My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[miknik5]

I don't understand your meaning: are you saying we are all missing a limb?

I also don't understand how a one winged plane could fly.

I'm not getting the analogy.

We were like sheep who had gone astray. All of us. We went about our ways in a sorry state not even knowing how lost we were and with no hope

Until HOPE came

 

[AV1611VET]

Please clarify V2 for me?

V2 is the "takeoff safety speed;" it's the speed an aircraft with one engine inoperative must be able to attain in order to leave the runway and be 35 feet off the ground at the end of the runway, and then maintain a 200 ft/min climb thereafter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sir, I don't know if you're interested in this conversation at all or not - tell me straight if not, please. Do you think that we can see in nature, an intelligence of unimaginable complexity and harmony, that we can call "laws of nature", or "God" as a personified and anthropomorphic entity. No matter how we approach this phenomenon that we both do observe, and not matter in which terms we express the same idea. Do you think so? Thinking most most broadly. I know you probably reject "God" as an "old man in heaven" idea, but not in its manifestation in the utmost perfection, balance, consistency and beauty in the world we know?

"perfect" as compared to what?
"balanced" as compared to what?
"consistent" as compared to what?

And "beauty" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

If you understand what I mean.

I don't.

We observe the same reality, but you are the one who's adding things to it, which aren't part of the observations.

You know, there's been sooo much fighting-fighting just for the sake of fighting, or playing all sorts of games from all sides for whatever self-puffing reasons, that sometimes I get tired and just want to sit down and find a common ground of our humanity and zeal to know more. I'm sincere.

I wish to find common ground also. But it's kind of a hard thing to do when one side insists on including things that aren't observable, detectable, measureable, testable, falsifiable,.... in short: indistinguishable from the non-existant or just plain old imagination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

FYI: I know you're not posting this to me.. I'll assume you don't mind me answering it anyway.

I get it. However, can't you try and step back a mile or so, and look at the forest and not the trees?

To continue with this metafore, the problem is that you are asking us to look at a forest that isn't actually visible.

Example: you do accept the body of laws of nature, don't you?

Sure.

I like to call it God

I like to call them "laws of nature".
See, we already have a word for those things. Calling them something else, doesn't change the nature of those things.

Calling them "god", especially, is very confusing. The word "god" comes with a WHOLE load of baggage, none of which is appropriate to be used as a descriptive label for the forces/laws of nature.

Or you insist on only a certain way of describing it?

I insist on using language correctly. A table is a table and not a chair.
Sure, you could choose that "for you", table means chair and chair means table. But you'll only end up confusing the people you are talking to.

When you say to someone "laws / forces of nature", they know what you are talking about. Things like gravity, electro-magnetism, etc.

When you suddenly decide to substitute that label with "god", nobody will know you are actually talking about gravity etc.

This is how communication and language works.

I'm not pulling you into any fairy tales, just hard reality we see, feel, know.

Sure. And that "hard reality" doesn't include any "supernatural" shenannigans.

I will not turn around and arrogantly declare you a believer in God, or anything. Just trying to change the tone of conversation from confrontational to unifying, if you see what I mean...

Well.... as I said in the previous post.... It is you (in general, as in "theists") that are adding things to reality, which do not manifest.

If you wish to talk to us in a "unifying" manner, to identify "common ground"... well, that's rather easy... Just talk about observable reality, without adding any things to it that have no manifestation. There's your "common ground", right there....

 

[miknik5]

Where are we? Are we on a Christian website?

I don't understand why there is that side who can't understand that this should and will include GOD

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where are we? Are we on a Christian website?

More specifically, we are in the open "science" section of a christian forum.

I don't understand why there is that side who can't understand that this should and will include GOD

Because in science, we only include things that have measureable manifestation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... my spontaneous suggestion would be. Father - as most basic underlying intelligence, the very fact of existence of the inevitable laws of nature (not an idea usually explicitely presented by science, but nevertheless a de-facto acsiom). Son - all matter. Spirit - the forces of interaction. So, "God" is not so correlating to particular divisions of our knowledge of the observable world (Theory of Relativity / Thermodynamics / Quantum Physics) - which all fundamentally have the same object of study.

The point remains, if you arbitrarily label natural phenomena with religious terminology that has a specific and completely different meaning to everyone else, you have a - quite unnecessary - recipe for confusion. Why do it? what's the point?

Are you a pantheist, by any chance?

 

[miknik5]

More specifically, we are in the open "science" section of a christian forum.



Because in science, we only include things that have measureable manifestation.

Where the "scientists" don't want to hear about GOD.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where the "scientists" don't want to hear about GOD.

False. Rather: "where the scientists only want to hear about things that have measureable manifestation".

Like I said in some other thread...
"not including" something, is not the same as actively "excluding" it.

 

[miknik5]

False. Rather: "where the scientists only want to hear about things that have measureable manifestation".

Like I said in some other thread...
"not including" something, is not the same as actively "excluding" it.

Why are you here in a Christian website then. Did you expect to only hear scientists discussing what they want to hear and what they base their understanding of the material world on?

Do you regard that there even is a spiritual realm to begin with and spirits?

 

[miknik5]

You have no right to actively try to exclude it just because you yourself don't understand and base your understanding on material things You do know that correct?

 

[miknik5]

We aren't talking about science and religion which are both simply schools of thought on how a man understands and communicates how he behaves and relates in this present existence

We are discussing science and GOD

And HE kind of trumps every thing

 

[VirOptimus]

You have no right to actively try to exclude it just because you yourself don't understand and base your understanding on material things You do know that correct?

Science deals with physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[miknik5]

Science deals with physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.

We are discussing these things with Christians on a Christian forum. The "scientists" should expect to hear about GOD

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you here in a Christian website then.

I think it's fun to discuss science with science deniers.

Did you expect to only hear scientists discussing what they want to hear and what they base their understanding of the material world on?

Not at all. I expect to see fundamentalist theists expose their utter ignorance and denial concerning the subject matters.

Do you regard that there even is a spiritual realm to begin with and spirits?

I have no reason to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no right to actively try to exclude it

Did you not read what I said?
I said that in science, they'll only include that which can be supported. And that "not including" something (for the reason that it can't be supported) is not the same as actively excluding it.

So, I'm not "actively excluding" gods just like I'm not "actively excluding" undetectable pixies that make my grass grow.

The things is that I require reasons to include something. And I have no such reasons to include gods or other supernatural things. So I don't.

just because you yourself don't understand and base your understanding on material things

It is not about understanding or "materialism". It is about being rationally justified in what you do and do not consider a factor in things.

I have no rational reason to include things that have no measureable manifestation, that have no detectable presence or influence in any possible way. So I don't.

You do know that correct?

Most of all, it's a misrepresentation of what my actual stance is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We aren't talking about science and religion which are both simply schools of thought on how a man understands and communicates how he behaves and relates in this present existence

We are discussing science and GOD

Science deals with demonstrable reality. Gods aren't a part of demonstrable reality.
It didn't have to be that way. But it happens to be that way.

Don't blame me for that.

And HE kind of trumps every thing

You can repeat that till you are blue in the face, but it will remain a bare assertion until you can actually demonstrate this to be the case.

If you get to simply assert this without evidence, then I get to simply reject this without evidence.

Just like you do with all other assertions that aren't supported by evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

We aren't talking about science and religion which are both simply schools of thought on how a man understands and communicates how he behaves and relates in this present existence

We are discussing science and GOD

And HE kind of trumps every thing

However, your evidence-free assertions and claims about a supernatural deity trump nothing.

 

[Larniavc]

We were like sheep who had gone astray. All of us. We went about our ways in a sorry state not even knowing how lost we were and with no hope

Until HOPE came

I still don't understand. What does that have to do with IC?

FWI: I'm not a religious person so I don't think we are sheep who are in need of hope.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

"perfect" as compared to what?
"balanced" as compared to what?
"consistent" as compared to what?

And "beauty" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.



I don't.

We observe the same reality, but you are the one who's adding things to it, which aren't part of the observations.



I wish to find common ground also. But it's kind of a hard thing to do when one side insists on including things that aren't observable, detectable, measureable, testable, falsifiable,.... in short: indistinguishable from the non-existant or just plain old imagination.

I totally, totally agree 100% with you. Very clearly said. I can sign under every word. I'm as skeptic and realist as you, I hope to think. But you know, just think - not matter this conversation (I understand you) - and just think, are you cutting off smth just being scared to believe in nonsense or pure fantasy, i.e. a lie? Are you so scared of this bad thing, that you become too much throwing out that really is reality? That is the thing, you know. Just think. If I'm delusional, my problem - and thank you for telling me straight. I soooo value truth and straight talk, than all the tons of BS around, sorry for this kind of language. But if you really disregard smth that even you might hold to de-facto - is it good? Only a suggestion, not a firm declaration you are doing it.