Probability that life arose by random chance.

cptphilgreen
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Probability that life arose by random chance.

By ruling out that the existence of a creator and thus intelligent design how do atheists reason with the probability that life arose from random chance?

My thoughts on the matter (with careful consideration I have left out of my base question): From everything I've ever read or heard on the subject the probabilities that life arose from random chance are so astronomical that they are hard to overlook. And the impression that I recieve is that if life is simple to create. And given the amount of simplicity people generally associate to life how can they overlook that life does not spontaneously generate. In my mind this analogous to taking all the parts,all the biological makeup, to make an animal, call it a dog, and waiting, given a infinitesmal amount of time and recieving a living dog. Of course with an infinite amount of time the probability that the dog would appear could theoretically happen with the chance being 1 correct assembly of the dog over the number of times that the dog is assembled inncorrectly. So given the probability exemplifyied in the dog we would say that it is more probable that the dog would be in disorder than order (following the 2nd law of thermodynamics). I was wondering how the atheist community reasons with this. Here's a link to a webpage for starters that I found to be unbiased and generally logical. Please feel free to respond as I'm willing to have any rational discussion on the topic.

http://www.charliewagner.net/hoyle.htm

Or for those who wish to look into an atheist turned theist on the matter Lee Strobel is a good place to start. His novel Case for A Creator is another good starting point if you haven't any.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I presented a premise of yours, and showed why I disagree with it. Anything that dismantles science like that has something wrong with it. What additional support do you want?

This is not relevant. Your premise was "if many ideas of type B are wrong, all ideas of type B are probably wrong." You have provided nothing to exempt science from that. Many scientific ideas have been wrong, therefore by your logic we should abandon science.

I explained how your premise does not apply to science. Science does abandon ideas when they fail to work.  Your argument fails to "dismantle" science.

Quote:
Anyway, this is precisely the point under contention. You are only restating your premise. You should support this rather than asserting it. I have no idea why I'm supposed to accept that as an argument.

You have failed to give any support for your claim that god explains anything. The statement "god did it" contains no more information than the statement "nothing did it." With "nothing," we have the universe being created by an unknown method. With "god" we have the universe being created by an unknown entity by an unkown method. "God" is simply not a viable explanation.

"At any given time, the most viable explanation for a given Q is to be preferred." Consider the two options that are in contention (feel free to add additional explanations if you know of any):

1. God did it.

2. There is a natrual, but as of yet unknown, cause.

The second option historically has always been the case and is supported by centuries of investigation into the natural world. Therefore it is clearly more viable, and by your own logic should be preferred.


Richard Head (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
scientific God of the gaps

I have read with interest the biological arguments from the expert(s) on here. All they amount to is some scientific god of the gaps.Really bad argument against god's existance.Yeah right you'll find the answer as to how life began.As if that would prove anything!What ? nature is God now? That is so laughable.Even if you found out whether some pre RNA or whatever did it you have to ask why the heck its there in the first place.nature is not all there is!There could be something more! Same old crap about not wanting there to be a God or even Judeo christian God-no way we couldnt have that now could we? You all upset now?. I dont call you fools but the scripture is clear-the fool in his heart says there is no God.

Science experts, I still dont see how you can argue from existing order back to a self replicating system of cells/proteins or whatever that came into existence by itself?Or maybe from another planet-yeah thatll do it.lol That puts the question back further-how the heck did the system arise and why is  there at all?Metaphysical questions guys. Loads of genetic fallacies on here explaining how it might have happened.They are irrelevant.God's existence does not depend on them.Get it straight!

And...... science experts, you still did NOT explain how the first self replicating systems emerged.Yes you argue from order which is very slippery of you.What? the intrinsic order just existed?Or did it begin to exist?sorry ,i am not really educated to understand.

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

  1. St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
  2. The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
  3. The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.

A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

  1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
  2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
  3. So there exists a self-existent being.

Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.
 

The Teleological ArgumentThe teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

 

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."    Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument

Conclusion

Of course, these  proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.

Richard H,  ThD, M.ed, Dip. Phil. et artibus, H.Dip in Ed.,H.dip in Appplied info tech.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10602
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I considered writing a point

I considered writing a point by point refutation to that wall of stupid posted by Richard Head (not verified), but decided that his lack of an account is indicative of a troll. Such comments like:

"I have read with interest the biological arguments from the expert(s) on here. All they amount to is some scientific god of the gaps."

And

"nature is not all there is!"

And

"Science experts, I still dont see how you can argue from existing order back to a self replicating system of cells/proteins or whatever that came into existence by itself?"

Are proofs of ignorance and failure to comprehend basic English. Total fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum,

Welcome to the forum, Richard Head.

Richard Head wrote:
I have read with interest the biological arguments from the expert(s) on here. All they amount to is some scientific god of the gaps. Really bad argument against god's existance.

Um, lol, God of the gaps can't be an argument against God. Theists put God into the gaps of knowledge left by science. That's why it's called God of the gaps.

Quote:
Yeah right you'll find the answer as to how life began.As if that would prove anything!

It would show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a precise natural explanation for the origin of life.

Quote:
There could be something more!

Obviously, but how do you know it's your God?

Quote:
Same old crap about not wanting there to be a God or even Judeo christian God-no way we couldnt have that now could we?

If that's what the evidence suggests, then sure.

Quote:
You all upset now?.

No. You seem pretty bewildered and furious though.

Quote:
I dont call you fools but the scripture is clear-the fool in his heart says there is no God.

Okay, dude.

Quote:
They are irrelevant.God's existence does not depend on them.Get it straight!

I agree.

Quote:
And...... science experts, you still did NOT explain how the first self replicating systems emerged.

Actually, we've already worked out plausible processes by which this could have happened.

Quote:
What? the intrinsic order just existed?Or did it begin to exist?

Define 'intrinsic order.'

Quote:
It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness.

Define 'faith.

Edit: I don't understand some of the abbreviations at the end of your post, but, so, you have college degrees? I would expect someone like you to at least be able to consistently construct grammatically correct sentences.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Richard Head wrote:Richard

Richard Head wrote:

Richard H,  ThD, M.ed, Dip. Phil. et artibus, H.Dip in Ed.,H.dip in Appplied info tech.

Let's see. Theology department? Master's in education? Diploma in philosophy? Higher diploma in education? Higher diploma in applied information technology?

Sorry man, but I really really think that you're full of shit. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You want answers? Stick around...

NASA Reproduces A Building Block Of Life In Laboratory

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.


Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the basic structure for uracil, part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is central to protein synthesis, but has many other roles.

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

Nuevo is the lead author of a new research paper in the journal Astrobiology.

NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer solar system for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been identified in meteorites, and are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are six-carbon ringed structures that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

Pyrimidine also is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

"Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat whimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don't have nitrogen," said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. "We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil."

In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from radiation destruction. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).

These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (approximately -- 340 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in water ice, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA component uracil, which is found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

"We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development," said Stefanie Milam, a researcher at NASA Ames and a co-author of the research paper.

"Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.

Additional team members who helped perform the research and co-author the paper are Jason Dworkin and Jamie Elsila, two NASA scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

The research was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) and the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program. NAI is a virtual, distributed organization of competitively-selected teams that integrates and funds astrobiology research and training programs in concert with the national and international science communities.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
cptphilgreen wrote:By ruling

cptphilgreen wrote:

By ruling out that the existence of a creator and thus intelligent design how do atheists reason with the probability that life arose from random chance?

What about life supposes that it is "random" and happened by "chance"?

Also, how does one detect probabilities of these sorts without question begging?
 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Tarpan wrote:
...I've heard some ideas but even without them that does not produce a need for a sky daddy...

What it provides us is an "abductive necessity". If Q explains P, and no current explanation for P is more viable, it is reasonable to believe Q. It is therefore abductively necessary to invoke Q in all cases where P obtains. Now, since you have admitted that you have no explanation for a given P (the origin of life) and that the theist does have an explanation (the existence of a creating force), it follows that theism is abductively necessary.

Did not say he had a definitive "I do not know" He suggested he had a possible explanations, which is all he needs to suggest that your explanation is not a necessity.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Since it now appears that

Since it now appears that there are likely to be billions of planets in the our own galaxy, and there are estimated to be more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, that means there could be 10^20 planets in the Universe, with a whole range of environments, due to random variations, even if the likelihood of a planet happening to have a suitable environment for self-replicating molecules to form is less than 1 chance in a billion billion, it is extremely likely for there to be many planets with life on them.

Add to this the latest experiments which show that the basic forms of simple self-replicating molecules, such as RNA, can form relatively easily in conditions likely to exist on a significant proportion of planets, then the more appropriate question would almost be 'why haven't we found them yet?". Although the sheer scale of the Universe makes it still fairly unlikely that advanced life would be close enough to detect or communicate with with anything like current technology.

None of those arguments for God hold up in the light of current knowledge of the nature of the Universe.

The fact that we see some signs of order or regularity in the universe, which is still dominated by random and chaotic phenomena is entirely unremarkable. It just emerges naturally under certain broad conditions, due to the fact that the fundamental particles are of a relatively small number of kinds, identical in attributes within each kind.

Think of the way a collection of billiard balls on a slight slope will tend to form neat regular hexagonal patterns, simply because they are all identical, and that pattern is the most compact way for identical spheres to pack together.

Just the start of a potentially very long discussion on how God is now more of a problem to fit into what we know than an explanation for anything. Our understanding of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' has moved on a long way since the time of Aquinas - he really has nothing to tell us today.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Abductive necessity" is

"Abductive necessity" is simply nonsense.

The proper and honest response to the absence of any satisfactory current evidence-based explanation for something is "we don't know".

Whatever the merits of the 'best' of a bunch of inadequate current explanations for something, there is no logical justification for declaring it "necessary".

If it has some slight predictive merit, ie it does seem to model some aspect of reality, we can use it to reduce some uncertainty, but that doesn't justify giving it any more status than its actual degree of match to reality justifies.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Richard

butterbattle wrote:
Richard Head wrote:
Richard H,  ThD, M.ed, Dip. Phil. et artibus, H.Dip in Ed.,H.dip in Appplied info tech.

Let's see. Theology department? Master's in education? Diploma in philosophy? Higher diploma in education? Higher diploma in applied information technology?

Sorry man, but I really really think that you're full of shit. 

Don't you just love it when they bring out the theology degrees, like it actually means something to have a degree in fantasy.


PhilosophyGradStudent (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Who is to say God doesn't

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved. I think everyone on this site could benefit from an introductory course in the philosophy of science. You could give yourselves a chance to learn about the problem of induction. You guys should read some Hume.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
PhilosophyGradStudent

PhilosophyGradStudent wrote:

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved. I think everyone on this site could benefit from an introductory course in the philosophy of science. You could give yourselves a chance to learn about the problem of induction. You guys should read some Hume.

You are aware of Russell's teapot, I presume?

So the inability to prove the non-existence of some form of God actually proves nothing about whether that particular idea deserves respect.

None of the 'traditional' so-called proofs of God amount to anything much, they certainly don't come close to proving the existence of a sentient universe creator, let alone anything matching any specific claimed religious conceptions of God, whether of the Abrahamic or any other kind. 

So any known conception of God idea barely even qualifies as a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

The 'problem of induction' is based on a straw-man version of how the process of inductive reasoning, as actually applied, actually works. It does not lead to certain knowledge about the nature of the world, but it is not supposed to. It is about methodically refining our best estimates about what is most likely to be true, based on all available and relevant evidence. Bayes Theorem gives us an important method of making this process more rigorous.

The only certain knowledge is the deductive kind, which is of the sort that states that 'If A then B', which is about definitions and implications, and does not lead to knowledge about what actually exists, only what logically could possibly exist, or not, IF certain assumptions are true.

Any 'knowledge' based on intuition, faith, revelation, etc, has far more fundamental logical flaws than induction.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
PhilosophyGradStudent

PhilosophyGradStudent wrote:

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved.

Who is to say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: you can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was not involved.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Random chance? Organic

Random chance? Organic elements interacting in a electroconductive fluid medium is inherently random? I believe that at some point in natural history life became inevitable. This does NOT put intelligent design and/or a creative force somewhere in the picture, all sillyness aside, anyways Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the 'problem of

Regarding the 'problem of induction', the standard example of 'all swans are white ' is itself a caricature  of a serious empirical argument.

To be more realistic, it should include observations on related categories, such as how much, if any, variation in color is observed within other bird species, or within sets of closely related or otherwise very similar creatures.

Otherwise the conclusion amounts to the truism that 'all white swans are white'.

Philosophy is at least as likely to lead to error as truth. I used to be 'in to' philosophy, but have become progressively disenchanted the more I got to hear the nonsense that even 'famous' philosophers could come up with.

It is true that the more respectable and useful parts of philosophy are on the fringes of empirical disciplines, such as the philosophy of science, when used to extend speculation into regions beyond established areas of knowledge, and to comment on the methodology employed. The link to an actual field of research helps to keep the philosophy from going completely off into fantasy.

Moral philosophy also has value in what is inherently a subjective field.

EDIT: I have read Hume. I like him.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
PhilosophyGradStudent

PhilosophyGradStudent wrote:

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved. I think everyone on this site could benefit from an introductory course in the philosophy of science. You could give yourselves a chance to learn about the problem of induction. You guys should read some Hume.

 

You should read Robert T. Pennock.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
PhilosophyGradStudent

PhilosophyGradStudent wrote:
Would you like fries with that?

Welcome to your future.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Bob Spence... BobSpence1

Bob Spence...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding the 'problem of induction', the standard example of 'all swans are white ' is itself a caricature  of a serious empirical argument.

To be more realistic, it should include observations on related categories, such as how much, if any, variation in color is observed within other bird species, or within sets of closely related or otherwise very similar creatures.

Otherwise the conclusion amounts to the truism that 'all white swans are white'.

Philosophy is at least as likely to lead to error as truth. I used to be 'in to' philosophy, but have become progressively disenchanted the more I got to hear the nonsense that even 'famous' philosophers could come up with.

It is true that the more respectable and useful parts of philosophy are on the fringes of empirical disciplines, such as the philosophy of science, when used to extend speculation into regions beyond established areas of knowledge, and to comment on the methodology employed. The link to an actual field of research helps to keep the philosophy from going completely off into fantasy.

Moral philosophy also has value in what is inherently a subjective field.

EDIT: I have read Hume. I like him.

 ...does not like a low signal:noise ratio.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


StDissonance
Theist
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Induction

 Bayesian logic has no "refining" powers of induction.  I think your knowledge of A (BL) is not an answer to B (your being bound to induction).  I think this is the problem with most natural isolated frameworks.  Recognition of your inductive behaviors and the subsequent dismissal because you have somehow evolved past its parameters is problematic.  You make choices in the deductive world, but those are unrelated to your inductive behaviors--you've conflated the two. 

 

Your statement about faith, revelation etc. and induction is begging.  They are the same, exactly.  Your induction has no validity any more than mine.  You just apply deductive principles to justify your inductive behavior (which is the real straw person).  

 

"All men are mortal" as P1.  When this was written, it was an inductive conclusion to demonstrate a deductive syllogism (no data, only experience).  

 

I do agree that Phil guy needs to do some more work.  

"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
StDissonance wrote:(more

StDissonance wrote:
(more hypercounterintuitive bs that couldn't even be taught to most college undergrads)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
WTF?? I actually posted this?

 

Yeah umm... I just wanted to steal some MSN smileys from RRS for windows live messenger; you may delete this now.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, StDissonance,

Thank you, StDissonance, for demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of everything.

We need that to reassure us we are on the right track by showing us so clearly the confused nonsense that the alternative leads to.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bayes' Theorem specifically

Bayes' Theorem specifically provides a more rigorous way to calculate, from the estimates of likelihood, of confidence, of all the relevant input data, the implied likelihood of any specific conclusion based on that data, so it most definitely helps us to refine the justifiable confidence in any conclusion we draw based on that data. Which is important when deriving conclusions from significantly uncertain or 'fuzzy' data.

It is not an 'answer' to anything as such, it is a tool to make more accurate estimates of the implications of the uncertainty in any of the input data to a some specific analysis.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
  WOW....   BobSpence1

 

WOW....

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bayes' Theorem specifically provides a more rigorous way to calculate, from the estimates of likelihood, of confidence, of all the relevant input data, the implied likelihood of any specific conclusion based on that data, so it most definitely helps us to refine the justifiable confidence in any such conclusion we we draw based on that data. Which is important when deriving conclusions from significantly uncertain or 'fuzzy' data.

It is not an 'answer' to anything as such, it is a tool to make more accurate estimates of the implications of the uncertainty in any of the input data to a some specific analysis.

 ... a guy on the internet starts talking about 'Logic' and ACTUALLY. MAKES. SENSE.

An interesting consequence of this is that I now believe in 'magic'.

DAMMIT, BOB SPENCE! See what you've done to me! You turned me into a believer (... of logic, that is. )

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
PhilosophyGradStudent

PhilosophyGradStudent wrote:

 Who is to say God doesn't work in a "natural" framework? I love this argument because there is absolutely nothing atheists can say to it. Fact: You can never, under any circumstances, disprove the existence of God. Even if you "prove" your theories, you haven't proved that God was not involved. I think everyone on this site could benefit from an introductory course in the philosophy of science. You could give yourselves a chance to learn about the problem of induction. You guys should read some Hume.

I have already discussed the problem of induction.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead