My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thing is, I think, your approach is at fault. You separate, you cut reality into pieces.

Actually, I don't. I look at reality as a whole and see only that which is visible.
I see no reason to "add stuff" to it that isn't detectable or doesn't manifest in any measureable fashion. If I would allow such, then I'll open a can of worms where I'll basically be obligated to accept just about anything my imagination can produce - if I wish to be consistent in that approach.

Take the whole phenomenon of existence and life (as integral part of this existence). Do not separate living and non-living matter, humans and flora and fauna, physics and biology.

I don't do that. Matter is matter is matter.

My body is build from the exact same kind/type of atoms and molecules as anything else in this universe. In that sense, there isn't any difference between "living" and "non-living" matter. To put in Neil deGrasse Tyson's words: "life is the extreme expression of complex chemistry".

We aren't build from some strange, exotic or unnatural isotope. There actually isn't anything special in our bodies. In fact... we are build from the most common materials in the universe... Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon,...

If you allow this preposition, then, look at your own intelligence and the "intelligence" manifest in the world around us - we call it scientific knowledge - but in fact it's a true description of God.

I don't see the value in that.
Again, you might as well say that it is a description of the undetectable pink unicorn and it would have the exact same value and merrit: none.

BUT of course, God is much much more than that. So far, we can see only 0.000000000000000000000000000001% and unless humanity evolves in their sensory/intellectual/social capacity, there is no possibility to grow qualitatively in this understanding/knowledge. We probably hit our glass wall or close to it.

I see absolutely no reason why we would assume that we have reached the limits of what we can know. In fact, ongoing scientific research, which brings in more knowledge everyday, demonstrates that to be false.

We still risk self-extermination as a very real possibility, it's enough indication of our low step of development, no matter what we think of ourselves.

I don't see how us being capable of obliterating the planet multiple times over in a variety of ways, is connected with the existance of an undetectable, supernatural entity that's been dreamed up during the bronze age.....

You know, some physicist on the fringe still propose "ether" hypotheses. I've read some of their books. Interesting. But not convincing to me as they are. Could this emptiness, this imagined "ether" be what God is? Just a spontaneous crazy idea. But not new for sure.

I think "crazy idea" is a nice way to put it.

Anyways. You are right. I cannot show you this "God". Here He is, in this burning bush or on that thunderous mountain top or in that moving pillar of fire. Impossible task!!! I and you very well know it. That's why you are so confident in challenging me.

That's why I'm confident in rejecting the idea. You are confident in rejecting all gods you do not believe in, together with centaurs and pixies, for the exact same reason.

I'm saying, God is so obvious to all of us, that we easily overlook Him. It's so simple. But because of it, it's probably the hardest thing ever for us.

That doesn't make any sense to me either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I'm a Christian, going to a Baptist church. But not literalist and not dogmatist. Close relationship with God (Father/Jesus/Spirit) through my spirit (consciousness) as main focus.

How do you reconcile that with your suggestion that 'Father/Jesus/Spirit' equates to, "Father ... the very fact of existence of the inevitable laws of nature ... Son - all matter, Spirit - the forces of interaction" ?

It doesn't sound very Baptist to me. I don't see how that's going to help understanding and communication - seems to me it will seriously hinder them.

...But you reject it, saying bad baggage and mistake. No.

Oh no, I didn't reject it, I questioned its rationality.

Confusion, yes. Anyway will be confusion. Just the way, unfortunately, all humans or absolute majority of humans programmed to be from childhood (so bad it is, this mindset!!!) So, create a completely new terminology about the same thing, soon everyone will be confused. Not a solution. Just use what you have and - together - try to make true sense from it. Cutting off useless/mistaken/invented things. Otherwise, all the different, ever multiplying, parties of humans keep dividing and arguing for no reason, in essence, about the same thing dressed in different fashion of clothes. Classical Lilliputians we are.......

Misapplying terms for fundamentally different concepts from entirely different domains will only sow confusion and probably anger, if some of the Christians here are anything to judge by - they take their sacred concepts quite seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

already addressed. The caps are used in reverence to GOD and GODLY and SPIRITUAL things

Just to inform you, on internet discussion forums ALL CAPS are the equivalent of screaming / raising your voice. It's considered ill-mannered and impolite.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

People believe and claim all kinds of things, sure.
You should know how it is to not believe what other people "claim and believe", because you are not a hindu or a muslim. Ask yourself why you don't buy into their claims, and chances are rather real that you'll understand why I don't buy into yours...



My existance is only evidence of my existance.
The existance of the universe is only evidence of the existance of the universe.

Merely pointing at a tree doesn't accomplish anything except pointing out that the tree exists. It doesn't say anything about how it originated or why it's there or why it looks like that and not some other way.


This line of reasoning makes no sense at all.

Here's a perfectly valid application of that "logic":
Claim: undetectable pixies make grass grow.
Observation: my grass grows.
Conclusion: therefor, my grass growing is evidence that pixies exist and live in my backyard.

See?

I agree. I can never convince you. It's really not my purpose. Maybe it's good if you do not get convinced in all of my nonesense, because perhaps it's all fault, or expressed in a poor way or both.

So let me change the discussion, please, which turned into a repetitious circle.

Yes, choosing to believe in God is purely a intellectual choice, and not a necessary one. I was once a sunni Muslim (my whole family still is), and I talked deeply with devout Hindus and visited Hinduist temples. Also, in Kazakhstan, Shamanism is still perhaps the most prevalent and deeply-rooted folk religion, though not officially. You know, if you "look above trees" - there are many very similar ideas in those and other kinds of faith. Expressed in drastically different ways, but, essentially, the same thing. Same principles often. Yes there is the supernatural, the ritualistic, the mythological. Vain vain vain.

Yes, the Bible, the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Kazakh Shamanistic oral tradition etc. etc. all present certain outlooks at reality. BUT there is one recognition of a reality that is beyond the one we can observe. And the observable reality isn't separate from it, but a manifestation, an integral part.

It is not necessary to invent a God as a substitute for total ignorance. BUT it is a recognition, a hypothesis if you wish, for a reality, that if you accept it, it does "click". As it does explain. "The missing link" for everything.

The more we learn and shed light at our ignorance, the more we reject the supernatural, the ritualistic, the mythological. BUT we do not get closer to understanding the phenomenon of the observable world, including life, as is, in fullness.

God = ignorance. For now. Tomorrow, it might be God = knowledge. And especially, in the afterlife? I do hope so.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

How do you reconcile that with your suggestion that 'Father/Jesus/Spirit' equates to, "Father ... the very fact of existence of the inevitable laws of nature ... Son - all matter, Spirit - the forces of interaction" ?

It doesn't sound very Baptist to me. I don't see how that's going to help understanding and communication - seems to me it will seriously hinder them.

Oh no, I didn't reject it, I questioned its rationality.


Misapplying terms for fundamentally different concepts from entirely different domains will only sow confusion and probably anger, if some of the Christians here are anything to judge by - they take their sacred concepts quite seriously.

Well, the Father-Son-Spirit allegory was a totally spontaneous spur of the moment. I do not transfer science to religion, but tried to show that religious concepts can be applied to understand the world as we see it.

You are right. I'm not a fundamentalist or dogmatist. I do love teachings of Jesus. I do call myself a Christian and go to a Baptist church. As all Christians do, I reject certain things from the Bible (maybe on the far left liberal side). Even in one church of 300 people, there are 300 opinions. And 300 lifestyles. Especially today with more and more free and easy access to almost any information, and with the global rise of humanism/individualism... Days of the darkness are over, hopefully, for good.

I open my mouth, many church people turn their eyes away. They don't drive me out, though, maybe because I try to act for God and Jesus, not just sit. And I don't like to stir things up just for the sake of it. I'm not a revolutionary.

But I understand what you're saying. Last thing we need, is more confusion.

Let me put it this way. Can you assume, for a moment, that there can be some validity to a religious view? Despite all the ways religion has been compromising itself beyond repair?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, the Father-Son-Spirit allegory was a totally spontaneous spur of the moment. I do not transfer science to religion, but tried to show that religious concepts can be applied to understand the world as we see it.

How can religious concepts help us understand the particle/wave duality of quantum particles?

How can religious concepts help us understand the mechanisms that cause plate tectonics?

How can religious concepts help us understand the emergence of antibiotic resistance in common human pathogens?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

How can religious concepts help us understand the particle/wave duality of quantum particles?

How can religious concepts help us understand the mechanisms that cause plate tectonics?

How can religious concepts help us understand the emergence of antibiotic resistance in common human pathogens?

In no way. Not the purpose. Those valid religious concepts help us see the world as a whole, unified phenomenon, not divided into many individual small pieces. We want to understand a John or a Mary as a complete human being, not their finger or succession of electrical impulses through the neurons.

The observable facts, qualities and processes that you mentioned are - as described - all the product of our mind and are only certain parts of reality as mirrored in us through our sensory/intellectual perception. The latter is good, as it's the only instrument we have.

The modern science isn't substitute for objective reality. At one point, there were much more clear divisions between scientific fields, but now they are being gradually erased and unified, with more and more inter-disciplinary fields arising over time. If things go in that direction, in 1 thousand years we perhaps will have just one body of knowledge called "science" or "knowing" or whatever, without all the compartments. Like a tree, from one root, trunk, branches, leaves. All unified and related, not separated. This is physics, this is chemistry - no, it's just one reality, just life.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll accept something as being "the truth", when it can be shown to be such, instead of merely asserted.

People a lot more knowledgeable than you in biochemistry could show you at one time that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug.

Would you have sanctioned its use back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to inform you, on internet discussion forums ALL CAPS are the equivalent of screaming / raising your voice. It's considered ill-mannered and impolite.

Oh, my.

Where were you when the goon squad was here browbeating us creationists and especially KJVOs with paragraphs in all caps a couple of years ago?

We could have used people like you back then ... your comrades here hardly raised an eyebrow.

Example: 281

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Actually, I don't. I look at reality as a whole and see only that which is visible.
I see no reason to "add stuff" to it that isn't detectable or doesn't manifest in any measureable fashion. If I would allow such, then I'll open a can of worms where I'll basically be obligated to accept just about anything my imagination can produce - if I wish to be consistent in that approach.




I don't do that. Matter is matter is matter.

My body is build from the exact same kind/type of atoms and molecules as anything else in this universe. In that sense, there isn't any difference between "living" and "non-living" matter. To put in Neil deGrasse Tyson's words: "life is the extreme expression of complex chemistry".

We aren't build from some strange, exotic or unnatural isotope. There actually isn't anything special in our bodies. In fact... we are build from the most common materials in the universe... Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon,...




I don't see the value in that.
Again, you might as well say that it is a description of the undetectable pink unicorn and it would have the exact same value and merrit: none.



I see absolutely no reason why we would assume that we have reached the limits of what we can know. In fact, ongoing scientific research, which brings in more knowledge everyday, demonstrates that to be false.



I don't see how us being capable of obliterating the planet multiple times over in a variety of ways, is connected with the existance of an undetectable, supernatural entity that's been dreamed up during the bronze age.....



I think "crazy idea" is a nice way to put it.



That's why I'm confident in rejecting the idea. You are confident in rejecting all gods you do not believe in, together with centaurs and pixies, for the exact same reason.



That doesn't make any sense to me either.

I agree with all of that - except, that I didn't say that we reached a limit to knowledge. That's why I said we learned a small fraction of everything to ever learn (like Socrates said). I was talking about qualitative, not quantitative growth of knowledge. Growing in quantity, yes. But still living in dark ages as society, mostly. Where is the balance? We hinder ourselves in a big way. Humanity is pregnant with a revolution in scientific approaches. Many don't see it. And self-destruction was my concern as a risk to end this process for us as species, not any evidence for anything. I was purely talking about the condition of our scientific quest as humankind.

Anyways it's all repetition from me an you now. Thank you for the honest conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me just end at this, then. Let's forget God or not God.

Will you agree that even though there is so much we know today, there is, perhaps, a lot more to know about the world and ourselves as part of it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, choosing to believe in God is purely a intellectual choice

It's not. It's a faith-based choice. An "intellectual" choice is a choice based on reason and evidence. And for the record: i don't choose my beliefs. Belief for me is a compulsion.

I was once a sunni Muslim (my whole family still is)

Didn't you just say that you were raised as a "hardcore atheist" and that everyone around you was like that?

, and I talked deeply with devout Hindus and visited Hinduist temples. Also, in Kazakhstan, Shamanism is still perhaps the most prevalent and deeply-rooted folk religion, though not officially. You know, if you "look above trees" - there are many very similar ideas in those and other kinds of faith. Expressed in drastically different ways, but, essentially, the same thing. Same principles often. Yes there is the supernatural, the ritualistic, the mythological. Vain vain vain.

Yes, the Bible, the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Kazakh Shamanistic oral tradition etc. etc. all present certain outlooks at reality. BUT there is one recognition of a reality that is beyond the one we can observe. And the observable reality isn't separate from it, but a manifestation, an integral part.

It's called "superstition". Which is something practically all animals are prone to. It is explained through the cognitive error known as the "false positive".

It is not necessary to invent a God as a substitute for total ignorance. BUT it is a recognition, a hypothesis if you wish, for a reality, that if you accept it, it does "click". As it does explain. "The missing link" for everything.

Hypothesis are testable. Which your god idea isn't. So it's not a "hypothesis".
When the thing proposed isn't testable or verifiable, furthermore, then it explains nothing. "god dun it" doesn't explain anything.

As the saying goes: "you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable".

The more we learn and shed light at our ignorance, the more we reject the supernatural, the ritualistic, the mythological. BUT we do not get closer to understanding the phenomenon of the observable world, including life, as is, in fullness.

That makes no sense again.
Thor and Jupiter were said to be the cause of lightning
Then we learned about it and understood that this was not the case.
We learned the actual cause of lightning. Thereby gaining more understanding about the observable world.

God = ignorance. For now. Tomorrow, it might be God = knowledge.

Neil deGrass Tyson: "If that is how you define your god, then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Knowledge is demonstrable. So if it becomes knowledge tomorrow, I'll look forward to seeing that evidence. Until such time......

And especially, in the afterlife? I do hope so.

Hope and personal preferences are irrelevant to what the actual nature of reality is. The universe doesn't owe you any hope.

 

[Belk]

Things start to become clearer.

Because those who argue against IC say it doesn't matter if parts fall off or not, just use the thing it fell off of as something else.

That is not the argument. The argument for IC claims "This could not evolve. This piece only functions in this way and there are no incremental steps that could produce this". The counter claim from the science side is "No, this could have evolved. See, prior to this function it could of had other functions."

In terms of your Jet analogy it is like claiming Jets must have been the start of flying technology and there could not of been anything before it. The obvious rebuttal is to point out Prop planes, rockets, and gliders as steps that happened prior to jet planes.

Does this make sense?

B
Got a mousetrap that has a piece missing?

No problem, it can be used as a tie clip.

Until of course, it involves them, then it's a different story.

I'll bet an atheist sitting on a 747 that's flying down the runway and seeing a part fall off would probably get saved before the plane even lifted off.

I'm betting an atheist who saw a piece fall of would tell someone they need to stop the plane.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

It's not. It's a faith-based choice. An "intellectual" choice is a choice based on reason and evidence. And for the record: i don't choose my beliefs. Belief for me is a compulsion.




Didn't you just say that you were raised as a "hardcore atheist" and that everyone around you was like that?



It's called "superstition". Which is something practically all animals are prone to. It is explained through the cognitive error known as the "false positive".




Hypothesis are testable. Which your god idea isn't. So it's not a "hypothesis".
When the thing proposed isn't testable or verifiable, furthermore, then it explains nothing. "god dun it" doesn't explain anything.

As the saying goes: "you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable".



That makes no sense again.
Thor and Jupiter were said to be the cause of lightning
Then we learned about it and understood that this was not the case.
We learned the actual cause of lightning. Thereby gaining more understanding about the observable world.



Neil deGrass Tyson: "If that is how you define your god, then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Knowledge is demonstrable. So if it becomes knowledge tomorrow, I'll look forward to seeing that evidence. Until such time......



Hope and personal preferences are irrelevant to what the actual nature of reality is. The universe doesn't owe you any hope.

Great, great response overall. I agree with most, on certain things I could continue offering a different possibility, and probably by now you know where and how.

Yes, faith is potentially such a bad, bad thing - as evidenced by professional magicians. So easy to mislead a person! You don't even have to try hard.

I talk about knowing. I say, I know there is God. Because I see Him everywhere. For myself, I have the hardest evidence just in front of my nose (our idiom, means most obvious thing) and in my consciousness.

But as I already said, I can't convince you, and it was not my intention to start with. Sharing ideas. Most importantly, to show that concept of God does have credibility, without damage to reason. You totally reject it in any form or shape, and it's OK with me. Like I said, it's much healthier than to accept a fallacy.

I was atheist and for me religion was nothing but "the opium for the masses, enabler of the exploiting class, obstacle for social progress", until after communism and atheism were dropped in 1986. Then all people in Kazakhstan suddenly jumped into all kinds of religions, UFO, occultism, astrology and all sorts of other traditional and new philosophical/social teachings. It was like, floods of never heard before information gushed on us. From censorship and control to complete freedom. Our world turned up side down. People were so hungry. They madly went into everything, all kinds of extremes. Not just in ideology, but in lifestyle - crime and amorality were glorified for some years, for example. It was normal for a person to experiment with more than one ideology in succession or simultaneously. I was no exception, being a young guy looking for answers. Overall, Islam and capitalism have won eventually now as of 2016. Mosques and medreses are on every corner. Other religions/teachings gained a presence, too. All my family are such devout Muslims now, and they used to be communist and atheist, nothing religious. I turned to Islam first, then got disillusioned, then was a period of non-specific Theism, and then I became a Christian, evolving in views ever since. I was once a fundamentalist of the hardest dogmatic type, and here I am, a borderline heretic??

But I'm very glad today, that I started as areligious, impartial to all religions. I hope, it helps me keep balance today...

 

[miknik5]

Just to inform you, on internet discussion forums ALL CAPS are the equivalent of screaming / raising your voice. It's considered ill-mannered and impolite.

I am giving you the truth about myself and even this you don't believe? And question that somehow I don't know what I am saying about myself? The caps are for the things of GOD

look back and add your own intonation to the caps and see if it even makes sense what you are implying of me yelling

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Neil deGrass Tyson: "If that is how you define your god, then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Actually, I don't. To put in Neil deGrasse Tyson's words: "life is the extreme expression of complex chemistry".

Cool guy, this Neil deGrass Tyson. Never heard/read these things from him. I made my kids watch the remake of the Cosmos. Wow! What a series. A masterpiece. And his love for knowledge! Well, I don't subscribe to all "facts" and theories in the series, but it's a good representation of modern main-stream science in the subjects covered. I try to teach kids to receive everything with a critical (not suspicious) independent view. No indoctrination.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do not transfer science to religion, but tried to show that religious concepts can be applied to understand the world as we see it.

You'll have to explain how they can do that - understanding requires knowledge; what knowledge or understanding of the world do the religious concepts you mentioned (Father, Son, Spirit) provide?

Can you assume, for a moment, that there can be some validity to a religious view? Despite all the ways religion has been compromising itself beyond repair?

The prevalence and persistence of religions and religious ideas through history suggests it's a successful set of memes - does that give it validity? perhaps, in terms of group advantage through cohesion, control, and commitment, but is that the kind of validity you're after? Because one could make the same 'validity' assessment of some nasty cults...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am giving you the truth about myself and even this you don't believe? And question that somehow I don't know what I am saying about myself? The caps are for the things of GOD

look back and add your own intonation to the caps and see if it even makes sense what you are implying of me yelling

I don't think I told you that I didn't believe you.
I just informed you about an internet factoid.

You may mean it one way, but people reading it will see it another way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cool guy, this Neil deGrass Tyson. Never heard/read these things from him. I made my kids watch the remake of the Cosmos. Wow! What a series. A masterpiece. And his love for knowledge! Well, I don't subscribe to all "facts" and theories in the series, but it's a good representation of modern main-stream science in the subjects covered. I try to teach kids to receive everything with a critical (not suspicious) independent view. No indoctrination.

Neil is by far one of my favortie "science popularizers" to listen to.

Indeed, his passion and thirst for learning is very inspiring. And he's just such a cool guy... Dawkins can be funny, in a british kind of way (lol), and can be just as inspiring, but I get how a lot of people can't really stand him.

Neil... that's just a teddybear
He's like real-life character of that sitcom The Big Bang Theory

 

[miknik5]

I don't think I told you that I didn't believe you.
I just informed you about an internet factoid.

You may mean it one way, but people reading it will see it another way.

I'm sorry that your eyes see it that way.

Now back to the topic?

Some might think that this personal interjection and comment about my style of writing as unnecessary and immature

As if you were upset, had nothing left to add to the discussion and in frustration began a different type of debate

I guess this seems to be the norm in this day and age?

Sir concern yourself with yourself and I'll concern myself with myself

I know best what I am doing and do not need help" from you to suggest anything outside of what I have already said

Thank you

 

[miknik5]

another thing spaghetti monster..

You should have taken your own advice and held off from posting something personal about another poster

In case it was wrong information

That's pretty much the advice you gave me