|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Personal God versus Universal Intelligence
Posted on: June 20, 2009 - 6:45am
 Offline
Personal God versus Universal Intelligence
I hope we can continue to conversation here. My thread would not open up, and I couldn't read the posts. I hope this works.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Wow, no one has even looked at this post? Maybe it's too early.
Am I that boring that no one wants to talk to me? I am very confused right now. I could not access the other thread because of some obvious technicality. I have no idea why it froze, so should this ruin our conversation? Really, this makes me very upset because you will judge me stupid or confused, or whatever. This will then support your ideology. I don't mind an ideology being true, if it turns out to be true. But please don't use your reasons to dismiss me so that you can give up on me as having nothing to offer. This is wrong.
A Chill Pill is in order, dude. I checked the thread, and there's nothing obviously wrong with it. There are several possibilities as to why nobody's continued the conversation. Most obviously, everybody's probably said their piece and isn't interested in saying the same things again.
Another possibility is that most people don't bother to read threads with duplicate titles. I only did it because I wanted to see if it was a mistake, or if you were spamming the boards with the same topic. That's my job.
Also, it's the weekend. We tend to have less people post on the weekend. Maybe everybody's on a kayak trip. It's summer, after all.
In short, keep your knickers unbunched. Maybe it's time for a new discussion or something. Trust me, if people really wanted to offend you, you wouldn't have to guess at their intentions. That's the way the interwebZ roll.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hammbydammit, thank you for answering me because I thought it was another glitch. I appreciate your thought about the conversation having died a natural death but this was not the case. I could not get onto this thread for whatever reason. It would not download so I have no idea what people were sharing with me. I wish they would cut and paste the most recent posts so I can answer them. I don't know what went wrong as far as microsoft, but this should not stop us from having a productive conversation. don't you agree?
I'll forward the previous thread to the tech folks to see if there's something wrong with it. The first easiest thing to check is whether you're using IE. If you are, try google chrome or firefox. The site has all sorts of wierdness in IE on different computers. It's just a problem with IE, not the site specifically.
My guess is there's something wrong on your end.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh... also, try clearing your cache and then trying again. It's like a magic bullet. Cures almost everything.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well, I made a bump for you. Hopefully it is now unstuck. But yah, toss the cookies and purge the cache.
=
Yes...
Eh? i already judged you long before this post *snicker*
The reason you had problems with the previous topic, was because of Gene's auto-load flash video... its hell on lesser connections -_-
What Would Kharn Do?
I'm sorry you feel the need to judge me.
Thank you everyone for trying to help me figure this out. In the meantime, I can't get rid of all my cookes because it will mess up all the websites I am attached to. It's not that simple, as you know. Nevertheless, I encourage the last posters on the thread, Personal God versus Intelligence, to cut and paste their last posts onto this thread so that I can read them. I really am upset that I was unable to read their posts. Other than that, I have nothing more to say. I will begin other threads, and I will read other threads, but this one was far from being finished, and it hurts to think that we couldn't continue the conversation because of a relatively small technicality.
Well, my point was simple. There is no reason to assume that our existence is the only possible outcome in the universe. There is no reason to assume that an intelligence was required to form our intelligence. The only reason we find this outsome more special than any of the other possible outsomes is because we exist in this one.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
So let me get this right: Everything in this world came about by accident, so to speak, and if an outcome occurred that created a different looking human, then we would have assumed that this form was the only one that could have existed. And therefore your conclusion is that an intelligence guiding our universe has nothing to do with it. Is that what you're saying?
Yes and no. Yes, we would have attached special emotional significance to the causal chain that resulted in us. No, that is not a reason for rejecting a guiding intelligence. There is simply no reason to assume such an intelligence in the first place. The existence of order and intelligence is explained by physics and evolution. If there is evidence to the contrary(that this outcome can only have been selected by a pre-existing intelligence), then you should present it. If the only thing you can point to is a feeling of awe in the nature of the universe and our existence, then there is no reason postulate such a thing, let alone make it a part of your worldview.
Rejection implies that I have looked at some proof and denied that it is sufficient or valid. I am simply saying that unless you have some real proof, then it's a pointless digression. Especially from the viewpoint of your topic, "Personal God versus Universal Intelligence." There is no reason to assume either without evidence.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
'Accident' is not really the best word to describe the role of chance here. The particular way in which things came about, the details, such as our specific nature and our history, are largely by chance, but the broader aspects, such as the formation of stars and planets, are probably almost inevitable give the nature of the laws of physics, ie, the way the fundamental stuff (matter/energy) behaves. Now whether the properties of the fundamental stuff of the existence came about randomly is another issue.
The 'evolution' (using the term in the broadest sense, of the path followed by a developing system) of any complex system is typically virtually unpredictable in details because it is affected by so many largely unrelated events, yet constrained by the consequences of the underlying laws.
Even the emergence of some form of life is probably inevitable, given enough time and enough different planets available, even if it is highly unlikely on any particular randomly selected planet.
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
It is a remote possibility. I will offer this excerpt from the book I referred to earlier, but you won't undertand its significance until you read the book because it has to do with the decline of all evil.
Since the modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book, "Man Does Not Stand Alone", was almost convinced that God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written in his book, "Man Stands Alone". Both tried to answer the question, "Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?" Who is right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t’, but Morrison’s arguments were mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil. It went something like this:
"Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is subject to rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn up heads ten times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not expected but is still one in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads coming up consecutively is very small. Supposing you have a bag containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white. Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out of the bag is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one hundred).
Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a million.
Try another time or two and the figures become astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the fact that two plus two equals four.
In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one would believe the cards had not been arranged.
The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the possibility. My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his survival — all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. When the facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we and all else are the result of chance? We have found that there are 999,999,999 chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance. Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.
New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence."
Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil; consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with man, and that everything happens by chance?
Agreed.
Disagreed.
The behavior of a certain set of self replicating compounds when placed in an energy rich environment.
We did. Physics is just a set of descriptions of the behavior of matter and energy.
Not hard at all to conceive. I can conceive of a lot of things.
Ignoring the loaded term "laws" and ignoring the weird attempt to equate Newtonian physics with emotional desires, there is no reason to assume an intelligence. Natural, unguided processes perfectly explain the world we perceive. There is no reason to assume anything more.
Given an infinite number of ways to conceive of a god, yes, it's not likely that we'll get the chance to disprove each one before the heat death of the universe or the extinction of our species. That doesn't mean that we should just drop our standard of proof and believe for no reason. After all, you can say the same exact thing about dragons, wizards, fairies, garden gnomes and every god that humanity has dreamed up. I suggest you read up on Carl Sagan: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
YES!!! YES! Now you are geting it! Now you are on the path to figuring this out!
And now you fell off the path.
Do you not understand that the scientific method is designed explicitly to eliminate subjectivity?
You should replace "scientists" with "rational people." I'm not a professional scientist(yet), but this is how I evaluate the world.
Correction. There is no evidence for a god, skimpy or otherwise. You have spent this time pleading for me to make a leap from fortuitous circumstance to some transcendent intelligence, but with no more than emotional appeals, you're not going to get anywhere.
Then this is the difference between us. I do not "choose" to believe anything. If there is evidence, then I'll evaluate it. If it is convincing, I'll change my mind. But I do not "choose" what I believe. That's just an extended exercise in wishful thinking. I can "choose" to believe in elves. This does not make elves real, even if I have a deep emotional draw to the concept.
First definition of religion when tossed into google:
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
Sounds like what you are describing to me.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
This quote is wrong on many levels. First, these are not the only conceivable conditions under which life may evolve. There may well be life in the seas of Europa, driven by the energy of tidal flexing, for example. It would be radically different from us, and probably not intelligent. But it could exist. There could be(or could have been) microbial life on Mars. There are other types of replicating compounds which may have been the basis for even more wildly different life forms somewhere out there. So, Morrison's argument boils down to "if things were different, then things would be different." Nothing surprising there.
Second, given the basic mechanical requirements of evolution, the process will develop life if given sufficient time. It is virtually inevitable.
Third, evolution develops by a racheting effect. It improves by increments. To use the marble analogy you quoted, evolution does not work by spitting out white marbles all the time. It's more like this: you keep taking marbles out of the bag until you hit the white one. Then you refill the bag with 99 black marbles and 1 white one and do it again, taking them out until you find the next white one. You set it down next to the first one. Keep the process going until you have 100 white marbles. You will find that you complete your task much quicker than Morrison's calculations predict. There are new genetic patterns being tested out simultaneously in billions of organisms every second, and this has been going on for billions of years. And as successful combinations are found, they are more likely to be maintained in the next generation than those that are not. I suggest that if you are a programmer that you write a simulator to test this. If not, then consider this experiment. Calculate how likely it would be to roll six 6's in row(1/46656, if my incredibly tired brain is not betraying me). Now, roll six dice, keeping any 6's and rerolling the rest until you end up with all 6's. I took 5 minutes to write a Perl script to simulate performing this experiment 1,000 times. It averages seven to seventeen rolls required to get six 6's. This is a far cry from the Morrison style of thinking, but then, this is how evolution actually works.
Morrison may have had a grasp of mathematics, but his grasp of evolution by natural selection was deeply flawed.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Look, this is very simple, and it applies to everything, not just "universal intelligence." The following illustration is how knowledge works:
1. I spy with my little eye something previously unknown.
2. I poke it, prod it, pick it up, measure it, weigh it, eat it, drink it, spit on it, boil it in tar, cover it with sand, freeze it, smell it, throw it, smear it, smash it with a hammer, cut it with a knife, put it back together with duct tape, examine it under a microscope and apply sunscreen with at least spf 30.
3. When I have sufficiently experienced it, I use language precisely to describe its properties to others.
That's it. That (minus the tongue in cheek) is how all knowledge works. Sure, that's oversimplified, but the order can't be messed with. The important thing is step number one. You know how in legal proceedings, they often have a session to determine if there's enough evidence to even ask the question? That's what we're talking about here. In order to even begin an investigation, there has to be a reason to do so. Imagine if the law didn't work that way, and everyone was presumed guilty -- of everything. You could just line everybody up and read off every crime ever invented, and they'd have to prove that they were not guilty of each and every one to avoid being locked up.
What you're suggesting is the epistemological equivalent. It may sound harsh, but it must be true that only those ideas with evidence deserve consideration. Otherwise, just like the presumed guilty citizen, we'd have to line up every idea we could ever conceive and disprove those that were not true. Obviously, there are tons of ideas that cannot be disproven, so we'd pretty much have no way of knowing anything.
Now, here's the kicker. The intuitive "reasonableness" of an idea doesn't count as evidence. Just because it seems ok to you to consider universal intelligence... well... that doesn't count for jack shit. Pardon my french. There's no evidence that the universe is intelligent. The concept of intelligence is incompatible with the universe as we know it. Basically, the whole idea is screwed from the get-go. No evidence, and a term that's incompatible with the premise.
So, where does that leave you? Simple. The good critical thinker will completely disregard your idea until and unless you do one of two things (or both):
1) present compelling scientific evidence that the universe itself has done something comparable to known intelligence. In other words, it needs to do something besides act consistently.
2) present a compelling and precise definition of "intelligence" that is compatible with observed phenomena and describes something testable.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
RisingSun, even if the arguments in that quote were without many problems, as pointed out by thatonedude, a probability of 1 in 1,000,000,000 that a planet might give rise to life as we know it purely by chance, that means that there is a very high probability that it will have arisen at least once, if not 1000's of times, in our known Universe.
It is currently estimated that there could be 1000's of billions of planets in the Universe.
So if you roll a trillion dice, each with a billion sides, the chances of none of them turning up the winning side is extremely small.
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
I truly understand your dilemma. I think all of us ponder this topic and find a way of understanding our lives to make sense of it all. All I am saying is that there is very little chance human beings could turn up again in a Darwinian model. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least consider the possibility that there IS something underlying all life. That's all I am saying. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of your ideas versus my ideas. We can never come to agreement. All we can do is try to understand each others perceptions as to why we think the way we do.
Hahaha it used both "evolution is just a theory" and "Darwinism".
"In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term."
"[Darwinism is] regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory [7][8][9] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel[10], having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.[11]"
/thread
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
What dilemma??
If you think I have expressed a dilemma facing me in that post, you truly do not understand my position
The odds seem to be strongly in favour of life emerging by a combination of random chance operating within the physical laws of the universe. So the existence of intelligent life is not a problem for me, with no need whatsoever for something with some sort of intelligence to drive the process.
You are the only one with a problem here, trying to justify your intuitive feelings in the face of lack of evidence.
I have already agreed that there is arguably "something underlying all life", but it is not intelligence. It is a set of natural principles represented by Darwinian evolution and the behavior of complex systems, an exquisite combination of "chance and necessity".
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
Did you know that where I base my information comes from the acknowledgement of what Gregor Mendel accomplished? So what is your point?
...And it continues to use the term "Darwinism".
Amazing.
I suppose if it is repeated enough in church, it becomes trained.
"The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement [16] to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[17][18][19] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[5] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools."
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
So what is wrong with equal time? If you are positive you are right, you should welcome these dissenters. This is not about inculcating our children with lies. This is about giving them the opportunity to figure things out for themselves. Why are those who believe in evolution so afraid of hearing another point of view. The truth will come out in the end, but to squelch open discussion is counter productive, in my view.
No, believe me when I say that pretty much nothing will get you censored here. Ideas, no matter how stupid or ridiculous, won't earn you any kind of retribution beyond the harshness of responses.
I would just suggest making the posts in notepad or something before copying them over. For any long response I have to do that, because otherwise there is a chance it will be lost. It doesn't seem to matter what forum I'm on, very few will retain the text when you hit "back".
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
What is wrong with teaching children a religion in a public school? Oh. I don't know...
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Emphasis mine. I would point out how full of bollocks the above paragraph is. Clearly you do not understand scientific inquiry. A proper scientific explanation of observable phenomena have to incompass both the details and the big picture. The problem with the "universal intelligence" type fluff is that if fails at both. By claiming that someone is "focusing on the details, but you are failing to see the entire picture" is just your emotional response to having your position exposed for the crap that it is. Why is it crap? You stated it yourself, you can offer nothing testable. Yes, that makes you wrong. If you want to be right, adopt a position that can be tested, or accept defeat by default. And stop pretending that your position and scientific explanations are somehow "on the same page". It is nothing of the sort. If scientific explanations are indeed on some printed page, your position wouldn't even rise to the status of being a test page for the printer, as test pages are at least useful for something.
This is a rephrasing of the cosmological argument. I suggest you google for "refuting the cosmological argument" if you want an in depth refutation of it. You would also do well to read up on the inflation model of the universe. Even an overview of the subject like Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" would help. This will give you a better ground for considering this question, and retyping what has been presented by better writers than I is a waste of time. But the central problem here is that you take a gap("Where did the laws come from? I don't know" ) and insert an intelligence there. There is no grounds for it. In addition, you just punt the cosmological ball. Where did this intelligence come from? If it just exists without cause, why do you assume that the universe cannot exist without cause?
The initial conditions of the universe dictated the behavior of energy and matter.
Not at all. You are essentially asserting the same thing Einstein did. If you stopped there, I wouldn't have bothered replying. But you go much further, and assert that this is an intelligence which guides the universe, if not us in particular.
Because there are two meanings here. One is the scientific definition of law. The second is the legalistic definition, with it's built in connotation of a law-giver.
In an extended sentence you mentioned both physical laws and then a vague law of love. Granted, I think that physical laws ultimately account for both, but at the high level we are examining, they are different.
Again, what reason? The appearance of order does not prove intelligence.
That is called a gap in knowledge. It is irrational to simply plug suppositions into a gap without a reason.
And, unless you actually demonstrate that such an intelligence in necessary to explain what we see, then there is no reason to entertain the idea.
I agree. If you start with the premise that nothing can be known, then you are indeed on a path to nowhere.
There's a way to check that. You deduce what will happen if your premise is true, and test it. If there is no way to test it, then it's a meaningless statement. Saying that a premise has no testable empirical outcome is the same as saying it makes absolutely no difference in the universe. If a premise would have some impact on the universe, then it can be measured, and falsified.
You had started making rational sense, by appealing to observation. You promptly undermined it.
And so we continue to study and probe. This is exactly how science works. Old assumptions are put to the test over and over, and discarded or modified if they fail. It's not just a series of random guesses where the most comfortable assumption wins. It's an ongoing state of evolution, and it's becoming more and more refined and precise as we go on.
If you really are a skeptic, then present the proof that you used to become a believer in a guiding intelligence. Pointing to a sense of wonder is not proof. Pointing to a gap is not proof. Presenting a restated cosmological argument is not proof.
Plead in the legal sense.
I always work under the impression that the person I am debating is trying to better their understanding of the universe, as that is always my goal. And I have made massive changes to my world view based on precisely these kinds of debates.
My method is not "Darwinism" but rather empirical observation and testing. That is, the scientific method. This method of interrogating the universe around us is the basis for ALL of our advances in every field of knowledge. I do not start with a belief and look for proof. My beliefs are dictated by proof. There is no choice involved. I am either convinced by proof or not. If you have evidence that abandoning empirical investigation results in better results, please provide it.
If there is some "alternate reality" or "guiding intelligence" then you have two possibilities, that it has a measurable effect on the universe or that it does not. If it does, then it can be examined. If not, then it's a moot point.
How is this abstract? Either entity X with properties P exists, or it does not. If there is no empirical difference made by it's existence or non-existence, then it's useless speculation. The only question is what measurement would show a valid result. The inability to measure it would not lead a skeptical person to embrace the idea.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Who are you referring to as 'it'?
I don't know enough to differentiate between Darwinism and evolution, so I am therefore using these words interchangably, even though I might be mistaken. From my perspective, it seems that everyone is dogmatic to a degree. Why is it wrong to want to give equal time to a theory? If Darwinism (okay I will use the word evolution)...If evolution is absolutely true, then why is it considered a theory? It should be considered a fact just like the earth is round is a fact. Then it would be accepted worldwide and the idea of intelligent design would lose its credibility...end of story.
It certainly does pertain directly to the quote. If life can exist in different forms, then Morrison's whole argument dies, as this is just one of many possible configurations that can lead to life. Therefore, the long odds he attempts to compute don't come into it at all.
You don't understand. If evolution guarantees increased order on a localized scale, then, again, Morrison's appeal to the improbability of life is undermined.
I'm not going to crucify you for anything. You're being civil, so I don't take offense.
Anyway, it's possible but not likely that I have such a marred understanding of evolution by natural selection to make such a basic mistake. Morrison set up a straw man, pure and simple. I would suggest that you read up on evolutionary theory. A good place to start would be Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True." But there are loads of books on the subject that could give you a good overview.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
The verdict has been in for over a century. Supporting evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have yet to see a compelling piece of evidence against it.
I think you need to look up the scientific definition of the word theory. Remember, gravity is a theory, too. If you are not aware of the mountains of evidence from literally every field of human knowledge which touches the subject of evolution, you really need to start studying it more.
Why do you assume that "knowledge" is required to allow a bird to fly?
Then you're argument is at an end.
I suspect that we will never be on the same page. Amazement does not constitute proof.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
On a framework supported by centuries of observational and experimental data. Yet, you seem to think that this premise is somehow flimsy.
What random occurrence are you referring to?
I still haven't actually heard a question. Just a supposition.
It is a copout. You have demonstrated that you lack an understanding of evolution, and it seems to me(I would like to be mistaken on this point) that you have no desire to remedy said lack, but instead to remain in "limbo" while entertaining groundless assumptions about some guiding intelligence.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
This is a straw man argument. No one claims that "scientists" claim to know everything.
You seem to have resolved the issue. Likely a server glitch.
Because not all ideas are equally valid. Are you also arguing that flat earth proponents should be given time in geology class? Or that stork theory should be presented in sex ed? Or blood letting in medical classes?
They are welcome to join the debate and present empirical evidence. You might note that they have not done so. This is largely because they don't have a leg to stand on, and instead attempt to use popular media and court cases to legislate beliefs rather than competing on the merit of evidence.
You betray a significant bias. Again, I suspect that you will never actually examine the evidence. As a parent, I am against people telling my kids lies, which is why I fight against religion in the classroom.
Who is afraid of creationism? Oh, excuse me, it's been rebranded "intelligent design." The truth has come out, been reviewed, been tested and refined for over a century. Which makes it almost inexcusable that you choose to remain in the dark. If nothing else, I would expect that you had studied it in order to refute it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Morrison's odds assume a single possible outcome. This is not the case, and thus the odds of a successful outcome(in terms of generating some form of life) are raised accordingly. And if we don't find life in this solar system, then it's unlikely that our species will exist long enough to find another solar system with life.
That's exactly what it translates into.
In a literal sense, yes, you are. It would be the same as if I visited an Evangelical Protestant forum and offered my opinions on the "goodness" of their deity. But that's neither here nor there. I would suggest that you suspend your argument and pursue some research. I've suggested several good resources, and it would help you and your argument immensely if you were more conversant in the issues we are discussing, especially evolution.
Intelligent design does more than connote religious underpinnings. It is a retread of creationism. I do read ID arguments. How could I make an effective defense if I were unaware of my opponents' points of contention? I read things put out by the Discovery Institute(granted, they are a great source of amusement). I have some of their foundational documents(including the infamous Wedge document) sitting on my desktop for quick reference. I go beyond reading about things and build simple simulations to test them. I listen to the debates they put on. I even listen in when they go on ID-friendly shows put on by groups like Focus on the Family and hear what they have to say when not confronted with opposition. I am not interested in indoctrination. ID arguments simply fall apart when you look at the facts. I encourage you to do the same.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
But there is a major difference. Yours does not have a shred of evidence, whereas evolution has mountains. That's why the two aren't even on the same playing field.
Good for you on not being a creationist, there may be hope then. Your so called "intuitive feeling" is merely the projection of the human tendency to detect patterns and discern purpose onto the universe. In other words, very grand wishful thinking. Science, the only consistently reliable method of gaining knowledge about the universe, thankfully does not accept intuitive feelings as anything more than what they are, feelings. Nor does it accept weak cop-outs like placing something beyond empirical testing.
I do? Show me where I claimed that. Coincidentally, this is a very common complaint from people who are creationists and/or religious. You may want to actually familiarize yourself with the position you try to argue against before you start arguing.
Irrelevant appeal to emo. This has nothing to do with either science or the intelligent design position. I do live and let live. What I don't do is pretend that your position is scientific. If that hurts your feelings, I don't care.
Close enough for government work.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you essentially saying that creatures are programmed to followed the dictates of an unmutable nature? Please elucidate.
Certainly, you did. Over and over. You used it in the paragraph I was responding to:
It is the entire point of the argument you have put forth so far. It's the point of Morrison's calculations. You keep returning to this thesis: that it's too much of a coincidence to say that life could exist without intelligent design. It has been explained to you how the math you presented is wrong. It has been explained to you how the vague conception of evolution that you have presented so far is innaccurate. You have been presented with avenues of research which could help you better understand the concepts I am trying to explain. At this point, far from having a skeptical heart as you put it, you seem bent on promoting ID without even a basic investigation of what you are arguing against. If you are unwilling to put in the time to understand, there is no point in my continued presense in this thread.
And, I would note one more thing. Those "amazing laws" that you keep talking about are also responsible for cataclysmic meteor strikes, viral epidemics, cancer, drowning, murder, rape, earthquakes, tidal waves and every other ill that humanity faces. The universe as a whole is a cold and uncaring place, and only by inventing some concept like "sin" and investing heavily in confirmation bias can one be led to think it is anything otherwise.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
There is no set "atheist belief" on anything but one: we don't believe in a god. Some are physical determinists, some aren't. In a very high level, I am a physical determinist. Everything is dictated by physical laws. At a personal level, it doesn't matter whether I have philosophical or absolute free-will or not, as either case will appear the same from my point of view.
From you:
You claim to have pressing issues, and yet you are here for hours a day, on an atheist forum, debating intelligent design without a clear understanding of evolutionary theory. Either you care about this issue, and want a real discussion, or you are looking for a place to repeat ID arguments and get someone to respond. If you don't have the time to research the issue from both sides, why are you even arguing about it?
No, I base that determination on the way you have responded to my posts.
This is the first time you've raised the issue of transitional fossils. Again, this shows me that you are not at all conversant with the actual theory of evolution, but rather the deeply flawed conception of it pushed by ID proponents. I could link hundreds of references about transitional fossils. Would you actually read them? Again, I suggest that you pick up one of the fine books I have pointed out before, and read it. It will answer most of the questions you have, and then we would be on solid ground for actually discussing these issues. The Jerry Coyne book I listed is 233 pages long, not counting the notes, references and glossary at the back. It is an excellent overview of this area, and shouldn't take you long to read.
And I frankly don't understand those last two sentences. We have been giving you facts. I explained how Morrison was wrong in his math. I even took the time to write a simulator to illustrate the point. Bob Spence pointed out some pertinent facts about the number of planets in the universe. And this is all bound up in "why this or that causes this or that." It's the crux of the issue.
Actually, no, it's not. I don't believe in "evil" in a religious sense, just things that are conducive or not conducive to individual and species level comfort and survival. I'm simply pointing out that those "amazing laws" are not built for our benefit. They are entirely amoral and uncaring, which is not surprising unless you are attempting to use them to generate the idea of some guiding intelligence.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Not at all. I am always operating on inputs. It does not matter if those inputs are determined or not. From an individual's point of view, the result is the same. And it has no bearing on intelligent design at all.
Yet, somehow you believe that something much more complex, your "underlying intelligence," did just that. You have no trouble imagining a mind capable of creating and ordering a universe just popping into existence, but the universe is too much for you?
I'm not interested in conversions, but rather conversations. I fight against ID because it is a religious sham being foisted on the educational system. I have children in these school systems, and if I wanted them to hear religious propaganda, I'd send them to Ken Ham's "museum." I'd rather my tax dollars be burned in a barrel than go towards the undermining of science and rational thought that keeps getting shoved into schools.
Jerry A. Coyne. "Why Evolution is True." Link to the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245874528&sr=8-1
If your library doesn't have it, request it through the inter-library loan service. Most libraries are a part of that.
I would also recommend Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" which is about skepticism and science: http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245874666&sr=1-1
You can also find an excellent list of suggested reading at the end of Jerry's book. Richard Dawkins has several excellent books about evolution. And of course, not reading "The Origin of Species" is leaving out the seminal work in the field.
I won't respond aside from saying that you need to start reading some of the books I linked. The only people still debating evolution are doing so from an explicitly religious standpoint. They are distorting evolution for religious and political gain.
No, because it is obvious that they are oblivious to human concerns. Inertia is the same, whether it's acting on a ball hit off a child's bat or acting on a .45 slug entering that same child's skull. Fusion is fusion, whether it's warming my skin on a beach or inflicting cellular damage which will cause me to die of skin cancer. Physical laws are not good or bad, they just are. And they certainly don't "create peace on earth." That has never existed, and never will.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.