|
there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| surferfb |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
At any rate, who's to say that there ever was an origin or a start for anything? Humans have defined time as being a linear entity with a definable start point and end point. This does not mean time behaves according to this principle. Let me ask you something, does time have an end? If time does not have an end, why the presumption that time has a beginning? Superstring theory has some interesting concepts of circular time. |
Piggybacking here:
Most of the time the people who say there is a beginning say that God created the universe, but you ask where God came from, and they'll say he/she/it has always been. It isn't that much of a leap to say the universe has always been here. |
|
|
| devonian rabbit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The Law of Truly Large Numbers can be best explained by walking along the beach. Stop at a random location, pick up a grain of sand and then look at it. Do you have any idea how small the odds are of you selecting that particular grain of sand at random? Literally billions upon billions to one. You'd have a greater chance of winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning on the same day. Yet is there anything miraculous about bending over and picking up a grain of sand? Must there be something divine about that grain of sand for you to have picked it up against seemingly impossible odds? |
to better illustrate the the question-begging nature of ID, i'd like to take your "sand on a beach" analogy a little further. you've shown that the improbability of picking up any one particular grain of sand is extremely low. however, as you have also shown, that probability is meaningless. it is meaningless unless there is some form of intent. now if someone, using a high powered microscope and a tiny laser, branded a grain of sand with a marking/number/picture and then placed it somewhere on a beach without you seeing where, and told you to go pick the branded grain up, and you went and picked it up on your first try... then that low probability would actually mean something. the problem with the ID argument, is that it doesn't differentiate between these two scenarios. it takes the first scenario (picking up any old grain of sand) and interprets that meaningless probability as being analogous to the second scenario.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The anthropic principle is a little harder to explain, but all it basically states is that these "impossible odds" do occur, and that we shouldn't feel as though it's a miracle in any sense that we do exist in a universe "configured" perfectly to our existence. If the universe wasn't configured like it is now, we wouldn't be around to notice, just as if the world had turned out in a different state (out of zillions of possible states) after the last 24 hours, we wouldn't know any differently. If there are a billion possible outcomes of equal importance - just as there may be a billion grains of sand to choose from at the beach - by definition, one of these billion to one shots must occur, just as, if we were to go to the beach with the intention of picking up a grain of sand, we must go home with one of the billion. There is nothing remarkable about events of a very low probability occuring because, paradoxically, billion to one outcomes must, by definition, occur. |
the anthropic principle is closely tied to my example above. however, a common argument in which IDists misuse the anthropic principle, is the Fine Tuning Argument. Basically, the argument goes, the physical constants of this universe are so finely tuned, that if they varied the slightest bit (like 1 in 6 x 10^23rd, or something like that), then life wouldn't exist. So IDists argue that because life is so improbable, this universe must have been designed to support life. The fallacy should be quite apparent already, since according to the anthropic principle, we should expect exactly the universe we see, and any after the fact probability calculation will beg the question. but in case there are some that don't see the fallacy yet, here is a thought experiment that should demonstrate the problem with this line of thinking.
Imagine that there are 10 possible universes (not to scale.. 10 is just easier for discussion than 6 x 10^23); each with different physical constants that would produce completely different universes: a b c d e f g h i j
Only universe a has physical constants that allow it to produce life. And if you picked just one universe at random, it is improbable that you would pick a universe that can produce life since there is only one of them. And that is how you get the low probability that is the basis for the fine-tuning argument.
But universe a is not any more improbable than universe j. Universe j is different from the rest of the possible universes just like a is, and the same "improbability" applies to all of the individual possible universes. However, the fine-tuning argument make a baseless assumption that intelligent-life-producing constants are diametrically opposed to all other constants, rather than giving all aspects of all possible universes equal consideration when making that probability calculation.
Implicit in that assumption, is the assumption that the purpose of any of those possible universes would be to produce intelligent life. The fine-tuning argument assumes that universe a accomplishes this a priori special purpose and that the others don't accomplish that purpose, in order to make the probability "a vs. bcdefghij" (improbable) rather than "a vs. b vs. c vs. d, etc...." (just as probable as any other). But to assume that purpose/intent is begging the question... Intent is what is trying to be proven from an improbability, but that improbability wouldn't "exist" (or have meaning) if intent wasn't assumed.
richard
"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in 'an interesting hole I find myself in 'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" --Douglas Adams |
|
|
| occrider |
ID is doomed for failure. Instead of a theory that is adapting to the facts, it is attempting to adapt the facts to the theory. Notice how much of the nature of ID'ists is not to provide factual arguments supporting the probablility of their claim but to attack the probablility and factual evidence of any other competing theory. In due time, I think we'll see ID go the path of geocentricism. Ah yes, religion really called the ball on that one.
Anyway, allow me to deviate from the topic of evolution briefly, DJBaron or whoever, does God have a master plan for each and every one of us? If a baby or a loved one dies, was that God's will and the child/loved one now in heaven? |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Let me ask you something, does time have an end? If time does not have an end, why the presumption that time has a beginning? Superstring theory has some interesting concepts of circular time. |
i have no idea, but theres an intresting theory of time being one large loop. big bang, universe collapsing, big bang, collapsing, big bang..... over and over :eyespop: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
i have no idea, but theres an intresting theory of time being one large loop. big bang, universe collapsing, big bang, collapsing, big bang..... over and over :eyespop: |
Not to be too anal here, but that cosmic outlook is pretty dated. Most recent evidence in the past 5-8 years or so clearly suggests the universe is expanding without any hopes of a collapsing cycle. I guess that's a good thing to our future generations (I think). |
|
|
| Acid Circus |
Some very good points in this thread, but to me it screams out for the same conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove that there is a God! It is my personal belief that there is not a God, should this matter to anyone else? Does not believing in a God make me a bad person? Should I dislike a person whos views do not concur with my own?
No, no and no! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Not to be too anal here, but that cosmic outlook is pretty dated. Most recent evidence in the past 5-8 years or so clearly suggests the universe is expanding without any hopes of a collapsing cycle. I guess that's a good thing to our future generations (I think). |
Hmmm misteropus, haven't seen you for a while. I was gonna post a thread about how they were bringing back doonsbury but I figured you were gone for good. At any rate, yes given the velocity/mass of the universe it appears we are going to continually expand. But circular time does not necessarily theorize that there are ever reoccuring bangs and crunches so much as it analyzes the property of space and time itself. I'll have to find that book I read that discusses the theory in detail and I'll post back about it. However, I'll caution that we know very very little still at this point, Given that we have no idea what dark matter really is, I stipulate that we're going to be going through a lot of shifts of what we know/think about the universe.
Edit: err not doonsbury but that comic with bill the cat. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Not to be too anal here, but that cosmic outlook is pretty dated. Most recent evidence in the past 5-8 years or so clearly suggests the universe is expanding without any hopes of a collapsing cycle. I guess that's a good thing to our future generations (I think). |
never said it was currently collapsing or is about too any time soon. also we cant investigate all of the universe, every once in while you read about scientist discovering new stars and other stuff that are x light years away. agian its only a theory, and a very well possible one. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
[| quote: | Originally posted by Acid Circus
Some very good points in this thread, but to me it screams out for the same conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove that there is a God! It is my personal belief that there is a God, should this matter to anyone else? Does not believing in a God make me a bad person? Should I dislike a person whos views do not concur with my own?
No, no and no! |
Absolutely no, it doesn't make you a bad person. I too believe in a God, but I sorted out my faith from scientific fact and observation long ago. The problem with Creationists/IDers is they want so desperately to explain their faith beliefs via scientific methodology in order to justify what they believe. In essence, I sincerely believe such individuals actually have less faith than most true Christians/Muslims who don't see such conflicts. Seriously, the Pope himself doesn't have a beef with evolution, doesn't that tell you a little something, considering the Catholic faith endorses evolutionary origins of life?
But to the topic at hand, names and books such as Denton, Behe, Dembski, and Phillip Johnson have all been so easily debunked that its really old news. Nothing new has been presented in the ID field, just regurgitating the same illogical topics over and over. I guess if you say something that is false enough times, they believe it will eventually come true, or at least they'll find enough suckers to buy it (like my state Board of Education). As it's been said, it is nothing but logical fallacies being repeated over and over, primarily God of the Gaps (aka argument from incredulity). Of course the Straw Man fallacy is used quite repeatedly as well, especially the probability argument as depicted earlier. Or I guess to be technical, the Posterior Probability Fallacy: The probability of an event occurring, after it has already occurred, is exactly 100%. Just because a given event has occurred in a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't have been just as successfully configured in a bazillion other possible ways.
I anxiously await any new research in the primary literature that supports ID/Creationist ideas. So far my PubMed search gives me 0 hits. I wonder why? Perhaps it's what Dembski states in an interview about his book, "No Free Lunch" (Dembski's a mathmatician who uses probability to attempt to explain ID, quite poorly I might add):
"I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."
Oh you poor baby, Dembski, 2 years for publication? Cry me a ing river! That's what the process involves! I submitted my Thesis paper in 2000, and I just received word of it's publication 2 months ago, and it won't even be in print until next year! Statements like these indicate that he is somewhat disingenuous in his beliefs, and more inclined to get his "royalties" off controversal books.
In order for any Creationist/ID research to be sound it has to be:
1. Positive - the opposite of negative (attempting to disprove other known theories)
2. Testable
3. Falsifiable
It has never met any of these three criteria. It is therefore nothing shy of unsound opinion. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Hmmm misteropus, haven't seen you for a while. I was gonna post a thread about how they were bringing back doonsbury but I figured you were gone for good. At any rate, yes given the velocity/mass of the universe it appears we are going to continually expand. But circular time does not necessarily theorize that there are ever reoccuring bangs and crunches so much as it analyzes the property of space and time itself. I'll have to find that book I read that discusses the theory in detail and I'll post back about it. However, I'll caution that we know very very little still at this point, Given that we have no idea what dark matter really is, I stipulate that we're going to be going through a lot of shifts of what we know/think about the universe.
Edit: err not doonsbury but that comic with bill the cat. |
Yeah, I heard about that, and I'm excited as hell! It was originally called Bloom County, then after a little hiatus, B. Breathed changed the name to Outland. Don't know what the knew one will be called.
I've been away because my wife was involved in a serious car accident a little over 2 weeks ago. She was broadsided on her side of the car, which unfortunately fractured her pelvis in 3-4 different places. I was following her in my own car and saw the whole damn thing. I guess it was a blessing a curse to be there. She was flown down to Wichita to see a specialist, whom was an expert in this particular fractured area (acetabulum). He performed 5-hour surgery on her 5 days after the accident, and we're finally back home less than a week ago. She'll eventually be okay and will be on both feet in a month or two, but there's some long and painful rehab days ahead. I haven't really had the energy or desire to get back on the internet and around, but I guess in some ways it is healing to be back on these forums, wasting my day away! |
|
|
| devonian rabbit |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Yeah, I heard about that, and I'm excited as hell! It was originally called Bloom County, then after a little hiatus, B. Breathed changed the name to Outland. Don't know what the knew one will be called. |
the new one is going to be called: Opus
richard |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
And that's the crux of it all right there.
All ID arguments run, basically, along this pattern:
1) Nature is complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore nature has a creator
Take the watch-maker argument you provided, for instance, the most overused anology in theistic apologetics:
1) Both the watch and nature are complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore, both the watch and nature require a creator
What the argument fails to take into account, though, is that the universe and the watch possess different types of complexity. The watch contains artificial, mechanical moving parts none of which can be explained or created via a natural process. The cogs, the springs, the watch-face, the hands - none of these things can be created "naturally" on their own, let alone assemble themselves in the exact form necessary to function as a "watch". If we were to find a watch while strolling along the beach we could only assume that it must have been created by an intelligent designer because the facticity of the watch (that is, the sum of all its properties) possess a complexity far different to that which we find anywhere else in nature.
"Natural complexity" though - which we can view in the form of the "laws" of nature, especially in seemingly more "complex" bodies such as living things - is far different. Whereas a watch is made up of components that are entirely artificial - i.e. that cannot be created via a natural process - there is nothing artificial about the composition of life. Similarly, while it would be impossible for the components of a watch to come together and function "naturally", the components of a living organism require no creator to either come together nor function harmoniously.
Besides, what strikes you as more odd? That a dead, blind, purposeless universe could exist without a creator, or that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient super-being with the ability to create beings of complexity ex nihilo at will can exist without a creator? You can't have it both ways: either all complex beings require a creator or you concede the possibility that some don't. If it's the former, then I can only ask what created God (or point to the flaw in the argument which essentially implies the necessary existence of an infinite number of "creators" - a view that would be nearly impossible to justify) or if it's the latter, then I can only ask why you believe that the universe requires a creator but an even more complex being like God doesn't?
Intelligent Design is bunk, and to understand why I suggest you read the following article (though I doubt that, even if you open it, you'll make any effort to understand it):
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=308 |
This entire discussion is BEYOND me...lol....half the words you people are typing i don't even know...and you can take that to 688th power...what ever that means...LOL
I just have 1 question..to Renegade.....in the quote i took from you above is what you are trying to say that IF there was a God and he DID create the universe, earth and people etc etc then WHO created God since design implies designer, so that God MUST have a designer in theory correct????.....or am i way off base??...but isnt it possible for God NOT to have a designer?...if not why, if so why....sorry for the DUMB questions...just trying to learn. |
|
|
|
|
