Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
1.  Doesn't imply a god in

1.  Doesn't imply a god in any way.

2.  As far as we know Earth is the only planet in the universe with any life (not that it actually is)... how would you say it is fine tuned?  Most of space is extremely hostile to life.

3.  Science is working towards an answer, such as abiogenesis.  Religion says "it was magic", which any rational person would not dignify as an answer at all.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:1. 

FreeHugMachine wrote:

1.  Doesn't imply a god in any way.

It implies that there must be an eternal entity which transcends space and time.  Otherwise, you end up with an infinite regress of cause and effect, which is illogical.

Quote:
2.  As far as we know Earth is the only planet in the universe with any life (not that it actually is)... how would you say it is fine tuned?  Most of space is extremely hostile to life.

The Earth may very well be the only planet with life.  That's a speculative question and it does not change the fact that if the values of the universe were an infinitesimal amount different, then we would have no universe.  It wouldn't simply be different.  There would be no universe at all.

Quote:
3.  Science is working towards an answer, such as abiogenesis.  Religion says "it was magic", which any rational person would not dignify as an answer at all.

"Abiogenesis" is simply a buzzword attached to an idea that, to my knowledge, has never been demonstrated.  But even if it could be shown that life could come from non-life, that would still not disprove God, since a causal chain of events requires an uncaused cause.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: Since

angelobrazil wrote:

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

Nope making the stance of no there isn't a god based on the lack of evidence for god is a rational stance, compared to there is a lack of evidence for god therefore I believe god exist. Which one sounds more rational to you?

angelobrazil wrote:

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

Yes that is a perfect thing to say. Now what is not is assume it's god right off the bat. Quantum fluctuation may have caused a singularity to expand and release all the energy which then caused the universe to form. Basically it may most likely been a natural cause without the required supernatural deity or intelligence behind it. Even an unstable singularity is most likely the reason. Now energy has always existed and cannot be created nor destroyed, remember this part please.

angelobrazil wrote:

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

what specific four natural forces are you talking about? Second, it appears finely tuned however no one can say how much of a change is necessary to, because changing one changes many other variables, and we may end up with the same result. it's insane to believe 1 variable had changed none of the other variables would have changed as well. Plus we really don't know the plus/minus change difference that would really affect everything. This argument is also been discussed and dissected many times, as well even if the variable changed, life may have arose still, just it may not have ended with the variety of life we see now. Please do some research regarding this argument.

angelobrazil wrote:

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 

Again do some research there are many topics and hypothesis, now they are trying to prove which one is the path to follow in the explanation of how life came to be on earth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis is one place to start.


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
1.  The universe could have

1.  The universe could have always existed in some state.  A uber-complex god would also need a explanation, pushing a step back but still leading to an infinite regress.  We have evidence of our universe existing, but none for any god.

2.  Can you show that it is possible to change the constants?  We know the universe exists as it does without knowledge of any other universes (or failed universes)... leading us to a probability of 1/1.

3.  It isn't a buzzword.  It has been shown that replicating strands of molecules can be produced in a lab, which is a basic step towards life.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 [youtube]http://www.youtube

 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/-A2wa454x2M[/youtube]

 


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:1. 

FreeHugMachine wrote:

1.  The universe could have always existed in some state.  A uber-complex god would also need a explanation, pushing a step back but still leading to an infinite regress.  We have evidence of our universe existing, but none for any god.

What do you mean "always existed in some state"?  First of all, that has already been discarded by physicists.  Second, the universe is not a singular entity.  It is a sum total of many different things, which put together, comprise what we refer to as the "universe".  Therefore, if you are going to say that the universe existed in "some form", you need to give me a singular static entity which underlies the constant motion.  If you cannot, then you cannot logically demonstrate your idea to be plausible.

The logically necessity for an infinite being is evidence for God.  You may not accept it, but that has nothing to do with objective truth in reality.

Quote:
2.  Can you show that it is possible to change the constants?  We know the universe exists as it does without knowledge of any other universes (or failed universes)... leading us to a probability of 1/1.

The universe is not a thing which has to exist.  Physicists have already concluded that, in fact, it did not always exist.  Whether or not we have the ability to change the constants is irrelevant and does not preclude the fact that the universe, in the context of random chance, should not have happened. 

Furthermore, the relationships, which must be in place in order for the universe to exist, are synthetic.  For example, a proton and its mass are not definitionally connected.  They are connected synthetically via empirical  observation.  Therefore, you cannot posit any necessary connection between the universe and its constants. 

Quote:
3.  It isn't a buzzword.  It has been shown that replicating strands of molecules can be produced in a lab, which is a basic step towards life.

I will not believe that abiogenesis is possible until I witness life coming from non-life.  But it doesn't make that big of a difference to me.  The actual proof for God is much more compelling than the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Yes that is a perfect

 Yes that is a perfect thing to say. Now what is not is assume it's god right off the bat. Quantum fluctuation may have caused a singularity to expand and release all the energy which then caused the universe to form. Basically it may most likely been a natural cause without the required supernatural deity or intelligence behind it. Even an unstable singularity is most likely the reason. Now energy has always existed and cannot be created nor destroyed, remember this part please.

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115&printer_friendly=1

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

 


BigUniverse
BigUniverse's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-08-20
User is offlineOffline
What about the fine tuning

What about the fine tuning argument. 

The universe has certain constants.

We don't know why the constants are the way the are.  It would seem very unlikely that they would be that way by chance alone.

If the constants were at all different then life wouldn't exists. 

Life does exist therefore it is likely that the constants came about threw a way other then Chance.

There is no scientific explanation about why they are the way they are therefor it is likely that God is responsible for making them the way they are in order to create life.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 1.  The universe could

 1.  The universe could have always existed in some state. 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

The Big Bang theory is an attempt to describe the creation and evolution of the universe. The theory appears to match observations, and the theoretical physics appear to hold back through time to within a tiny fraction of a second after the creation of the Big Bang. Beyond that the theory cannot explain how the Big Bang singularity came into existence. See The Big Bang Theory Indeed, it is really pointless to attempt to go back beyond the Big Bang, it is meaningless to ask what came 'before' because there is no 'before'. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang.

 

A uber-complex god would also need a explanation, pushing a step back but still leading to an infinite regress.  We have evidence of our universe existing, but none for any god.

This is the main argument of Dawkins as well. But it is not itself consistent . God is spirit, and therefore simple. His ideas are not, but he ,  being above time and matter, as spirit is simple.

http://www.youtube.com/v/xlzKITZ9ct8

 

2.  Can you show that it is possible to change the constants?  We know the universe exists as it does without knowledge of any other universes (or failed universes)... leading us to a probability of 1/1.

I don't see the reason of your argument. We know the physical constants needed, so that the universe itself could arise, and as consequence, life. These constants are unimaginably tiny. The chance, these constants to be set up by chance, are one to one trillion x one trillion. 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm#46

Unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument, the argument for fine-tuning uses science without divine action to reveal the impeccable precision of our Universe. Fine-tuning is described in terms of physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe. Fine-tuning does not try to draw attention to where science has failed, but rather emphasizes how science has revealed the intricate balance of the universe.

One might argue that science could potentially explain the origins of these delicately balanced features, but there are two important things to keep in mind. First, it is very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising other improbabilities. Second, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. While it is true that the fine-tuning of the Universe adds credence to belief in a creator, such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of theistic belief. While the fine-tuning of the Universe does indeed lead many people to consider the possibility of God’s existence, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures us that it also cannot prove it. Instead, fine-tuning can be understood as a feature of the universe that is accordant with belief in a creator. A deeper scientific explanation of these features — albeit highly unlikely — would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God.

 

3.  It isn't a buzzword.  It has been shown that replicating strands of molecules can be produced in a lab, which is a basic step towards life.

Do you really think that's all that is needed to create life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/origin-of-life-links-t59.htm Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories

http://www.icr.org/article/77/

The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by evolutionary scientists, themselves. The simplest form of life imaginable would require hundreds of different kinds of molecules, perhaps thousands, most of them large and very complex. With respect to this point, Van Rensselaer Potter states, "It is possible to hazard a guess that the number is not less than 1,000, but whether it is 3,000 or 10,000 or greater is anyone's guess."2 This statement not only acknowledges the immensity of the problem, but also is a tacit admission of how little is really known or knowable about the problem.

In addition to these many molecules, which would include the large and complex protein, DNA and RNA molecules, each with up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence, the origin of life would require many complex and dynamically functional structures, such as membranes, ribosomes, mitochondria (or energy-producing complexes of some kind), etc. Furthermore, life requires marvelous coordination in time and space, with many regulatory mechanisms. To believe that all of this came about by mere chemical and physical processes, does indeed constitute an immense exercise of faith.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: Yes

angelobrazil wrote:

 Yes that is a perfect thing to say. Now what is not is assume it's god right off the bat. Quantum fluctuation may have caused a singularity to expand and release all the energy which then caused the universe to form. Basically it may most likely been a natural cause without the required supernatural deity or intelligence behind it. Even an unstable singularity is most likely the reason. Now energy has always existed and cannot be created nor destroyed, remember this part please.

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115&printer_friendly=1

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

 

yeah well not yet, they are working on new hypothesis and theories but nothing yet.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html (this one isn't even 25 years ago, it's only 12 years ago)

Even with the Loop quantum gravity (LQM) model being proposed it still doesn't show god did it as you proposed.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30416

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/04/3602.ars

So what can we say, god still isn't in the picture, the big bang is still in the picture, the singularity is out.....so what am I missing here? Oh right you didn't respond to what I stated, you merely posted a youtube video and someone else's site. Can you debate this yourself?

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: none

angelobrazil wrote:

 none for any god.

This is the main argument of Dawkins as well. But it is not itself consistent . God is spirit, and therefore simple. His ideas are not, but he ,  being above time and matter, as spirit is simple.


Can you actually provide scientific evidence that the spirit is simple? I think not, this is just you making it convient for your argument.


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Can you

latincanuck wrote:

Can you actually provide scientific evidence that the spirit is simple? I think not, this is just you making it convient for your argument.

Umm, that's not a scientific claim.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I guess it's individual. If

I guess it's individual. If someone is in a contact with God, then it's rational for him to be theist. If someone never saw any trace of God, then it's rational for him be atheist. But any other combination is irrational.

( yes, I'm both serious and joking Smiling )

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Better put, Angelo is making

Better put, Angelo is making a claim I would like to see the evidence required that it is not complex but simple, then of course I would also like the scientific evidence that a spirit exists. Better?


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Better

latincanuck wrote:

Better put, Angelo is making a claim I would like to see the evidence required that it is not complex but simple, then of course I would also like the scientific evidence that a spirit exists. Better?

I'm not sure what would pass as "scientific evidence" to you.

He just gave you a hybrid of the Kalam cosmological argument and the anthropic principle. 

And you've rejected it. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Better put, Angelo is making a claim I would like to see the evidence required that it is not complex but simple, then of course I would also like the scientific evidence that a spirit exists. Better?

I'm not sure what would pass as "scientific evidence" to you.

He just gave you a hybrid of the Kalam cosmological argument and the anthropic principle. 

And you've rejected it. 

I rejected it because it's been argued already and both have not been proven, when using the kalam and of course the fine tuned argument. why would a hybrid part be any different? It's not like he is actually debating this at all, but merely just posting up links and videos, Asked three questions got three answers. Even if A) The big bang is not true, it doesn't make god the default answer now. Even if we remove the singularity of the big bang it doesn't invalidate the evidence observed and it doesn't make god true either. B) Even if it is tuned for life it doesn't mean that other variable could not produce life, it may not produce human life, but life still may arise. Even if the Kalam argument is true, it doesn't mean it has to be god, like stated earlier a quantum fluctuation, may be the cause. No god required.


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:1.

angelobrazil wrote:
1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

Wrong.

Quote:

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

"This hole is perfectly made for me," said the puddle.

 

Quote:

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 

 

Have you ever heard of abiogenesis or protobionts? Or high school science books for that matter? DNA is not a code in the way you imagine a code to be.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

FreeHugMachine wrote:

1.  The universe could have always existed in some state.  A uber-complex god would also need a explanation, pushing a step back but still leading to an infinite regress.  We have evidence of our universe existing, but none for any god.

What do you mean "always existed in some state"?  First of all, that has already been discarded by physicists.  Second, the universe is not a singular entity.  It is a sum total of many different things, which put together, comprise what we refer to as the "universe".  Therefore, if you are going to say that the universe existed in "some form", you need to give me a singular static entity which underlies the constant motion. 

Static entity?  He quite clearly said "in some state" and you're asking him to declare that it has only one state in order to prove it? Why?

Lord of Rock wrote:

If you cannot, then you cannot logically demonstrate your idea to be plausible.

No I think doing so undermines the logic of the idea. Clearly if the universe is comprised of a some singular extant that could comprise some other state altogether, then the extant is flexible in nature, not static.

Lord of Rock wrote:

The logically necessity for an infinite being is evidence for God.  You may not accept it, but that has nothing to do with objective truth in reality.

Aha! so it must be static because your book says God is static then? In order to exist, whatever it is that underlies all things, it needs to conform to some narrow tract of hebrew scripture because.... that makes it your god ...? Sounds circular.

 

Lord of Rock wrote:

The universe is not a thing which has to exist.  Physicists have already concluded that, in fact, it did not always exist.  Whether or not we have the ability to change the constants is irrelevant and does not preclude the fact that the universe, in the context of random chance, should not have happened. 

There is a possibility of describing the relationship between the existence of the universe as it is and the physical constants scientifically. It requires the understanding that the nature of time itself, and the chronologic organisation of our subjective psychological experience are not one in the same so that one can remove the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing, from one's scientific assumptions. From there it is almost a given - see "Top-down Cosmology, Hawking, Hertog 2006".

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Static

Eloise wrote:

Static entity?  He quite clearly said "in some state" and you're asking him to declare that it has only one state in order to prove it?

I did not say that.  He suggested that the universe has always existed in some form.  Now given the fact that the universe is constantly changing (we can empirically confirm this) and given the fact that the universe is not just one thing, but many things, I simply requested that he tell me what it was existed back then which still exists now.

I think that is pretty reasonable.

Quote:
No I think doing so undermines the logic of the idea. Clearly if the universe is comprised of a some singular extant that could comprise some other state altogether, then the extant is flexible in nature, not static.

As you've just said, there is a "singular extant" which can comprise some other state.  You've just posited a substance underlying the motion between its accidents.  Therefore, you are positing a static element within a universe of motion.  Now can you tell me what this is?

Quote:
Aha! so it must be static because your book says God is static then?

Umm, no.  It must be static because that's logically necessary. 

Quote:
There is a possibility of describing the relationship between the existence of the universe as it is and the physical constants scientifically. It requires the understanding that the nature of time itself, and the chronologic organisation of our subjective psychological experience are not one in the same so that one can remove the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing, from one's scientific assumptions. From there it is almost a given - see "Top-down Cosmology, Hawking, Hertog 2006".

What does this have to do with what I was saying?


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Better put, Angelo is

 Better put, Angelo is making a claim I would like to see the evidence required that it is not complex but simple, 

Dr.William Craig puts it this way :

Dawkins’ fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind’s ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

 

then of course I would also like the scientific evidence that a spirit exists. Better?

 

the question is, if our consciousness is a result of energy and matter, or a entity by itself. I would not go into the question of separation of soul and spirit now.

 

http://www.dreamhawk.com/ware.htm

 

The work of Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist at Stanford University, gives further insight into this. His experience of working with fellow neurologist Lashley confronted him with astounding phenomena. Lashley had trained rats to perform a variety of tasks, such as run a maze. Then he removed parts of their brains and re-tested them. He wanted to see what parts he would need to cut out to remove the memory of what had been learned. But no matter what portion of their brains he cut out, he could not remove their memories. Even with massive portions of their brains removed, their memories remained intact. Pribram found that a similar thing occurred with humans who had, perhaps through injury or illness, lost even massive parts of their brain. So Pribram felt that memory was not localised in the brain, but existed in what was probably a holographic form, where each part contains the whole.

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Even if it is tuned for

 Even if it is tuned for life it doesn't mean that other variable could not produce life, it may not produce human life, but life still may arise. 

 The constances must be fine-tuned not only  that life can exist on earth, but so that the universe itself can arise and exist. The probability that it might happen by chance is almost zero. 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Have you ever heard of

 Have you ever heard of abiogenesis or protobionts? Or high school science books for that matter? DNA is not a code in the way you imagine a code to be.

So what is it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

In communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letterwordphrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type. In communications andinformation processingencoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated. Decoding is the reverse process, converting these code symbols back into information understandable by a receiver.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA 

DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. 

 

 

 

Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself.

Examples would be english, computer languages, radio signal and music and yes, DNA. All known codes always involve a system of symbols which represent a idea, concept or plans etc.

The laws of physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the coded information contained in DNA. All known codes that we know the origin of always come from intelligent activity.

 

 

A book containing random letters contains no message. A hypothetical DNA molecule with random bases contains no plan / instructions for an organism. But a real book and a real DNA molecule both contain real codes represented by symbols composed of real matter that represent real useful information and uniquely specify external objects, processes and ideas. The code itself is an immaterial entity.

Naturalistic explanations may provide the materials, but still fail to explain the origin of the code. Why? Because coded information is an immaterial entity and based on all known observation, is only created by mental processes. 

 

1- DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 
2- All codes are created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 
3- Therefore DNA was designed by intelligence.

If you can provide an example of a code or language that occurs naturally you can prove this false. All you need is one. 

 

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:Eloise

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Static entity?  He quite clearly said "in some state" and you're asking him to declare that it has only one state in order to prove it?

I did not say that.  He suggested that the universe has always existed in some form.  Now given the fact that the universe is constantly changing (we can empirically confirm this) and given the fact that the universe is not just one thing, but many things, I simply requested that he tell me what it was existed back then which still exists now.

I think that is pretty reasonable.

And I simply asked you why it must be static when he clearly indicated that its nature was changeable. Also reasonable, I think.

 

Quote:

Umm, no.  It must be static because that's logically necessary. 

Elaborate.

Lord_Of_Rock wrote:

Quote:
There is a possibility of describing the relationship between the existence of the universe as it is and the physical constants scientifically. It requires the understanding that the nature of time itself, and the chronologic organisation of our subjective psychological experience are not one in the same so that one can remove the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing, from one's scientific assumptions. From there it is almost a given - see "Top-down Cosmology, Hawking, Hertog 2006".

What does this have to do with what I was saying?

 I was replying to both your statement that the universe "in the context of random chance should not exist", and your later contention that one cannot posit a "necessary connection between the universe and its constants" which, for some reason, I thought said "scientific connection". Collectively I took this to mean you were arguing for the anthropic principle. On second inspection I see you were arguing TAG, so I apologise that my response was unclear to you. However, I don't think it's entirely inappropriate as a response to those two particular points you made. I am presently also replying to your TAG thread in the psychology forum, when you read that it may become clearer why I still believe it's an appropriate response. Otherwise, please excuse my misreading your argument.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:


Dr.William Craig puts it this way :

 As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple.

 

    I can agree with this characterization.  God in fact does appear to be a simple-minded diety, and judging him historically actually he appears to be a bona-fide simpleton.   Every time he creates a race of spiritual beings ( angels, humans ) they eventually revolt against him and the result is always some sort of God-ordained bloodbath where he attempts to even the score with such violent means as earthquakes, fire from the sky, global floods, genocidal warfare...

   Thanks but I could only worship a competent god, a god who gets it right the first time.

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:And I simply

Eloise wrote:

And I simply asked you why it must be static when he clearly indicated that its nature was changeable. Also reasonable, I think.

All change requires an underlying substance.  Otherwise, nothng could change.  You would simply have singular entities popping in and out of existence, but even that is predicated on something that is static.  In other words, you could never perceive movement unless you've related the movement to something which was not moving.  The same principle applies with change.

Quote:
Elaborate.

I've just explained.  In order for something to be eternal, it can neither come to be nor perish.  Thus, an eternal entity, such as God, would have to be immutable.  In the case of the universe, if you want to say that it is infinite, then the substance would have to be the same now as it was a billion years ago. 

Quote:
Collectively I took this to mean you were arguing for the anthropic principle. On second inspection I see you were arguing TAG, so I apologise that my response was unclear to you. However, I don't think it's entirely inappropriate as a response to those two particular points you made. I am presently also replying to your TAG thread in the psychology forum, when you read that it may become clearer why I still believe it's an appropriate response. Otherwise, please excuse my misreading your argument.

Okay.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:Eloise

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And I simply asked you why it must be static when he clearly indicated that its nature was changeable. Also reasonable, I think.

All change requires an underlying substance. 

Er, and all substance requires an underlying change, vis a vis, as I mentioned in my first post, the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing?

If you're happy to presume a chronological order of events in one universe as fundamental and appeal to the "beginning" of the universe as a placeholder for your god, then you cannot have a substance underlying change as well. These are mutually exclusive propositions and it means you're special pleading the conditions of your god's existence.

To spell out the choices as I see them.... Either

1. the "beginning of the universe" is an arbitrary and relative reference to some coordinate space which is in reality no such thing as a "beginning" - then a "susbtance" can underly change, and perhaps provide you with a firm basis for positing a greater entity.

or

2. The universe is fundamentally and objectively ordered over an evolution according to chronological time in the manner identical to the organisation of human psychological experience - in which case change necessarily underlies all substance, a principle from which your god must necessarily be excepted.

 

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

 In other words, you could never perceive movement unless you've related the movement to something which was not moving. 

No, you can. You just have to pretend that one of the things is not moving, or more exactly consider only things aside each other where one has energy >>>> than the other, then the motion of one can be assumed negligible and estimated at zero because it tends so close to zero on scale (depending on the form of the energy).

Since the whole universe is in constant, irrepressible motion, we have no choice in this matter. We can only percieve and comprehend relative motion, full stop.

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

The same principle applies with change.

And so see my list of choices, again. Either the whole thing is a gradient following a curve of time against change which excludes god except under a special pleading fallacy, OR our perceiving a convergence of change (something changing at a rate=0) is simply arbitrary and relative, which gives us a scale on which an entity such as god can conceivably exist.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Why do you think it's

Why do you think it's rational to believe in invisible friends when you have no evidence for them? Why do you think it's irrational to disbelieve in imaginary friends?

1: Just because something happened does not mean there is a god. It means something happened. Basic logic.

2:The universe is NOT fine tuned. WE ARE, by the universe. Also basic logic. You're looking at it backwards.

3: Science has plenty of answers, you creationists just don't pay attention to headlines. And DNA is not a code, it's a molecule.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Er, and all

Eloise wrote:

Er, and all substance requires an underlying change

No.  That does not follow at all.  Substances are not ontologically dependent upon change.  They supersede change.

Quote:
the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing?

That was not my presupposition.  In fact, I don't believe I've mentioned vectors of time.  I've only mentioned the impossibility of an infinite regression of cause and effect.  Time is obviously bound up with the formal system that we are using, but that's all it is.  Obviously, if the universe came into existence, it did not happen at a point in time since time did not yet exist.

Quote:
If you're happy to presume a chronological order of events in one universe as fundamental and appeal to the "beginning" of the universe as a placeholder for your god, then you cannot have a substance underlying change as well.

Actually, I wasn't inferring God by appealing to the beginning of the universe.  I was merely discrediting the idea that the universe is infinite, which was long ago rejected by the physics community.  I do not how this is inconsistent with the basic ontological framework that I've outlined.

Quote:
These are mutually exclusive propositions and it means you're special pleading the conditions of your god's existence.

How is the basic ontology of substance and accident inconsistent with the existence of God?

Quote:
1. the "beginning of the universe" is an arbitrary and relative reference to some coordinate space which is in reality no such thing as a "beginning" - then a "susbtance" can underly change, and perhaps provide you with a firm basis for positing a greater entity.

2. The universe is fundamentally and objectively ordered over an evolution according to chronological time in the manner identical to the organisation of human psychological experience - in which case change necessarily underlies all substance, a principle from which your god must necessarily be excepted.

I don't understand what you've just written. or how it has anything to do with what I am saying.

Quote:
No, you can. You just have to pretend that one of the things is not moving, or more exactly consider only things aside each other where one has energy >>>> than the other, then the motion of one can be assumed negligible and estimated at zero because it tends so close to zero on scale (depending on the form of the energy).

Since the whole universe is in constant, irrepressible motion, we have no choice in this matter. We can only percieve and comprehend relative motion, full stop.

Once again, I cannot follow what you are saying.  You are able to perceive motion by pretending that something, which is moving, is not moving?  Then all you are doing is confirming my original premise that motion is only perceived in relation to that which does not move, since you are asserting that we may perceive motion by visualizing that very relationship, which simulates the qualitative experience, which is essentially all that we have.  But even in your very example, you are positing the substantiality of the observer.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 3: Science has plenty of

 3: Science has plenty of answers, you creationists just don't pay attention to headlines. And DNA is not a code, it's a molecule.

then you should write wiki, so they can correct their wrong information..... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA 

DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: 3:

angelobrazil wrote:

 3: Science has plenty of answers, you creationists just don't pay attention to headlines. And DNA is not a code, it's a molecule.

then you should write wiki, so they can correct their wrong information..... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA 

DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. 

 

Got to love the part that says compared to, not IS A, big difference .


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:Eloise

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Er, and all substance requires an underlying change

No.  That does not follow at all.  Substances are not ontologically dependent upon change.  They supersede change.

Que?

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Quote:
the presupposition of a procession of events in the universe along some vector of time as a fundamental principle limiting the "how" of things existing?

That was not my presupposition.  In fact, I don't believe I've mentioned vectors of time.  I've only mentioned the impossibility of an infinite regression of cause and effect. 

Time is obviously bound up with the formal system that we are using, but that's all it is. 

That's all it is???? Every logical step you take is predicated on time and the organisation of your psychological experience being identical things. You don't mention vectors of time because you don't have to, just order your logic according to human psychological experience and it is already framed in terms of a fundamental time entity of A magnitude and B direction. You don't have to choose to do this when its pretty much habitual, you can only choose not to.

When you "mention the impossibility of an infinite regression of cause and effect" time is not merely "tied up with the formal system" it is the fundamental assumption of the formal system, and it's parameters are dictated by the organisation of your subjective psychological experience. Cause and effect is the codification of human psychological experience, you don't enter it into logic without equally having taken the position that reality is organised in the exact same manner as human experience.

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

How is the basic ontology of substance and accident inconsistent with the existence of God?

Your argument is not exactly consistent with a basic ontology of substance and accident, but that's no surprise since such an ontology can never be consistent anyway.

1.  the "Accidents" inherently imply mutability of substance.

You can find a white cat and a you can find black cat, but you will not find such a thing as immutable "cat" or immutable "rock" or immutable "atom" even, so immutable god is a special plead against the nature of every substance we know.

2. "Accidents" cannot be divided from "substance" in the manner proposed.

Colour, for example, is not merely a quality of a substance, it is the wavelength of light that fits, in integer multiplicity, in a space. This is, quite, precisely, the quantity and relation to dynamic system of the substance and these things are encompassed completely in its definition as a substance, they are the things that make it a substance. To say that there is a substance which is apart from accidents in its make up is scientifically absurd.

Quote:

Actually, I wasn't inferring God by appealing to the beginning of the universe.  I was merely discrediting the idea that the universe is infinite, which was long ago rejected by the physics community.  I do not how this is inconsistent with the basic ontological framework that I've outlined.

I said the ontological framework that you are evidently using is inconsistent with itself. 

Mathematically speaking there are two paths of logic to take:

One says that the organisation of the psyche and the organisation of the universe are identical. This is inconsistent with the existence of a god, it reduces to zero at the origin and that's all there is to it.

The other posits that they are different leading to a zero at the origin which exists relative to scale and in an arbitrary direction, this means greater entities, such as gods, are not only plausible, but also inevitable.

What I am saying is the ontology you're using conflates the assumptions of one of these two with the results of the other.

 

Quote:

Once again, I cannot follow what you are saying.  You are able to perceive motion by pretending that something, which is moving, is not moving? 

Absolutely. If you honestly believe that the motion you percieve is anything but I suggest you review some senior high physics now. If you are entertaining the idea that it is in any way possible in reality to percieve motion because something else is "not moving" you have been decieved.

Quote:

Then all you are doing is confirming my original premise that motion is only perceived in relation to that which does not move, since you are asserting that we may perceive motion by visualizing that very relationship, which simulates the qualitative experience, which is essentially all that we have. 

Of course I am, human psychological experience is organised as motion percieved in relation to things not moving. But the universe is not under the same constraint, in reality everything is moving.

Quote:

But even in your very example, you are positing the substantiality of the observer.

I am conceding that the observer, to the best of our knowledge, cannot observe from from outside the universe and thus modelling ourselves as substantial is a lie we are at a loss of how to escape. That's relativity and it's had its share of successes, however, to bring this back to the point, you raised the the concept of motion as an analogy of change. You could say I'm actually agreeing with you on that, but with some corrections to the concepts of motion and change.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 then i guess, i got to

 then i guess, you got to love the part  in Wiki as well, that says :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

 The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated intoproteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.
        

 


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:That's all it

Eloise wrote:

That's all it is???? Every logical step you take is predicated on time and the organisation of your psychological experience being identical things.

Every logical step is predicated on time because the formal system that I am using to debate with you is structured in that manner.  But I can assure you that this was never part of my argument.

If what you say is true, then physicists contradict themselves when they suppose that the space and time had a beginning.  Criticizing me for this is just special pleading on your part.

Quote:
When you "mention the impossibility of an infinite regression of cause and effect" time is not merely "tied up with the formal system" it is the fundamental assumption of the formal system

No.  You are totally wrong.  Causality only implies that one event is a direct consequence to the first.  No temporality is invoked at all.

Causality refers to the relationship between one event (called the cause) and a second event (called the effect), where the second event is the direct consequence of the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Quote:
and it's parameters are dictated by the organisation of your subjective psychological experience.

No.  You are confusing the parameters of objective reality with the parameters of the formal systems that we build.

Quote:
1.  the "Accidents" inherently imply mutability of substance.

You can find a white cat and a you can find black cat, but you will not find such a thing as immutable "cat" or immutable "rock" or immutable "atom" even, so immutable god is a special plead against the nature of every substance we know.

In your example, the cat is a substance while the black is an accident.  If the cat gets older and its fur changes color, then that cat is still who he is. 

Are you saying that the 5 year old Eloise was not the same person as the current Eloise? 

There is no such thing as an immutable cat or a rock or an atom because these are finite beings.  Immutability can only belong to an eternal being.

Quote:
2. "Accidents" cannot be divided from "substance" in the manner proposed.

Colour, for example, is not merely a quality of a substance, it is the wavelength of light that fits, in integer multiplicity, in a space. This is, quite, precisely, the quantity and relation to dynamic system of the substance and these things are encompassed completely in its definition as a substance, they are the things that make it a substance. To say that there is a substance which is apart from accidents in its make up is scientifically absurd.

If what you say is true, then nobody exists.  Since the world is in constant motion and thus in constant flux, it follows that there is no singular entity which you can point to that is a subject.  Thus, when Eloise #1 changes an infinitesimal amount, Eloise #1 ceases to exist and Eloise #2 begins existed. 

Quote:
One says that the organisation of the psyche and the organisation of the universe are identical.

This is transcendental realism, i.e. what we perceive reflects objective reality.

Quote:
This is inconsistent with the existence of a god, it reduces to zero at the origin and that's all there is to it.

Umm, no.  When we perceive an order of cause and effect, it breaks down when you presume there to be an infinite regression.  Thus, we inevitably have to assume the existence of an eternal entity.

Quote:
Absolutely. If you honestly believe that the motion you percieve is anything but I suggest you review some senior high physics now. If you are entertaining the idea that it is in any way possible in reality to percieve motion because something else is "not moving" you have been decieved.

You've already refuted your own position.

Of course I am, human psychological experience is organised as motion percieved in relation to things not moving.

Quote:
I am conceding that the observer, to the best of our knowledge, cannot observe from from outside the universe and thus modelling ourselves as substantial is a lie we are at a loss of how to escape.

This is just Kantian idealism. 

If the universe is not what it is outside of our perception, then you really have no right to make statements about it either way. 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:Eloise

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Eloise wrote:

That's all it is???? Every logical step you take is predicated on time and the organisation of your psychological experience being identical things.

Every logical step is predicated on time because the formal system that I am using to debate with you is structured in that manner.  But I can assure you that this was never part of my argument.

But it is part of any argument which depends on it as a principle of the formal system within which the argument is framed, surely you can agree with this? The only way it can be, hence, excluded from your argument is if you make the concerted effort to conciously factor the dependence on it out from every term you use which is dependent.

As with relative motion, where I can say a mass is moving at some speed in some direction relative to another mass if the magnitude and momentum direction of the mass I have declared unmoving is such that on the scale of the moving object they are close to zero. Actual values in such a case are those of the moving object plus or minus a negligible amount. If I am aware that this amount is not negligible then I cannot use assume inertia with a small margin of error and I will be wrong, my result won't be useful.

So I am suggesting needs be the case with these assumptions especially regarding the nature of time vs the organisation of psychological experience. One can consciously consider psychological organisation only a reasonable approximation of real time on some relevant scale for example.

 

Lord_Of_Rock wrote:

If what you say is true, then physicists contradict themselves when they suppose that the space and time had a beginning. 

No physicists "suppose" space and time have a beginning. Thats not how science is done, conclusions are not supposed. A physicist will suppose the conditions that logically lead to a zero origin of space and time, and the aim of science is to have done so only after having formally and thoroughly discussed the necessity of, minimised and finally documented those suppositions as well, rather than simply making them. The purpose of science is essentially logic, the exercise of looking at both the propositions and the conclusions, laid out neatly together and it's a hard taskmaster. The beauty of going to all this trouble is that we can clearly see the conditions which logically lead to a zero origin of space and time while we examine other propsitions. We can still question those assumptions because they are deliberately not forgotten in the scientific pursuit, as they are in everyday reason. it's insulting to the selfless efforts of a lot of hardworking people to suggest otherwise.

 

Quote:

Quote:
When you "mention the impossibility of an infinite regression of cause and effect" time is not merely "tied up with the formal system" it is the fundamental assumption of the formal system

No.  You are totally wrong.  Causality only implies that one event is a direct consequence to the first.  No temporality is invoked at all.

No temporality is invoked? Oh for heavens sake. Define first.

No... let me (relevant definitions highlighted):

First:-

  • preceding all others in time or space or degree; "the first house on the right"; "the first day of spring"; "his first political race"; "her first ...
  • indicating the beginning unit in a series
  • before anything else; "first we must consider the garter snake"
  • beginning: the time at which something is supposed to begin; "they got an early start"; "she knew from the get-go that he was the man for her"
  • inaugural: serving to set in motion; "the magazine's inaugural issue"; "the initiative phase in the negotiations"; "an initiatory step toward a treaty"; "his first (or maiden) speech in Congress"; "the liner's maiden voyage"
  • the initial time; "when Felix first saw a garter snake"
  • first base: the fielding position of the player on a baseball team who is stationed at first of the bases in the infield (counting counterclockwise from home plate)
  • before another in time, space, or importance; "I was here first"; "let's do this job first"
  • an honours degree of the highest class
  • ranking above all others; "was first in her class"; "the foremost figure among marine artists"; "the top graduate"
  • foremost: prominently forward; "he put his best foot foremost"
  • first gear: the lowest forward gear ratio in the gear box of a motor vehicle; used to start a car moving
  • highest in pitch or chief among parts or voices or instruments or orchestra sections; "first soprano"; "the first violin section"; "played first horn"
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Lord_Of_Rock wrote:

Quote:
and it's parameters are dictated by the organisation of your subjective psychological experience.

No.  You are confusing the parameters of objective reality with the parameters of the formal systems that we build.

I'm what? No. The organisation of psychological experience is an objective reality. I'm not confusing what it is, I'm saying that it is not a universal limit. Whatever formal systems we build dependent on such limits are valid within them. It's not confusing them to say one is dependent on the other.

 

Quote:

Are you saying that the 5 year old Eloise was not the same person as the current Eloise? 

Well I'm saying 'person' is not a very well defined entity at all and moreover when very precisely defined it's indistinguishable from the everything else. One can't find any immutable person or thing in any sense because such a thing is conceptual, not real. This is further confirmed when you examine the real very closely.

 

Quote:

If what you say is true, then nobody exists. 

Yes, and no. Yes nobody exists, but, no, also. On the scale and in the direction in which psychological experience is ordered, our existence is a reasonable approximation of reality, so we exist and our existence is valid, seemingly, in the same way that we can run across a perfectly still earth. It's not actually happening, but the magnitude of the reality where its not happening makes it a negligible issue.

Quote:

Quote:
One says that the organisation of the psyche and the organisation of the universe are identical.

This is transcendental realism, i.e. what we perceive reflects objective reality.

Yeah kind of, but with a twist. Not what we percieve, but the order in which perceptions are organised, does not reflect reality. It reflects psychology and Psychology doesn't organise even the half of what we percieve into conscious data, so we may well percieve objective reality perfectly and it doesn't even matter because we (as human entities) formally interact and operate from a psychological framework, not from pure perception.

Quote:

Quote:
This is inconsistent with the existence of a god, it reduces to zero at the origin and that's all there is to it.

Umm, no.  When we perceive an order of cause and effect, it breaks down when you presume there to be an infinite regression.  Thus, we inevitably have to assume the existence of an eternal entity.

There's a model, affectionately termed The Big Bang, have you heard of it? It demonstrates quite effectively the concept of a cause-effect universe as a curve approaching zero at the origin. Zero means no entity, there's no entity at the origin, just an origin. A nothing, and if you allow for the quantum effects of the scale of nothing it can be described as unstable, instability is a well known characteristic of that size regime. And and unstable nothing needs no cause to become something, it's inevitable and in it's very nature that it cannot stay nothing.

So there you have it.. No entity, no infinite regression, just a cause and effect model analysed at the limit is thats all it takes to satisfy the Kalaam argument. Moving on...

Quote:

Quote:
Absolutely. If you honestly believe that the motion you percieve is anything but I suggest you review some senior high physics now. If you are entertaining the idea that it is in any way possible in reality to percieve motion because something else is "not moving" you have been decieved.

You've already refuted your own position.

Of course I am, human psychological experience is organised as motion percieved in relation to things not moving.

didn't I say, in the bit you've snipped out, reality is under no such constraint, everything is in motion. ??

Motion perceived in relation to things not moving is an approximation to reality, it works when the error is small enough to be ignored, for example the scale of human experience compared to the scale of the planet it occurs on is a difference of so many orders of magnitude that human activity falls far short of overlapping a unit of earths motion, the error is small and the approximation works.

So when I say that human psychological experience is ordered as motion perceived in relation to things not moving I'm saying the psychological framework requires a scale where the units of motion from one reference frame to another do not overlap in order to percieve motion, not that there is an actual unmoving object which it can refer to.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Did you somehow fail to

Did you somehow fail to notice that "genetic code" has a different definition than "code"?
And what about the other points? Do you concede them?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:But it is part

Eloise wrote:

But it is part of any argument which depends on it as a principle of the formal system within which the argument is framed, surely you can agree with this? The only way it can be, hence, excluded from your argument is if you make the concerted effort to conciously factor the dependence on it out from every term you use which is dependent.

No.  That is not necessary at all anymore than it is necessary for a scientist to discuss the "beginning" of time.

Quote:
No physicists "suppose" space and time have a beginning.

But they do use that particular language to discuss it.

Quote:
No temporality is invoked? Oh for heavens sake. Define first.

I did. 

Quote:
Well I'm saying 'person' is not a very well defined entity at all and moreover when very precisely defined it's indistinguishable from the everything else. One can't find any immutable person or thing in any sense because such a thing is conceptual, not real. This is further confirmed when you examine the real very closely.

Yes, and no. Yes nobody exists, but, no, also. On the scale and in the direction in which psychological experience is ordered, our existence is a reasonable approximation of reality, so we exist and our existence is valid, seemingly, in the same way that we can run across a perfectly still earth. It's not actually happening, but the magnitude of the reality where its not happening makes it a negligible issue.

Now you are just being irrational.  Nobody exists but they do exist?  "Person" is not a well-defined entity, and yet you continually talk about individual substances?

Quote:
There's a model, affectionately termed The Big Bang, have you heard of it? It demonstrates quite effectively the concept of a cause-effect universe as a curve approaching zero at the origin. Zero means no entity, there's no entity at the origin, just an origin. A nothing

So you believe that everything came from nothing?

 

 

Did anyone ever tell you that you have a really HUGE forehead?  You should really get some bangs to cover it up.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: then i

angelobrazil wrote:

 then i guess, you got to love the part  in Wiki as well, that says :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

 The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated intoproteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.
 

Yeah I am going with you have a reading comprehension problem. Lets check out the definitions of CODE in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

In communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type. In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated. Decoding is the reverse process, converting these code symbols back into information understandable by a receiver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28cryptography%29

In cryptography, a code is a method used to transform a message into an obscured form, preventing those who do not possess special information, or key, required to apply the transform from understanding what is actually transmitted. The usual method is to use a codebook with a list of common phrases or words matched with a codeword. Encoded messages are sometimes termed codetext, while the original message is usually referred to as plaintext.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28computer_programming%29

In computer science, source code (commonly just source) is any collection of statements or declarations written in some human-readable computer programming language. Source code allows the programmer to communicate with the computer using a reserved number of instructions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28semiotics%29

In semiotics, a code is a set of conventions or sub-codes currently in use to communicate meaning. The most common is one's spoken language, but the term can also be used to refer to any narrative form: consider the color scheme of an image (e.g. red for danger), or the rules of a board game (e.g the military signifiers in chess).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28information_theory%29

In information theory, a code is a function mapping an alphabet to non-negative real numbers, satisfying a generalization of Kraft's inequality. A code page, a type of character encoding table, is one such code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28metadata%29

In metadata, the representation term code refers to, and is used in the name of, data elements whose allowable values can be represented as enumerated lists. Each enumerated value is a string that for brevity represents a specific meaning. For example, for a PersonGenderCode the allowable code valid values might be "male", "female" or "unknown". To be compliant with ISO standards a value meaning or definition must also be associated with each code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28set_theory%29

In set theory, a code for a set

x \in H_{\aleph_1},

the notation standing for the hereditarily countable sets,

is a set

E \subset ω×ω

such that there is an isomorphism between (ω,E) and (X,\in) where X is the transitive closure of {x}. If X is finite (with cardinality n), then use n×n instead of ω×ω and (n,E) instead of (ω,E).

which is not the same as what your implying. Even so, it's a set or rules by how DNA functions is more or less how the chemical reaction or actually interaction with the amino acids. As well, the there are theories (hypothesis and theories) on how this came to be naturally. Again NO GOD REQUIRED. You have yet to A) Present evidence for god, B) Provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the genetic code could only arise by God only. As per the end part of wikipedia entry regarding Genetic code states

Despite the variations that exist, the genetic codes used by all known forms of life are very similar. Since there are many possible genetic codes that are thought to have similar utility to the one used by Earth life, the theory of evolution suggests that the genetic code was established very early in the history of life. Phylogenetic analysis of transfer RNA suggests that tRNA molecules evolved before the present set of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.[15]

  • Recent aptamer experiments show that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for the base triplets that code for them.[21] This suggests that the current complex translation mechanism involving tRNA and associated enzymes may be a later development, and that originally, protein sequences were directly templated on base sequences.
  • That the standard modern genetic code grew from a simpler earlier code through a process of "biosynthetic expansion". Here the idea is that primordial life 'discovered' new amino acids (e.g., as by-products of metabolism) and later back-incorporated some of these into the machinery of genetic coding. Although much circumstantial evidence has been found to suggest that fewer different amino acids were used in the past than today,[22] precise and detailed hypotheses about exactly which amino acids entered the code in exactly what order has proved far more controversial.[23][24]
  • That natural selection has led to codon assignments of the genetic code that minimize the effects of mutations.[25]

So can you or can you not provide proper evidence, that shows beyond reasonable doubt that god is required? Because so far you haven't shown that.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Did you somehow fail to

 Did you somehow fail to notice that "genetic code" has a different definition than "code"?

You might go further and explain your point. What is the difference ?

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.cosmicfingerprin

 http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

 

Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1:
"DNA is Not a Code"

  1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker&rdquoEye-wink and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener&rdquoEye-wink using agreed upon symbols.
  2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
  3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
  4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
  5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

 


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
DNA Is Not a CodeDNA Is Not

Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:1.

angelobrazil wrote:

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

No, the universe probably always existed (since energy can not be created or destroyed) and the big bang was simple the transition from one state to another.

angelobrazil wrote:
2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

The probability of a random event occurring  is irrelevant once the event has occurred

angelobrazil wrote:
3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 

Yes it has, it's called abiogenesis and it has been proved.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for Oblivion

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

No, the universe probably always existed (since energy can not be created or destroyed) and the big bang was simple the transition from one state to another.

 

Oh, i see. Therefor, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply anymore to the universe ?

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

The probability of a random event occurring  is irrelevant once the event has occurred.

 

 But it raises the question of why and what originated the event. It had a cause... What caused it ?Thats a absolutely relevant and pertinent question. 

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

Yes it has, it's called abiogenesis and it has been proved.

 

Wow , really ??!! show me the proves.... 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Zymotic wrote:DNA Is Not a

Zymotic wrote:

DNA Is Not a Code

 

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code.  The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code.  DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.   There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.  These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them.  We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.  Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

 http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

 

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics.  The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.  This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial.  It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

 

 The information in DNA is independent of the communication medium insofar as every strand of DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body; even though the DNA strand itself is only a sequence of symbols made up of chemicals (A, G, C, T). We could store a CAD drawing of a hard drive on the same model of hard drive, but the medium and the message are two distinctly different things. Such symbolic relationships only exist within the realm of living things; they do not occur naturally. 

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:So you

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

So you believe that everything came from nothing?

 

Actually I don't, No, I was just giving you a run down on how a logical model of the universe can say so and be basically complete and satisfactory.

I, personally, don't agree with the assumptions of that particular model and I have explained that to you.

Anyway, now I see you eventually behave like a childish brat when you're disagreed with I've suddenly run out of time for you. We won't be discussing this any further, mate, see ya.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Oh, i

angelobrazil wrote:

Oh, i see. Therefor, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply anymore to the universe ?

wikipedia wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium

Time, or at least time as we know, did not exist before the big bang. Also, if I remember correctly, the big bang was an expansion of time and space

 

angelobrazil wrote:
But it raises the question of why and what originated the event. It had a cause... What caused it ?Thats a absolutely relevant and pertinent question.

Why do you assume it had a cause and that that cause was god?

angelobrazil wrote:
Wow , really ??!! show me the proves.... 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Both Zymotic and Latincanuck

Both Zymotic and Latincanuck have already done so. You have failed to understand or refute simple English, so I won't bother repeating their efforts.
I also have to declare victory on the other 3 points, since you've been unable to respond to them. Which translates into you admitting you're full of shit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Which translates into you

 Which translates into you admitting you're full of shit.

 

In this case, i guess you won't need to bother with me anymore, isn't it ?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
On the contrary, you'll see

On the contrary, you'll see more of me. Lots more. I may not be able to convince you that you're wrong, but I can certainly convince others who read it later. A defeat on the internet is recorded in ways and places that can never be completely foreseen, and stand a long time. It can be pointed to by anyone with a computer. You, by not responding to points, lose every time you post. It does not help you. It does help us.
Granted, I won't respond to every delusion you spout, but there are a lot of atheists here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for Oblivion

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Oh, i see. Therefor, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply anymore to the universe ?

wikipedia wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium

http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=19

Creation and Maintenance of the Universe
If, universally, all systems and processes are “winding down”, dissipating energy and becoming more disordered over time, this implies the universe will at some point reach a state of equilibrium with constant temperature everywhere and the energy in all stars and other systems will have dissipated. Since this has not yet happened, the implication is that the universe has NOT always existed or else equilibrium would have already been reached. The universe exists, thus it must have had a beginning. Since natural processes have never been observed creating something from nothing, the only explanation for the existence of the universe is an un-natural or super-natural creation.

Since we are unaware of any universal maintenance program, we can conclude that the universe will continually proceed in the direction of increasing disorder (Entropy) and energy dissipation, thus eventually reaching a state of equilibrium everywhere.

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

Time, or at least time as we know, did not exist before the big bang. Also, if I remember correctly, the big bang was an expansion of time and space 

 

Correct. This implies a cause. Nothing starts from nothing. What was the cause thow of the universe ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

 

 

 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
But it raises the question of why and what originated the event. It had a cause... What caused it ?Thats a absolutely relevant and pertinent question.

Why do you assume it had a cause and that that cause was god?

angelobrazil wrote:
Wow , really ??!! show me the proves.... 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rna-worlds/

Excuse me? Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions. In fact, it almost sounds like, dare I say it, intelligent design.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:On the

Vastet wrote:
On the contrary, you'll see more of me. Lots more. I may not be able to convince you that you're wrong, but I can certainly convince others who read it later. A defeat on the internet is recorded in ways and places that can never be completely foreseen, and stand a long time. It can be pointed to by anyone with a computer. You, by not responding to points, lose every time you post. It does not help you. It does help us. Granted, I won't respond to every delusion you spout, but there are a lot of atheists here.

 

At the very exact moment , you leave politeness, and  insult your counterpart, instead of answering with RATIONAL ( istn't that the name of this forum ? ) and intelligent answers, you LOST the debate.

And people who behave this way , i  do not loose my time with.