345 replies to this topic

[N.T.M.]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

My observation to this is no argument proves God or no god 100% That is why these are faith and probably issues. I have noted what parts of the argument are in my view most disputed. Be more specific, what is "completely flawed?" As you understand it, What is completely-extremely "improbable?" I don't see any real arguments here but argument by pejorative adjectives.

Out of respect I’ll elucidate my stance regarding improbability:

First off, there have been many refutations for god as he’s most commonly depicted, so here I’m only going to be referring to a deistic god.

The first problem is superfluousness. There is no need for a god, so interjecting one seems superfluous.

Second: Arguably the greatest attack against god’s existence is his vulnerability to a regression-based problem. “Who created God?” - “Well he’s always existed.” - “…and before that?” - etc. There’s a succession of infinite regressions which just seems, as others have described, pseudo-philosophical. Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It’s a perfect inverse of an explanation.

But can you disprove god’s existence? No, you can’t. But there is the issue of probability.

[shadowhawk]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

My observation to this is no argument proves God or no god 100% That is why these are faith and probably issues. I have noted what parts of the argument are in my view most disputed. Be more specific, what is "completely flawed?" As you understand it, What is completely-extremely "improbable?" I don't see any real arguments here but argument by pejorative adjectives.

Out of respect I'll elucidate my stance regarding improbability:

First off, there have been many refutations for god as he's most commonly depicted, so here I'm only going to be referring to a deistic god.

The first problem is superfluousness. There is no need for a god, so interjecting one seems superfluous.

Second: Arguably the greatest attack against god's existence is his vulnerability to a regression-based problem. "Who created God?" - "Well he's always existed." - "…and before that?" - etc. There's a succession of infinite regressions which just seems, as others have described, pseudo-philosophical. Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It's a perfect inverse of an explanation.

But can you disprove god's existence? No, you can't. But there is the issue of probability.

As an Atheist you must believe the universe is all there is of time and space. Everything that exists in this cosmos has a cause. You are a good Atheist, evolution your creator, is a long chain of cause and effect. A cause and effect cosmos exists.. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? You have given no explanation for this. You just claim it is my problem. How could things ultimately begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? What is the probability of a non caused existence? None! Do you know anything without a probable cause?

[N.T.M.]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

My observation to this is no argument proves God or no god 100% That is why these are faith and probably issues. I have noted what parts of the argument are in my view most disputed. Be more specific, what is "completely flawed?" As you understand it, What is completely-extremely "improbable?" I don't see any real arguments here but argument by pejorative adjectives.

Out of respect I'll elucidate my stance regarding improbability:

First off, there have been many refutations for god as he's most commonly depicted, so here I'm only going to be referring to a deistic god.

The first problem is superfluousness. There is no need for a god, so interjecting one seems superfluous.

Second: Arguably the greatest attack against god's existence is his vulnerability to a regression-based problem. "Who created God?" - "Well he's always existed." - "…and before that?" - etc. There's a succession of infinite regressions which just seems, as others have described, pseudo-philosophical. Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It's a perfect inverse of an explanation.

But can you disprove god's existence? No, you can't. But there is the issue of probability.

As an Atheist you must believe the universe is all there is of time and space. Everything that exists in this cosmos has a cause. You are a good Atheist, evolution your creator, is a long chain of cause and effect. A cause and effect cosmos exists.. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? You have given no explanation for this. You just claim it is my problem. How could things ultimately begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? What is the probability of a non caused existence? None! Do you know anything without a probable cause?

You're quite cleverly digressing as to benight the issue. Again, clever. But you must remember that our argument doesn't directly concern time, but, instead, the origin of complexity.

To expound on your digression though just for fun: time may have very well initially been a nondescript state which reflected nothing seeing as there was originally very little to establish any point of relativity. Almost ontologically then, time arose once complexity was adequate enough to constitute it. Again, that's totally irrelevent but fun nevertheless.

So I say again:

Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It's a perfect inverse of an explanation.

[chrwe]

You two are doing a good job in reinforcing my agnostic stance

[chris w]

In my eyes NTM is doing a better one, though personally I wish it was the other way around. God should exist, otherwise it's all kind of...crappy

[eternaltraveler]

disproving some nebulous super entity at the origin of the cosmos is impossible presently as we have very little data. Sure its possible some entity some might enjoy calling god could be hiding somewhere in the shadows beyond our understanding hanging out with teacups in orbit around mars and the flying spaghetti monster, but until we have some positive evidence for such a being it just isn't worth that much time thinking about.

It's really up to those making such extraordinary claims to back them up and that clearly isn't happening (these atrocious attempts at logic proofs are increasingly painful to look at).

However, nebulous beings hiding in the shadows beyond our current understanding is not an issue here. Not really. What is an issue here are god(s) as defined by human religions, as in the bible, koran and tora
(or others that aren't really under discussion in this thread). Disproving the beings described in these texts is easy, as is disproving quite a lot of what these texts say in general (there is of course some factual historic basis for some of the stories).

Followers of these texts take two approaches in dealing with reality that inconveniently disproves their "holy" literature. They either deny reality completely, or they reinterpret the hell out of their texts to mean whatever it is that is presently convenient (like saying the hell in the bible actually means the earth will be swallowed by the sun in billions of years; yeah, that's it). The third alternative is of course giving up their religions, which more and more people in our modern world do as our tools of examining reality become finer and knowledge becomes easier to access.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Everyone feel free to continue debating in circles (those who prefer to not go in circles with logical debates might enjoy http://wiki.lesswron.../wiki/Sequences)

Edited by eternaltraveler, 29 June 2010 - 06:30 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

My observation to this is no argument proves God or no god 100% That is why these are faith and probably issues. I have noted what parts of the argument are in my view most disputed. Be more specific, what is "completely flawed?" As you understand it, What is completely-extremely "improbable?" I don't see any real arguments here but argument by pejorative adjectives.

Out of respect I'll elucidate my stance regarding improbability:

First off, there have been many refutations for god as he's most commonly depicted, so here I'm only going to be referring to a deistic god.

The first problem is superfluousness. There is no need for a god, so interjecting one seems superfluous.

Second: Arguably the greatest attack against god's existence is his vulnerability to a regression-based problem. "Who created God?" - "Well he's always existed." - "…and before that?" - etc. There's a succession of infinite regressions which just seems, as others have described, pseudo-philosophical. Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It's a perfect inverse of an explanation.

But can you disprove god's existence? No, you can't. But there is the issue of probability.

As an Atheist you must believe the universe is all there is of time and space. Everything that exists in this cosmos has a cause. You are a good Atheist, evolution your creator, is a long chain of cause and effect. A cause and effect cosmos exists.. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? You have given no explanation for this. You just claim it is my problem. How could things ultimately begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? What is the probability of a non caused existence? None! Do you know anything without a probable cause?

You're quite cleverly digressing as to benight the issue. Again, clever. But you must remember that our argument doesn't directly concern time, but, instead, the origin of complexity.

To expound on your digression though just for fun: time may have very well initially been a nondescript state which reflected nothing seeing as there was originally very little to establish any point of relativity. Almost ontologically then, time arose once complexity was adequate enough to constitute it. Again, that's totally irrelevent but fun nevertheless.

So I say again:

Whatever made god must have been radically even more complex and consequently even more improbable. It's a perfect inverse of an explanation.

Since no one made God, there is nothing more complex, The statement is improbable. It is a problem of information theory as well but I wont deal with that here..

My response is contrary to your view, the effect is rarely more complex than the cause. This would be especially true of things such as a cosmos which contains non material and complex things such as consciousness. Design and complexity in our existence is often caused by intelligent complex consciousness. See, “Consciousness and the existence of God.”
http://www.afterall.net/books/491176
http://www.amazon.co...NK2THF6IGI6C2BC
http://consc.net/book/tcm.html

A few issues consciousness rase:
* "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich conscious inner life at all?"
* "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
* "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
* "Why do qualia exist?"
* "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
* "Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness. Theists argue that such non material things as spirit and consciousness are real and are the ground of being of the physical world. At this point of our science it’s a mystery. What is the probably of intelligence, mind, a conscious God, existing? An argument against God from complexity, seems to entirely miss the point since Gods complexity is argued by Theists.. So here is my argument:

1. We consciously experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance, which has low probability.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

[N.T.M.]

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance, which has low probability.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. [/b]

There is no need to argue any further. If you believe that evolution is the product of chance then you’re sadly mistaken. I suggest that you educate yourself, at least on a rudimentary level, on evolution. You’ll find that its tenets never invoke chance, contrary to what you believe. It truly is the opposite of chance, which is why it stands strong against regression-based arguments.

You seem to be wishfully defaulting to creationism. This is also continuously reflected by your incessant evasiveness. You think that your god is impervious to these questions? There must be a reason to believe, and so far you’ve yet to proffer a single coherent reason. Now don’t construe this as silly derision. I’d really love to believe in a god, but I have no reason to do so.

In my eyes NTM is doing a better one, though personally I wish it was the other way around. God should exist, otherwise it's all kind of...crappy

This is a debate I'd love to lose. Honestly.

*edit*

Since no one made God, there is nothing more complex, The statement is improbable. It is a problem of information theory as well but I wont deal with that here..

Quite circular logic.

*last edit*

I just saw this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

See video evidence for above argument.
http://www.metacafe....el_strauss_phd/

List from Astronomer Hugh Ross on Fine Tuning of the Universe. http://www.reasons.o...g-life-universe
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Sorry, but the anthropic principle?!?! And you go so far as to say it’s incontrovertible proof?!

Simple math can disprove your theory:

(what follows are largely arbitrary numbers, although they illustrate the point beautifully)

Suppose that on average, a star may have, say… several planets orbiting it. And of course that star is one among millions that’ve aggregated within a given galaxy. And of those galaxies there are millions/billions more throughout the universe.

Now lets say that there are a billion billion planets, and the odds of finding one suitable for life is one in a billion. Well clearly that elicits an estimated billion inhabitable planets. So you see the odds of there not being a planet similar to earth (also factoring in its cosmological positioning, etc.) is quite unlikely. But no!! You must postulate a god to explain it.

Edited by N.T.M., 30 June 2010 - 09:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance, which has low probability.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. [/b]

There is no need to argue any further. If you believe that evolution is the product of chance then you’re sadly mistaken. I suggest that you educate yourself, at least on a rudimentary level, on evolution. You’ll find that its tenets never invoke chance, contrary to what you believe. It truly is the opposite of chance, which is why it stands strong against regression-based arguments.

You seem to be wishfully defaulting to creationism. This is also continuously reflected by your incessant evasiveness. You think that your god is impervious to these questions? There must be a reason to believe, and so far you’ve yet to proffer a single coherent reason. Now don’t construe this as silly derision. I’d really love to believe in a god, but I have no reason to do so.

In my eyes NTM is doing a better one, though personally I wish it was the other way around. God should exist, otherwise it's all kind of...crappy

This is a debate I'd love to lose. Honestly.

*edit*

Since no one made God, there is nothing more complex, The statement is improbable. It is a problem of information theory as well but I wont deal with that here..

Quite circular logic.

*last edit*

I just saw this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

See video evidence for above argument.
http://www.metacafe....el_strauss_phd/

List from Astronomer Hugh Ross on Fine Tuning of the Universe. http://www.reasons.o...g-life-universe
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Sorry, but the anthropic principle?!?! And you go so far as to say it’s incontrovertible proof?!

Simple math can disprove your theory:

(what follows are largely arbitrary numbers, although they illustrate the point beautifully)

Suppose that on average, a star may have, say… several planets orbiting it. And of course that star is one among millions that’ve aggregated within a given galaxy. And of those galaxies there are millions/billions more throughout the universe.

Now lets say that there are a billion billion planets, and the odds of finding one suitable for life is one in a billion. Well clearly that elicits an estimated billion inhabitable planets. So you see the odds of there not being a planet similar to earth (also factoring in its cosmological positioning, etc.) is quite unlikely. But no!! You must postulate a god to explain it.

Not so simple: The cosmos has been around for billions of years. The earliest galaxies, with billions of billions of stars have been around so long they have already burned out. Full blown civilizations would have come and gone. This makes for high probability of other planets with life forms existing. This is the basis of SETI, the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. It was once thought the universe would be full of radio waves showing intelligence existing everywhere. So far, after over 50 years of searching, nothing. At the same time the earth exists and is producing many radio waves. So far the evidence is we are a very rare and exceptionable planet.

I gave a long list of constants which argue for this being a special place. If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron – then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Here are a few sources on the anthropic principal.

http://home.messiah....e-tuning/ft.htm
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://www.closertot...in-Collins-/737
http://www.privilegedplanet.com/
http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=1366

[N.T.M.]

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance, which has low probability.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite, conscious, minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. [/b]

There is no need to argue any further. If you believe that evolution is the product of chance then you’re sadly mistaken. I suggest that you educate yourself, at least on a rudimentary level, on evolution. You’ll find that its tenets never invoke chance, contrary to what you believe. It truly is the opposite of chance, which is why it stands strong against regression-based arguments.

You seem to be wishfully defaulting to creationism. This is also continuously reflected by your incessant evasiveness. You think that your god is impervious to these questions? There must be a reason to believe, and so far you’ve yet to proffer a single coherent reason. Now don’t construe this as silly derision. I’d really love to believe in a god, but I have no reason to do so.

In my eyes NTM is doing a better one, though personally I wish it was the other way around. God should exist, otherwise it's all kind of...crappy

This is a debate I'd love to lose. Honestly.

*edit*

Since no one made God, there is nothing more complex, The statement is improbable. It is a problem of information theory as well but I wont deal with that here..

Quite circular logic.

*last edit*

I just saw this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

See video evidence for above argument.
http://www.metacafe....el_strauss_phd/

List from Astronomer Hugh Ross on Fine Tuning of the Universe. http://www.reasons.o...g-life-universe
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Sorry, but the anthropic principle?!?! And you go so far as to say it’s incontrovertible proof?!

Simple math can disprove your theory:

(what follows are largely arbitrary numbers, although they illustrate the point beautifully)

Suppose that on average, a star may have, say… several planets orbiting it. And of course that star is one among millions that’ve aggregated within a given galaxy. And of those galaxies there are millions/billions more throughout the universe.

Now lets say that there are a billion billion planets, and the odds of finding one suitable for life is one in a billion. Well clearly that elicits an estimated billion inhabitable planets. So you see the odds of there not being a planet similar to earth (also factoring in its cosmological positioning, etc.) is quite unlikely. But no!! You must postulate a god to explain it.

Not so simple: The cosmos has been around for billions of years. The earliest galaxies, with billions of billions of stars have been around so long they have already burned out. Full blown civilizations would have come and gone. This makes for high probability of other planets with life forms existing. This is the basis of SETI, the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. It was once thought the universe would be full of radio waves showing intelligence existing everywhere. So far, after over 50 years of searching, nothing. At the same time the earth exists and is producing many radio waves. So far the evidence is we are a very rare and exceptionable planet.

I gave a long list of constants which argue for this being a special place. If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron – then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Here are a few sources on the anthropic principal.

http://home.messiah....e-tuning/ft.htm
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://www.closertot...in-Collins-/737
http://www.privilegedplanet.com/
http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=1366

You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it’s life’s expected sparsity that supports this.

[chrwe]

And if we assume for a moment that this is not the first universe to exist, nor that it will be the last, or that there are parallel universes in existence right now (all of which are theories in physics at the moment, although there is not proof), it becomes a mathematical certainty that there are other planets with other life-forms, some of which will be sentient.

However, although it would be nice to meet them if they are more peaceful than humans, I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation. Both still seem equally likely to me because we still have insufficient data to really judge either of them (please note I am not saying anything about a personal, anthropomorphized God, whose non-existence seems quite obvious to me). I assume that it will take many hundreds of years to find out. If ever. Hope we will all be part of it.

Heck, for all we know the ancient Hindus might be right and we are all a thought in God`s dreams. Would even fit with the quantum theory that the ultimate driving force of the universe may be random consciousness.

It matters not if the world of man falls or the universe ends - which it does if we do not overcome death. For if we are not aware, the world will end for us, which equals the world ending in total since we won`t be there to experience it.

[shadowhawk]

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it’s life’s expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don’t even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Since no evidence is still evidence for you, there is no way to ever disprove you. Lots of evidence is the same as none.

four options one may take

ONE UNIVERSE which we live in.

1. DESIGNED UNIVERSE
is plausible and is one option for theists. Fine tuned.

2. UNDESIGNED UNIVERSE
is extremely improbable ( practicaly impossible? ) not Fine tuned. See list I gave above

MULTIVERSE
(with many universes)

1. MULTIUNIVERSE
DESIGNED MULTIVERSE Fine tuned
is plausible and is one option for theists

2. UNDESIGNED MULTIVERSE Not fine tuned.
is plausible and is the only option for non-theists

[N.T.M.]

I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just demonstrate probability.

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it’s life’s expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
[b]I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don’t even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Wow. Interpolating my comments. Clever. So a conservative estimate of a billion is too unlikely for you. For your argument to remain you’d have to assume the inverse of that equation, meaning that the odds of the anthropic principle’s accuracy as you’re applying it must be one in a billion. The irony here of course is that during your little interpolation you criticized that exact probability. Then you contradict yourself even further by stating that contemporary creationism is compatible with ETs. You seem to have forgotten that my reason for mentioning it was simply to eviscerate it as a means of support for creationism, appose to positing an inconsequential detail.

My counterargument is that of probability. So far your god is totally superfluous.

This is all excluding the possibility of the multiverse, which would make the already-unfavorable odds shoot up radically higher.

Edited by N.T.M., 03 July 2010 - 07:24 AM.

[chris w]

Heck, for all we know the ancient Hindus might be right and we are all a thought in God`s dreams. Would even fit with the quantum theory that the ultimate driving force of the universe may be random consciousness.

I've always liked the Hindu ideas, so overwhelming, almost like they knew something about the Universe . Actually, it was thought that when Brahma is awake, we are his thoughts, when he falls asleep for a 4 320 milions of years of The Dissapearing - we are screwed, untill the next cycle begins, which leads closer to Great Dissapearing, and after it begins again. Fascinating and nauseating.

[Luna]

I think chrwe puts it into a nice conclusion (very like my usual one): "Either we die now or die then it won't matter what there is. Just don't die." and.. "Then we can bother.. but we shouldn't be bothered."

[shadowhawk]

I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just demonstrate probability.

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it’s life’s expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don’t even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Wow. Interpolating my comments. Clever. So a conservative estimate of a billion is too unlikely for you. For your argument to remain you’d have to assume the inverse of that equation, meaning that the odds of the anthropic principle’s accuracy as you’re applying it must be one in a billion. The irony here of course is that during your little interpolation you criticized that exact probability. Then you contradict yourself even further by stating that contemporary creationism is compatible with ETs. You seem to have forgotten that my reason for mentioning it was simply to eviscerate it as a means of support for creationism, appose to positing an inconsequential detail.

My counterargument is that of probability. So far your god is totally superfluous.

This is all excluding the possibility of the multiverse, which would make the already-unfavorable odds shoot up radically higher.

I[b] don’t care how many billions of stars are in the cosmos and I am not applying my argument to one billion stars. That is your straw man. I never suggested that. The more stars the more powerful my point. No one can ascertain the answer to this question of star numbers, with absolute certainty due the immensity of the universe and fact that light from vastly distant galaxies has not even had time to reach the Earth. The reason for this is that even though light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum it will still take billions upon billions of years for it to travel from the outer limits of the universe across the seemingly infinite distance to planet Earth. Some of the galaxies have already burnt out. There are lots of stars (70 sextillion, in some estimates) and SETI with its hope to find evidence of intelligent life is based upon the probability of intelligent radio waves given the vast number of stars. If there is a multi universe the number goes up though this is still debated hotly. There is no evidence radio waves could go from one cosmos to the next, Where are the intelligent radio waves given these odds?
http://en.wikipedia....rvable_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I do not favor the ET view but believe there are other forms of life on earth but they are terrestrial. God certainly is larger than the cosmos and there are other kinds of creatures mentioned that are non terrestal.. Christians have long believed that these forms of life exist.

“Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at Ufos and Extraterrestrials.”

http://www.amazon.co...tt_at_ep_dpi_12

My entire point was and continues to be that the earth is a special place and so far all the evidence points that way. That is the point of the anthropic principal and its fine tuning argument for God.

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

[shadowhawk]

Heck, for all we know the ancient Hindus might be right and we are all a thought in God`s dreams. Would even fit with the quantum theory that the ultimate driving force of the universe may be random consciousness.

I've always liked the Hindu ideas, so overwhelming, almost like they knew something about the Universe . Actually, it was thought that when Brahma is awake, we are his thoughts, when he falls asleep for a 4 320 milions of years of The Dissapearing - we are screwed, untill the next cycle begins, which leads closer to Great Dissapearing, and after it begins again. Fascinating and nauseating.

You might also enjoy Bede Griffiths a Roman Catholic Priest who was also a Hindu. He wrote a number of deep books which are syntritistic between Hinduism and Christianity. I have studied several of them. Deep.

http://en.wikipedia..../Bede_Griffiths
http://www.amazon.co...9461&sr=1-2-ent

[N.T.M.]

I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just demonstrate probability.

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it’s life’s expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don’t even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Wow. Interpolating my comments. Clever. So a conservative estimate of a billion is too unlikely for you. For your argument to remain you’d have to assume the inverse of that equation, meaning that the odds of the anthropic principle’s accuracy as you’re applying it must be one in a billion. The irony here of course is that during your little interpolation you criticized that exact probability. Then you contradict yourself even further by stating that contemporary creationism is compatible with ETs. You seem to have forgotten that my reason for mentioning it was simply to eviscerate it as a means of support for creationism, appose to positing an inconsequential detail.

My counterargument is that of probability. So far your god is totally superfluous.

This is all excluding the possibility of the multiverse, which would make the already-unfavorable odds shoot up radically higher.

I[b] don’t care how many billions of stars are in the cosmos and I am not applying my argument to one billion stars. That is your straw man. I never suggested that. The more stars the more powerful my point. No one can ascertain the answer to this question of star numbers, with absolute certainty due the immensity of the universe and fact that light from vastly distant galaxies has not even had time to reach the Earth. The reason for this is that even though light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum it will still take billions upon billions of years for it to travel from the outer limits of the universe across the seemingly infinite distance to planet Earth. Some of the galaxies have already burnt out. There are lots of stars (70 sextillion, in some estimates) and SETI with its hope to find evidence of intelligent life is based upon the probability of intelligent radio waves given the vast number of stars. If there is a multi universe the number goes up though this is still debated hotly. There is no evidence radio waves could go from one cosmos to the next, Where are the intelligent radio waves given these odds?
http://en.wikipedia....rvable_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I do not favor the ET view but believe there are other forms of life on earth but they are terrestrial. God certainly is larger than the cosmos and there are other kinds of creatures mentioned that are non terrestal.. Christians have long believed that these forms of life exist.

“Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at Ufos and Extraterrestrials.”

http://www.amazon.co...tt_at_ep_dpi_12

My entire point was and continues to be that the earth is a special place and so far all the evidence points that way. That is the point of the anthropic principal and its fine tuning argument for God.

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

You seem to just be restating everything, all while conveniently overlooking the eradication of all your alleged support.

[shadowhawk]

I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just demonstrate probability.

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it's life's expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don't even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Wow. Interpolating my comments. Clever. So a conservative estimate of a billion is too unlikely for you. For your argument to remain you'd have to assume the inverse of that equation, meaning that the odds of the anthropic principle's accuracy as you're applying it must be one in a billion. The irony here of course is that during your little interpolation you criticized that exact probability. Then you contradict yourself even further by stating that contemporary creationism is compatible with ETs. You seem to have forgotten that my reason for mentioning it was simply to eviscerate it as a means of support for creationism, appose to positing an inconsequential detail.

My counterargument is that of probability. So far your god is totally superfluous.

This is all excluding the possibility of the multiverse, which would make the already-unfavorable odds shoot up radically higher.

I don't care how many billions of stars are in the cosmos and I am not applying my argument to one billion stars. That is your straw man. I never suggested that. The more stars the more powerful my point. No one can ascertain the answer to this question of star numbers, with absolute certainty due the immensity of the universe and fact that light from vastly distant galaxies has not even had time to reach the Earth. The reason for this is that even though light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum it will still take billions upon billions of years for it to travel from the outer limits of the universe across the seemingly infinite distance to planet Earth. Some of the galaxies have already burnt out. There are lots of stars (70 sextillion, in some estimates) and SETI with its hope to find evidence of intelligent life is based upon the probability of intelligent radio waves given the vast number of stars. If there is a multi universe the number goes up though this is still debated hotly. There is no evidence radio waves could go from one cosmos to the next, Where are the intelligent radio waves given these odds?
http://en.wikipedia....rvable_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I do not favor the ET view but believe there are other forms of life on earth but they are terrestrial. God certainly is larger than the cosmos and there are other kinds of creatures mentioned that are non terrestal.. Christians have long believed that these forms of life exist.

"Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at Ufos and Extraterrestrials."

http://www.amazon.co...tt_at_ep_dpi_12

My entire point was and continues to be that the earth is a special place and so far all the evidence points that way. That is the point of the anthropic principal and its fine tuning argument for God.

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

You seem to just be restating everything, all while conveniently overlooking the eradication of all your alleged support.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

The dean of the contemporary Intelligent Design movement William Dembski has written at length concerning information theory and the anthropic principal. I recommend:

http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpt_8
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.reasons.o...g-life-universe
http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

Dembski argues that in addition to high improbability there also needs to be conformity to an independently given pattern. When these two elements are present, we have what Dembski calls "specified complexity," which is the tip-off to intelligent design. Thus, for example, in a poker game any deal of cards is equally and highly improbable, but if you find that every time a certain player deals he gets all four aces, you can bet this is not the result of chance but of design.

For example, if two rocks collided, you would infer neither design nor chance as the best explanation, but a third alternative, physical necessity. Since gravitation acts over almost infinite distances, it is actually inevitable that those two masses will eventually collide given enough time. What would warrant a design inference would be if the rocks were to break into pieces which then came together to spell "Welcome to the Milky Way." Intelligence.

To detect design look for high improbability conjoined with an independently given pattern.

I disagree that I am simply repeating myself. The reader can decide for themselves. In order not to belabor the point regarding the Anthropic principal which I feel is sound as I have stated it, (You can deal with Dembski) I am going on to another argument based upon "information theory."

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 July 2010 - 11:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Argument for the existence of God from Information Theory using DNA

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

[N.T.M.]

I dont see how this disproves the theory of intelligent design by whatever means or how this proves the theory of random generation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just demonstrate probability.

NTM:
You're restating your already-debunked argument. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? So in that sense I concede to its rarity. But you neglect to look at it holistically and don't realize that all that you've mentioned is perfectly compatible with the probability I demonstrated. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. The universe would clearly not abound with radio waves, and it's life's expected sparsity that supports this.

SHADOWHAWK
I fail to see how you debunked anything. Since when is one in a billion not considered rare? It is of course, what was what one of my points it is. But, we don't even have that. We have nothing after many decades of searching. The existing evidence is comparable with the Anthropic argument as well as a form of multi universe. At this point I will stick with the existing evidence. But I can and will, change my mind should more evidence come in. Jews and Christians have long believed in other forms of intelligent life and some of them are in the heavens..

Wow. Interpolating my comments. Clever. So a conservative estimate of a billion is too unlikely for you. For your argument to remain you'd have to assume the inverse of that equation, meaning that the odds of the anthropic principle's accuracy as you're applying it must be one in a billion. The irony here of course is that during your little interpolation you criticized that exact probability. Then you contradict yourself even further by stating that contemporary creationism is compatible with ETs. You seem to have forgotten that my reason for mentioning it was simply to eviscerate it as a means of support for creationism, appose to positing an inconsequential detail.

My counterargument is that of probability. So far your god is totally superfluous.

This is all excluding the possibility of the multiverse, which would make the already-unfavorable odds shoot up radically higher.

I don't care how many billions of stars are in the cosmos and I am not applying my argument to one billion stars. That is your straw man. I never suggested that. The more stars the more powerful my point. No one can ascertain the answer to this question of star numbers, with absolute certainty due the immensity of the universe and fact that light from vastly distant galaxies has not even had time to reach the Earth. The reason for this is that even though light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum it will still take billions upon billions of years for it to travel from the outer limits of the universe across the seemingly infinite distance to planet Earth. Some of the galaxies have already burnt out. There are lots of stars (70 sextillion, in some estimates) and SETI with its hope to find evidence of intelligent life is based upon the probability of intelligent radio waves given the vast number of stars. If there is a multi universe the number goes up though this is still debated hotly. There is no evidence radio waves could go from one cosmos to the next, Where are the intelligent radio waves given these odds?
http://en.wikipedia....rvable_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I do not favor the ET view but believe there are other forms of life on earth but they are terrestrial. God certainly is larger than the cosmos and there are other kinds of creatures mentioned that are non terrestal.. Christians have long believed that these forms of life exist.

"Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at Ufos and Extraterrestrials."

http://www.amazon.co...tt_at_ep_dpi_12

My entire point was and continues to be that the earth is a special place and so far all the evidence points that way. That is the point of the anthropic principal and its fine tuning argument for God.

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

You seem to just be restating everything, all while conveniently overlooking the eradication of all your alleged support.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

Seems like atrocious logic here. If there are presumably infinite possibilities for universes within the multiverse, then how can we discount the probability of chance in this respect?

Seems like just another erroneous syllogism.

*edit* Don't ask me why that's in bold. I have no idea. =P

Argument for the existence of God from Information Theory using DNA
[b]
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

RNA can self-assemble, and experiments have actually documented acquired beneficial genetic changes. What you’re saying here is absolutely false.

Edited by N.T.M., 17 July 2010 - 11:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

View Postshadowhawk, on 13 July 2010 - 10:49 PM, said:
Argument for the existence of God from Information Theory using DNA

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

N.T.M.
RNA can self-assemble, and experiments have actually documented acquired beneficial genetic changes. What you're saying here is absolutely false.
N.T.M.
Seems like atrocious logic here. If there are presumably infinite possibilities for universes within the multiverse, then how can we discount the probability of chance in this respect?

Seems like just another erroneous syllogism.

SHADOWHAWK:
This is not an argument, just meaningless name calling. Multi-universe views used the way you are could be used to justify anything. Given a true infinite making everything true by chance, than God is true even for you.

My argument from "information," is based upon science and logic.

There is a giant chasm in between the things we observe in the world we actually live in and 99% of people never notice. I don't think you are noticing either or you wouldn't make the baseless comments you are..

Once you see it, you can't "un-see" it. It is so obvious.
On side 1 of the chasm is: THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

On side 2 of the chasm is: THE WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules such as morality, (and the possibility of breaking them)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

If you were to travel to some distant sterile planet in outer space, or a theoretical multi universe everything you find there would be on Side 1 of the Chasm. Material things do not replicate. They don't make copies of themselves or anything else. Rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes exhibit no purpose. They change but they do not evolve.

They obey the laws of physics and nothing more. There is no meaning, no symbols, no instructions, no information. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong". There just "is."

The material/ physical world is "bottom up."

However in things that process Information, ALL of the features of Side 2 are present.

Information systems (people, computers, TV stations, radios, telephones, DNA) make copies of messages and everything in them serves some kind of purpose, however simple.

Information evolves. Information uses symbols (objects that represent something other than themselves). Information can be correct or incorrect. It can be understood or misunderstood. Information follows rules which can be broken. Data can be corrupted, instructions can be obeyed or disobeyed. Copies can be perfect or imperfect.

Information is "top down."

Information itself is THE chasm between non-living and living things. It involves the living and intelligent.

This chasm is, for all practical purposes, INFINITE. It's not literally infinite… [b]but it's as close as anyone ever gets to infinity in real science and math problems. Larger numbers than you encounter in any other endeavor. I will let you respond to this.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 July 2010 - 12:21 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Here is a very interesting debate with Atheist Christopher Hutchings which brings up many of the issues (arguments for existence of God)I have raised during our discussion except for the last argument. Two sources of same debate

Does the God of Christianity exist, and what difference does it make? A panel debate.

William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison
March, 2009

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/CT-Expo-Panel/
http://www.tangle.co...a2dab2e1e83d93

[shadowhawk]

View Postshadowhawk, on 13 July 2010 - 10:49 PM, said:
Argument for the existence of God from Information Theory using DNA

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

N.T.M.
RNA can self-assemble, and experiments have actually documented acquired beneficial genetic changes. What you're saying here is absolutely false.
N.T.M.
Seems like atrocious logic here. If there are presumably infinite possibilities for universes within the multiverse, then how can we discount the probability of chance in this respect?

Seems like just another erroneous syllogism.

SHADOWHAWK:
This is not an argument, just meaningless name calling. Multi-universe views used the way you are could be used to justify anything. Given a true infinite making everything true by chance, than God is true even for you.

My argument from "information," is based upon science and logic.

There is a giant chasm in between the things we observe in the world we actually live in and 99% of people never notice. I don't think you are noticing either or you wouldn't make the baseless comments you are..

Once you see it, you can't "un-see" it. It is so obvious.
On side 1 of the chasm is: THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

On side 2 of the chasm is: THE WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules such as morality, (and the possibility of breaking them)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

If you were to travel to some distant sterile planet in outer space, or a theoretical multi universe everything you find there would be on Side 1 of the Chasm. Material things do not replicate. They don't make copies of themselves or anything else. Rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes exhibit no purpose. They change but they do not evolve.

They obey the laws of physics and nothing more. There is no meaning, no symbols, no instructions, no information. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong". There just "is."

The material/ physical world is "bottom up."

However in things that process Information, ALL of the features of Side 2 are present.

Information systems (people, computers, TV stations, radios, telephones, DNA) make copies of messages and everything in them serves some kind of purpose, however simple.

Information evolves. Information uses symbols (objects that represent something other than themselves). Information can be correct or incorrect. It can be understood or misunderstood. Information follows rules which can be broken. Data can be corrupted, instructions can be obeyed or disobeyed. Copies can be perfect or imperfect.

Information is "top down."

Information itself is THE chasm between non-living and living things. It involves the living and intelligent.

This chasm is, for all practical purposes, INFINITE. It's not literally infinite… [b]but it's as close as anyone ever gets to infinity in real science and math problems. Larger numbers than you encounter in any other endeavor. I will let you respond to this.

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

Did Darwin Get It Right?

[N.T.M.]

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

Did Darwin Get It Right?

That is absolutely ludicrous. There are two primary errors here: One, ETs are very different from any postulated omnipotent entity. They’re not even vaguely connected so I see no point in mentioning it. As for the second: when it’s seen in the context of nature it’s viewed as a product of natural selection. I’d like to emphasize that this is not random. It’s actually the inverse – successive culling of poor mutations and continued fostering of positive traits. The information is continuously revised via the successful propagation of subsequent generations.

“This is not an argument, just meaningless name calling. Multi-universe views used the way you are could be used to justify anything. Given a true infinite making everything true by chance, than God is true even for you.”

No, absolutely not. Do not confuse the multiverse premise as a regurgitated form of the infinite monkey theory where everything is (and must be) possible due to infinite possibilities. No, what I’m employing here is a branch of a decently-understood event (big bang) which would logically be one of many similar events. The greater number doesn’t absolve me of the obligation to submit a logical argument. I’m just systematically regressing using contemporary science as support.

“My argument from "information," is based upon science and logic.

Once you see it, you can't "un-see" it. It is so obvious.”

Whatever you see it’s certainly not obvious. It’s likely to be obvious to you, but that’s only because your depiction is flawed (or so I have reason to believe).

“Material things do not replicate. They don't make copies of themselves or anything else. Rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes exhibit no purpose. They change but they do not evolve.”

Doesn’t RNA’s self-assembly disprove this? Ribosomes can also self-assemble.

We’ve already seen bacteria evolve, so once abiogenesis is replicated then every facet of your argument will be totally eviscerated (is it not already?).

You talk about chance and probability, but you’ve yet to answer my question about infinite regression as it applies to the origin of your putative god. You’re criticizing something as relatively rudimentary as abiogenesis while concomitantly supporting god’s random materialization? Or did he just suddenly appear? If I exercised such an answer I’d undoubtedly be castigated. What about you?

[N.T.M.]

Here is a very interesting debate with Atheist Christopher Hutchings which brings up many of the issues (arguments for existence of God)I have raised during our discussion except for the last argument. Two sources of same debate

Does the God of Christianity exist, and what difference does it make? A panel debate.

William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison
March, 2009

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/CT-Expo-Panel/
http://www.tangle.co...a2dab2e1e83d93

I had to stop a bit after 8:10 because clearly this man hasn't the faintest familiarity with neo-darwinism. It's regrettably laughable. Exploiting his apostasy in support of theism is silly. Obviously he feebly defaulted to atheism much like people default to theism. Tergiversation isn't at all compelling.

[shadowhawk]

Here is a very interesting debate with Atheist Christopher Hutchings which brings up many of the issues (arguments for existence of God)I have raised during our discussion except for the last argument. Two sources of same debate

Does the God of Christianity exist, and what difference does it make? A panel debate.

William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison
March, 2009

http://www.rfmedia.o.../CT-Expo-Panel/
http://www.tangle.co...a2dab2e1e83d93

I had to stop a bit after 8:10 because clearly this man hasn't the faintest familiarity with neo-darwinism. It's regrettably laughable. Exploiting his apostasy in support of theism is silly. Obviously he feebly defaulted to atheism much like people default to theism. Tergiversation isn't at all compelling.

Hmm. The subject of the debate was the existence of God not neo-Darwinism. These comments are not an argument against anything. Can’t even tell why you think they misrepresent neo-Darwinism or who you are talking about. So I await clarification. .

[Soma]

Shadowhawk,

You seem to have a deep need to have the existence of "God" proven or at least validated in some way. Is there some kind of existential insecurity that is driving this apparent need?

I would say that "God" is the ultimate survival anxiety coping mechanism. A psychological construct that served man through a period of his primitive evolution, but is simply no longer tenable. Faith is the worn out, anachronistic bastion of this unfortunately protracted period of human development.

[Luna]

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

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

The problem with your arguments is that you always seem to add "fact number two" and consider it as a fact and as true. In truth, it is your own opinion only and is far from proven, true and real. Therefore your conclusion number 3 fails to be true also each and every time again.

This (the quoted above) is not an explanation or an argument, it is your personal baseless and unexplained opinion. Do try to understand that what seems to be right in your mind may be far from right in reality and even further away from being right in other people's minds.

Also, you might want to start basing and arguing your opinions instead of just starting them with 1-2-3 that are supposedly facts but aren't.

[Luna]

Now back on the subject of DNA. I am sorry to disappoint you Shadowhawk but DNA is just 4 letters that are randomly mixed together multiple number of times, in "evolution" or let's be precise, when the cells split, mutation, that is change to the mix may occur, letters may be added or removed or even moved. That changes the structure. What does it mean?

In our body we "translate" the DNA into amino acids and proteins. I know you want to be don't lean on the word "translate" there, all we do is a simple conversion or attachment, it's just a basic chemical reaction if this matches to this and this letters.

Those proteins then are released in the body and may or may not react with it. They may react for good, may react for bad, may not react at all but this is all in our perspective, in truth - they simply follow the laws of chemistry and react with what they can according to their structure.

So we concluded that the "code" is generated in random. We concluded the meaning of the code is also random and we concluded that it doesn't have a purpose.

Is it a code? No, it is not. It's a simple process. The "code" is the chain of reactions after the protein is made, what it may do or not do in the body, that evolved because of all the random changes that made to create more and more different amino acids and eventually our whole body. Is there a meaning to the code? Not really, but it happened to create something which is quite relevant to us. Is this code created by design or a mind? Nope. Did Darwin get it right? Some yes, some not. He did get natural selection right - if the random code helps you survive the environment, you survive and therefore future generations are similar to you as they inherit your code and mutate from you as a base.

Very simple, no design needed.