• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 8 votes

Faith!?


  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

Poll: Atheist or Believer (135 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you an atheist, Agnostic or do you believe in a God or many gods?

  1. Iam an Atheist! (66 votes [48.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.53%

  2. Iam an Agnostic (31 votes [22.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.79%

  3. I believe in God/Gods! (29 votes [21.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.32%

  4. Other (explain in replie) (10 votes [7.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.35%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#271 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:49 PM

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.

Actually I was a member of the Immunist for about a year before I decided to answer the poll what is your “faith?”. Little did I realize, as I do now, the intense feelings of many that this was to make me very unpopular. It is not acceptable to be a Christian for many and Atheists are in the majority here. Thanks for the amateur psychology regarding God. God is a crutch, comes in many forms and is nonsense still. What pap.

So what is your problem?

I am here because I am interested in Life Extension but I enjoy discussion of faith issues, when it comes up. Bring up a real issue such as Luna has.

#272 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:24 PM

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.

Actually I was a member of the Immunist for about a year before I decided to answer the poll what is your “faith?”. Little did I realize, as I do now, the intense feelings of many that this was to make me very unpopular. It is not acceptable to be a Christian for many and Atheists are in the majority here. Thanks for the amateur psychology regarding God. God is a crutch, comes in many forms and is nonsense still. What pap.

So what is your problem?

I am here because I am interested in Life Extension but I enjoy discussion of faith issues, when it comes up. Bring up a real issue such as Luna has.


I don't think it is your belief that hurts your reputation, it's your way of arguing, as I said - you state things as facts without them being proven as such, you also say abstract statements while being convinced they benefit your argument but instead they may be quite empty. What makes it worse is that they are in favor of a concept which the majority here opposes ;)

Don't worry, it is rarely true that someone inherently knows how to pass an argument, I doubt I got my way there yet.

P.S. There are quite a few christians in this community which are very liked, its due to the lack of arguing ;) But arguing is good, just do it right and show logic and reason as well as facts and evidence.

Edited by Luna, 11 August 2010 - 08:27 PM.

  • like x 1

#273 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2010 - 12:12 AM

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.

Actually I was a member of the Immunist for about a year before I decided to answer the poll what is your “faith?”. Little did I realize, as I do now, the intense feelings of many that this was to make me very unpopular. It is not acceptable to be a Christian for many and Atheists are in the majority here. Thanks for the amateur psychology regarding God. God is a crutch, comes in many forms and is nonsense still. What pap.

So what is your problem?

I am here because I am interested in Life Extension but I enjoy discussion of faith issues, when it comes up. Bring up a real issue such as Luna has.


I don't think it is your belief that hurts your reputation, it's your way of arguing, as I said - you state things as facts without them being proven as such, you also say abstract statements while being convinced they benefit your argument but instead they may be quite empty. What makes it worse is that they are in favor of a concept which the majority here opposes ;)

Don't worry, it is rarely true that someone inherently knows how to pass an argument, I doubt I got my way there yet.

P.S. There are quite a few christians in this community which are very liked, its due to the lack of arguing ;) But arguing is good, just do it right and show logic and reason as well as facts and evidence.

I am not complaining but thanks for the comments. Only a good friend tells you the truth. ;)

#274 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2010 - 11:01 PM

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.


Design is needed. It is a code. Codes requires intelligence . Since I don’t see anything seriously at issue above, let me give you a very interesting DNA discussion..
Proof of design in DNA
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

#275 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:54 AM

Situation #1:


Let's say you have a single person flipping a coin. How much time do you think it would take for that person to get heads 200 times in a row. It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 2,000,000,000 people, and every single person is flipping his or her own coin. How much time do you think it would take for one of those people to get heads 200 times in a row? Well, since so many people are flipping coins, the likelihood of one of them getting heads 200 times in a row increases drastically. Suddenly, something that is quite improbable becomes something ordinary and logical!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Situation #2 AND HOW IT RELATES TO Situation #1:

Let's say you have a single planet in the universe. How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from the primordial soup of elements? It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 4,000,000,000,000 planets (About the number in our own galaxy alone). How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from one of those planets? Well, since there are so many planets, one of them is bound to be able to support life, and one of them is bound to get a lucky combination of RNA linkages together, which forms the first organism.

The people flipping coins are just like the planets in the universe. Eventually, life is bound to crop up somewhere. So, in the end, what seems like a creator's doing, is nothing more than the result of the great vastness of our universe.

Also, please see the Miller-Urey experiment on the spontaneous formation of amino acids in a primordial soup of elements. [Link]

Edited by Elus, 13 August 2010 - 01:07 AM.


#276 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 August 2010 - 02:47 AM

uff shadowhawk, I just showed you how dna is NOT designed, how it is not a code in origins and just evolved to a book, and all you do is state abstract statements again and claim them to be true avoiding all logic I tried to share.

Code does not need a designer, even if it needed - dna is SIMPLE. The PUZZLE is figuring exactly how the amino acids travel and react in our body/system. That is not a code, it is a puzzle. DNA is not a code, it is straight forward - a book of amino acids.

Elus explanation is even more obvious when you know you have not one galaxy but so far know there are at least hundreds of billions of them.. But you won't care for its meaning or anything I said, back to
1.But DNA has got to be a code! {wrong)
2.Codes got to be designed! (wrong)
3.So DNA was designed! (wrong)
4. so God exists! (dunno, not enough evidence and cannot be invalidated)

#277 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 13 August 2010 - 06:33 AM

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.

Actually I was a member of the Immunist for about a year before I decided to answer the poll what is your “faith?”. Little did I realize, as I do now, the intense feelings of many that this was to make me very unpopular. It is not acceptable to be a Christian for many and Atheists are in the majority here. Thanks for the amateur psychology regarding God. God is a crutch, comes in many forms and is nonsense still. What pap.

So what is your problem?

I am here because I am interested in Life Extension but I enjoy discussion of faith issues, when it comes up. Bring up a real issue such as Luna has.


It is important to keep things in perspective. Remember that this thread is really just a digression. A fascinating one, surely, but this still isn’t why we’re here. My point is that we cannot let something as trivial as this thread lead to segregation. There are too few of us, and although there may be dissension, we must stay unified in our efforts to promote indefinite life spans. I’m not saying that we’re not, but just to keep it in the back of our minds. ;)

*edit* And for clarification (not regarding this quote), I was referring to the first person who spoke – his concluding, summarizing words. What he said absolutely demolished his credibility.

It was something along the lines of… “I realized that in order for me to retain my atheism I had to believe that…” Yeah, pretty much everything following that was grotesquely inaccurate.

4. so God exists! (dunno, not enough evidence and cannot be invalidated)


We can't disprove his existence (you can't prove a negative), but we can deploy an argument of probability, and it's because of this premise that most of us default to atheism.

Edited by N.T.M., 13 August 2010 - 06:45 AM.


#278 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:48 PM


4. so God exists! (dunno, not enough evidence and cannot be invalidated)


We can't disprove his existence (you can't prove a negative), but we can deploy an argument of probability, and it's because of this premise that most of us default to atheism.


Yes, and this is exactly why I said that I dunno and I can't invalidate it. I know I can't disprove a negative, I should have just said that ;)

And that is exactly my point: I can't say God does not exist, I always say that probably not.

#279 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 August 2010 - 07:40 PM

Situation #1:


Let's say you have a single person flipping a coin. How much time do you think it would take for that person to get heads 200 times in a row. It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 2,000,000,000 people, and every single person is flipping his or her own coin. How much time do you think it would take for one of those people to get heads 200 times in a row? Well, since so many people are flipping coins, the likelihood of one of them getting heads 200 times in a row increases drastically. Suddenly, something that is quite improbable becomes something ordinary and logical!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Situation #2 AND HOW IT RELATES TO Situation #1:

Let's say you have a single planet in the universe. How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from the primordial soup of elements? It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 4,000,000,000,000 planets (About the number in our own galaxy alone). How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from one of those planets? Well, since there are so many planets, one of them is bound to be able to support life, and one of them is bound to get a lucky combination of RNA linkages together, which forms the first organism.

The people flipping coins are just like the planets in the universe. Eventually, life is bound to crop up somewhere. So, in the end, what seems like a creator's doing, is nothing more than the result of the great vastness of our universe.

Also, please see the Miller-Urey experiment on the spontaneous formation of amino acids in a primordial soup of elements. [Link]

Situation one is supposed to demonstrate what? I can think of all kinds of absurdities that can be illustrated by such an approach. Situation two is but one example of this. I agree eventually given enough time (?) Monkeys can type out the encyclopedia.. And you believe the Miller-Urey primal soup which was created by intelligent beings existed naturally in nature and this would disprove God?

My issue was that DNA is a code.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Genetic_code

Nothing said relates to this. Again:
God exists.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Do codes require intelligence?

#280 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 August 2010 - 07:48 PM

Situation #1:


Let's say you have a single person flipping a coin. How much time do you think it would take for that person to get heads 200 times in a row. It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 2,000,000,000 people, and every single person is flipping his or her own coin. How much time do you think it would take for one of those people to get heads 200 times in a row? Well, since so many people are flipping coins, the likelihood of one of them getting heads 200 times in a row increases drastically. Suddenly, something that is quite improbable becomes something ordinary and logical!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Situation #2 AND HOW IT RELATES TO Situation #1:

Let's say you have a single planet in the universe. How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from the primordial soup of elements? It's pretty unlikely, right?

Now, let's say you have 4,000,000,000,000 planets (About the number in our own galaxy alone). How much time do you think it would take for something as unlikely as RNA to emerge from one of those planets? Well, since there are so many planets, one of them is bound to be able to support life, and one of them is bound to get a lucky combination of RNA linkages together, which forms the first organism.

The people flipping coins are just like the planets in the universe. Eventually, life is bound to crop up somewhere. So, in the end, what seems like a creator's doing, is nothing more than the result of the great vastness of our universe.

Also, please see the Miller-Urey experiment on the spontaneous formation of amino acids in a primordial soup of elements. [Link]

Situation one is supposed to demonstrate what? I can think of all kinds of absurdities that can be illustrated by such an approach. Situation two is but one example of this. I agree eventually given enough time (?) Monkeys can type out the encyclopedia.. And you believe the Miller-Urey primal soup which was created by intelligent beings existed naturally in nature and this would disprove God?

My issue was that DNA is a code.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Genetic_code

Nothing said relates to this. Again:
God exists.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Do codes require intelligence?


I can attack you with your own logic (not that it is required, all you said so far is flawed and ignoring everything we said to try to point out why your logic is flawed):

If you need intelligence to create a pattern and something intelligent, who created God? There had to be something intelligent to do so, couldn't have just occurred in nature!!!

Now - when you look at the wiki you say that by code they simply mean combinations - combinations of the four letters, that's it. That's not a code, that's just speaking a language with 4 letters.

Again, even if it is a code and you agreed monkey's could write the encyclopedia by chance then pretty much anything can come out by chance so you accepting one and neglecting the other is fallacy.

Edited by Luna, 13 August 2010 - 07:49 PM.


#281 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 13 August 2010 - 08:50 PM

And you believe the Miller-Urey primal soup which was created by intelligent beings existed naturally in nature and this would disprove God?



Stop right there. You just uttered a logical fallacy. You cannot disprove god! If I said I have an invisible dragon in my garage, you couldn't disprove that either! Does that mean you should believe in such things when much better explanations are available to explain the mechanics of our world?


Just because you can't disprove god doesn't mean you should believe in him.

Edited by Elus, 13 August 2010 - 08:51 PM.


#282 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 August 2010 - 08:56 PM

uff shadowhawk, I just showed you how dna is NOT designed, how it is not a code in origins and just evolved to a book, and all you do is state abstract statements again and claim them to be true avoiding all logic I tried to share.

Code does not need a designer, even if it needed - dna is SIMPLE. The PUZZLE is figuring exactly how the amino acids travel and react in our body/system. That is not a code, it is a puzzle. DNA is not a code, it is straight forward - a book of amino acids.

Elus explanation is even more obvious when you know you have not one galaxy but so far know there are at least hundreds of billions of them.. But you won't care for its meaning or anything I said, back to
1.But DNA has got to be a code! {wrong)
2.Codes got to be designed! (wrong)
3.So DNA was designed! (wrong)
4. so God exists! (dunno, not enough evidence and cannot be invalidated)


I am sorry but multi-universes are still very much in the theory stage. It matters to me little one way or the other. http://www.reasons.o...ity-universes-0 From one to infinity, how many universes are there that we know of? Tell me what you really know for sure.

You did not show:
1. Codes are not designed.
2. How something could evolve into a book or what the forces are that did the driving.
3. How your position represents logic.
4. DNA is simple.
5. What PUZZLE are you talking about that is so simple.
6. You want to change the name from, The DNA Code to the DNA Puzzle?
7 You gave no reasons that I am wrong to claim it is a code.
8. Finally you gave no evidence you even understood my source and so no wonder you came to this.


Again, Try your list on
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm
:)

  • dislike x 1

#283 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 August 2010 - 09:44 PM

And you believe the Miller-Urey primal soup which was created by intelligent beings existed naturally in nature and this would disprove God?



Stop right there. You just uttered a logical fallacy. You cannot disprove god! If I said I have an invisible dragon in my garage, you couldn't disprove that either! Does that mean you should believe in such things when much better explanations are available to explain the mechanics of our world?


Just because you can't disprove god doesn't mean you should believe in him.


Sorry but I asked several questions that you did not answer. You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are. I was talking about DNA Codes and I gave a link to what I was talking about.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove.” There are lots of things outside the circle which you are claiming you have a better explanation for. Lets hear your take on DNA.

Every thing that is true is not provable. Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

;)
  • dislike x 2

#284 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:23 AM

Excuse me? When did I even mention the multiverse? I did not once. All what I mention regarding the galaxies is within the observable universe.

I told you the puzzle is not DNA, it is the reactions of amino acids in the body, the amino acids which are created from DNA, but you either didn't read my post completely or did not understand it or did not bother to acknowledge anything which is obvious to science.

For a long time I saw and should have understood already that your method of arguing includes ignoring specific points and questions, I am going to stop arguing because it is pointless - not pointless from the reasons I usually didn't argue which were that convincing a person in a position so strong is just impossible but instead pointless because your don't show rationality and basic logic when arguing, instead you are showing ignorance and there is no point to bother replying to you in the subjects related.

#285 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:32 PM

Sorry but I asked several questions that you did not answer. You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are. I was talking about DNA Codes and I gave a link to what I was talking about.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove." There are lots of things outside the circle which you are claiming you have a better explanation for. Lets hear your take on DNA.

Every thing that is true is not provable. Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

;)


DNA is a code composed of four bases. At some point in time, the primordial RNA molecules linked together, BY CHANCE, to form a self-replicating strand. This started life.

"You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are."


No, I already explained how this code emerged by chance.

Your website source makes a false claim: it says that a code needs a creator. I have repeatedly shown how the emergence of DNA (A code) is a product of chance.


Your following sentence really takes the cake:



Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.


Just because my Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in It or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

I mean come on, isn't it obvious that this is a completely crazy thing to say!?

Did you see what I did there? I took your example and used it with something completely ridiculous you can't disprove. Get a grip. What makes your god any more valid than my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Edited by Elus, 14 August 2010 - 04:45 PM.

  • like x 1

#286 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 15 August 2010 - 02:50 PM

EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS


Shiiiit, lol !

#287 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 August 2010 - 02:59 PM

If they are out of reach of physical existence then they don't really exist in our existence and cannot affect our existence and therefore don't matter anyways. ;)

#288 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 August 2010 - 11:34 PM

Sorry but I asked several questions that you did not answer. You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are. I was talking about DNA Codes and I gave a link to what I was talking about.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove." There are lots of things outside the circle which you are claiming you have a better explanation for. Lets hear your take on DNA.

Every thing that is true is not provable. Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

;)


DNA is a code composed of four bases. At some point in time, the primordial RNA molecules linked together, BY CHANCE, to form a self-replicating strand. This started life.

"You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are."


No, I already explained how this code emerged by chance.

Your website source makes a false claim: it says that a code needs a creator. I have repeatedly shown how the emergence of DNA (A code) is a product of chance.


Your following sentence really takes the cake:



Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.


Just because my Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in It or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

I mean come on, isn't it obvious that this is a completely crazy thing to say!?

Did you see what I did there? I took your example and used it with something completely ridiculous you can't disprove. Get a grip. What makes your god any more valid than my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.


Subject: God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933

"Dear Professor William Lane Craig,

The cumulative case for the existence for God proceeds from some data (physical constants, sentient souls, testimonies for miracles, etc.) to the existence of God as the best explanation of these data. There are some important objections. 1. Such inference does not show why theism is a better explanation than, say, the hypothesis of the existence of a very powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster. 2. Neither it says why some evil being - some powerful, malevolent being, say, something like Satan - is not a better explanation than God; especially when the existing evil is included in the data. How would you counter? Thank you very much.

Vlastimil

Dr. Craig responds:

Your question is really about what the various arguments for God’s existence, if sound, enable us to infer about the nature of the being proved by such arguments. Different arguments will enable us to infer different attributes, so that the case for God’s existence is, as you state, cumulative.

The much beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster was the concoction of Bobby Henderson, who in the summer of 2005 wrote a satirical letter to the State Board of Education of Kansas to protest the use of textbook stickers promoting Intelligent Design. It (or he, as the Monster is personal) has gone on to become an international sensation (see Henderson’s website at www.venganza.org/).

Henderson used the noodley Monster to parody the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe. He wrote, “Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel.” Henderson claimed to know quite a bit about the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

. . . it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. . . . He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. . . . I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget.

As the drawing shows, the Monster is composed of two large meatballs surrounded by a mass of spaghetti topped with two eyeballs. It’s evident that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to be a finite, physical object which, for some unexplained reason, is not perceptible to our senses.

Great fun! But now what is the point of the parody? What does it show? It’s striking that Henderson’s parody does nothing to call into question either the legitimacy or necessity of the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe. Rather the point of the parody seems to be that we cannot know much, if anything, about the nature of the Designer. Therefore, it’s arbitrary to characterize the Designer of the universe as God, especially the God of some specific religion.

What’s curious about this parody is that ID theorists like William Dembski have been insisting on this same point for years, but everyone seems to think them disingenuous. Dembski makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of the specified complexity in the universe one cannot infer that the Designer is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so forth. It is precisely for that reason that ID theorists deny that ID is disguised religion. The identification of the Designer with God is a theological conclusion that cannot itself be warranted on the basis of the design argument alone.

Dembski writes,

Insofar as design theorists do not bring up God, it is because design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point to a designing intelligence. But there’s no inferential chain that leads from such finite design-conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world’s major theistic faiths. . . . As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe. . . . But there’s no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. . . . Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory (The Design Revolution, p. 26).

Therefore, Dembski is adamant that religious interpretations of Intelligent Design should not be taught in public classrooms. Dembski himself, had he thought of it, might have appealed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to illustrate his point! Ironically, then, Henderson’s parody actually reinforces one of the central contentions of the ID movement, that it is not religious teaching. The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity.

This is not to say that we can infer nothing about the Designer of the universe on the basis of the specified complexity of the cosmos. Principally, what we can infer is that there exists a personal, and, hence, self-conscious, volitional being of inconceivably great intelligence who designed the universe. If people really believed that to be true, they would be wide-eyed and open-mouthed with astonishment, rather than mocking and derisive.

Moreover, it’s plausible that any ultimate explanation must involve a personal being which is incorporeal. For any being composed of material stuff will exhibit precisely that specified complexity that we are trying to explain. The old “Who designed the Designer?” objection thus presses hard against any construal of the Designer as a physical object (see my “Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion” in the Question of the Week Archive). That immediately rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a final explanation.

What about the other theistic arguments? The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe (see “Argument from Contingency” in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The moral argument complements the cosmological and design arguments by telling us about the moral nature of the Creator of the universe. It gives us a personal, necessarily existent being who is perfectly good and whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose commands constitute our moral duties. This argument rules out any suggestion that the metaphysical ultimate is some evil being akin to Satan. As a privation of goodness, evil is parasitic upon the Good and so cannot exist as the highest being.

Finally, the ontological argument gives us reason to think that God, as the greatest conceivable being, is metaphysically necessary and maximally excellent, that is to say, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. The poor Flying Spaghetti Monster is, alas, left trailing in the dust.

I think you can see that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is vastly overrated, both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity.

As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, some of which you list, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties.

The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. No doubt part of the fault lies with equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of arbitrary and groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity. Given the revival of natural theology in our day over the last half century, we have no excuse for such lame caricatures of theistic belief as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."


© 2007 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Content Powered

See the link at the first
  • dislike x 3

#289 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 August 2010 - 12:01 AM

Excuse me? When did I even mention the multiverse? I did not once. All what I mention regarding the galaxies is within the observable universe.

I told you the puzzle is not DNA, it is the reactions of amino acids in the body, the amino acids which are created from DNA, but you either didn't read my post completely or did not understand it or did not bother to acknowledge anything which is obvious to science.

For a long time I saw and should have understood already that your method of arguing includes ignoring specific points and questions, I am going to stop arguing because it is pointless - not pointless from the reasons I usually didn't argue which were that convincing a person in a position so strong is just impossible but instead pointless because your don't show rationality and basic logic when arguing, instead you are showing ignorance and there is no point to bother replying to you in the subjects related.


You talked about one observable universe which is the position I still favor. Multi Universe? Maybe. You say I am ignoring points and question and yet you didn’t bother to answer even one of my questions. Science is not on the side f this kind of thinking. What questions did I not try to answer? My point is that DNA is a code.
  • dislike x 1

#290 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:02 AM

Sorry but I asked several questions that you did not answer. You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are. I was talking about DNA Codes and I gave a link to what I was talking about.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove." There are lots of things outside the circle which you are claiming you have a better explanation for. Lets hear your take on DNA.

Every thing that is true is not provable. Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

;)


DNA is a code composed of four bases. At some point in time, the primordial RNA molecules linked together, BY CHANCE, to form a self-replicating strand. This started life.

"You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are."


No, I already explained how this code emerged by chance.

Your website source makes a false claim: it says that a code needs a creator. I have repeatedly shown how the emergence of DNA (A code) is a product of chance.


Your following sentence really takes the cake:



Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.


Just because my Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in It or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

I mean come on, isn't it obvious that this is a completely crazy thing to say!?

Did you see what I did there? I took your example and used it with something completely ridiculous you can't disprove. Get a grip. What makes your god any more valid than my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.


Subject: God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933

"Dear Professor William Lane Craig,

The cumulative case for the existence for God proceeds from some data (physical constants, sentient souls, testimonies for miracles, etc.) to the existence of God as the best explanation of these data. There are some important objections. 1. Such inference does not show why theism is a better explanation than, say, the hypothesis of the existence of a very powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster. 2. Neither it says why some evil being - some powerful, malevolent being, say, something like Satan - is not a better explanation than God; especially when the existing evil is included in the data. How would you counter? Thank you very much.

Vlastimil

Dr. Craig responds:

Your question is really about what the various arguments for God's existence, if sound, enable us to infer about the nature of the being proved by such arguments. Different arguments will enable us to infer different attributes, so that the case for God's existence is, as you state, cumulative.

The much beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster was the concoction of Bobby Henderson, who in the summer of 2005 wrote a satirical letter to the State Board of Education of Kansas to protest the use of textbook stickers promoting Intelligent Design. It (or he, as the Monster is personal) has gone on to become an international sensation (see Henderson's website at www.venganza.org/).

Henderson used the noodley Monster to parody the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe. He wrote, "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel." Henderson claimed to know quite a bit about the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

. . . it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. . . . He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. . . . I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget.

As the drawing shows, the Monster is composed of two large meatballs surrounded by a mass of spaghetti topped with two eyeballs. It's evident that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to be a finite, physical object which, for some unexplained reason, is not perceptible to our senses.

Great fun! But now what is the point of the parody? What does it show? It's striking that Henderson's parody does nothing to call into question either the legitimacy or necessity of the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe. Rather the point of the parody seems to be that we cannot know much, if anything, about the nature of the Designer. Therefore, it's arbitrary to characterize the Designer of the universe as God, especially the God of some specific religion.

What's curious about this parody is that ID theorists like William Dembski have been insisting on this same point for years, but everyone seems to think them disingenuous. Dembski makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of the specified complexity in the universe one cannot infer that the Designer is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so forth. It is precisely for that reason that ID theorists deny that ID is disguised religion. The identification of the Designer with God is a theological conclusion that cannot itself be warranted on the basis of the design argument alone.

Dembski writes,

Insofar as design theorists do not bring up God, it is because design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point to a designing intelligence. But there's no inferential chain that leads from such finite design-conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world's major theistic faiths. . . . As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe. . . . But there's no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. . . . Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory (The Design Revolution, p. 26).

Therefore, Dembski is adamant that religious interpretations of Intelligent Design should not be taught in public classrooms. Dembski himself, had he thought of it, might have appealed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to illustrate his point! Ironically, then, Henderson's parody actually reinforces one of the central contentions of the ID movement, that it is not religious teaching. The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity.

This is not to say that we can infer nothing about the Designer of the universe on the basis of the specified complexity of the cosmos. Principally, what we can infer is that there exists a personal, and, hence, self-conscious, volitional being of inconceivably great intelligence who designed the universe. If people really believed that to be true, they would be wide-eyed and open-mouthed with astonishment, rather than mocking and derisive.

Moreover, it's plausible that any ultimate explanation must involve a personal being which is incorporeal. For any being composed of material stuff will exhibit precisely that specified complexity that we are trying to explain. The old "Who designed the Designer?" objection thus presses hard against any construal of the Designer as a physical object (see my "Richard Dawkins' Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion" in the Question of the Week Archive). That immediately rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a final explanation.

What about the other theistic arguments? The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe (see "Argument from Contingency" in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The moral argument complements the cosmological and design arguments by telling us about the moral nature of the Creator of the universe. It gives us a personal, necessarily existent being who is perfectly good and whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose commands constitute our moral duties. This argument rules out any suggestion that the metaphysical ultimate is some evil being akin to Satan. As a privation of goodness, evil is parasitic upon the Good and so cannot exist as the highest being.

Finally, the ontological argument gives us reason to think that God, as the greatest conceivable being, is metaphysically necessary and maximally excellent, that is to say, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. The poor Flying Spaghetti Monster is, alas, left trailing in the dust.

I think you can see that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is vastly overrated, both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That's why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being "to which everyone gives the name 'God'," goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God's simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity.

As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, some of which you list, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God's existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties.

The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. No doubt part of the fault lies with equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of arbitrary and groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity. Given the revival of natural theology in our day over the last half century, we have no excuse for such lame caricatures of theistic belief as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."


© 2007 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Content Powered

See the link at the first



STOP PARTIALLY ADDRESSING MY POSTS.

STOP POSTING WALLS OF TEXT YOU HAVEN'T WRITTEN.

Was that clear enough?

Can you put this shit into your own words so I don't have to digest 40 pages of nonsense? Please post something concise which you can actually argue for yourself.

For your convenience, I will repost what I have written:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DNA is a code composed of four bases. At some point in time, the primordial RNA molecules linked together, BY CHANCE, to form a self-replicating strand. This started life.


"You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are."



No, I already explained how this code emerged by chance.

Your website source makes a false claim: it says that a code needs a creator. I have repeatedly shown how the emergence of DNA (A code) is a product of chance.

Your following sentence really takes the cake:

Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.



Just because my Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in It or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

I mean come on, isn't it obvious that this is a completely crazy thing to say!?

Did you see what I did there? I took your example and used it with something completely ridiculous you can't disprove. Get a grip. What makes your god any more valid than my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Edited by Elus, 17 August 2010 - 06:16 AM.

  • like x 1

#291 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 August 2010 - 12:46 AM

Elus
DNA is a code composed of four bases. At some point in time, the primordial RNA molecules linked together, BY CHANCE, to form a self-replicating strand. This started life.


"By Chance." You have given no proof for this.
Newly Discovered Mode of RNA Replication Uncovers Previously Hidden Layers of Complexity
http://www.evolution...37331.html#more

"You add to this, a claim you have better explanations without the slightest expiation as to what they are."

No, I already explained how this code emerged by chance.
I don't think so.


Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove."

I mentioned this earlier but you cant seem to stand anything unless it is in your own words, such your original Flying Spaghetti Monster. You did think that up all by yourself didn't you? When will you stop quoting others? Actually I don't mind that you quote arguments I have long heard from others.

Your website source makes a false claim: it says that a code needs a creator. I have repeatedly shown how the emergence of DNA (A code) is a product of chance.


I disagree that you proved that. DNA is a code that needs no intelligence.
http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm

Your following sentence really takes the cake:


Just because God is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in Him or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.

Just because my ( Sorry not yours, false claim. ) Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reference point outside the circle of physical existence, does not mean you should not believe in It or are committing a logical fallacy when you do.


You didn't make up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Had you read the reference I made to Craig, you would have noticed the main argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing like God. It is a false comparison. I COULD MAKE UP ANY NAME FOR AN IMAGINARY CREATURE BUT THAT A COMPARISON DOES NOT MAKE.

I mean come on, isn't it obvious that this is a completely crazy thing to say!?
What you are saying is....

Did you see what I did there? I took your example and used it with something completely ridiculous you can't disprove. Get a grip. What makes your god any more valid than my Flying Spaghetti Monster?


This has been done many times before and I don't think you are the originator of it.
Again you are making a false comparison to a Christian view of God. Did you know the green Spaghetti Monster is Gay but hetero? He is a she. I am telling the truth. His/her name is Johnny. Did you see what I did? :)
http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.


Just making up a name(s) does not mean you have made an agreement. Of course I don't believe anything of the sort. Are you trying to argue the only real things are physical?

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 August 2010 - 12:49 AM.

  • dislike x 1

#292 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 August 2010 - 02:33 AM

you would have noticed the main argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing like God. It is a false comparison. I COULD MAKE UP ANY NAME FOR AN IMAGINARY CREATURE BUT THAT A COMPARISON DOES NOT MAKE.


Why is it nothing like God? It's omnipotent, it knows everything, it's outside of existence, it created everything and everyone, I can just point out that your being might be imaginary and this one is real. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist, you also can't prove that either of them exist and you still ignored experimental evidence that DNA and RNA are created in nature by chance, because like I said - you don't care, for anything, just live up your own delusion.

So hey - have fun.

When you disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster call me, oh and you better call only if you managed to prove God at the same time.

And to add another challenge, disprove Gandalf fighting the Balrog inside the mines of Moria, it is IN THE BOOK! IT HAPPENED! SO MUCH EVIDENCE AND SO MANY COPIES OF THAT BOOK. (felt like joining the caps fun).

Also - be careful, You know who is out there.. and the boy who lived can't protect us.
  • like x 1

#293 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 18 August 2010 - 04:30 AM

"ByChance." You have given no proof for this.
Newly Discovered Mode of RNA Replication Uncovers Previously Hidden Layers ofComplexity
http://www.evolution...37331.html#more





The second to last paragraph states: "the nature of the information debt now confronting Darwinism grows, resulting in a respective decline in the likelihood of such systems having been constructed by non-intelligent means." In essence, he's implying that scientific evidence is mounting against evolution. This is absurd, and a quick glance at the paper that the author references shows this.

The paper describes an unknown biochemical pathway which is capable of copying mRNA: "...strongly argues for the presence of a yet uncharacterized endogenous biochemical pathway in cells that can copy RNA." Just because we do not know exactly what's copying this RNA does not mean there is a creator doing it, and nor does it, IN ANY WAY, suggest that evolution is wrong. It simply means that we do not know everything about how RNA is copied within cells and further investigation is required.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is biology's central theorem, and is perhaps the longest standing theory in the world (Not sure about Gravitation). It has not been disproven for over 200 years, and evidence for it continues to mount. In case you hadn't seen any of this evidence, here's a handy wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia....ce_of_evolution.

Now, moving onto your comment that we have no proof of how life started. For one thing, the fossil record shows some of the simplest organisms from 3.5 billion years ago. We know what life looked like, and we can form models which might fit the origin of this simpler life. True, we cannot go back in time and examine this creation for ourselves, but we can take what we know about primitive metabolism and form a theory. To say there is no proof of abiogenesis is untrue because we have experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment which showed the formation of simple amino acids.

Given the massive evidence behind evolution, which of the following two seems more out of place to believe? The primordial soup in which, in a vast sea of trillions of molecules, the first primeval RNA linkages banded together to start life OR god did it. Now, seriously, if you're quoting scientific articles and subscribe to evolution (You do, right?), you should see that it makes more sense to believe in a rational, non-faith based explanation than a supernatural one. Why would you resort to something like "God" when you have a more logical, evidence based alternative?


I don't think so.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume butcannot prove."

I mentioned this earlier but you cant seem to stand anything unless it is inyour own words, such youroriginal Flying Spaghetti Monster. You did think that up all by yourself didn't you? When will you stop quoting others? Actually I don't mind that you quote arguments I have long heard from others.



The flying spaghetti monster isn't my creation, and nor did I ever claim it would be. When I said "my Flying Spaghetti Monster", is I was saying the same sentence that I quoted from you, but I replaced the word God with Flying Spagetti Monster.

You continue to cite Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as some kind of evidence for a supernatural creation. I don't understand really understand how it applies. Can you more explicitly explain your argument?


I disagree that you proved that. DNA is a code that needs no intelligence.

http://www.cosmicfin...canreadthis.htm


DNA is a code that needs no intelligence. Is this a typo on your part? You almost seem to be agreeing with me.


http://en.wikipedia....orld_hypothesis (Link is there in case you need a reference) The world probably did not start with DNA. Instead it probably started with RNA, which can self-replicate. These bases were a product of chance, which is statistically relevant and logical (As I have already explained through my coin flip explanation). By chance, the first bases were created, which linked together to form a self-catalyzing/replicating body. Evolution goes on from there. This is a fairly reasonable, evolution based explanation which does in no way rely on a God-like creator.

You didn't make up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Had you read thereference I made to Craig, you would have noticed the main argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing like God. It is a falsecomparison. I COULD MAKE UP ANY NAME FOR AN IMAGINARY CREATURE BUTTHAT A COMPARISON DOES NOT MAKE.



False comparison, huh?

Posted Image

This has been done many times before and I don't think you are the originator of it.
Again you are making a false comparison to a Christian view of God. Did you know the greenSpaghetti Monster is Gay but hetero? He is a she. I am telling the truth. His/her name is Johnny. Did you see what Idid? http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT: YOU BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RIDICULOUS THINGS (MONSTERS, GIANT TEAPOTS, PURPLE DINOSAURS, EVIL WATERBOTTLES, CHAINSAW-ZOMBIE GODS) THAT ARE JUST OUT OF THE REACH OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.


Just making up a name(s) does not mean you have made an agreement. Of course I don't believe anything of the sort. Are you trying to argue the only real things are physical?



Actually, there is just as much evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is of God.


Edited by Elus, 18 August 2010 - 04:36 AM.


#294 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 August 2010 - 10:15 PM

And you complained about the legnth of my posting William Lane Craigs take on the Flying Spaghetti Monster something that has been all over the internet for the last five years or so. Craig has one of the best responses to the idea the Spaghetti Monster being a false comparison and I see no need to write it again.and again when it already dealt with your points..
God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933
For anyone interested check it out. Now to Gödel.

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid’s postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were “obviously true,” but nobody could find a way to prove them.

In the early 1900’s, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn’t it?)

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
http://en.wikipedia....teness_theorems

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”


The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.

You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.

Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement

“I am lying.”

“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.

You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivists” of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things thue than you can prove.are true.

A “theory of everything” - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found. Because it is mathematically impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here’s what it means:

* Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
* All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
* You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from “all things” to “some things”) is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from “some things” to “all things”) is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
http://en.wikipedia....ophy_of_science

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

* There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
* The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
* The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
* If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

* In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
* The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.
* All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
* Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.


When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.

Isn’t it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that’s why it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.


Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.
Most of this argument came from Perry Marshall. See his take on evolution.
http://www.cosmicfin...hyperevolution/
  • like x 1

#295 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 19 August 2010 - 04:49 AM

You continue not to address my posts. Your dodging and deceitful debate strategy is not only tactless, but also obvious. You only reply to the parts of my posts which are most convenient for you. Despite this fact, I will spend my time and energy to convince you that it is utterly and totally pointless for you to believe in a deity when there are far more rational, evidence based explanations which are a lot more useful then a fairytale god which does not even impact our universe in any way.

You cling to this notion of a god as if it's a vendetta; as if having some sort of universal master satisfies you in some way. I'll tell you this: I have no master, and if I do, let him come and strike me with lightning this very instant. Oh, what's that? I'm still alive.

Before we go on with this debate, tell me why you choose to believe in something that you can't see, smell, touch, taste, or sense with any human sense or other instrument we can create. Why do you believe in god?

Okay, now that this question is out of the way, I will proceed to address even more of your illogical arguments.

And you complained about the legnth of my posting William Lane Craigs take on the Flying Spaghetti Monster something that has been all over the internet for the last five years or so. Craig has one of the best responses to the idea the Spaghetti Monster being a false comparison and I see no need to write it again.and again when it already dealt with your points..
God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933
For anyone interested check it out.


The website first claims that it is pointless to put a label on God. You can call God the Flying Spagetti Monster or The Magic Zombie, but whatever label you give God, it doesn't diminish his existence. I quote: "The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity."

This argument is entirely missing the point. The point isn't about a label, but rather about the millions of things you could believe in, such as an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Why would you believe something like this when there is no evidence for it?

The website then goes on to claim: "The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

This is statement is incorrect according to the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster. The Flying Spagetti Monster is a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, according to the Chuch of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Why is the pastafarian holy book untrue and Christianity's book true?

As you can see, the Flying Spagetti Monster is just like God, and is also like the Invisible Teapot Orbiting Jupiter. All three are exactly the same: irrational constructs not founded on any sort of physical evidence.




Now to Gödel.

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Gödel's discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you've done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid's five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody's figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly "obvious" that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid's postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn't prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were "obviously true," but nobody could find a way to prove them.

In the early 1900's, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying "Theory of Everything" that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn't it?)

Gödel's discovery was called "The Incompleteness Theorem."

If you'll give me just a few minutes, I'll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:
http://en.wikipedia....teness_theorems

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove."

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they're all built on Euclid's 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel's theorem says: "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory."


The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.

You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it's equally true in science or language and philosophy.

Gödel created his proof by starting with "The Liar's Paradox" — which is the statement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t4z-CL9N7k
"I am lying."

"I am lying" is self-contradictory, since if it's true, I'm not a liar, and it's false; and if it's false, I am a liar, so it's true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar's Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.

You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the "positivists" of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn't wrong. It was really true. There are more things thue than you can prove.are true.

A "theory of everything" - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found. Because it is mathematically impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here's what it means:

* Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
* All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
* You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from "all things" to "some things") is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from "some things" to "all things") is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it's consistently true every time.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don't know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
http://en.wikipedia....ophy_of_science

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we're drawing a circle around all of them too):

* There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
* The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
* The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
* If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel's theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It's immaterial.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

* In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
* The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.
* All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
* Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.


When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.

Isn't it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that's why it's hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it's intuitive to most folks. But Gödel's theorem indicates it's also supremely logical. In fact it's the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, "You're a man of faith, but I'm a man of science" doesn't understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world's largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

"Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it."

If you know Gödel's theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel's Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.


Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn't proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it's necessary.

Euclid's 5 postulates aren't formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid's 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.
Most of this argument came from Perry Marshall. See his take on evolution.
http://www.cosmicfin...hyperevolution/


Note: I agree with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it's mathematical and scientific ramifications. I disagree with it's use to justify belief in God. Here is why:

You used an example: A straight line can extend forever in both directions, and no one has been able to prove this. This is a reasonable assumption that is necessary.

The first part of your example is a comparison, I assume, to God. You believe in God, and nobody has been able to prove that he exists, but you choose to believe in him anyway.

You use Gödel's Theorem to assert the following (I paraphrase):"Some things are true, such as God, but can never be proven."

You go on to claim, via indirect comparison to Gödel's Theorem, that this is a reasonable assumption that is necessary, just as Euclid's 5 postulates are necessary in mathematics.

I disagree. Let's say I choose to believe in something with no proof, such as "Pigs fly when I don't look." I too can use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify this silly argument.


So what is the difference in the use of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics and its use to justify the flying pigs? The difference lies in the utility of the assumption.

In the first case, the mathematical assumptions yield working mathematics which help quantify and model our world accurately. We have tested the mathematics countless times in building nuclear reactors, airplanes, and basically every possible technology in existence. These assumptions have been tested over and over, with definite physical and quantifiable accuracy.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify the flying pigs? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in flying pigs yield anything remotely useful.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify god? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in God yield anything remotely useful.

Thus, it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for God, as much as it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for the existence of undetectable planet-sized water bottles or invisible zombies.

Edited by Elus, 19 August 2010 - 04:52 AM.


#296 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 August 2010 - 01:00 PM

Also in relation to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem... We know:
1. Lines properties.
2. That lines exist.

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists ;) We haven't observed it or anything.

Another thing is - the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not prove the existence of line, it is used to say the assumption that a line (a thing which is in existence and that we know of and of its properties) can properly stretch to infinity. An assumption which will be false if we were to find the universe, energy or information to be smaller than infinite.

If the universe is smaller than infinite then we cannot have an infinite line physically.
In case energy if smaller than it simply can't stretch there and we cannot even create a virtual one in a computer because we don't have enough energy to do so.

If information is limited, then again we cannot do a virtual line to infinity.
  • like x 1

#297 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 19 August 2010 - 06:32 PM

Posted Image

#298 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 August 2010 - 07:27 PM

Oh, I feel exactly like that guy on the bottom right part.

#299 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 August 2010 - 10:35 PM

Elus:
You continue not to address my posts. Your dodging and deceitful debate strategy is not only tactless, but also obvious. You only reply to the parts of my posts which are most convenient for you. Despite this fact, I will spend my time and energy to convince you that it is utterly and totally pointless for you to believe in a deity when there are far more rational, evidence based explanations which are a lot more useful then a fairytale god which does not even impact our universe in any way.


And here I thought you were the one that was trying to avoid my cartoon of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What was Henderson’s main point when he came up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

“Henderson’s parody does nothing to call into question either the legitimacy or necessity of the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe. Rather the point of the parody seems to be that we cannot know much, if anything, about the nature of the Designer. Therefore, it’s arbitrary to characterize the Designer of the universe as God, especially the God of some specific religion.” Craig http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933

In fact Craig argues that Henderson’s point is the same as Intelligent Design theorists.
Dembski writes,

"Insofar as design theorists do not bring up God, it is because design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point to a designing intelligence. But there’s no inferential chain that leads from such finite design-conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world’s major theistic faiths. . . . As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe. . . . But there’s no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. . . . Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory" (The Design Revolution, p. 26).

The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity including the made up Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You cling to this notion of a god as if it's a vendetta; as if having some sort of universal master satisfies you in some way. I'll tell you this: I have no master, and if I do, let him come and strike me with lightning this very instant. Oh, what's that? I'm still alive.

No reason to respond to this nonsense.

Before we go on with this debate, tell me why you choose to believe in something that you can't see, smell, touch, taste, or sense with any human sense or other instrument we can create. Why do you believe in god?


I am a Christian so I think this is not correct. And where did you get smell, touch, taste, and intelligent design? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Craig argues:
What about the other theistic arguments? The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe (see “Argument from Contingency” in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The moral argument complements the cosmological and design arguments by telling us about the moral nature of the Creator of the universe. It gives us a personal, necessarily existent being who is perfectly good and whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose commands constitute our moral duties. This argument rules out any suggestion that the metaphysical ultimate is some evil being akin to Satan. As a privation of goodness, evil is parasitic upon the Good and so cannot exist as the highest being.

Finally, the ontological argument gives us reason to think that God, as the greatest conceivable being, is metaphysically necessary and maximally excellent, that is to say, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. The poor Flying Spaghetti Monster is, alas, left trailing in the dust."

God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933

The website first claims that it is pointless to put a label on God. You can call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Magic Zombie, but whatever label you give God, it doesn't diminish his existence. I quote: "The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity."

This argument is entirely missing the point. The point isn't about a label, but rather about the millions of things you could believe in, such as an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Why would you believe something like this when there is no evidence for it?


Russell’s attempt was no more valid than Henderson’s. Both we know were made up. You missed the point

The website then goes on to claim: "The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

This is statement is incorrect according to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, according to the Chuch of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why is the pastafarian holy book untrue and Christianity's book true?

As you can see, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just like God, and is also like the Invisible Teapot Orbiting Jupiter. All three are exactly the same: irrational constructs not founded on any sort of physical evidence.


No, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up and can be anything anyone wants. We know who did it and when He was made up. His secret name could even be Joe. You might even be the Monster. I don’t even believe in you. There is nol end to this

Craig concludes:
As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, some of which you list, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties.


#300 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 August 2010 - 10:51 PM

Also in relation to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem... We know:
1. Lines properties.
2. That lines exist.

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists ;) We haven't observed it or anything.

Another thing is - the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not prove the existence of line, it is used to say the assumption that a line (a thing which is in existence and that we know of and of its properties) can properly stretch to infinity. An assumption which will be false if we were to find the universe, energy or information to be smaller than infinite.

If the universe is smaller than infinite then we cannot have an infinite line physically.
In case energy if smaller than it simply can't stretch there and we cannot even create a virtual one in a computer because we don't have enough energy to do so.

If information is limited, then again we cannot do a virtual line to infinity.


Did I miss something? Are we in disagreement?




16 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users