The problem of free will

Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
The problem of free will

I was reading some arguments and I found a rather interesting discussion involving free will. Free will is usually used as a dodge for Christians to explain why the world is so fucked up, now they also say that God is incapable of doing evil due to the nature of their god. Now I disagree about their gods nature, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are correct. This leads to some problems in regards to free will, as it is two aspects. Aside from the question of how free will is gained, IE what we had beforehand since free will is really just the ability to make choices there is a problem that free will provides. If your god is incapable of comitting an evil act due to nature then your god can't really be said to have free will, so how could a creator provide a trait that they themselves lack. Or to put it another way, if man is made in the image of your god then why would your god give man things that god him/her/itself does not possess? But it also leads to a bigger problem. A beings nature determines what it does, if it is my nature to, say only eat pancakes then my eating pancakes isn't really a matter of choice, it's my nature. I might not think that pancakes are superior to other foodstuffs, I might not even be able to make such an assertion, just having my nature that I will eat pancakes and pancakes alone. If God is only capable of 'doing good' then when you have a flawed humanity that can do good or evil and choose good even in cases where it might be to their benefit to choose evil then in reality such people would in fact be morally superior to this god entity. I'm curious as to what the response would be from you christians or other theists out there.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Teralek wrote:

1. The question is not if God has free will or not. Is if WE have it.

2. WLC is crazy

3. I think Michio Kaku said it best: "Hey get use to it! Einstein was wrong!"

4. There is no such thing as 2 exact universes up to the quantum levels, they would develop differently, quantum states are as random as random can be!

5. If you are right we should give human rights to machines who pass the Turing test

1. you missed the sarcasm

2. i don't believe in god

3. einstein might have gotten it wrong

4. statistically, yes there are two exact universes up to the quantum level

5. i think technology will never reach the point were we even need to consider giving rights to a machine. biological replicants maybe.

 

1. 

2. Me neither... well I don't believe in 99,9% of God's definitions

3. I like your Avatar! who's that guy? that's a funny photo

4. Now this is a good point, it got me thinking... But still a theoretic observation like this is not undeniable proof that indterminism/free will is wrong. Before I go any further I want to make perfectly clear that my defense of free will is not religious in nature.

Any 2 Universes that start the same will have different evolution in virtually every scenario. Statistically yes 1 in an infinite range will be the same. This only shows to me that if you start with virtually infinite possibilities and infinite Universes, there will be 2 that are exactly the copy of each other from moment A to moment B. I interpret this thought experience as an example of the infinite possibilities of outcomes that quantic mechanics allows, not that we live in a deterministic universe. Random/indeterministic are synonims.

Also, let me quote the words of a psychiatrist commenting this article about free will: "I'd like to offer my take on this question as a psychiatrist. I think that we have to back up and ask the question, does it have to be that we either have free will or don't have free will? I suspect that it's more productive to ask under what conditions can we say we have something like free will.

In Gary Gutting's original article he gives the example: "If I choose to remain indoors because I’m in the grip of a panic attack at the thought of going outside, then my choice isn’t free.... I’m compelled." Perhaps. But let's look at it this way: if I am aware that I might have some eventual mastery of my anxiety depending on how I approach it, if I know from therapy or reading or life experience that just letting my panic drive everything will keep me stuck, it opens the possibility of making a conscious decision: I could choose to go out anyway and try to tolerate the panic. Or I could decide to go out just to walk around the block. Or I could decide to stay in this time but go on the stoop for 10 seconds next time. Or, or, or....

My take on free will is that it something that takes work, it's an achievement, not a given."

5. Do you know the Turing test? Why shouldn't we give some rights to a machine (in this case is a code) that is indistinguishable from a human? Why just biological replicants?

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:jackspell

badlad83 wrote:

jackspell wrote:

badlad83 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Allah is the one true god

Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Jesus is the one true god

Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Yahweh is the one true god

Study=you cant prove it isn't true=I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass

 

QUANTUM mechanics will never produce fictional characters or make magic real. Imagination is only real in the sense it is bullshit humans make up.

Nature and laws of physics are BOTH deterministic AND random. "Laws" are not handed down in science by humans, they are mere labels scientists place on constant observations.

Hurricanes start on the quantum level, by luck of climate. But hurricanes do not plan ahead, that is the random part. A hurricane doesn't say 5 months ahead of time, I am going to be born. Hurricanes are only deterministic in the sense that we can measure them when they do happen because they have  structure.

Your first 4 phrases have nothing to do with what I've said, but I'll amuse you... 

 Study=you cant prove it isn't true=M-Theory is the ultimate turtle

 Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Determinism is the ultimate turtle 

  Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Imutable physical laws is the ultimate turtle

 Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Initial singularity is the ultimate turtle

THE ULTIMATE TURTLE

So you're technically saying that random phenomenons are NOT indeterministic? Thus you are forcefully implying that determinism is not falsifiable... Cause I can't imagine an hypotetical scenario where determinism would be falsifiable... if you can enlighten me please.

BTW! that quote about imagination was from Einstein

NO I am saying reality is BOTH law and random.

Sperm evolved to meet with the female egg, the random part is which one will. Same with a rainstorm, rain happens with condition "that is the law part", the random part is when it starts and how many raindrops it produces.

And it was a bad metaphor on Einstein's  part. He meant that the way I corrected it, but people like you always take shit out of context.

He meant is is ok to dream about stuff, but he damned sure would say it is bullshit and will remain a claim unless you put it to test.

FYI go look up his last letter before he died. Read it.
 

I don't question what you've just said. I agree. My only question, that you keep not answering, is if you consider random phenomenons to be deterministic or indeterministic in nature. That is my only question. What you keep showing is that random phenomenons have repercussions in Newtonian physics, I don't disagree with that.

I cannot dumb down my answer any further than one word for you.

BOTH!

When you go to a restaurant YOU observe food. On the menu you have several items, if you go to that joint multiple  times you don't always order the same thing or go there at the same time.

BOTH

But what you wont find at a restaurant are invisible pink unicorns crawling out of your food.

REALITY is observed through the scientific use of OBSERVATION. The "law" part, but a fire will not clone itself down to the exact pattern of quarks a prior one did. "FLAMES HAPPEN" the law part. "FLAMES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT" the random part.

What won't happen is that fire will drive a car or turn into a frog or write a novel.

BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH

The universe and evolution DO NOT NEED  a stupid god to explain anything. Just like a hurricane doesn't need Neptune as an explination.

 

 

And you were right about being unable to "dumb" it down anymore. You really want to argue that if the conditions for combustion are present, then those conditions are repeated, it will not yield identical results? Right.....I guess combustion isn't a physical process then. Considering what you've said, it must have free will then doesn't it?
And I'm probably wasting my time here, but, since why doesn't evolution need God? And if you don't mind, just list one, JUST ONE, organism that has been observed evolving from say, Kingdom Plantae to Kingdom Animalia. Don't worry, I'll wait.

I can only guess you are joking, right? No plants ever have, and no plant ever will, evolve into animals. Now if you aren't joking you SERIOUSLY should study a little evolution.

Why would that be a joke? Perhaps I have studied claims of evolution. Perhaps you have never approached it with the same skepticism you do God. If you had, you would know that was a very valid question. Since evolution doesn't need God like dipshit belligerently claimed, a request for someone to provide just ONE example of evolution at that classification level should be a piece of cake? So why would you say that will never happen? If you believe Darwinian evolution it is very plausible. Since animals where here about 150 million years before the first land plants, it would follow that most probably they were some of the resources natural selection utilized. And since animals are heterotrophic and unable fix their own carbon and depend on organic carbon for growth, why wouldn't natural selection choose the superior genes that plants have making them autotrophic, which allows them to fix their own carbon making their own food? Seems like survival of the fittest would go that route instead of letting them die from not getting the necessary food. And why, if all animals and fungii, along with some bacteria, depend on plants for their necessary food source, where they doing about food for 150 million years? So, if you support evolution, I think you would agree that some animals did evolve into the plant kingdom. If ever natural selection were needed, this is it. So then, why doesn't it still happen today? Why is there anything today besides plants? Better yet, since you think humans evolved all the way from the classification Domain, JUST TELL ME ANYTHING HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED EVOLVING INTO JUST THE NEXT CLASSIFICATION, KINGDOM.

Please rewrite this in English, I don't speak retard. "...where they doing about food..." is one example of your writing which makes no sense to me. I'm not asking for perfection, just some semblance of the language I speak... I will happily teach you once you have asked a correct question. One point I think I may have picked out is your "animals before plants" idea... If that is the point you were making, sorry you have been misinformed. There were many single celled animal LIKE organisms. They consumed other organisms. That is very likely how eukaryotic cells came to exist... One theory could be that an early algae "ate" an early cyanobacteria. But no plant has ever, or ever will, evolve into an animal, and science has never made that claim. Still, please rewrite your question I don't understand whatever language it is you are using.

Would you really teach me? That's so thoughtful. Okay, start by answering these few questions:

How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being.

How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical?

How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female?

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science class?

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Teralek wrote:

1. The question is not if God has free will or not. Is if WE have it.

2. WLC is crazy

3. I think Michio Kaku said it best: "Hey get use to it! Einstein was wrong!"

4. There is no such thing as 2 exact universes up to the quantum levels, they would develop differently, quantum states are as random as random can be!

5. If you are right we should give human rights to machines who pass the Turing test

1. you missed the sarcasm

2. i don't believe in god

3. einstein might have gotten it wrong

4. statistically, yes there are two exact universes up to the quantum level

5. i think technology will never reach the point were we even need to consider giving rights to a machine. biological replicants maybe.

WE KNOW YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD

So what.

You still falsely think that you can stick in Buddhism as a gap answer to science. It doesn't work otherwise it would be a requirement in science classes which it is not.

Your Buddhism is merely YOUR predilection, nothing more.

Pre big bang=Buddha got it right.

If so then why do current theories in QM never mention Buddha?

I dare you to find one scientifically peer reviewed book that demands you take a course in Buddhism to understand QM.

HERE IT COMES.....................the childish "You're just a hatemonger"

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:I was reading

Joker wrote:

I was reading some arguments and I found a rather interesting discussion involving free will. Free will is usually used as a dodge for Christians to explain why the world is so fucked up, now they also say that God is incapable of doing evil due to the nature of their god. Now I disagree about their gods nature, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are correct. This leads to some problems in regards to free will, as it is two aspects. Aside from the question of how free will is gained, IE what we had beforehand since free will is really just the ability to make choices there is a problem that free will provides. If your god is incapable of comitting an evil act due to nature then your god can't really be said to have free will, so how could a creator provide a trait that they themselves lack. Or to put it another way, if man is made in the image of your god then why would your god give man things that god him/her/itself does not possess? But it also leads to a bigger problem. A beings nature determines what it does, if it is my nature to, say only eat pancakes then my eating pancakes isn't really a matter of choice, it's my nature. I might not think that pancakes are superior to other foodstuffs, I might not even be able to make such an assertion, just having my nature that I will eat pancakes and pancakes alone. If God is only capable of 'doing good' then when you have a flawed humanity that can do good or evil and choose good even in cases where it might be to their benefit to choose evil then in reality such people would in fact be morally superior to this god entity. I'm curious as to what the response would be from you christians or other theists out there.

The concept of "free will" was created by humans in the absence of the knowledge to define the system of all constraints. I may not know why I choose one decision over another, but because I do not know why I have made this choice does not mean there is not a reason for choosing it.

jackspell wrote:

(#25)

Good post. I try not to bias my assertions on a predilection of ID, but we ultimately agree on the conclusion either way.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:3. I like your

Teralek wrote:

3. I like your Avatar! who's that guy? that's a funny photo

4. Now this is a good point, it got me thinking... But still a theoretic observation like this is not undeniable proof that indterminism/free will is wrong. Before I go any further I want to make perfectly clear that my defense of free will is not religious in nature.

Any 2 Universes that start the same will have different evolution in virtually every scenario. Statistically yes 1 in an infinite range will be the same. This only shows to me that if you start with virtually infinite possibilities and infinite Universes, there will be 2 that are exactly the copy of each other from moment A to moment B. I interpret this thought experience as an example of the infinite possibilities of outcomes that quantic mechanics allows, not that we live in a deterministic universe. Random/indeterministic are synonims.

Also, let me quote the words of a psychiatrist commenting this article about free will: "I'd like to offer my take on this question as a psychiatrist. I think that we have to back up and ask the question, does it have to be that we either have free will or don't have free will? I suspect that it's more productive to ask under what conditions can we say we have something like free will.

In Gary Gutting's original article he gives the example: "If I choose to remain indoors because I’m in the grip of a panic attack at the thought of going outside, then my choice isn’t free.... I’m compelled." Perhaps. But let's look at it this way: if I am aware that I might have some eventual mastery of my anxiety depending on how I approach it, if I know from therapy or reading or life experience that just letting my panic drive everything will keep me stuck, it opens the possibility of making a conscious decision: I could choose to go out anyway and try to tolerate the panic. Or I could decide to go out just to walk around the block. Or I could decide to stay in this time but go on the stoop for 10 seconds next time. Or, or, or....

My take on free will is that it something that takes work, it's an achievement, not a given."

5. Do you know the Turing test? Why shouldn't we give some rights to a machine (in this case is a code) that is indistinguishable from a human? Why just biological replicants?

1 - The avatar is Tony Clifton and alter-ego of Andy Kaufman

2 - I don't believe in right and wrong, but to clarify my opinion on free will.

 Every thing was set in motion a long time ago and we have no control over that; but people "think therefore I am".

 I don't believe in the "think therefore I am" view of life. I believe that only supports the illusion of created by our desires

 Our desires come from our ego which is doesn't really exist; it only surfaces by the desires. When we die, so does our ego.

3 - I do know the Turning test.

 Machines are machines, but a living self aware "whatever" is not a machine.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
1. This is abiogenesis, not

1. This is abiogenesis, not evolution. Still fascinating though. There are at least a dozen different theories. One of my favorites is the clay hypothesis. The truth is that science has just begun to unlock the mysteries of abiogenesis. Remarkable breakthroughs are being made all the time! The first self-replicating life forms were not cellular. It’s likely they were something similar to a simple RNA. Check out RNA world hypothesis to learn much, much more! 2. As RNA became involved in more complex metabolic processes, and possibly after it became cellular, some organisms began to use different types of molecules for different functions. This was the very first DNA, and of course it began as something much much more simple than we see in cells now. Because DNA is more stable than RNA, it began to replace RNA in more and more complex processes over time. 3. I think there is too much emphasis on a mutation always being a “bad” thing. That is simply not the truth. Many humans carry a mutated gene which allows them to remain lactose tolerant as adults. Some people of African descent have blue eyes. Some green algae use NO2 as efficiently as NO3. Now imagine these minor changes occurring constantly over the span of BILLIONS of years. 4. Natural selection fueled evolution. Evolution would not have happened without natural selection. That’s why it is taught. I think this question is mixing evolution with abiogenesis though. Are you asking how ancestors of modern birds evolved beaks? 5. Evolution, time, evolution, time, evolution, time… Not every “thing” that worked evolved every time it was used, separately. “Things” that worked were copied and built upon over time. The addition of one new protein does one thing, of 2 new proteins does something else. If it’s advantageous it’s repeated. The mousetrap makes a useful tie clip with the trigger removed. Understand? 6. Because even though it LOOKS that way, adding a designer answers nothing, and introduces many more questions. Why did that designer design humans with a tailbone? Or with an appendix? Or give whales tiny internal useless legs? Or turkeys “thumb” nails on their wings? Those are much more challenging to answer when you try to insert a designer. It makes no sense. 7. This is getting into developmental biology. Multicellular organisms evolved separately several times. Plants and animals of course, but even prokaryotes. It’s easy to see why individual cells began to organize themselves into colonies. The much harder question is how germ cell reproduction became commonplace (so that an entire organism could be reproduced from a germ cell). It’s likely that before multicellular organisms came to exist, unicellular organisms developed sexual reproduction. It’s amazing! 8. Good, sexual reproduction is fascinating. Again, there are many theories. But you have to imagine a reason for sexual reproduction to be advantageous. For one thing, not everything that is advantageous remains so over every environment. Also imagine this: incorporating another organisms advantageous mutation into your DNA IS advantageous! 9. We have hundreds of transitional fossils. We don’t have more because only a small fraction of life became fossilized, and of that we have only unearthed a smaller fraction still. That being said, everything alive today is in transition. Also, some animals alive today show “transitional” characteristics. I have 2 fish in an aquarium that would die if denied access to atmospheric O2, and walk with their pelvic fins! You will never see a crocoduck though. Look up Cyclobatis, Cladoselache, Amphistium, Osteolepsis, Hynerpeton, Archaeopteryx, Morganucodon…. Actually, there are far too many to list. Remember, Darwin died a long time ago. It’s not true that this issue is a problem anymore. 10. Because they are successful. Environmental pressures that caused other species to change or die out were well within the range of what these species could handle. To even consider this to be a problem is to admit you know very little about evolution. The average 8th grader could answer this one. 11. This is 3 separate questions. Your third one is silly. Please clarify it. 12. Because there is still so much to learn. It’s an extremely complex subject. Your question about men is easy to answer... Because the requirements aren’t the same across the ages and across different populations. Women have been attracted to different things. Most women alive today would not have sex with a man that killed the neighbor family. 13. Why is history taught? Would teaching creationism free up more time? I’m not sure what point this is supposed to make. It’s either silly or you need to reword it. 14. Again, what’s the point of this question? Why is history taught? Why is geology taught? 15. Again, what’s the point of this question? It’s as correct to say evolution is religion as it is to say geology is religion. Everyone can see they are not the same thing. But maybe you need to clarify your point again. These were all simple questions, other than the ones that make no sense. But even if somebody were to prove evolution didn’t happen, do you think inserting your magical imaginary sky daddy theory would be the correct things to do? If a god created life on this planet it is a piss poor designer. It could have done a much better job than leaving remnants of organs we no longer need that become infected, burst, and cause their owner to suffer. And that’s only one of thousands of mistakes your sky daddy made.


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
sorry, I had that as a list.

sorry, I had that as a list. not sure what happened!


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WE KNOW YOU

Brian37 wrote:

WE KNOW YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD

So what.

You still falsely think that you can stick in Buddhism as a gap answer to science. It doesn't work otherwise it would be a requirement in science classes which it is not.

Your Buddhism is merely YOUR predilection, nothing more.

Pre big bang=Buddha got it right.

If so then why do current theories in QM never mention Buddha?

I dare you to find one scientifically peer reviewed book that demands you take a course in Buddhism to understand QM.

HERE IT COMES.....................the childish "You're just a hatemonger"

Brain,

1 - I don't believe in god.

2 - I don't believe in creationism.

3 - I don't follow religions.

4 - I don't believe in miracles.

5 - I believe your football team will not make it in to the playoffs as long as you have that tool owner running things.

6 - Go suck some ass because you are going to get Tebow.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:(#56)Even

badlad83 wrote:

(#56)


Even assuming general abiogenesis is possible, it could have first occurred elsewhere and life on Earth may have arrived via transpermia.

One could even entertain the thought that these frozen rocks of life were directed by an advanced ET.

The first step to take in truly identifying your religious preference is to realize the only certain view you can take is agnosticism. Any position you take beyond this is based on faith.


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:badlad83

ax wrote:

badlad83 wrote:

(#56)


Even assuming general abiogenesis is possible, it could have first occurred elsewhere and life on Earth may have arrived via transpermia.

One could even entertain the thought that these frozen rocks of life were directed by an advanced ET.

The first step to take in truly identifying your religious preference is to realize the only certain view you can take is agnosticism. Any position you take beyond this is based on faith.

It absolutely COULD have. God COULD exist. Muhammad COULD be god's prophet. The leader of the LDS church COULD be god's prophet. Santa COULD bring gifts to good children. Jesus COULD be the product of the Jewish war god Yahweh fucking Marry through the power of the holy spirit. Fortune cookies COULD actually be telling my fortune. Ghosts COULD actually haunt this planet. There is no compelling reason to believe any of these things though. I am an atheist because I don't believe these things, and categorize all of them as EXTREMELY implausible. Does that make me agnostic? Fine! I'm still an atheist though! 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

WE KNOW YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD

So what.

You still falsely think that you can stick in Buddhism as a gap answer to science. It doesn't work otherwise it would be a requirement in science classes which it is not.

Your Buddhism is merely YOUR predilection, nothing more.

Pre big bang=Buddha got it right.

If so then why do current theories in QM never mention Buddha?

I dare you to find one scientifically peer reviewed book that demands you take a course in Buddhism to understand QM.

HERE IT COMES.....................the childish "You're just a hatemonger"

Brain,

1 - I don't believe in god.

2 - I don't believe in creationism.

3 - I don't follow religions.

4 - I don't believe in miracles.

5 - I believe your football team will not make it in to the playoffs as long as you have that tool owner running things.

6 - Go suck some ass because you are going to get Tebow.

 

YOU NOT ME YOU claim to be a Buddhist? Or am I mistaken?

You claim that Buddha figured out that "everything is connected" which is NOT TRUE and not even a scientific observation. BACK THEN he merely meant things around you can have an affect on you. But that was about as scientific as the word "atom" used by the ancient Greeks. Neither the Greeks or Buddha had any modern knowledge of science.

As far as the Skins, I agree and if I thought a Buddhist could buy the team and force that tool to sell it to get us there I would support that Buddhist in a heartbeat.

But no, my current understanding is that NE is getting god boy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:YOU NOT ME YOU

Brian37 wrote:

YOU NOT ME YOU claim to be a Buddhist? Or am I mistaken?

You claim that Buddha figured out that "everything is connected" which is NOT TRUE and not even a scientific observation. BACK THEN he merely meant things around you can have an affect on you. But that was about as scientific as the word "atom" used by the ancient Greeks. Neither the Greeks or Buddha had any modern knowledge of science.

As far as the Skins, I agree and if I thought a Buddhist could buy the team and force that tool to sell it to get us there I would support that Buddhist in a heartbeat.

But no, my current understanding is that NE is getting god boy.

Your a buddha, I'm a buddha, wouldn't you like to be a buddha too!

I don't claim "everything is connected". Show me which post?

Skins blow donkey cock.

We shall see...

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:...I am an

badlad83 wrote:
...I am an atheist because I don't believe these things, and categorize all of them as EXTREMELY implausible....
The existence of an ET which we may perceive as a God is more probable than rare earth hypothesis.

 


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
But I would not "perceive"

But I would not "perceive" an ET as anything more than another species. You can go ahead and suck ET off if that's what makes you happy. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Also your point is stupid because an ET would require a rare earth. Which makes rare earth at least as probable as ET.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:2 - I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

2 - I don't believe in right and wrong, but to clarify my opinion on free will.

 Every thing was set in motion a long time ago and we have no control over that; but people "think therefore I am".

 I don't believe in the "think therefore I am" view of life. I believe that only supports the illusion of created by our desires

 Our desires come from our ego which is doesn't really exist; it only surfaces by the desires. When we die, so does our ego.

3 - I do know the Turning test.

 Machines are machines, but a living self aware "whatever" is not a machine.
 

In a world set in motion on which we are just complex biological machines I have to admit that I have to give some sort o rights to beings that pass every awareness test.

If I don't do that I'm incurring in carbon base life bigotry. I think this is more of a problem than every thing else that as been discussed on this thread because with all the advances made on computers AI could be very real in some decades. AI can potentially answer about the human quality. If a "code" can consistently pass the Turing test then I'll admit human free will is just an illusion from an inner "mathematical code" and there is nothing more to human existence than the sum of its mesurable parts. So I see whether we manage to create true AI or not is going to have tremendous implications, it has the potential of being on of the biggest human achievements. IF we can't produce an AI that is also telling us something about us.

Someone told me that the reason many reject the idea of free will/indeterminism is because it comes with the idea of non causality thus pointing to God. I don't agree with this. Depends on what you would consider God. 

If we start with a question whatever the question is, and keep asking why we are going to hit a wall sooner or later. A given, an assumption. Even science before any hypothesis it always starts with an assumption.

For example: Scientists use to believe that the laws of the Universe where simply a given, non caused, just printed on the Big Bang. Why these laws and not any others, was just their uncaused cause, their "not questionable" assumption. Many still do believe this although now the fashion is string theory which also carries uncaused causes of her own.

You can escape from this saying that there is an infinite regress of causes. I don't like this because that's an assumption on itself and because I find the thought illogical. Saying that there cannot possibly be a First Cause is human bias that come from our mental construction and observing most processes in nature.

But even if you have an uncaused cause that doesn't immediately cry "God" that is a false and biased thought.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:In a world set

Teralek wrote:

In a world set in motion on which we are just complex biological machines I have to admit that I have to give some sort o rights to beings that pass every awareness test.

Well that is if a test is a true benchmark for determining intelligence. There are other things to consider when trying to figure out if one is self aware.

Teralek wrote:

If I don't do that I'm incurring in carbon base life bigotry. I think this is more of a problem than every thing else that as been discussed on this thread because with all the advances made on computers AI could be very real in some decades. AI can potentially answer about the human quality. If a "code" can consistently pass the Turing test then I'll admit human free will is just an illusion from an inner "mathematical code" and there is nothing more to human existence than the sum of its mesurable parts. So I see whether we manage to create true AI or not is going to have tremendous implications, it has the potential of being on of the biggest human achievements. IF we can't produce an AI that is also telling us something about us.

I like the tests given during the Blade Runner movie; the "Voight-Kampff" test. I know this is not a test of pure intelligence, but I think there is an issue of only testing for intelligence. Computers have already shown they are intelligent. What we would need is a test to show intelligence, awareness and empathy.

Teralek wrote:

Someone told me that the reason many reject the idea of free will/indeterminism is because it comes with the idea of non causality thus pointing to God. I don't agree with this. Depends on what you would consider God.

I was talking with my wife last night and I asked her if she believed in free will or no free will. I was surprised that the question stumped her as her reply was "I don't know, I've never thought about it".

I proceed to tell her that I had been having discussions online about it and that I didn't believe in free will. I told her that every thing was set in-motion a long time ago and no matter what we say or do, every thing is a chemical response to stimuli from inside and outside our body.

She then told me, "What? do you now believe in god?", to which I replied, "No, I still don't believe in a creator. Free will or no free will should have no input on if I believe in a creator".

We ended up getting each other in a tizzy and ended the discussion because it was too deep of a discussion for her. I'm not even sure if she understood my point of view, but she definitely was focusing on that "reject the idea of free will/indeterminism is because it comes with the idea of non causality thus pointing to God" point of view.

Teralek wrote:

For example: Scientists use to believe that the laws of the Universe where simply a given, non caused, just printed on the Big Bang. Why these laws and not any others, was just their uncaused cause, their "not questionable" assumption. Many still do believe this although now the fashion is string theory which also carries uncaused causes of her own.

You can escape from this saying that there is an infinite regress of causes. I don't like this because that's an assumption on itself and because I find the thought illogical. Saying that there cannot possibly be a First Cause is human bias that come from our mental construction and observing most processes in nature.

But even if you have an uncaused cause that doesn't immediately cry "God" that is a false and biased thought.

I think what people fail to understand about me is that while I don't believe in god I don't believe in "the self". I don't believe in the "I think therefore I am". I see every thing that "I" represents as an illusion because of the ego. Our desires and the emotional attachments are the illusion.

Everything I act, think, say are all chemical responses to outside stimuli. It's all pre-conditional based on chemicals or the lack of chemicals in my body. Those chemicals are all pre-determined for me by my parents. After I was born, what I had in me and the stimuli around me helped shape my ego and the illusion.

For example. If I don't eat and my blood sugar drops I become a different person. I have mood swings, I don't think clearly, I act out like an immature little kid. I also suffered for many, many years from lack of sleep. Sleep deprivation cause me not to replenish my body and it affects me thinking and level of production during the day. I became aware of these issues and correct them.

This entire experience and all the chemicals, compounds, elements and atoms were all part of a chain reaction which took place over 14 billion years ago.'

The illusion is that I think I have any control or influence over it.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote: But I would

badlad83 wrote:

But I would not "perceive" an ET as anything more than another species. You can go ahead and suck ET off if that's what makes you happy. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Also your point is stupid because an ET would require a rare earth. Which makes rare earth at least as probable as ET.

How do you know how you would perceive something you cannot fathom?

The existence of an ET or multiple ET's is opposite to rare earth. They cannot be equally probable if any positive probability in one is a decrease in the probability of the other.

Teralek wrote:

If I don't do that I'm incurring in carbon base life bigotry.

Carbon chauvanism

Teralek wrote:

I think this is more of a problem than every thing else that as been discussed on this thread because with all the advances made on computers AI could be very real in some decades. AI can potentially answer about the human quality. If a "code" can consistently pass the Turing test then I'll admit human free will is just an illusion from an inner "mathematical code" and there is nothing more to human existence than the sum of its mesurable parts. So I see whether we manage to create true AI or not is going to have tremendous implications, it has the potential of being on of the biggest human achievements. IF we can't produce an AI that is also telling us something about us.

Exactly! Not coincidentally, open ended "free will" is one of the most daunting obstacles in creating AI.

You are right to doubt the infinite regress of causes. This is mathematically and naturally flawed. Algorithmically (programmatically) it is very simple to create an infinite loop that will not stop without intervention, but the loop still had an entry point. In real physical terms we can understand this loop is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

If there is not an infinite regress of causes, and the universe and it's container is not part of a cyclic process then the first cause is a simple understanding.

However, even if the universe is in a cyclic state (such as in the Big Bounce theory), then the system reached this point through some transport phenomena, which by definition states there existed some irreversibile process to achieve this state (such as the first cause).

So ultimately, our laws and understanding of thermodynamic systems is consistent and comprehensive and supports our claims thoroughly. It is conclusive in either scenario of universal equilibrium based on these laws to state there was a first cause.

There are many possibilities to the common response on FC regarding what caused the FC. One simple deduction is that the FC does not require a cause as it is the source of all cause. Many rationalists will argue this kind of catch-all is absurd, but there are quantum mechanics that can help explain this exception.

Usually the counter to this is that quantum mechanics is absurd.. at one time the same could be said of the notion of sending a man to the moon.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

(#66)

I agree, "free will" is an illusion.

This concept in my opinion belongs in the realm of probability theory.

There is a probability I will choose A, but there is also a probability I will choose B. If I were to repeat the scenario multiple times any given probability may be observed, but in a single instant it is so indeterminate that there is an illusion that the choice was free of constraint.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Well... I broadly agree with

Well... I broadly agree with both of you. But I still believe there is free will, and AI will prove me right  

AI will be possible but not with "code" alone.

badlad83 defense of FC is my obvious conclusion as well! Of course there has to be some sort of FC! Unknown to us... for the time being... 

The quantum mechanic phenomenons that appear to have no cause... its not exactly like that... they are wherever space time exists so space/time is their cause... no space time, no quantum particles poping out...

Free will for me does not mean complete free will. It means the probability that badlad83 was talking about, it means the motivation of the "I" to be able to go against it's biological machine, it means an achievement, not a given. It means casual choice... not all choices have to be rational as shown by Buridan's ass...

I get the feeling that we have different concepts of free will and some people who oppose it make it not falsifiable. Because if you really think of it can you imagine a system with a degree of free will?

Imagine 2 situations: 

1. You are jailed for life, you don't choose anything, not your food, not the time to go get fresh air nothing at all.

2. You are put in charge of everything. Imagine a brain in a vat experience but you are in charge, you decide what life to live and how the world around you looks like and how it behaves. You may or may not be an actual brain in a vat, it doesn't matter here.

These 2 situations are very different. Freedom is one of the big difference and Freedom has an intimate relation with free will. 

 But I'm not saying that you have complete free will on option 2, because complete free will is not possible and its nonsense. Even on option 2 you don't have unlimited free will.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:1. This is

badlad83 wrote:

1. This is abiogenesis, not evolution. Still fascinating though. There are at least a dozen different theories. One of my favorites is the clay hypothesis. The truth is that science has just begun to unlock the mysteries of abiogenesis. Remarkable breakthroughs are being made all the time! The first self-replicating life forms were not cellular. It’s likely they were something similar to a simple RNA. Check out RNA world hypothesis to learn much, much more! 2. As RNA became involved in more complex metabolic processes, and possibly after it became cellular, some organisms began to use different types of molecules for different functions. This was the very first DNA, and of course it began as something much much more simple than we see in cells now. Because DNA is more stable than RNA, it began to replace RNA in more and more complex processes over time. 3. I think there is too much emphasis on a mutation always being a “bad” thing. That is simply not the truth. Many humans carry a mutated gene which allows them to remain lactose tolerant as adults. Some people of African descent have blue eyes. Some green algae use NO2 as efficiently as NO3. Now imagine these minor changes occurring constantly over the span of BILLIONS of years. 4. Natural selection fueled evolution. Evolution would not have happened without natural selection. That’s why it is taught. I think this question is mixing evolution with abiogenesis though. Are you asking how ancestors of modern birds evolved beaks? 5. Evolution, time, evolution, time, evolution, time… Not every “thing” that worked evolved every time it was used, separately. “Things” that worked were copied and built upon over time. The addition of one new protein does one thing, of 2 new proteins does something else. If it’s advantageous it’s repeated. The mousetrap makes a useful tie clip with the trigger removed. Understand? 6. Because even though it LOOKS that way, adding a designer answers nothing, and introduces many more questions. Why did that designer design humans with a tailbone? Or with an appendix? Or give whales tiny internal useless legs? Or turkeys “thumb” nails on their wings? Those are much more challenging to answer when you try to insert a designer. It makes no sense. 7. This is getting into developmental biology. Multicellular organisms evolved separately several times. Plants and animals of course, but even prokaryotes. It’s easy to see why individual cells began to organize themselves into colonies. The much harder question is how germ cell reproduction became commonplace (so that an entire organism could be reproduced from a germ cell). It’s likely that before multicellular organisms came to exist, unicellular organisms developed sexual reproduction. It’s amazing! 8. Good, sexual reproduction is fascinating. Again, there are many theories. But you have to imagine a reason for sexual reproduction to be advantageous. For one thing, not everything that is advantageous remains so over every environment. Also imagine this: incorporating another organisms advantageous mutation into your DNA IS advantageous! 9. We have hundreds of transitional fossils. We don’t have more because only a small fraction of life became fossilized, and of that we have only unearthed a smaller fraction still. That being said, everything alive today is in transition. Also, some animals alive today show “transitional” characteristics. I have 2 fish in an aquarium that would die if denied access to atmospheric O2, and walk with their pelvic fins! You will never see a crocoduck though. Look up Cyclobatis, Cladoselache, Amphistium, Osteolepsis, Hynerpeton, Archaeopteryx, Morganucodon…. Actually, there are far too many to list. Remember, Darwin died a long time ago. It’s not true that this issue is a problem anymore. 10. Because they are successful. Environmental pressures that caused other species to change or die out were well within the range of what these species could handle. To even consider this to be a problem is to admit you know very little about evolution. The average 8th grader could answer this one. 11. This is 3 separate questions. Your third one is silly. Please clarify it. 12. Because there is still so much to learn. It’s an extremely complex subject. Your question about men is easy to answer... Because the requirements aren’t the same across the ages and across different populations. Women have been attracted to different things. Most women alive today would not have sex with a man that killed the neighbor family. 13. Why is history taught? Would teaching creationism free up more time? I’m not sure what point this is supposed to make. It’s either silly or you need to reword it. 14. Again, what’s the point of this question? Why is history taught? Why is geology taught? 15. Again, what’s the point of this question? It’s as correct to say evolution is religion as it is to say geology is religion. Everyone can see they are not the same thing. But maybe you need to clarify your point again. These were all simple questions, other than the ones that make no sense. But even if somebody were to prove evolution didn’t happen, do you think inserting your magical imaginary sky daddy theory would be the correct things to do? If a god created life on this planet it is a piss poor designer. It could have done a much better job than leaving remnants of organs we no longer need that become infected, burst, and cause their owner to suffer. And that’s only one of thousands of mistakes your sky daddy made.

I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, all that was nothing more than the equivalent of my grandmother telling you God exists because the Bible says so. Your tone seems like you assume I know nothing at all about any of this. On the contrary, you are sadly mistaken. As you are about to walk into a shit storm.
1 &2. I know this is abiogenesis. I didn't ask you for wildly impossible theories. RNA Hypothesis? Really? Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating?
Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA. How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own?
3. Being the parent of a child with a chromosomal abnormality, I can say without a doubt if you don't believe the overwelming majority of mutations are harmful, I should end this reply now, because you are obviously 8 years old, and believe The X-Men are real.
4. Show me the observed, repeated data on nature selection creating new information.
Lets just stop here to now. I'd say your work is cut out for you. No point in going any furthur, unless or until you answer these.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Well... I

Teralek wrote:

Well... I broadly agree with both of you. But I still believe there is free will, and AI will prove me right  

AI will be possible but not with "code" alone.

badlad83 defense of FC is my obvious conclusion as well! Of course there has to be some sort of FC! Unknown to us... for the time being... 

The quantum mechanic phenomenons that appear to have no cause... its not exactly like that... they are wherever space time exists so space/time is their cause... no space time, no quantum particles poping out...

Free will for me does not mean complete free will. It means the probability that badlad83 was talking about, it means the motivation of the "I" to be able to go against it's biological machine, it means an achievement, not a given. It means casual choice... not all choices have to be rational as shown by Buridan's ass...

I get the feeling that we have different concepts of free will and some people who oppose it make it not falsifiable. Because if you really think of it can you imagine a system with a degree of free will?

Imagine 2 situations: 

1. You are jailed for life, you don't choose anything, not your food, not the time to go get fresh air nothing at all.

2. You are put in charge of everything. Imagine a brain in a vat experience but you are in charge, you decide what life to live and how the world around you looks like and how it behaves. You may or may not be an actual brain in a vat, it doesn't matter here.

These 2 situations are very different. Freedom is one of the big difference and Freedom has an intimate relation with free will. 

 But I'm not saying that you have complete free will on option 2, because complete free will is not possible and its nonsense. Even on option 2 you don't have unlimited free will.

There is still no free will.

The brain in the vat came from "something", it was formed based on chemicals and outside stimuli which they had no control over. By the time the brain was formed enough to make decisions by itself, it was already influenced from various expriences and chemicals.

The person jailed for life has the same problem.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Because your question

Because your question followed so closely on the heels of your erroneous statement about evolution, I thought we would still be discussing evolution, and therefore had no way of knowing that you knew the difference. It has been my experience that most creationists don’t know the difference. Your assertion that animals evolved from plants makes it clear you DO NOT know very much about evolution. Your constant “How could…” questions are not arguments, they just confirm your own ignorance. Science asks the same questions, and then tries to answer them. You seem happy continuing in the footsteps of your leaders and think “I don’t know” = “insert god here.” 1./2. I don’t know for sure. That is a question being worked on by at least one lab I’m aware of. If early RNA nucleotides were like modern ones, it would have required a 5 carbon sugar, a phosphate group and a nitrogenous base. But this ignores the possibilities of other molecule chains that are much more simple. For example, if you remove the phosphate group you are left with a nucleoside. Other combinations are possible. Scientists have been evolving RNA in test tubes for a long time. There are dozens of examples of test tube RNA strains because RNA “decided” to self-replicate. RNA V40 and V2 RNA are a couple of interesting examples. Look them up. Also look up Manfred Eigen. His lab added nothing more than replicase and RNA building blocks to a test tube, and “a particular large RNA molecule evolved SPONTANEOUSLY in the test tube, and the same molecule reevolved itself again and again in subsequent independent experiments!” (Quoting Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Simple test tube proteins are so small they can’t even fold in on themselves. But the point is that all of these things had smaller, simpler origins. 3. Ok, so let’s say that most mutations are detrimental and have a negative effect on self-replication of the organism. There will still be SOME mutations that are actually BETTER at self-replicating than their parent. These will quickly gain advantage. The truth is though that most mutations are considered “simple” (only one type of micromutation) and alone have no effect on self-replication. It’s very true that most MACROmutations are detrimental to self-replication, but here again, odds are that at least SOME will have a positive effect. 4. I don’t know. All you are doing is peeling back the layers of an onion and OF COURSE you will eventually come to a question I cannot answer. That doesn’t mean an answer doesn’t exist, or that an answer never will exist. Your alternative creates so many more questions. Did god create humans with tailbones so that some humans would question his supremacy, thereby giving us the free will to choose to go to hell? That was more like a squirrel fart than a shit storm.


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
damn... again, sorry it

damn... again, sorry it posted that way... it was separated in the preview...


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
In response to Teralek #68

In response to Teralek #68 and digitalbeachbum #70:

Free will is always a good debate in my opinion because there are so many different contexts in which it can be considered.

An interesting question is: If I could clone my consciousness (as AI possibly) with 100% likeness, would the cloned mind make exactly every decision as I would?

If we look at each decision as a matter of probability, then my assertion is that our decisions will still differ. However, is this proof of free will, or is there a quantum mechanical effect involved in decision making that creates the illusion of free will much as it creates the illusion of randomness?

If there is indeed a quantum mechanical effect, then is the definition of free will (and by extension randomness) still accurate since these physics allow potentially unconstrained possibilities?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:damn...

badlad83 wrote:

damn... again, sorry it posted that way... it was separated in the preview...

 

 

 

                       It happens to me also badlands83, once in a while a hard working moderator comes by and cleans up the splotch.  Try leaving more space between the paragraphs,  it makes it a bit easier for a moderator to distinguish between graphs.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:Because your

badlad83 wrote:

Because your question followed so closely on the heels of your erroneous statement about evolution, I thought we would still be discussing evolution, and therefore had no way of knowing that you knew the difference. It has been my experience that most creationists don’t know the difference. Your assertion that animals evolved from plants makes it clear you DO NOT know very much about evolution. Your constant “How could…” questions are not arguments, they just confirm your own ignorance. Science asks the same questions, and then tries to answer them. You seem happy continuing in the footsteps of your leaders and think “I don’t know” = “insert god here.” 1./2. I don’t know for sure. That is a question being worked on by at least one lab I’m aware of. If early RNA nucleotides were like modern ones, it would have required a 5 carbon sugar, a phosphate group and a nitrogenous base. But this ignores the possibilities of other molecule chains that are much more simple. For example, if you remove the phosphate group you are left with a nucleoside. Other combinations are possible. Scientists have been evolving RNA in test tubes for a long time. There are dozens of examples of test tube RNA strains because RNA “decided” to self-replicate. RNA V40 and V2 RNA are a couple of interesting examples. Look them up. Also look up Manfred Eigen. His lab added nothing more than replicase and RNA building blocks to a test tube, and “a particular large RNA molecule evolved SPONTANEOUSLY in the test tube, and the same molecule reevolved itself again and again in subsequent independent experiments!” (Quoting Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Simple test tube proteins are so small they can’t even fold in on themselves. But the point is that all of these things had smaller, simpler origins. 3. Ok, so let’s say that most mutations are detrimental and have a negative effect on self-replication of the organism. There will still be SOME mutations that are actually BETTER at self-replicating than their parent. These will quickly gain advantage. The truth is though that most mutations are considered “simple” (only one type of micromutation) and alone have no effect on self-replication. It’s very true that most MACROmutations are detrimental to self-replication, but here again, odds are that at least SOME will have a positive effect. 4. I don’t know. All you are doing is peeling back the layers of an onion and OF COURSE you will eventually come to a question I cannot answer. That doesn’t mean an answer doesn’t exist, or that an answer never will exist. Your alternative creates so many more questions. Did god create humans with tailbones so that some humans would question his supremacy, thereby giving us the free will to choose to go to hell? That was more like a squirrel fart than a shit storm.

With total sincerity I want to commend you. You are the rare breed of atheist who is honest enough to admit the truth, at least it seems as though you did. Darwininan evolution can not account for human life. Not by itself anyway. It still has yet to be proven as a fact. If it were, there would still be a need to explain the formation of biological organisms from inorganic matter. No doubt, science has constantly advanced at an exponential rate. So even a creationist like myself cannot say with certainty that some plausible, natural mechanism will not one day emerge. But unless and until it does, it is irrational and far to improbable to extrapolate any existing natural mechanism from the undeniable existence of microevolution via natural selection. And FYI, I have never asserted God as the explanation of anything, just because we don't know the answer. My objection to Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with my belief in God. It stems from the incomprehensible improbability against it mathematically. Most unintelligent atheists on here don't even know what an exponent is, let alone what it actuall equates to in some terms. I mean, c'mon! We're talking somewhere in the proximity of 4^-360^110000. Anyone who would cite that as an unquestionable, proven fact is out of their mind. It FAR exceeds the universal probability bound. Even if it utilized all available resources (elementary particles in the known universe-10^80, change of position per second-10^45, seconds since the big bang multiplied by a billion-10^25), 10^150 is infinitesimal by comparison. That is why I reject those theories. I infer design concordantly with the many strong arguments I've heard for God's existence. I've yet to hear anyone logically refute KCA and the case for Jesus's resurrection has yet to be explained by naturalistic means. Consequently, if these arguments did not stand, I would be unjust in inferring God as the cause for human life.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 jackspell,There has been

 jackspell,

There has been an immense improvement in our understanding of evolution by natural selection since Darwin. You need to catch up.

What have they missed in the 150 years of scrutiny of the theory of evolution (theory having a higher scientific status than a mere "fact&quotEye-wink have they missed that you claim to have grasped so easily?

Microevolution and macroevolution are terms made up by creationists - it's evolution, period.

Kalam begs the question and people believing in the resurrection of Jesus have yet to prove it happened. I know the burden of proof is heavy but don't shift it to me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:In response to

ax wrote:

In response to Teralek #68 and digitalbeachbum #70:

Free will is always a good debate in my opinion because there are so many different contexts in which it can be considered.

An interesting question is: If I could clone my consciousness (as AI possibly) with 100% likeness, would the cloned mind make exactly every decision as I would?

If we look at each decision as a matter of probability, then my assertion is that our decisions will still differ. However, is this proof of free will, or is there a quantum mechanical effect involved in decision making that creates the illusion of free will much as it creates the illusion of randomness?

If there is indeed a quantum mechanical effect, then is the definition of free will (and by extension randomness) still accurate since these physics allow potentially unconstrained possibilities?

If there is a quantum mechanical effect, which is along the lines of my belief, then you never have free will as the unconstrained possibilities are predetermined by the configuration of the body and the environment around them.

If I had a bowl of 100 marbles, how many times would it take me to throw them up in the air in order to have them repeat the same exact resting place? Think of all the millions of different variables that exist not only with the amount of energy I spent throwing them up in the air, but air movement, the hardness of the floor, the various objects that might be in the room (when the collide), the differences in the marbles based on temperature, etc... it boggles the mind.

This is why people believe in stuff like gods because trying to rationalize how things came to be with out a "purpose" boggles the mind. It's easier to put it all in to "god's hands" rather than trying to figure it all out.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

 jackspell,

There has been an immense improvement in our understanding of evolution by natural selection since Darwin. You need to catch up.

What have they missed in the 150 years of scrutiny of the theory of evolution (theory having a higher scientific status than a mere "fact&quotEye-wink have they missed that you claim to have grasped so easily?

Microevolution and macroevolution are terms made up by creationists - it's evolution, period.

Kalam begs the question and people believing in the resurrection of Jesus have yet to prove it happened. I know the burden of proof is heavy but don't shift it to me.

  1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
  2. How did the DNA code originate?
  3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
  4. Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
  5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
  6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
  7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
  8. How did sex originate?
  9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
  10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
  11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
  12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
  13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
  14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
  15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in scienceclasses?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Those 15 questions you

Those 15 questions you posted are not arguments against evolution. They are questions YOU don’t know the answer to. Science hasn’t provided an answer to some of them either. That it no way invalidates evolution. That just means there are some questions that haven’t been answered yet! Also some of your questions are not really legitimate. For example “Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?” The answer is “because only a small fraction of life was fossilized and of those, a smaller fraction still has been unearthed.” That is THE correct answer to the question. You are trying to make an argument out of it though. In this question what you are really doing is making the assumption that science expects to find countless millions of fossils (it most certainly does not expect to) and that evolution stands or falls on the backs of these fossils. Even if there were NONE evolution would be the explanation because there is other good evidence for it. The beautiful examples we do have though enforce evolution (I already gave you a partial list). But Jackspell I would love for you to answer 2 questions for me. If god didn’t do it, and evolution didn’t do it, how did it happen? And why do some whales have tiny useless internal legs if they didn’t evolve from other animals with legs?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:How did life

jackspell wrote:

  1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

It took billions of years across trillions of nebulae across trillions of galaxies within trillions of solar systems on a few special planets with the right amount of water, heat and other elements to form.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example of how living material could form "randomly" from a few basic elements and environmental conditions.

jackspell wrote:

2. How did the DNA code originate?

Randomization over billions of years. Soon enough science will explain how DNA comes to be and they will be able to manipulate DNA so if a person wants to have blonde hair they can inject you with a simple activator. See answer to #1.

jackspell wrote:

3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

See answers to #1 and #2.

jackspell wrote:

4. Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection is part of evolution. The origin of life can be explained in answer #1 and #2.

jackspell wrote:

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

See answer #1 and #2

jackspell wrote:

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

"Things look like they were designed?" This is a strawman question.

jackspell wrote:

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

See answer #1 and #2

jackspell wrote:
How did sex originate?

Sex? like as in the act of sex or... nevermind... see answer #1 and #2

jackspell wrote:
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

First, you say "countless" but then you say "millions" so which is it... countless or millions?

Second item, No, there is not an "expected" number of transitional fossils

Third item, No, transitional fossils are not "missing" as if some one lost them. They exist and creationists would prefer to see a half man/half monkey.

Also, if our planet is active (rain, sun, earthquakes, etc) and animals are hungry and microbes break down bone and flesh, then why do you expect fossils to be found easier than walking in to a 7-11 to buy a slurpee?

jackspell wrote:
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

This is another straw man question. You assume that living fossil, such as the Coelacanth (a fish) carries all the same genetic material as the 350 million year old ancestor.  While they do look similar or exact, there might be minor differences which have popped up over the years. Some of the changes died off, some survived.

jackspell wrote:
How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

This is another strawman question. Why do you assume that "blind chemistry" created anything? A better term to use is "formed". Creation presupposes a creator.

jackspell wrote:
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?

I'm assuming that you are trying to group science with the "just so" story telling of creationism?

It's because science tests hypothesis; while creationism always boils down to one answer. God did it.

There is no testing. No questioning. This is why creationists are supposed to have faith.

jackspell wrote:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Please explain in more detail what you are expecting.

jackspell wrote:
Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?

You need to examine definitions of what theory is and how science works.

Besides, if creationism is taught then you have no questions or experiments. It's always "god did it".

jackspell wrote:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here; are you asking why is atheism taught as a science? If this is your question then it is a strawman question. You assume that because science leaves out "god" in the equation that it is related to atheism.

So what would you have if science presupposed that god did every thing? Would this be a stagnant, thoughtless, ignorant, meaningless, authoritarian form of teaching? Why bother when you know the end result is that "god did it".

As for "David Lane" his quasi-pseudo scientific bullshit is filled with strawman fallacies and assumptions.

And as for your "Atheism" image, you yet again are drawn to the strawman condition of assuming what atheism is about. Atheism is not a science. It is a belief system that either says "There is no god and there is no evidence; there will never be any evidence" or "There is no god and no evidence currently given proves there is or was a god".

But there might be individual atheists who believe some or all of what your image projects, I could turn it around and say the following:

"Theism - A religious belief in a spontaneous, causeless, sourceless, purposeless, meaningless creator".

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: How did

jackspell wrote:

 

How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Not a question regarding evolution, since evolution beings once life began, not before it,however life it self seems to have started off with simple RNA molecule, which doesn't have protein, it assembles protein. However this is the hard part, you have to study Abiogenesis and evolution seperately not listen to make up shit from your priest/minister/other morons who have less understanding of evolution.

jackspell wrote:

How did the DNA code originate?

Full understanding is unknown at this time as we are not able to recreate the process currently, it does not however mean god did it, it means we don't completely understand the process, however it is known that RNA was involved. This is a question that science is trying to answer properly, however god did it is not an answer.

jackspell wrote:

How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Again someone has answered this for you, however you simply ignore the answer and ask again the same question, copying errors can introduce "information" into DNA, most of the time these copying errors don't amount to anything, however those changes accumulated can affect an organism, these changes are rarely MASSIVE in change, they are minor changes, that if it gives an advantage, allows the organism to pass on the new genetic information, sometimes these genetic change can happen due to environmental changes, others due to virus, such as RNA viruses that could introduce new genetic information to an organism. Again, go learn about this stuff.

jackspell wrote:

Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Because if an organism can survive long enough to pass on it's genetic material and continues to thrive then natural selection occurs......not that hard of a concept really, if an evolutionary change occurs but the organism can't survive long enough to pass on its genetic material........then that change doesn't get passed on. So yeah it's part of evolution.......again go learn this science, stop listening to your priest/minister/other morons that have no clue about evolution.

jackspell wrote:

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Going to ask which ones are you talking about, so at least someone can try to explain this to you......this is just to wide of a question to answer in a manner for you to comprehend.....however at this moment from everything I read...you may not understand the answer.

jackspell wrote:

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

zero evidence of a designer, just because it looks designed, it doesn't mean the evidence backs up that claim, on the contrary all the evidence points towards evolution.

jackspell wrote:

How did multi-cellular life originate?

There are many possible ways, unfortunately single and simple multi-cellular organisms don't fossilize well, and DNA doesn't survive for more than a million years....since the evidence between simple cellular organisms and complex ones like plants and animals are over 500 million year difference there are various valid explanations for it symbiotic, cellularization and colonial theories are the completing theories of how multi-cellular organism originated, again please go learn don't ask your priest/minister/other morons that lack the understanding in biology.

jackspell wrote:

How did sex originate?

from asexual reproduction

jackspell wrote:

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

There are millions of transitional fossils, you seem to dismiss alot of them however, that and of course you seem to lack understanding on how fossilization occurs and how evolution works.

jackspell wrote:

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

simple they are well suited at surviving in various different environments without any need to adapt as their current mode allows them to survive as is.

jackspell wrote:

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

to long to answer other than it was an evolutionary advantage in which the genetic information got passed on via natural selection.

jackspell wrote:

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?

Because it has so much evidence there are tons and tons of evidence for evolution, far more than god did it hypothesis that you propose or intelligent design....which has zero evidence to back up it's claims.

jackspell wrote:

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

In the medical field there are huge break through, from genetic therapy to flu shots, understanding how a disease causing organism evolve allows us to find ways to fight it. You may ignore this and continue with your ignorance however, it seems you are ignoring alot of evidence for evolution.

jackspell wrote:

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?

it is a scientific theory, it has evidence, predictions that have come true, and it has been observed.....it is science. God did it or intelligent design has none of those...therefore it is not taught as science.

jackspell wrote:

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in scienceclasses?

 

only in christian churches or in christian schools that teach intelligent design or that god did it. Otherwise evolution is taught, it is not a religious idea...it has evidence, again something you ignore completely, but that's ok its the only way your fanatasy about god can be true for you. dogmatic only in the sense that it is true because of all the evidence to back it up....god did it or ID has zero evidence to back up it's claim. evolution does not fail to explain the evidence...you simply ignore all the explainations and evidence that back up evolution because it destroys your ID or god did it claims. Which is why ID or god did it is not taught in science classes....because that is dogmatic and religious beliefs, evolutionary theory has evidence to back it up......again STOP LISTENING TO YOUR PRIEST/MINISTER/OTHER FUCKING MORONS THAT HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION.


Odemus
Silver Member
Odemus's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-06
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Odemus

jackspell wrote:

Odemus wrote:

This is one of those topics that I've never gotten a reasonable answer for. The typical Judeo/Christian conception of god is Omnimax, or infinite in all of his attributes. If this is the case then free will can't possibly exist because god being omniscient automatically negates our ability to choose differently than he already knows we will choose. Further, if god is all knowing, then he knew Lucifer would rebel which means that not only did Lucifer lack free will, but the origin of sin must be with god.

Really? Next time you can't get a reasonable answer for something like this, message me. The answer is SIMPLE. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Constraint is the element factor or a subsystem that works as a bottleneck. It restricts an entity, project, or system (such as a manufacturing or decision making process) from achieving its potential (or higher level of output) with reference to its goal. How would God's knowledge of what I am going to pick CONSTRAIN me in any way from making my choice? If you were to stumble upon an E-Mail sent by your girlfriend, to her friend saying she can't wait to marry you, would that in anyway stop her from being able to make the choice to accept when you get on one knee? Obviously not.

 

If God always knows the choice I am going to make then I can never choose differently than what God already knows I will choose. There is only one possible choice, the one God knows I will make. You can try to confuse, obfuscate and play semantics all day but the fact is that omniscience by definition negates free will.


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
And the numbers you are

And the numbers you are throwing around are based on evolution being a completely random "accidental" occurence. Also not true. Humans were "designed" by DNA to be machine life support systems for their DNA. It's the DNA that actually self selects to ensure it's continuation. Just a quicky and simple example is that the gene(s) that give a peacock a long tail evolved at the same time as the gene(s) that control the peahens preference for a long tail. Since the peacock is a combination of his father's long tail genes AND his mothers long tail preference genes, the peahen that chooses this long tailed peacock with her long tailed preference genes is actually self selecting for more long tailed preference genes (and more long tails). Once THIS ball gets rolling, it actually speeds up! I'm happy that something similar happened in the evolution of the human penis...


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:If there is a

Jimenezj wrote:

If there is a quantum mechanical effect, which is along the lines of my belief, then you never have free will as the unconstrained possibilities are predetermined by the configuration of the body and the environment around them.

If I had a bowl of 100 marbles, how many times would it take me to throw them up in the air in order to have them repeat the same exact resting place? Think of all the millions of different variables that exist not only with the amount of energy I spent throwing them up in the air, but air movement, the hardness of the floor, the various objects that might be in the room (when the collide), the differences in the marbles based on temperature, etc... it boggles the mind.

This is why people believe in stuff like gods because trying to rationalize how things came to be with out a "purpose" boggles the mind. It's easier to put it all in to "god's hands" rather than trying to figure it all out.

Indeed I agree that free will does not exist, but a quantum mechanical effect would be cause to update the definition of the phrase.

Odemus wrote:

If God always knows the choice I am going to make then I can never choose differently than what God already knows I will choose. There is only one possible choice, the one God knows I will make. You can try to confuse, obfuscate and play semantics all day but the fact is that omniscience by definition negates free will.

Probability theory negates omniscience. Free will is an illusion either way.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Odemus wrote:jackspell

Odemus wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Odemus wrote:

This is one of those topics that I've never gotten a reasonable answer for. The typical Judeo/Christian conception of god is Omnimax, or infinite in all of his attributes. If this is the case then free will can't possibly exist because god being omniscient automatically negates our ability to choose differently than he already knows we will choose. Further, if god is all knowing, then he knew Lucifer would rebel which means that not only did Lucifer lack free will, but the origin of sin must be with god.

Really? Next time you can't get a reasonable answer for something like this, message me. The answer is SIMPLE. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Constraint is the element factor or a subsystem that works as a bottleneck. It restricts an entity, project, or system (such as a manufacturing or decision making process) from achieving its potential (or higher level of output) with reference to its goal. How would God's knowledge of what I am going to pick CONSTRAIN me in any way from making my choice? If you were to stumble upon an E-Mail sent by your girlfriend, to her friend saying she can't wait to marry you, would that in anyway stop her from being able to make the choice to accept when you get on one knee? Obviously not.

 

If God always knows the choice I am going to make then I can never choose differently than what God already knows I will choose. There is only one possible choice, the one God knows I will make. You can try to confuse, obfuscate and play semantics all day but the fact is that omniscience by definition negates free will.

Omniscient adjective 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge om·ni·scient·ly adverb Origin: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia. First use: circa 1604 Free will noun 1 : voluntary choice or decision 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention Examples He argues that all humans have free will. all of the workers at the homeless shelter are unpaid and are there of their own free will First use: 13th century Synonyms: accord, autonomy, choice, self-determination, volition, will As you should be able to CLEARLY see, there is no contradiction. To demonstrate this, work with me: I am God you need to make a choice "A " or "not A". I can go as far as to say I even know what you will pick. Now, if you have no free choice in this, as you claim, show me where the CONSTRAINT is. You won't find it because it isn't there. Now, if God where to tell you that he knows you will make a specific choice, say, "A", then we would have a contradiction. But unless God has appeared to you and done this, I think your argument falls flat on its face.

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jackspell:I think you may

Jackspell:

I think you may have missed my 2 questions for you.

If god didn't create people, and evolution is false, how did we come to be?

Why do some whales have tiny useless internal legs if they did not evolve from a species with useful legs?


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

 jackspell,

There has been an immense improvement in our understanding of evolution by natural selection since Darwin. You need to catch up.

What have they missed in the 150 years of scrutiny of the theory of evolution (theory having a higher scientific status than a mere "fact&quotEye-wink have they missed that you claim to have grasped so easily?

Microevolution and macroevolution are terms made up by creationists - it's evolution, period.

Kalam begs the question and people believing in the resurrection of Jesus have yet to prove it happened. I know the burden of proof is heavy but don't shift it to me.

 

Also, I agree that creationists coined those two terms.  And???

Tell me what you THINK begging the question is defined as.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
badlad83 wrote:Jackspell:I

badlad83 wrote:

Jackspell:

I think you may have missed my 2 questions for you.

If god didn't create people, and evolution is false, how did we come to be?

Why do some whales have tiny useless internal legs if they did not evolve from a species with useful legs?

 

I apologize for missing the questions.  

1. I don't have a clue.  

2. The whale does not have a pelvis. Those bones are anchor points for special muscles used during reproduction. The bones of the male whales differ from those of the female. Furthermore, there is no fossil evidence for loss of legs in whales.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


badlad83
Posts: 43
Joined: 2012-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the reply

Thanks for the reply Jackspell.

1. yet you worship a god... what did the god that you worship do to warrant worship?

2. not true. most cetaceans HAVE hip bones. some are tiny (about the size of an egg) but only a few have leg bones. some muscles are attached to the leg bones, but I seriously can't find any info on a possible function. Could you please provide a quote or link? I'm wondering if it's similar to human tail bone attachment points...

Thanks


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 jackspell,

There has been an immense improvement in our understanding of evolution by natural selection since Darwin. You need to catch up.

What have they missed in the 150 years of scrutiny of the theory of evolution (theory having a higher scientific status than a mere "fact&quotEye-wink have they missed that you claim to have grasped so easily?

Microevolution and macroevolution are terms made up by creationists - it's evolution, period.

Kalam begs the question and people believing in the resurrection of Jesus have yet to prove it happened. I know the burden of proof is heavy but don't shift it to me.

 

Also, I agree that creationists coined those two terms.  And???

Tell me what you THINK begging the question is defined as.

Creationist coined those terms to decieve themselves and others that there are two kinds of evolution when there is only evolution. It's called lying - thought the 9th commandment wasn't optional for you.

Kalam begs the question because it assumes the cause it is trying to prove. It is also a special pleading  because it has to exclude God from "everything that begins to exist" by claiming magic.

Any more questions, deceitful one?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Well... I broadly agree with both of you. But I still believe there is free will, and AI will prove me right  

AI will be possible but not with "code" alone.

badlad83 defense of FC is my obvious conclusion as well! Of course there has to be some sort of FC! Unknown to us... for the time being... 

The quantum mechanic phenomenons that appear to have no cause... its not exactly like that... they are wherever space time exists so space/time is their cause... no space time, no quantum particles poping out...

Free will for me does not mean complete free will. It means the probability that badlad83 was talking about, it means the motivation of the "I" to be able to go against it's biological machine, it means an achievement, not a given. It means casual choice... not all choices have to be rational as shown by Buridan's ass...

I get the feeling that we have different concepts of free will and some people who oppose it make it not falsifiable. Because if you really think of it can you imagine a system with a degree of free will?

Imagine 2 situations: 

1. You are jailed for life, you don't choose anything, not your food, not the time to go get fresh air nothing at all.

2. You are put in charge of everything. Imagine a brain in a vat experience but you are in charge, you decide what life to live and how the world around you looks like and how it behaves. You may or may not be an actual brain in a vat, it doesn't matter here.

These 2 situations are very different. Freedom is one of the big difference and Freedom has an intimate relation with free will. 

 But I'm not saying that you have complete free will on option 2, because complete free will is not possible and its nonsense. Even on option 2 you don't have unlimited free will.

There is still no free will.

The brain in the vat came from "something", it was formed based on chemicals and outside stimuli which they had no control over. By the time the brain was formed enough to make decisions by itself, it was already influenced from various expriences and chemicals.

The person jailed for life has the same problem.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant...

Your refutal just proves what I've said - absolute free will does not exist.

However what I'm trying to say is that free will is the qualitative difference between being in jail and being powerful enough to do whatever you want to (within your mental construction). As I've said, absolute free will is nonsense.

Free will is also inner motivation.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I'm not sure

Teralek wrote:

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant...

Your refutal just proves what I've said - absolute free will does not exist.

However what I'm trying to say is that free will is the qualitative difference between being in jail and being powerful enough to do whatever you want to (within your mental construction). As I've said, absolute free will is nonsense.

Free will is also inner motivation.

I agree with Teralek. For clarity, we should reference "relative free will" and "absolute free will".


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:
...I simplify it for you:

I believe in an Intelligent First Cause and that conscience survives physical death.

Anyone can believe anything which even a cursory review of history confirms.

However there is a belief and knowledge. Knowledge arises for observation of physical events and has nothing to do with any meaning or explanation that you attach to the observation. Therefore you have no knowledge of what you believe.

What is your point in posting this stuff beyond professing your faith?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:
No. the only thing I infer from it is that it is sentient. The rest is a complete mystery for me. I've read many theories but I'm not convinced of any.

The only one that seems to have the more strong points to it is that this "Sentience" is the collective of all consciences in the whole Universe. I took this from NDE reports and some talks in quantum mechanics I've watched.

I took more things from NDEs that I could also infer to the "Sentience" - Love. It seems extremely important, and it's probably associated with this "Sentience".

If I can say one thing for sure, from NDE research, is that there is no paternalism, judging, or damnation whatsoever.

NDE is a very poor place to start. What makes the "literature" is only a small fraction of the experiences. And it is the fraction that appeals to you. You hear about people hovering in the operating room and seeing a light and such. You never hear about the people who saw a clown in the OR or a rather amusing variety of other experiences which do not support the belief system. You also do hear about the hidden messages out of sight of anyone at eye level but readily seen by anyone hovering. Not a single person claiming an OBE has ever seen the message.

On top of that there is a significant fraction of people who do not respond anaesthesia with everything going blank until they wake up in the recovery room. A small number has claimed to have remained conscious and felt the entire operation. Many more hallucinate about the operation. And then there are those who have OBEs.

It is not something to underpin and INVENTED belief system. The experience is only what is experienced. Meaning or interpretation attached to it is not the experience. What it felt like is not the experience.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Luminon wrote:
Brian, please read and listen to dr. Lommel's research. He doesn't think NDE is a brain fart and you should see his reasons why. Your ability to look at the research and go where the evidence leads you is a measure of rationality. In this sense, I'm not sure if Michael Shermer himself is rational, as he argues directly against the results of study. The point is not whether or not we may really return from the dead, but whether or not is the brain working when the NDE takes place. We know it doesn't, and yet there may be NDE.


After the period of no brain activity the person is not instantly awake and recounting the experience. Dreaming the experience AFTER or even before the brain death event cannot be precluded regardless of the experimental method.

And then there is the Phil Dick effect. There have been hundreds of reports flashbacks long after an LSD trip is over. Problem is they only started appearing after Phil Dick invented flashbacks as a plot device in a novel, Three Stigmata I think. Attributing NDEs to modern medicine reviving more people is an unfounded hypothesis. It is most simply explained by the Dick effect.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
My objection to Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with my belief in God. It stems from the incomprehensible improbability against it mathematically. Most unintelligent atheists on here don't even know what an exponent is, let alone what it actuall equates to in some terms. I mean, c'mon! We're talking somewhere in the proximity of 4^-360^110000. Anyone who would cite that as an unquestionable, proven fact is out of their mind. It FAR exceeds the universal probability bound. Even if it utilized all available resources (elementary particles in the known universe-10^80, change of position per second-10^45, seconds since the big bang multiplied by a billion-10^25), 10^150 is infinitesimal by comparison. That is why I reject those theories. I infer design concordantly with the many strong arguments I've heard for God's existence. I've yet to hear anyone logically refute KCA and the case for Jesus's resurrection has yet to be explained by naturalistic means. Consequently, if these arguments did not stand, I would be unjust in inferring God as the cause for human life.

As we all know, evolution does not discuss nor is it applicable to the origin of life. Why do you post an objection which you know has nothing to do with evolution?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
...

 

  1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Anyone who has actually looked at life and attributes it to their god is a blasphemer. Life is an incredibly STUPID as designs go. What idiot would design humans the way they are?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Teralek

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Teralek wrote:
No. the only thing I infer from it is that it is sentient. The rest is a complete mystery for me. I've read many theories but I'm not convinced of any.

The only one that seems to have the more strong points to it is that this "Sentience" is the collective of all consciences in the whole Universe. I took this from NDE reports and some talks in quantum mechanics I've watched.

I took more things from NDEs that I could also infer to the "Sentience" - Love. It seems extremely important, and it's probably associated with this "Sentience".

If I can say one thing for sure, from NDE research, is that there is no paternalism, judging, or damnation whatsoever.

NDE is a very poor place to start. What makes the "literature" is only a small fraction of the experiences. And it is the fraction that appeals to you. You hear about people hovering in the operating room and seeing a light and such. You never hear about the people who saw a clown in the OR or a rather amusing variety of other experiences which do not support the belief system. You also do hear about the hidden messages out of sight of anyone at eye level but readily seen by anyone hovering. Not a single person claiming an OBE has ever seen the message.

On top of that there is a significant fraction of people who do not respond anaesthesia with everything going blank until they wake up in the recovery room. A small number has claimed to have remained conscious and felt the entire operation. Many more hallucinate about the operation. And then there are those who have OBEs.

It is not something to underpin and INVENTED belief system. The experience is only what is experienced. Meaning or interpretation attached to it is not the experience. What it felt like is not the experience. 

First of all my belief is NOT just faith. You may think otherwise, but that's just your opinion. I have based my belief system in MY observations and MY interpretation of reality which is as valid as yours.

Second, if you analyse NDE scientific studies (which you clearly haven't since you're talking about clowns) you come to the conclusion that AT LEAST we need more research on the subject given the paradoxical accounts and the fact that no model can explain the NDE phenomenon. What WE don't need is bigotry that prevents scientists from doing valuable studies without risking their reputation.

I see myself as a neutral individual and I also see a lot going for NDEs. I'm not going to educate you now about the inconsistencies of classic explanations for the NDE phenomenon, there are a lot places where you can do that. If you put your brain to work without bias you too will reach a neutral standpoint.

Third, I'm really glad I think different than the majority from you or Christian apologetics because I like to think for myself and I don't like consensus when there is no logic reason for that.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I'm not sure

Teralek wrote:

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant...

Your refutal just proves what I've said - absolute free will does not exist.

However what I'm trying to say is that free will is the qualitative difference between being in jail and being powerful enough to do whatever you want to (within your mental construction). As I've said, absolute free will is nonsense.

Free will is also inner motivation.

So, just to clarify, you don't believe in "absolute free will" but you do believe in a "free will" with conditions?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Anyone

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Anyone who has actually looked at life and attributes it to their god is a blasphemer. Life is an incredibly STUPID as designs go. What idiot would design humans the way they are?

I met a girl on the ship I worked... I think she was just wonderfully designed! 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies