Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Autodidact]

Here is a description of the fallacy. Explain where I went wrong?
The Appeal to Ignorance

Because you are asserting that God exists simply because he has not been proven not to. You are the one guilty of this fallacy, not me. It applies equally to Yahweh as to Vishnu.

 

[Autodidact]

Except your "way of saying it" distorts and exaggerates what the Bible says. If you don't think that is deceptive or erroneous then I am sorry.

Prove it. I have proved that everything I say is in the Bible is, including the passage referred to. I don't list everything else that is also there, but that does not change the fact that in point of fact, God never defines murder, but does command punishment for a wife who grabs her husband's wrestling opponent's testicles. It's a weird book. And you base your religion on it.

Wow... you really have no idea what Christianity is about.

Actually, I know more about it than you, do, as I have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

Of course we are responsible for our sins. We are all judged.

Right. And what are you judged on? According to you (but not all Christians) on your faith. All your life? No, just when you died. That is why Jeffrey Dahmer and John Emil List are saved (if they are to be believed) and Gandhi is not.

And as kmkemp said, there is no way to know who is saved and who isn't.

Assuming that the individuals in question are telling the truth. Unless you think maybe Gandhi was a closet Christian?

You argue against yourself. You said "without His authority, would be evil". He does have that authority, therefore it is not evil.

Right. That's what you believe. You believe that genocide, infanticide, any act, no matter how heinous, is not evil, if God commands it. That's your morality: genocide: O.K. Infanticide: O.K. Two men loving each other and expressing that through physical intimacy: Sin. Your morality is relative: Killing innocent babies is ethical, if God commands it. Mine is absolute: It's always wrong. That's where revealed, authority based religions always lead you, and that's why their followers are prone to killing people who disagree with them.

Good grief. I believe your hatred of Christianity is really distorting your view.

Prove it. Sorry to disappoint you, Nick, but I don't hate Christianity in particular. I just think it's crap. Also Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Mormonism. All just wrong.

First off, in all of my days going to church, I have never heard a pastor or church leader endorse or suggest violence (have you?).

"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports **** is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death (Romans 1:32)," [SIZE=-1]Phelps quoted by State Press (Arizona State University), March 11, 1998[/SIZE].

I believe there are many atheists, like yourself, that have a good idea of right and wrong and genuinely try to be a good person. But without God, all things become permissible. If men in power do not hold an authority above themselves, they can rationalize just about any heinous act.

And if they do believe in God, they use God's authority to justify any heinous act--which you yourself argue is moral if God commands it. You know God commands death for, among others, gay men, right? So killing them is required.

Opinions? Now your belief system is just an opinion? You stated it with conviction that God does not exist.

Of course it's my opinion, who else's? I wouldn't say I'm an agnostic, but I would say I'm not the smartest person in the world.

If it is not based on faith or intuition what is it based on?

Evidence and reason, haven't I made that clear?

Um, you really can't do that because they believe in the Koran and we don't.

Substitute "Qu'ran" for "Bible." Do I have to spoon feed you?

Say what? Where in the NT does it say that? Remember my convent is with Jesus and His teachings, not the covenant God had with the Jews. It's convenient for you to blur the distinction, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.

I'm confused. I thought Christianity was a monotheistic religion. Aren't Jesus and his father one? Don't you worship the Father and strive to obey him?

No it doesn't trouble me. I am not him. What makes sense to me doesn't make sense to him and vica-versa.

So truth is relative? Everyone can believe whatever they like, including the divinity of an Invisible Pink Unicorn, and there's no way to tell who's right? Are you agnostic?

Well, God is not a fuzzy teddy bear in the sky. He takes our transgressions and selfish behavior very seriously and is completely justified in ending any life He has given. That is why believers refer to themselves as "God-fearing".

And even if you don't personally transgress, but just happen to have parents who don't believe in Him, he might decide to wipe you out. In fact, if you make the mistake of being born on land He wants to give to the Jews, you're a goner. You and your little brother and your baby sister--all dead. Is that just in your view?

 

[Autodidact]

Calvin may believe this, but the scriptures do not teach it. Your understanding of "basic Christian theology" is basically FLAWED. But why stop when you obviously get so much delight out of defeating these red herrings?

Luke 18:15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." NIV

Well, you're right. There is no such thing as "basic Christian theology" because no two Christians can agree on what it is. Nick says non-believers are in heaven, you say no original sin, heck, some Christians say Jesus isn't God. It's such a nice religion--whatever you want it to be. Rev. Fred Phelps and Rev. Troy Perry--same religion, opposite beliefs. And I'm not even going into Rev. Carlton Pearson.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm sorry Autodidact, I am losing interest in this conversation. You seem to be incapable of an unemotional discourse on religion and your hostility is noted. You keep ranting the same things over and over again regardless of my defense. I'm sure in your mind my defenses are weak, but you still don't acknowledge them. For example, I have told you repeatedly that I was raised agnostic and was not introduced to religion until I was a teenager (and spend most of my adult life a materialist), however you continue to say that I only believe in Christianity because I was brainwashed as a child. Furthermore, you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the Jewish covenant and the Christian covenant simply because it makes your position weaker. I see this as a dishonest form of argumentation. Instead of telling me what I should believe based on your wreckless view of Christianity, perhaps you should actually listen to what I believe.

You say you do not hate Christianity but your tone suggests otherwise. Perhaps it is because you identify yourself as a lesbian and you see Christianity as threatening you. I'm sorry you feel that way if it is true. If compassion is your basis of ethics it is not represented here.

In summary, I find this conversation too time consuming and it lacks any sort of progress. I hope you gain a better understanding of Christianity and todays reformed Christians. Best wishes to you.

" Don't ever try to swim against the might tide of justice." -- The Tick

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Which, IMO, is the problem that the IPU was created to call attention to.

Don't you see the difference between intuition and unconscious agreement?

Most Christians I've discussed morality with have put forward the idea that a single objective morality exists. Do you agree?

I'm not sure what you mean by objective morality, but I do agree with absolute morality (as opposed to relative morality).

Personally, I would say that one moral standard for humanity and another for God does not constitute an objective morality.

They are one in the same. What is good is what agrees with God's nature. However, we have different levels of authority and position. For example, it is not appropriate for one child sibling to discipline an equal sibling, however, the parents have authority to do so.

The twists and turns of a river and the valley through which it flows can be amazingly complex. The odds of any particular river alignment and valley topology are so low that they're effectively zero. Does this mean that we can conclude that all river valleys were created directly by the hand of God and not by the action of erosion and natural forces?

In my opinion, the river is the result of chaos theory. You will never reach the sophistication and complexity of a watch with chaos. They are on completely different levels of complexity.

Everything is complex, depending on your point of view. It's only because of our own sense of self-importance that we think that complexity that relates to us is somehow special.

It's an interesting argument you have, but I still think that the levels of complexity cannot be reached through chaotic interactions. There are multiple moving parts that all operate in synchronization to produce a single function.

If the odds of a finite thing happening by itself are so low that they might as well be zero, why wouldn't the odds of an infinite thing happening by itself be infinitely times closer to zero than the first thing, which is so unlikely that you've completely discounted the possibility of it happening without divine influence?

If the universe is so big and complex that it needs a God greater than it to be the creator, what about God? Is there an even greater God above Him?

I suppose it is because I can't conceive of an infinite thing being "created". It seems to me that the whole concept of creation only applies to particulars and finite things. This is probably because I associate creation with causality, and how does something infinite get caused?

Also, I perceive the infinite to be opposite of nothingness. It seems to me the best alternative to nothing existing.

 

[Valjean]

I was struck by one of Nick's statements yesterday, to the effect that he'd never heard a pastor advocating violence. It's been bugging me all day.
Nick does not give the impression of being a member of one of the peace churches -- Mennonites, Church of the Brethren or Quakers. I'm pretty sure he's not a UU. So how has he missed mainstream Christianity's open support for militarism, torture, rendition, occupation, &c?

I do not see active Baptists or Lutherans at peace marches. I don't hear them speaking out against militarism (the epitome of violence), capitol punishment, or Israel's excesses against the Palestinians.
I do see them waving flags and cheering the military, and I hear TV evangelists praising the violence of American and Israeli troops in the Middle East and elsewhere; even advocating political assassination. It is not assumed that a mainstream Christian holds Conscientious Objector status.
I do see them waving flags and cheering soldiers.

In short, "typical," mainstream Christians never struck me as particularly pacific or Christlike in their attitudes or everyday affairs. Christians are great supporters and advocates of violence.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So how has he missed mainstream Christianity's open support for militarism, torture, rendition, occupation, &c?

Say what? Christianity's open support for torture? Where do you see this?

In short, "typical," mainstream Christians never struck me as particularly pacific or Christlike in their attitudes or everyday affairs. Christians are great supporters and advocates of violence.

I agree that more Christians support the war in Iraq than the general population, but to say that Christians are great supporters and advocates of violence is a bit embellished, don't you think?

Support for war efforts is actually a big debate in Christian communities. Scuba Pete is a good example of a Christian that is completely against the war in Iraq. Be careful of generalizations.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I would suggest starting a new thread (not that we weren't already off topic )

 

[rocketman]

I do not see active Baptists or Lutherans at peace marches.

They are there at times, just not in as big a number as others. There are many types of Baptists and Lutherans.

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
An Appeal from Lutheran Peace Fellowship
wfn.org | Lutheran World Federation Protests Wall in Middle East

 

[Rolling_Stone]

And just how is all this relevant to religion?

 

[camanintx]

It is not the "living" that represents the analogy, but rather the "complexity". You are right, the watch is not living. That is why we call it an "analogy".

You were specifically comparing the odds of life organizing itself to the odds of Paley's watch forming itself. No one would ever expect a watch to self-assemble since it's components are incapable of change, so it is a bad analogy. Nature is full of examples of self-organizing and emergent systems so why should life be so difficult?

 

[yossarian22]

In my opinion, the river is the result of chaos theory. You will never reach the sophistication and complexity of a watch with chaos. They are on completely different levels of complexity.

So you are saying that a chaotic system cannot create something complex? There is alot of evidence to the contrary. Entire poems can be randomly created. Hell, you can make artificial intelligence out of a random system because nothing is ever truly random. There are limits to the randomness of a system, and these limits can be exploited. Las Vegas revolves around this concept.

It's an interesting argument you have, but I still think that the levels of complexity cannot be reached through chaotic interactions. There are multiple moving parts that all operate in synchronization to produce a single function.

In a random system (not chaotic, those are two entirely different things as a chaotic system involves hundreds of variables which all have some effect on each other), what you say is impossible will happen. Eventually, those various functions will synchronize. Even in a truly random system.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nature is full of examples of self-organizing and emergent systems so why should life be so difficult?

Can you give an example that is remotely as complex as self-replicating RNA?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So you are saying that a chaotic system cannot create something complex? There is alot of evidence to the contrary. Entire poems can be randomly created.

Sure, under a set of well designed rules and algorithms...

Hell, you can make artificial intelligence out of a random system because nothing is ever truly random.

Example?

In a random system (not chaotic, those are two entirely different things as a chaotic system involves hundreds of variables which all have some effect on each other)

Sure, a chaotic system is deterministic, but that is a better model of a macroscopic view of nature.

what you say is impossible will happen. Eventually, those various functions will synchronize. Even in a truly random system.

The first step in evolution is to have self-replicating protein structures that lead to RNA. Otherwise, there can be no small steps of progression. Do you understand the complexity of the function of self-replication (e.g. the watch is much simpler)? You say randomness will eventually reach this outcome, however, of the probability is low enough it can be regarded as impossible (unless you have a near-infinite amount of time).

 

[yossarian22]

Sure, under a set of well designed rules and algorithms...

No, under rules. The moment you put a set of guidelines on a random system you can create something complex

Example?

Simple.
I will use tic tac toe.
Make a list of every possible position possible for each turn. Assign each position per turn a number. Randomly select a position. IF the position results in a loss, remove it. Its simple really. By putting a single parameter on the system, you have created an artificial intelligence which can play tic tac toe against you. It can be done for most any game.

Sure, a chaotic system is deterministic, but that is a better model of a macroscopic view of nature.

Yes, so the system is not random. Its nowhere near it. It has a set of parameters are rules on it, hence complexity can evolve.

The first step in evolution is to have self-replicating protein structures that lead to RNA. Otherwise, there can be no small steps of progression. Do you understand the complexity of the function of self-replication (e.g. the watch is much simpler)? You say randomness will eventually reach this outcome, however, of the probability is low enough it can be regarded as impossible (unless you have a near-infinite amount of time).

A watch is a poor example as the parts making it are static. Now if you have randomly position the parts of a watch in relation to each other and keep going, you will create your watch. And you forget that there is more than 1 sample space. We know there is Earth, but there can be infinitely more planets capable of supporting life. Hence the odds of life forming are fairly high. Anyhow, this is all an exercise in futility because you can't assign a probability for the formation of life.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

No, under rules. The moment you put a set of guidelines on a random system you can create something complex

Simple.
I will use tic tac toe.
Make a list of every possible position possible for each turn. Assign each position per turn a number. Randomly select a position. IF the position results in a loss, remove it. Its simple really. By putting a single parameter on the system, you have created an artificial intelligence which can play tic tac toe against you. It can be done for most any game.

Both of these examples require design. I am a computer engineer and have written AI systems. They may have an element of randomness (in artificial neural nets, fuzzy logic and the like), but they are intelligently designed, nonetheless.

A watch is a poor example as the parts making it are static. Now if you have randomly position the parts of a watch in relation to each other and keep going, you will create your watch.

What are you basing this on? This sounds similar to saying that if you have some smoke in the room, that eventually all of the smoke will assemble in a bottle on the table. That is what you call impossible odds.

And what exactly do you mean by "its parts are static"?

By the way, if humans are simply the outcome of nature, then so is the watch, because we created it, without any help from supernatural agents.

Anyhow, this is all an exercise in futility because you can't assign a probability for the formation of life.

True, but we do have common sense.

 

[yossarian22]

Both of these examples require design. I am a computer engineer and have written AI systems. They may have an element of randomness (in artificial neural nets, fuzzy logic and the like), but they are intelligently designed, nonetheless.

You call a binomial system intelligent? This is an extremely rudimentary AI to be sure, but it is still intelligence. This can be done to virtually anything with discrete outcomes.

What are you basing this on? This sounds similar to saying that if you have some smoke in the room, that eventually all of the smoke will assemble in a bottle on the table. That is what you call impossible odds.

Not when you have scale. Its like calling getting some exotic genetic disorder impossible odds. It still happens.
Also, remember panspermia. It only needs to happen once according to that theory...

And what exactly do you mean by "its parts are static"?

Chaotic systems seek a balance. It may never achieve a balance, but it will still attempt to stabilize. Everything wants to stabilize. Parts of a watch will not organize themselves into a watch ever. There is no reason for the parts to fluctuate between various positions.

By the way, if humans are simply the outcome of nature, then so is the watch, because we created it, without any help from supernatural agents.

Yes, but we applied energy to produce that watch. It cannot form naturally because of this.

True, but we do have common sense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You call a binomial system intelligent? This is an extremely rudimentary AI to be sure, but it is still intelligence. This can be done to virtually anything with discrete outcomes.

Yes, but it still requires an algorithm (and a computer), which is designed.

Not when you have scale. Its like calling getting some exotic genetic disorder impossible odds. It still happens.

Did I call an exotic genetic disorder impossible? They are on completely different levels of probability...

Chaotic systems seek a balance. It may never achieve a balance, but it will still attempt to stabilize. Everything wants to stabilize. Parts of a watch will not organize themselves into a watch ever. There is no reason for the parts to fluctuate between various positions.

Ah, but they have (without God's help that is)! Through nature's production of humans, and humans production of watches! If nature did not produce the watch, then what sort of supernature is involved?

Yes, but we applied energy to produce that watch. It cannot form naturally because of this.

The origin of life also required "energy". I'm not sure what distinction you are making here.

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, but it still requires an algorithm (and a computer), which is designed.

Not it does not. The system continues of its own accord. It modifies itself, like most chaotic systems.

Did I call an exotic genetic disorder impossible? They are on completely different levels of probability...

Until you can quantify the probability of life forming, you are just blowing smoke. It can't be quantified, so all this talk of probability does little but show how many have no grasp of probability whatsoever

Ah, but they have (without God's help that is)! Through nature's production of humans, and humans production of watches! If nature did not produce the watch, then what sort of supernature is involved?

Forced investment of energy.

The origin of life also required "energy". I'm not sure what distinction you are making here.

There is a difference. Pure metal is never found in nature for a reason. It is not the most stable configuration of metallic atoms. Instead they are found in ores to maintain stability. To produce the parts of a watch, energy must be put into a system and be guided. That is the difference

 

[rocketman]

Sorry for butting in. (Wow, this thread has gone through a few OP 'facelifts', lol !)

It can't be quantified...

True, but the other side of this coin is that no one knows anything about it. Except that at that stage it would appear to have been a very sophisticated accident. I can understand if people have a hard time believing in such accidents. No one can blame them given what we know about cell complexity, and especially when science only has a mere hypothesis about it.

To produce the parts of a watch, energy must be put into a system and be guided. That is the difference

So far, adding energy to raw molecules does not result in even the most basic self-replicating life-form, with or without guidance. So far, no one has been able to build a biological self-replicator that is simpler than the simplest RNA known. So far, no one knows how simple a self-replicator could be. Therefore, it may yet turn out that even the simplest original cell was a 'watch' after all, where a watch is defined as:

"Parts of a watch will not organize themselves into a watch ever." -y22

Nobody can say with scientific authority at the moment.

Ok, I've had my stir, back to it lads...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not to interrupt you two, Nick and yossarian, but I can't help jumping in:

You call a binomial system intelligent? This is an extremely rudimentary AI to be sure, but it is still intelligence. This can be done to virtually anything with discrete outcomes.

Yes, but it still requires an algorithm (and a computer), which is designed.

Indeed, it also requires a mother and father to have birthed the designer (and grandparents and great-grandparents, for that matter). Of course, it could be that the designer who created the universe was never born and has no parents, contrary to our common experience that all designers were born of parents. Similarly, it could be that the "algorithm" or laws of nature have no designer, contrary to our common experience that all algorithms have designers.

What we do know for sure is that algorithms can, once started, produce exquisitely complex phenomena all by themselves. There is also very good evidence that the universe is governed by laws......but no evidence for designers yet.

And of course, this is a separate issue from the issue of whether or not the laws of this universe--designed or not--are capable of producing complex behavior, including living things, without the intervention of the (supernatural) designers.....

The first step in evolution is to have self-replicating protein structures that lead to RNA. Otherwise, there can be no small steps of progression. Do you understand the complexity of the function of self-replication (e.g. the watch is much simpler)? You say randomness will eventually reach this outcome, however, of the probability is low enough it can be regarded as impossible (unless you have a near-infinite amount of time).

This is a bold claim, especially considering the wealth of interdisciplinary work on this subject in the scientific literature, including geology, chemistry, biology, and physics.

Of course, while the particular configurations of molecules is not deterministic, constant environmental forces (such as electromagnetic fields or electrostriction) favor certain subsets of configuration space. Furthermore, in far-from-equilibrium systems (e.g. external source of energy flowing through the system, such as light from the sun or heat from geothermal vents) "improbable" configurations become more frequent.

But I invite you, Nick, to cite some examples from the peer-reviewed literature which support your assertion that the probability of self-replicating molecules arising from natural laws is virtually zero.

Note that this is a distinct claim from: 'self-replicating molecules arise from pure random chance'. No one says that happens, any more than the Grand Canyon or volcanoes or the northern lights happen from 'pure random chance'. Electrons, protons, and neutrons bouncing around randomly won't produce these things, it's true. Instead, these phenomena result from an interplay of random chance and the non-random external forces being applied to non-equilibrium, non-thermally isolated systems.

Yes, it's true, thermally isolated systems that aren't too far from equilibrium won't do anything interesting by "random chance". Liqiud water confined to a cooler won't randomly form billions of unique, complex structures. But that same water, when unconfined in the turbulent atmosphere, and subject to all sorts of environmental conditions--fueled ultimately by energy expended by the Sun--will spontaneously self-organize into beautiful, complex structures that we call snowflakes. Most people take it for granted that the probability that any one of these structures would form from "pure random chance" is virtually zero; yet we also take it for granted that natural forces have been busy producing countless trillions upon endless trillions of unique snowflakes, every day, all across the globe, for billions of years. And that's just on this one planet.

And yet, you say, categorically, that a certain set of amino acid configurations--a set which 'self-replicates' (though you don't specify with what degree of accuracy)--is impossible without a miracle. Show me this calculation. I would find it very impressive, especially considering the intense labor that has been devoted to far more modest calculations in the field of the molecular origins of life.