The difficulty of talking to Atheist

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
A one-time tweak of a sub-process won't ruin the system, if you're a good programmer.

Would you refuse to implement that same tweak in other programs because it would violate a nested hierarchy?

If it yields me a clearer view of reality, why should I care how I get there?

Your view doesn't explain the observations we see, so I fail to see why you would call it clear.

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.

Based on what measure?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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?

I think I am done. With your ridiculous programming analogy, and with you admittedly working backwards from previous conclusions, while claiming to have 'eyes open', Poe's law is weighing too heavily on this thread.

I may stick around for the lulz.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
In the land of unfalsifiability, anything is possible. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Which makes them useless. Terms are supposed to differentiate between things.
Terms that are intended to express similarities are not supposed to identify differences. Why are you pushing the uselessness of terms in a direction my use of them does not intend to go?
You are assuming the result was caused by programming.
It would be illogical, at best, for me to conclude otherwise, based on my observations.
There is absolutely no reason why a programmer would force programs into a nested hierarchy. Can you give me a reason?
Greater control of complex programming. Ask IBM.

However, evolution does produce nested hierarchies.
Evolution cannot be programmed? Seems to me that it is programming.

Therefore, what we have are observations consistent with evolution, not programming of separately created species/kinds.
Not at all. We have evidence that programming results in variety.

All you are doing is assuming that there is programming.
Well, no. What I am doing is not dismissing what is clear in favor of something fantastic.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Terms that are intended to express similarities are not supposed to identify differences.

Terms meant to put things into groups require the ability to differentiate.

What you are saying is that you can not tell the difference between programmed and not programmed.

It would be illogical, at best, for me to conclude otherwise, based on my observations.[/quoet]

That would require your conclusion to be logical, which you haven't shown to be the case.

Greater control of complex programming. Ask IBM.

How do they fall into a nested hierarchy?

Evolution cannot be programmed?

Evolution is a natural process, not special creation by a supernatural deity.

Not at all. We have evidence that programming results in variety.

That variety does not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Well, no. What I am doing is not dismissing what is clear in favor of something fantastic.

So you reject evolution, which is directly observable, for creation by a supernatural deity, which has never been observed. You are making zero sense.
 
Upvote 0

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I think I am done. With your ridiculous programming analogy, and with you admittedly working backwards from previous conclusions, while claiming to have 'eyes open', Poe's law is weighing too heavily on this thread.

I may stick around for the lulz.
Suit yourself. If you change your mind, though, and decide to contribute something substantial to the discussion, the floor is open.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,406
60
✟92,791.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB 1955
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB 1955

1955? Before DNA evidence was discovered to be the icing on the cake in regards to the TOE:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics


Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB 1955

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Terms meant to put things into groups require the ability to differentiate.

What you are saying is that you can not tell the difference between programmed and not programmed.
LOL, no. I am saying that I can see the similarity between programmed and programmed.

That would require your conclusion to be logical, which you haven't shown to be the case.
It would be most illogical for me to conclude that seeds are not the product of programming. You, however, may conclude that such reasoning is illogical, if you are so inclined.

How do they fall into a nested hierarchy?
Hierarchies are unique to the systems in which they are comprised. So it depends on the design of the system. Here... read up on object-oriented programming. It's used all the time.


Evolution is a natural process, not special creation by a supernatural deity.
Processes, natural or otherwise, don't exist without programming.

That variety does not fall into a nested hierarchy.
"That variety," as opposed to which variety?

So you reject evolution, which is directly observable, for creation by a supernatural deity, which has never been observed. You are making zero sense.
When did I say I reject evolution? Not once. When did I speak of supernatural anything? Not once. My comments have been confined to the natural universe, with no appeal to the miraculous. Seems to me that you are projecting prejudice onto everything I say.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
LOL, no. I am saying that I can see the similarity between programmed and programmed.

You are saying that you see similarity between water and computer programs.

It would be most illogical for me to conclude that seeds are not the product of programming.

Why?

Hierarchies are unique to the systems in which they are comprised. So it depends on the design of the system. Here... read up on object-oriented programming. It's used all the time.

That is just avoidance of the observations. Life fits into a nested hierarchy. How do you explain that?

Processes, natural or otherwise, don't exist without programming.

Based on what evidence?

"That variety," as opposed to which variety?

The variety of human designs do not fit into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why designed or programmed systems should fit into a nested hierarchy.

Life does fit into a nested hierarchy.

When did I say I reject evolution? Not once. When did I speak of supernatural anything? Not once. My comments have been confined to the natural universe, with no appeal to the miraculous. Seems to me that you are projecting prejudice onto everything I say.

So you don't believe that God programmed nature?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
You are saying that you see similarity between water and computer programs.
Speaking not at the macro level, I'm saying that I see a similarity between the observable order of water-related processes and the observable order of man-programmed processes.

Because they function in an ordered manner in an ordered system.

That is just avoidance of the observations. Life fits into a nested hierarchy. How do you explain that?
It is not avoidance of the observations. The composite of the observations leads to the conclusion, not the other way around. Life fits into a nested hierarchy because that is how the system is programmed.

Based on what evidence?
It is a conclusion based on observation.

The variety of human designs do not fit into a nested hierarchy.
They were not designed to, were they?
There is absolutely no reason why designed or programmed systems should fit into a nested hierarchy.
They would if they were build to fit into a nested hierarchy.

Life does fit into a nested hierarchy.
I agree.

So you don't believe that God programmed nature?
I believe that God (whom I consider a natural being, in the sphere of His order) programmed (for lack of a better term) the universe to function as it does. A tree is a tree, for example, because the natural order was designed to bring about a tree, under conditions conducive to such. Etc.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,995
Seattle
✟895,280.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
LOL, no. I am saying that I can see the similarity between programmed and programmed.
.

How do you now the universe is programmed? What are the criteria by which we can determine if something is programmed or not programmed to evaluate things? How could we falsify your "Universe is programmed" hypothesis?

The problem with your claim is the "to a person with a hammer everything looks like a nail" issue that we as humans have. We are natural pattern seekers and we have a known propensity for seeing patterns were they do not exist. That is why we had to come up with the scientific method to deal with our own short comings in seeing things that were not necessarily there.
 
Upvote 0

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
How do you know the universe is programmed?
I'm not saying that I do.
What are the criteria by which we can determine if something is programmed or not programmed to evaluate things?
We have known programming available to us. We know how it is built. We know how it functions. We have experience handling and using and interacting with things that employ programming.

If a natural thing, therefore, exhibits characteristics similar to those of things we know are programmed, it is logical for us to hypothesize that the natural thing may employ programming of some kind which governs its function, similar in some way to known programming. With that hypothesis in place, we could look for evidence of programming within that natural thing.
How could we falsify your "Universe is programmed" hypothesis?
You tell me. Falsify it, conclusively. I'm not married to it.

The problem with your claim is the "to a person with a hammer everything looks like a nail" issue that we as humans have. We are natural pattern seekers and we have a known propensity for seeing patterns were they do not exist. That is why we had to come up with the scientific method to deal with our own short comings in seeing things that were not necessarily there.
I agree. What I see here (speaking generally), however, is intolerance for a reasonable hypothesis, outright. Science isn't about not looking at options. At least, not the last time I checked.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,995
Seattle
✟895,280.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not saying that I do.

Fair enough.

We have known programming available to us. We know how it is built. We know how it functions. We have experience handling and using and interacting with things that employ programming.


We do. We also know that it was programmed because we programmed it. Much like the issue with claims of things that are "created" or "built" the difficulty is in identifying characteristics that only arise when something is programed via intelligence. We are unable to do that so we are unable to come up with a metric by which we can distinguish "Programmed" from "non programmed".


If a natural thing, therefore, exhibits characteristics similar to those of things we know are programmed, it is logical for us to hypothesize that the natural thing may employ programming of some kind which governs its function, similar in some way to known programming. With that hypothesis in place, we could look for evidence of programming within that natural thing.

It is a reasonable hypothesis. Unfortunately it is also untestable.


You tell me. Falsify it, conclusively. I'm not married to it.

I wish I could. Unfortunately I see no way to do so and must therefore relegate it to the realm of "interesting speculation". :sorry:

I agree. What I see here (speaking generally), however, is intolerance for a reasonable hypothesis, outright. Science isn't about not looking at options. At least, not the last time I checked.

Science is only about looking at options that we can measure and falsify. We have in this case nothing to measure and no ability to falsify. In such cases science can not address the issue.


Also I would just like to add that being products of the universe I would expect us to do things in the same manner as happens in the universe. It kind of stands to reason. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TasteForTruth

Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Dec 2, 2010
4,799
47
✟16,765.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough.

We do. We also know that it was programmed because we programmed it. Much like the issue with claims of things that are "created" or "built" the difficulty is in identifying characteristics that only arise when something is programed via intelligence. We are unable to do that so we are unable to come up with a metric by which we can distinguish "Programmed" from "non programmed".
The point is, it does not stand to reason (to borrow your phrase) that an orderly system will arise from something non-programmed, particularly something as massive and complex as the universe. I would just as soon expect that throwing an octovigintillion characters into a bowl, shaking them up and pouring them out in a line would result in a functional computer program containing just as many functional sub-processes and sub-sub-processes and sub-sub-sub-processes, etc. Possible? Surely. Plausible? To me, not even.

But it's not natural selection or evolution that is the issue. The scientific community favors chance as the engine of evolution, where programming is an infinitely far more likely engine. Perhaps the implications are simply too risky for science to embrace, although that makes no sense, considering the mind-boggling odds against what it does embrace.

It is a reasonable hypothesis. Unfortunately it is also untestable.
Evolution by chance is testable. Why is evolution by programming not testable? One is far more plausible in my mind, and it's not the one getting attention. Using the same argument as you used, how do scientists differentiate between a programmed, organic process and one that "just happened"? How can they tell the difference if they don't know, definitively, how to tell one from the other?

I wish I could. Unfortunately I see no way to do so and must therefore relegate it to the realm of "interesting speculation".

Science is only about looking at options that we can measure and falsify. We have in this case nothing to measure and no ability to falsify. In such cases science can not address the issue.
Again, I believe that science is addressing the issue, but from the opposite angle.

Also I would just like to add that being products of the universe I would expect us to do things in the same manner as happens in the universe. It kind of stands to reason. :thumbsup:
That only lends more credibility to my hypothesis. It stands to reason that order follows organization, not chaos. And yet science favors chaos, which is the least likely cause.
 
Upvote 0