have finally admitted that "a cellular wall must exist to contain and empower DNA, but no cellular wall occurs except FROM genetic processes". Thus far-fetched theories are proposed, such as "life may have evolved in porous volcanic cavities in rocks surrounding "BLACK SMOKERS"... (Ignoring that cellular walls are far more complex; with receptor sites, capable of passing fluids and nutrients, SELECTIVE admission, etc.)

Wouldn't it be easy if it were really all as you assert? Unfortunately it is not. Ideas like "irreducible complexity" are most certainly NOT scientific principles, but rather baseless premises concocked by creationists. And I'm not aware of any real abiogenesi scientist who proposes that such complex organizisms with cellular walls spontaneously formed. There are many, many in between steps creationists consistently forget or avoid.

And trying to assert that natural theories for the origin of life are less likely than a supernatural origin is absolutely meaningless until you can accurately assign a value of probability to the supernatural origin. Can you do that? What is it? 1 in 10 to the 5th power? 50th power? 2389478th power? Even accepting the falacious arguments of odds of a natural origins to be too astronomical to have occured, until some odds are assigned to the competing concept comparison is irrelevant. Let's keep it honest, now.

No real scientist believes we are even close to anwering these very, very difficult questions, but great progress has been made. Are you proposing that all these great minds are just wasting their time and energy when its really so obvious that god just thought it all into existence? How silly they are indeed.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

the belief that god could just exist without explanation as to his occurance negates the necessity for a creator.

Intelligent design leaves an infinite loop open and unexplained (what made god? what made that creature? what made that one? and that one? and that one?....)

Probability is not an issue...unless you were willing to look at the probability of ONE religious text being the true word of god out of all literary works that could be construed as prophetic in nature.
The problem with creationists is, they ASSERT (note, I DID NOT SAY THEORIZE) that evolution is illogical, and then go on to replace it with something that makes EVEN LESS SENSE THAN EVOLUTION.

About the no simple beings have ever formed a more complex creature in human history argument...ever heard of a Volvox? It is a spherical creature made up of individual algae cells that work synergistically to survive.

And about the thermodynamics mistake...the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems and the sun-earth system is most definitely OPEN!

theres some handy dandy refutations! for arguments in here as well as not in here LOL

 

[Ben johnson]

I'm not aware of any real abiogenesi scientist who proposes that such complex organizisms with cellular walls spontaneously formed. There are many, many in between steps creationists consistently forget or avoid.

Really! Care to LIST a FEW of those steps? One or two? Let's pretend that the Miller/Urey experiment was NOT a fraud (that nature could produce the "amino acid trap" to protect the products, that either the geological stack is WRONG and there WAS no free oxygen OR oxygen would NOT poison the experiment, etcetera) --- you stand there with Stanley's experiment in your LEFT hand, and the FIRST SIMPLE PRIMITIVE CELL in your RIGHT hand (it has GENES and can REPRODUCE) --- in between you have --- WHAT? Name FIVE intermediate steps! Name ONE???

And trying to assert that natural theories for the origin of life are less likely than a supernatural origin is absolutely meaningless until you can accurately assign a value of probability to the supernatural origin. Can you do that?

I find it FAR more credible that life was DESIGNED. How would a COWPER'S gland come into existence by natural selection? How could FEATHERS happen by chance? On and on. Probability of ID? If you admit the POSSIBILITY of an "extradimensional intelligence", then the probability of intelligent design approaches unity...

No real scientist believes we are even close to anwering these very, very difficult questions, but great progress has been made.

What progress? Specifically? And, yes they are NOT "close to answering", but they just BELIEVE --- and with ultimate hypocrisy condemn the faith of Christians...

Are you proposing that all these great minds are just wasting their time and energy when its really so obvious that god just thought it all into existence?

Mmmmmmm... yes.

How silly they are indeed.

It's not silly at all. It satisfies a much more basic need; and Jesus explains it very well in Jn3:19-20.

the belief that god could just exist without explanation as to his occurance negates the necessity for a creator.

Intelligent design leaves an infinite loop open and unexplained (what made god? what made that creature? what made that one? and that one? and that one?....)

Have you ever read "FLATLAND"? They were ILL-EQUIPPED to understand the concept of a "sphere", weren't they? We may be equally ill-equipped to understand "TIME" --- but time itself may be only a LOCAL PHENOMENA.

Answer a simple question, if you're game? Consider a basic equation:
T' = Tº (1 - V²/C²)[sup]½[/sup]

With me? Time dialates with velocity. Relative to the "fixed-frame", as velocity V approaches the speed-of-light-C, the parenthetical quantity approaches ZERO, so of course the square ROOT of zero is ALSO zero. Time approaches zero. With me so far?

Now define TIME for a PHOTON. It is moving AT the speed of light, but relative to US its time is ZERO; all of eternity happens for our pet photon, in an INSTANT. How is that possible? That photon EXISTS IN OUR TIME FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT! What's your explanation? And the photon can be CREATED or ABSORBED by electron transition; again, how can that be, if its time is ZERO?

What if TIME had a BEGINNING? What if TIME can END? Our known unverse has absolute edges; time is, after all, only a dimension --- why can't TIME have edges?

And about the thermodynamics mistake...the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems and the sun-earth system is most definitely OPEN!

Depends on how you define the BOUNDARY. Suppose I was an irresponsible manufacturer, drawing a boundary around my "dump"; I would therefore view it as an OPEN SYSTEM; would I be RIGHT? Could I POLLUTE? Of course not; the system is OPEN, but only up to a DIFFERENT BOUNDARY...

Thermodynamcs is allowed to be ignored, IF AND ONLY IF:
1. There is an ENERGY INPUT
2. There is an OPERATING PROGRAM

In contending that "life wrote its own program", evolutionists violate the foundations of thermodynamics. And they KNOW this; lately there has been interest in "ANTI-CHAOS", the conjecture that "undiscovered attractors and boundaries may REQUIRE chaos to seemingly invert".

Sounds very much like faith born of desperation to me...

(BTW, interesting link I found about Miller/Urey)...

 

[Ben johnson]

"dilates"

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

Really! Care to LIST a FEW of those steps? One or two? Let's pretend that the Miller/Urey experiment was NOT a fraud (that nature could produce the "amino acid trap" to protect the products, that either the geological stack is WRONG and there WAS no free oxygen OR oxygen would NOT poison the experiment, etcetera) --- you stand there with Stanley's experiment in your LEFT hand, and the FIRST SIMPLE PRIMITIVE CELL in your RIGHT hand (it has GENES and can REPRODUCE) --- in between you have --- WHAT? Name FIVE intermediate steps! Name ONE???
I find it FAR more credible that life was DESIGNED. How would a COWPER'S gland come into existence by natural selection? How could FEATHERS happen by chance? On and on. Probability of ID? If you admit the POSSIBILITY of an "extradimensional intelligence", then the probability of intelligent design approaches unity...
What progress? Specifically? And, yes they are NOT "close to answering", but they just BELIEVE --- and with ultimate hypocrisy condemn the faith of Christians...
Mmmmmmm... yes.
It's not silly at all. It satisfies a much more basic need; and Jesus explains it very well in Jn3:19-20.
Have you ever read "FLATLAND"? They were ILL-EQUIPPED to understand the concept of a "sphere", weren't they? We may be equally ill-equipped to understand "TIME" --- but time itself may be only a LOCAL PHENOMENA.

Answer a simple question, if you're game? Consider a basic equation:
T' = Tº (1 - V²/C²)[sup]½[/sup]

With me? Time dialates with velocity. Relative to the "fixed-frame", as velocity V approaches the speed-of-light-C, the parenthetical quantity approaches ZERO, so of course the square ROOT of zero is ALSO zero. Time approaches zero. With me so far?

Now define TIME for a PHOTON. It is moving AT the speed of light, but relative to US its time is ZERO; all of eternity happens for our pet photon, in an INSTANT. How is that possible? That photon EXISTS IN OUR TIME FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT! What's your explanation? And the photon can be CREATED or ABSORBED by electron transition; again, how can that be, if its time is ZERO?

What if TIME had a BEGINNING? What if TIME can END? Our known unverse has absolute edges; time is, after all, only a dimension --- why can't TIME have edges?

Depends on how you define the BOUNDARY. Suppose I was an irresponsible manufacturer, drawing a boundary around my "dump"; I would therefore view it as an OPEN SYSTEM; would I be RIGHT? Could I POLLUTE? Of course not; the system is OPEN, but only up to a DIFFERENT BOUNDARY...

Thermodynamcs is allowed to be ignored, IF AND ONLY IF:
1. There is an ENERGY INPUT
2. There is an OPERATING PROGRAM

In contending that "life wrote its own program", evolutionists violate the foundations of thermodynamics. And they KNOW this; lately there has been interest in "ANTI-CHAOS", the conjecture that "undiscovered attractors and boundaries may REQUIRE chaos to seemingly invert".

Sounds very much like faith born of desperation to me...

(BTW, interesting link I found about Miller/Urey)...

And faith in god is not born of desperation?

Man made god because man is afraid to die, but MORE afraid to live without definite purpose.

Lets assume you had a point...god would still be a less sensical assumption to replace current theory...

It is quite nice to think a big man is looking out for us all...but I simply can't see how the science of evolution can possibly be replaced by the assertion of creation and we could possibly assume that to be an improvement.

You never answered the volvox assertion, LOL.

Time can't have edges because the universe doesnt seem to have edges and as long as matter itself has no definite boundary NEITHER WILL TIME.

Science will never have all the answers, but it will NEVER make up for a lack of knowledge by attributing anything to myth.