YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
But unfortunately, Cop, this assumes that there are reasonable points TO discuss. My advice is to let the vapid ******** just stew in its own juices.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist
- Thread starter aymen amir
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
He seems to think that the video can do his arguing for him. If he found anything convincing in it, he should be able to summarize the thoughts that motivated him to write the OP. If he can't do that, then nobody else should have to try to do it for him.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
I watched it (took 10 mins of waffle before any points were made).
Concept 1
Darwinian Orthodox
Random mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
But requires information ie interpretable code, code requires pre-existing intelligence. At least that is what he claims, I disagree with that claim.
Then demonstrates that decades of experiments exposing fruit flies to radiation, which causes random, mutations, never resulted in a better fruit flies only many types of disabled fruit flies.
Fair enough but it fails to point out that those in the natural world with negative mutations tend to die out quickly and not compete in the breeding pool, thus amplifying the dominance of the small but positive mutations. Early life was simple it evolved into more sophisticated organisms requiring more and modified code. Early DNA or RNA would survive a mutation if the organism that it grew into survived long enough to breed. with short DNA mutations would be proportionately greater.
Which came first the 500,000 DNA base organism or the 3,000,000,000 DNA base organism. The short one came first the other evolved later through multiple steps over a very long time.
He says DNA is a code. All codes have to have been conceived from a mind. He uses music and software as examples of non materialist codes. The point of difference I would raise is that music for example is written for one autonomous system ie the human to read and interpret then manipulate a second autonomous system the musical instrument, thus generating music. I would there fore point out that in the case of RNA and DNA as biochemical processes they are endogenous to the organism through it s biochemistry. It is therefore more "turn key" than "interpretative". He even goes on to explain how neat this endogenous code is at adapting to damage literally repairing itself. He has shown exactly that the code its self can be self sustaining with out a creator/designer. Yet he throws his hands in the air and declares some super fairy named god did it.
Superficially he presents an almost rational case but the underlying assumptions are incorrect and he denies the possibility of not so much random alterations but preferred probabilities based on environmental pressures eg change of food source or resistance to antibiotics.
Cheers
Concept 1
Darwinian Orthodox
Random mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
But requires information ie interpretable code, code requires pre-existing intelligence. At least that is what he claims, I disagree with that claim.
Then demonstrates that decades of experiments exposing fruit flies to radiation, which causes random, mutations, never resulted in a better fruit flies only many types of disabled fruit flies.
Fair enough but it fails to point out that those in the natural world with negative mutations tend to die out quickly and not compete in the breeding pool, thus amplifying the dominance of the small but positive mutations. Early life was simple it evolved into more sophisticated organisms requiring more and modified code. Early DNA or RNA would survive a mutation if the organism that it grew into survived long enough to breed. with short DNA mutations would be proportionately greater.
Which came first the 500,000 DNA base organism or the 3,000,000,000 DNA base organism. The short one came first the other evolved later through multiple steps over a very long time.
He says DNA is a code. All codes have to have been conceived from a mind. He uses music and software as examples of non materialist codes. The point of difference I would raise is that music for example is written for one autonomous system ie the human to read and interpret then manipulate a second autonomous system the musical instrument, thus generating music. I would there fore point out that in the case of RNA and DNA as biochemical processes they are endogenous to the organism through it s biochemistry. It is therefore more "turn key" than "interpretative". He even goes on to explain how neat this endogenous code is at adapting to damage literally repairing itself. He has shown exactly that the code its self can be self sustaining with out a creator/designer. Yet he throws his hands in the air and declares some super fairy named god did it.
Superficially he presents an almost rational case but the underlying assumptions are incorrect and he denies the possibility of not so much random alterations but preferred probabilities based on environmental pressures eg change of food source or resistance to antibiotics.
Cheers
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
:clap
I've indulged other posters who have shown up asking everyone to watch some half-hour video and, without exception, I've always found them to be a waste of my time.
On top of that, responding in text to a video lecture is difficult and annoying. It takes very little effort on your part to post a YouTube link, but it takes much, much more effort for someone to respond to it point-by-point. This creates a very unbalanced, and IMO unfair, situation... unless you'd be happy with us just posting links to Talk Origins or Thunderf00t videos on YouTube in response.
How about you make your own argument and give us the points you think are most convincing?
Sorry, started to watch but got bored and didn´t finish
.And not an idea either, for that matter.
Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
So we know that DNA was designed.
A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.
Unless he also believes that God is designed and created, he is contradicting himself here, since that would mean there would be an exception to the rule he just mentioned.
Lets change the opening premise, while retaining its essential meaning. We will then proceed thus:
1. Ideas are conceptions that lead to other ideas
3. Every idea is a conception. No exceptions
4. All conceptions are valid unless they imply a contradiction
5. God does not exist implies no contradiction and is therefore a valid conception
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Nice try, cottage. I suspect, though, that the argument avoids circularity by taking no position on what precedes ideas. It only establishes a precedence relationship between ideas and implementation. Let's take another look at it.
"Implementation" is the weasel word here. Manufactured goods are planned implementations. Wind sculptures, the formation of crystals, the creation of an impact crater, etc., are not what we normally think of as "implementations", although a theist might assume that they are the product of planned behavior by a deity. If the conclusion is that a deity exists, then the argument does become circular.
"Language" is the weasel word here. It can have several different meanings. DNA has been called a "language", but that is only a metaphor. It is not a real language, but it can be formally represented with a symbolic language. It resembles computer code in that we humans can interpret it as a set of instructions for building living beings. The analogy ultimately breaks down when you realize that we use mathematics to describe all kinds of things in the real world, but those things are not themselves languages. This assumption resonates with people, because most people really do not have a technical or formal conception of what a language is.
This is another assumption that contains the weasel word "language". Certainly, symbolic languages are human creations, and natural human languages require human minds to exist. However, to say that DNA as "language" comes from the mind simply begs the question. If DNA is a "language", then it may well be a counterexample to this assumption...unless, of course, you simply take it as an axiomatic assumption.
This is based on the flawed assumptions before it.
Right away, we can point out that DNA is required to manufacture human brains, which sustain human minds. Therefore, we can infer that human minds, at least, are themselves designed implementations. The assumption that started all of this was that a mind can be "undesigned" or "uncreated". That, however, is what the argument actually concludes. So the argument is ultimately circular when you analyze its chain of assumptions.
False. This is just a variant of the teleological argument, which has been refuted many times over in the past.
Pure bunk, but there are a lot of people out there who still do not understand the logical flaws in scholastic arguments for the existence of God.
Answer: DNA (assuming that DNA could be called a "language")
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a fair argument to me, maybe I should reconsider this whole atheism thing.
All very good points, in particular your comments on language and DNA.
You are correct to say it is the teleological argument re-stated. And as with that classic argument it is based on analogy, which is where it is at fault. It reasons from human ideas, minds and language to God. The argument cannot assume God if that is what it means to demonstrate in its conclusion, and it cannot make mind distinct from humans without first demonstrating some form of independent or disembodied consciousness. So when we make the human foundation expressly clear in the argument, the last two premises result in absurdity and contradiction.
1. Ideas precede implementation
2. All languages come from (human) minds
3. There are no languages that dont come from (human) minds
4. So we know DNA was designed (by human minds)
5. A (human) mind designed DNA, therefore God exists
However I think Ill stick with my first argument as that knocks down the entire edifice, subject and predicate.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
You make alot of assumptions. DNA is not a language.
I think you've misread it? The argument isn't mine, only the additions, which are in parenthesis.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I like cottage's amendments, because they do expose the disconnect between human minds and God's mind. The former are supposedly created things that are tethered to bodies, whereas the latter is not.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Oh, sorry. Still a stupid argument for anyone to propose though.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It really isn't worth the effort unless one is exceptionally bored.
Perfect Circle
Just Browsing
Well... I guess that does it for me. I was getting tired of this whole critical thinking thing anyway. I'll see you guys in church when you get done with the video. :angel2: