The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[quatona]

Absolutely. It has identity within the system of our universe. It is part of the universe's programming. It performs the function of its design.

I did not assert that "discernible, measurable and predictable" are the characteristics of everything. I asserted that both biological and computer processes possessed those characteristics.
On the grounds of my immediately preceding comment, this is a straw man assertion. I have nothing to do with it.

Such an assumption does not bear on one's ability to observe that programming is active the universe. In fact, the scientific method is about postulating expected (assumed) outcomeson the basis of observation. I would not claim, in the first place, that anything in the universe manifests characteristics of programming, were such manifestations not observable in the first place. But they certainly are.

Such as?

If/then, cause/effect, command/execute... these logical processes are observably the foundation of all programming, not just man-made programming.

Well, others have already pointed out the fallacy your reasoning involves: invalid reverse conclusions.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The framework we are working from is that you need to evidence that DNA is programmed. Simply pointing to other codes that are programmed does not evidence that all codes are programmed. I can show that all Mustangs are Fords, but that does not mean that all cars are Fords.

I am not attempting to identify the "brand" of a program. In DNA one observes the characteristics of a program (code), the processes of programming (if/then, cause/effect, etc.) and the outcome of the programming (a biological organism with predictable characteristics). The actuality of the programming is evident. Based on the observations, there is no reason to postulate anything else. Why would I question that the universe is the product of programming when everything in it indicates that it was programmed?
In like manner, why would I question that a program on a computer that performs complex mathematical functions was, in reality, programmed? Is it logical for me to conclude, on the basis of my observation of its order and function—and of its employment of known principles of programming, that the code somehow came together by chance, to say nothing of how it got on the computer in the first place? Such a postulation would be, in my mind, absurd. It is likewise absurd, in my view, to suspend the reality of my observations in the world and universe around me, be those observations first-hand or borrowed from others who've obtained them first-hand (e.g., scientists), in order to conclude that the universe is not the product of programming. None of the observations suggest that it wasn't programmed.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Such as?

Such as the illustration of the seed, which you omitted when quoting me.

Well, others have already pointed out the fallacy your reasoning involves: invalid reverse conclusions.

My reasoning is based on observation and experience. Someone's disagreement on the basis of appeal to an abstract philosophical concept does not destroy those realities.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not attempting to identify the "brand" of a program. In DNA one observes the characteristics of a program (code), the processes of programming (if/then, cause/effect, etc.) and the outcome of the programming (a biological organism with predictable characteristics).

Those are so broad as to be meaningless. You can make the same claim about making water from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.

In like manner, why would I question that a program on a computer that performs complex mathematical functions was, in reality, programmed?

Because you can observe humans doing the programming. That kind of tips it off.

Moreover, DNA sequences do not carry the characteristics of computer programs. DNA sequences fall into a nested hierarchy, which is evidence that these sequences evolved instead of being programmed.

"One common objection is the assertion that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry, and thus anatomically similar organisms are likely to be similar biochemically (e.g. in their molecular sequences) simply for functional reasons. According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. . .

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Can you show me how computer programs fall into a nested hierarchy that mirrors function? Bet you can't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Such as the illustration of the seed, which you omitted when quoting me.

Then hydrogen and oxygen are programmed to make water, according to your analogy.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Based on what evidence? We need more than empty assertions.

And what evidence would you admit?

Every molecule, atom, and fundamental sub-atomic particle can be represented as a code.

Indeed, they can be.

It is also about forming a null hypothesis, the conditions under which your hypothesis is falsified.

And what are those conditions?

What observations, if made, would demonstrate that DNA was not programmed by an intelligence?

As with computer programming, that which demonstrates lack of programming is either non-existence or universal chaos.

They are foundational to every physical interaction in the universe.

Precisely.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Then hydrogen and oxygen are programmed to make water, according to your analogy.

Under conditions which trigger that specific programming, and barring interference from other processes, yes.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Those are so broad as to be meaningless. You can make the same claim about making water from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.

They are broad because they have universal application, literally. That does not make them meaningless. Quite the opposite.

ecause you can observe humans doing the programming. That kind of tips it off.

You assume that I was there when it was programmed...that I saw the programmer writing the code. My analogy held no such assumptions. I merely saw the result. And

Moreover, DNA sequences do not carry the characteristics of computer programs. DNA sequences fall into a nested hierarchy, which is evidence that these sequences evolved instead of being programmed.

Nested hierarchies cannot be, or are not, employed in programming?

"One common objection is the assertion that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry, and thus anatomically similar organisms are likely to be similar biochemically (e.g. in their molecular sequences) simply for functional reasons. According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. . .

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Let's not get lost in the weeds. I'm only speaking about observations that indicate the employment of programming. I am not attempting to identify the programmer.

 

[Davian]

I am a programmer by trade.

I am not attempting to identify the "brand" of a program. In DNA one observes the characteristics of a program (code), the processes of programming (if/then, cause/effect, etc.) and the outcome of the programming (a biological organism with predictable characteristics). The actuality of the programming is evident. Based on the observations, there is no reason to postulate anything else. Why would I question that the universe is the product of programming when everything in it indicates that it was programmed?

Do you think of embryology as programming? Does the egg and sperm from the same parents produce identical children every time? Why not?

In like manner, why would I question that a program on a computer that performs complex mathematical functions was, in reality, programmed? Is it logical for me to conclude, on the basis of my observation of its order and function—and of its employment of known principles of programming, that the code somehow came together by chance, to say nothing of how it got on the computer in the first place? Such a postulation would be, in my mind, absurd. It is likewise absurd, in my view, to suspend the reality of my observations in the world and universe around me, be those observations first-hand or borrowed from others who've obtained them first-hand (e.g., scientists), in order to conclude that the universe is not the product of programming. None of the observations suggest that it wasn't programmed.

Maybe you need some more observations. Did you come to the conclusion of the existence of your programmer-diety after these observations, or are you working backwards from that conclusion?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I am a programmer by trade.

Do you think of embryology as programming? Does the egg and sperm from the same parents produce identical children every time? Why not?

The macro view is that the universe is a massive "program" of sorts—a system in which we exist and interact. Since launch, its unfolding has occurred organically, but within pre-determined parameters, and according to the overall design defined by the programmer. So, all processes, sub-processes, etc., inherent in the program are, themselves, part of the overall programming. Embryology would be included. When that sub-process is called by activity within the system, the sub-process is executed according to its specific programming, but the outcome is affected by a host of variables within the program, which provide variation. The sub-process can be affected by other sub-processes. It can be terminated. It can be modified on-the-fly by the programmer.

Maybe you need some more observations. Did you come to the conclusion of the existence of your programmer-diety after these observations, or are you working backwards from that conclusion?

For as long as I can remember, I believed that the universe had order, and that God was responsible for that order. But it wasn't until I began programming, that I began to perceive the characteristics of actual programming within the system.

 

[Davian]

The macro view is that the universe is a massive "program" of sorts—a system in which we exist and interact. Since launch, its unfolding has occurred organically, but within pre-determined parameters, and according to the overall design defined by the programmer. So, all processes, sub-processes, etc., inherent in the program are, themselves, part of the overall programming. Embryology would be included. When that sub-process is called by activity within the system, the sub-process is executed according to its specific programming, but the outcome is affected by a host of variables within the program, which provide variation. The sub-process can be affected by other sub-processes. It can be terminated. It can be modified on-the-fly by the programmer.

Code changing on the fly? How un-programming-like. Code that cannot be relied upon to run the same way twice.

For as long as I can remember, I believed that the universe had order, and that God was responsible for that order. But it wasn't until I began programming, that I began to perceive the characteristics of actual programming within the system.

So you are working backwards from your previously held conclusion. Not science, then.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Code changing on the fly? How un-programming-like. Code that cannot be relied upon to run the same way twice.

A one-time tweak of a sub-process won't ruin the system, if you're a good programmer.

So you are working backwards from your previously held conclusion. Not science, then.

If it yields me a clearer view of reality, why should I care how I get there? I'll keep both eyes open, thanks. Those who close the eye of faith (not the pop-culture variety) are no less lacking in perspective than those who close the eye of science. IMO.

 

[Davian]

A one-time tweak of a sub-process won't ruin the system, if you're a good programmer.

Code that does not run the same way twice is not code. Your analogy fails.

If it yields me a clearer view of reality, why should I care how I get there? I'll keep both eyes open, thanks. Those who close the eye of faith (not the pop-culture variety) are no less lacking in perspective than those who close the eye of science. IMO.

By "reality", in that context, it would appear that you mean "religion".

 

[TasteForTruth]

Code that does not run the same way twice is not code. Your analogy fails.

The original code isn't changed. Just something in the RAM. Once the sub-process terminates, the original code will be invoked the next time the sub-process is called. The analogy is just dandy.

By "reality", in that context, it would appear that you mean "religion".

No, I meant "reality."

 

[Davian]

The original code isn't changed. Just something in the RAM. Once the sub-process terminates, the original code will be invoked the next time the sub-process is called. The analogy is just dandy.

No, I meant "reality."

Sure you did.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Sure you did.

Does this spell the end of your involvement in the discussion, or were you just giving the bench some game time while your starters get a breather?

 

[KCfromNC]

Code changing on the fly? How un-programming-like. Code that cannot be relied upon to run the same way twice.

Obviously. It works exactly like computer code which is proof of a programmer who is like humans. Except in cases where it obviously doesn't work exactly like computer code, which is also more evidence that the analogy is right.

 

[BL2KTN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvXaclRlHs

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Obviously. It works exactly like computer code which is proof of a programmer who is like humans. Except in cases where it obviously doesn't work exactly like computer code, which is also more evidence that the analogy is right.

Kind of like how everything in nature is perfectly designed for its purpose, which is clear evidence for Christianity. Except when it isn't perfectly designed for its purpose, because we live in a 'fallen creation', which is clear evidence for Christianity.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are broad because they have universal application, literally.

Which makes them useless. Terms are supposed to differentiate between things.

You assume that I was there when it was programmed...that I saw the programmer writing the code. My analogy held no such assumptions. I merely saw the result.

You are assuming the result was caused by programming.

Nested hierarchies cannot be, or are not, employed in programming?

There is absolutely no reason why a programmer would force programs into a nested hierarchy. Can you give me a reason?

However, evolution does produce nested hierarchies.

Therefore, what we have are observations consistent with evolution, not programming of separately created species/kinds.

Let's not get lost in the weeds. I'm only speaking about observations that indicate the employment of programming. I am not attempting to identify the programmer.

All you are doing is assuming that there is programming.