Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[shunyadragon]

I see no point in living in the godless world:

Science does not promote a Godless world, it simply is based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' nothing more nor nothing less, but it is becoming increasingly apparent you are advocating a Theocracy

 

[questfortruth]

Science does not promote a Godless world, it simply is based on the 'objective verifiable evidence'

Google: methodological naturalism. Or: naturalism as the basis for science. It is not necessary to put such a basis under natural research.

 

[leroy]

Reasons for denying in bold

Already addressed this. SC and design exists in terms of human technology throughout the history of humanity over a million years, but absolutely no evidence for either in nature outside human technology.

Accepting premise 1 doesn't force you to accept SC outside human technology.


So any other objection to premise 1?

 

[leroy]

You cannot expect people to accept just 1 premise, and not look at your argument for Specified Complexity as a whole.

Sure the whole argument is relevant. But I am trying to focus on premise, after you agree with premise 1 we can move to premise 2 and then to the conclusion.

And beside that premise 1 alone is too vague to be useful or meaningful.

Whats vague in premise 1?

For all your illogical rants about Specified Complexity and premise 1, you did not specify anything “specific” as what you are talking about in premise 1.

SC simply means that something has all 4 of the following atributes

1 it has more than 1 part or unit

2 the parts are ordered in a pattern.... Meaning, function, symetry, ordering from biggest to smallest are all examples of pattern

3 there are many possible combinations but only 1 or few would produce such pattern

4 there is not a tendency in the natural laws towards producing that pattern.


If something has all these 4 atributes it will be SC

What do you find unclear or vague?

You were unspecified in premise 1, and unspecified in premise 2, and you then conclude life is designed. That leroy is a classic case of circular reasoning.

Even if true, that wouldn't be circular reasoning, being unspecified and circular reasoning are 2 different things

 

[night912]

Why are you acting like a 12yo troll? If you don’t understand what I mean by SC or why humans are not SC you can keep asking….I am a very patient person.

Maybe “bias” is not the correct word………….so what I meant is that once you have an embryo the laws of nature organize stuff such that a human body would form…the laws of nature are determined to create a human body (once you have an embryo)


This is different from a book, if you start with ink and paper, the laws of nature are not determined to organize ink such that they form things that look like meaningful words and sentences



Any disagreement from your part? Should I clarify more?

Why are you acting like a 31yo who can't accept whenever they are wrong and/or is flawed in their thinking?

Trying to justify a wrong won't make it right. If one's idea or conclusion is required to go back to the drawing board because of its flaws were pointed out, an honest and wise 31yo would do what's rational, go back to the drawing board.

Are you that an honest and wise 31yo or a dishonest and unwise 31yo who refuses to be accept that they are incorrect? I take it you're the latter?

 

[leroy]

Why are you acting like a 31yo who can't accept whenever they are wrong and/or is flawed in their thinking?

Quote any comment of mine that was wrong, and justify why you think is wrong….

Can you do that??? NOOOOOOOOOO because you are just trolling, in your mind anything that has religious implications that you dont like has to be wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Quote any comment of mine that was wrong, and justify why you think is wrong….

I have done so repeatedly, but you keep ignoring what I found wrong with your rationality and asking me the same question repeatedly, trying to re-evaluate my points.

I keep telling you need evidence to support your premise, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION!!!

You have done neither.

And if you want to claim that you are using “inductive reasoning”, then you definitely needs evidence, which you don’t have.

AND, if you truly want to claim your argument is “falsifiable”, then you seriously need evidence to back your argument.

All you do is dismiss what I say because I am asking you to verify your reasoning.

Instead, you keep playing this cat-and-mouse game where you give us a run-around, instead of facing the reality that you could possibly be wrong, that your rationality over Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity are seriously flawed.

You are not willing to learn, and you are definitely not will to acknowledge your errors and to learn from them.

 

[leroy]

I have done so repeatedly, but you keep ignoring what I found wrong with your rationality and asking me the same question repeatedly, trying to re-evaluate my points.

I keep telling you need evidence to support your premise, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION!!!

THE evidence for premise 1 is every single observation, the evidence for the conclusions premise 1 + premise 2?

Why isn’t this sufficient for you ?

And if you want to claim that you are using “inductive reasoning”, then you definitely needs evidence, which you don’t have.

Every single observation that has been doesn’t shows that premise 1 is true, this is inductive reasoning.

AND, if you truly want to claim your argument is “falsifiable”, then you seriously need evidence to back your argument.

Falsifiable means that there is some potential evidence that if true, my argument would fail…..showing something SC that is not design or showing that ancient life is not SC would falsify my argument……….therefore my argument is falsifiable

All you do is dismiss what I say because I am asking you to verify your reasoning.

You keep repeating, “no evidence” “circular reasoning” “not falsifiable” etc. but you don’t justify any of those accusations…..

You can’t simply repeat like a parrot “no evidence” “no evidence” “no evidence”………… you have to explain why isn’t the evidence that I provided for say “premise 1” is not good enough?



I

 

[night912]

Quote any comment of mine that was wrong, and justify why you think is wrong….

So the latter, just like I predicted. See, actual evidence of a dishonest and unwise 31yo who refuses to be accept that he was incorrect. Thanks for being the evidence.

Can you do that??? NOOOOOOOOOO because you are just trolling, in your mind anything that has religious implications that you dont like has to be wrong.

Hahaha.
What's wrong? The usual strategy isn't working according to plan? Was my responses not what you expected?

So the patient Leroy was so patient that after only few responses, his strategy to move the goalpost didn't go his way, so he resorted to insult. And just after one post of insult that didn't go as planned, the patient Leroy resorted to making accusations of others trolling.

So patient Leroy, was it because you thought that I was trolling or because you couldn't accept that you were shown to be wrong and/or have flawed ideas that made you slipped out that you had religious agendas in your initial argument?

 

[leroy]

So the latter, just like I predicted. See, actual evidence of a dishonest and unwise 31yo who refuses to be accept that he was incorrect. Thanks for being the evidence.



Hahaha.
What's wrong? The usual strategy isn't working according to plan? Was my responses not what you expected?

So the patient Leroy was so patient that after only few responses, his strategy to move the goalpost didn't go his way, so he resorted to insult. And just after one post of insult that didn't go as planned, the patient Leroy resorted to making accusations of others trolling.

So patient Leroy, was it because you thought that I was trolling or because you couldn't accept that you were shown to be wrong and/or have flawed ideas that made you slipped out that you had religious agendas in your initial argument?

you are affirming that I am wrong, I am just asking you to quote my comment and explain why am I wrong?.... how can I “admit” that I am wrong if I don’t know which is my alleged mistake?

 

[night912]

you are affirming that I am wrong, I am just asking you to quote my comment and explain why am I wrong?.... how can I “admit” that I am wrong if I don’t know which is my alleged mistake?

If you are unwilling to accept that you are wrong, what makes you think that you will accept it once it's shown to you?

What makes you think that you are willing to accept that you are wrong now, when you have been shown the flaws and explained to you already and all you did was nothing but avoid to address my explanation and just repeat your previous assertions?

What makes you think that you are not going to be any different from before and not make excuses and redefine your own words that you initially defined?

Let's see your reason why you are no longer a dishonest and unwise 31yo who refuses to be accept that he was incorrect. You provided the evidence for being that 31yo, only you can provide the evidence that you are not that same 31yo anymore.

So what's your evidence that you are not that same 31yo anymore?

 

[leroy]

If you are unwilling to accept that you are wrong, what makes you think that you will accept it once it's shown to you?

What makes you think that you are willing to accept that you are wrong now, when you have been shown the flaws and explained to you already and all you did was nothing but avoid to address my explanation and just repeat your previous assertions?

What makes you think that you are not going to be any different from before and not make excuses and redefine your own words that you initially defined?

Let's see your reason why you are no longer a dishonest and unwise 31yo who refuses to be accept that he was incorrect. You provided the evidence for being that 31yo, only you can provide the evidence that you are not that same 31yo anymore.

So what's your evidence that you are not that same 31yo anymore?

Again, I am just asking you to quote a comment of mine that you think is wrong, and an explanation for why you think it is wrong………….why is this so hard to do?? Perhaps because you are unable to find something wrong with my comments.


No idea on what you mean by you 31yo rant.

 

[night912]

Again, I am just asking you to quote a comment of mine that you think is wrong, and an explanation for why you think it is wrong………….why is this so hard to do?? Perhaps because you are unable to find something wrong with my comments.

That's a funny joke that you just made.

But seriously, I'm still waiting for you to address my points instead of avoiding them or repeat irrelevant things that has nothing to do with what I said.

If you are able to do that, then let's see it. If cannot, then your argument is debunked and back to the drawing board for you. So are you willing to address my points without repeating irrelevant things? I'm thinking no, since you been avoiding it this whole time.

And yes, I am going by your definition of SC. If you cannot defend premise 1, then there's no need to even address premise 2. Are you avoiding my point because you realized that once you do, that your argument falls apart? Just keep in mind that you're the one who said, if it's found, premise 1 is refuted but if you accept it, SC falls apart. So what's it going to be, let my objections refute your argument, you refute your own argument or try to address it without being fallacious?

 

[gnostic]

SC simply means that something has all 4 of the following atributes

1 it has more than 1 part or unit

2 the parts are ordered in a pattern.... Meaning, function, symetry, ordering from biggest to smallest are all examples of pattern

3 there are many possible combinations but only 1 or few would produce such pattern

4 there is not a tendency in the natural laws towards producing that pattern.


If something has all these 4 atributes it will be SC

What do you find unclear or vague?

This bloody again...

Why do you keep forgetting that I am looking your argument for your unfalsifiable Specified Complexity as a whole, AND NOT JUST SEPARATELY and simply each single individual attribute alone or each single individual premise alone or the conclusion alone?

I am looking at the entire argument for SC. All you are doing is trying to complicate everything about Specified Complexity.

And the part that real everything down is you jumping to your conclusion that life cannot exist without Designer.

You need evidence for the existence of the Designer FIRST BEFORE you can conclude LIFE WAS DESIGNED and DESIGN IS CAUSED BY DESIGNER.

Your silly argument about Specified Complexity originally was directed towards the creation of life, and your design for life was caused by the Designer, where the Designer being either aliens or God, which existed before life on Earth.

And there where your whole argument for SC falls apart, the SC design (of life) was caused by Designer.

Again and again you want your silly argument to be considered “logical” and “falsifiable”, but you ignoring to address the problem of no evidence for the Designer.

You want the SC to be based on “inductive reasoning”, but there are no observations or evidence of the Designer, so your argument for SC being “inductive” is false.

You want the SC to be “falsifiable”, but being falsifiable require either positive evidence OR negative evidence TO BE FALSIFIABLE. But what you have, is complete lack of evidence for the Designer existing prior to life on Earth.

Do you remember these following points you have made about Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity?

Ok but I think those problems can be solved by simply reformulating the argument.

*In the context if this thread (origin of life) we dont need an omnipotent omnipresent etc God..... All we need is an inteligent designer Alien or God that predates life and that has the hability to create life.

Again, all I am saying is that the existence of a designer (Alien or God) that predates life in planet (capable of solving puzzles) is possible………….would you agree with this statement? Or would you affirm that the existence of such a being is impossible, (or very, very improbable)

If we go to another planet and find “solved puzzles” you would naturally conclude (or atleast consider the possibility) that an Alien solved the puzzles. You wouldn’t say something stupid like:

These are all your points, your personal views, and they are all your claims made without observations of the Designer and without evidence for the Designer.

Your argument was never inductive, and never falsifiable...because being inductive and falsifiable still require observations and evidence.

And btw, your 4th attribute is unfalsifiable too:

4 there is not a tendency in the natural laws towards producing that pattern.

You want to claim - “aliens did it” or “god did it” - but you believe nature cannot create patterns in life?

Where’s the evidence for your claim that life cannot occurred naturally without your imaginary Designer?

Oh, that question is merely rhetoric, because from experiences with chatting with you, I know it is futile to even ask for evidence from you, because all I get from you is evasive excuses. I don’t see your bad habits changing, nor do I expect you to acknowledge your mistakes and learning from them.

 

[gnostic]

You keep repeating, “no evidence” “circular reasoning” “not falsifiable” etc. but you don’t justify any of those accusations…..

But you are the one who is claiming that your SC/Designer argument being inductive and falsifiable, but in order that to be true, you would still need evidence and observations of the Designer.

You don’t understand the requirements needed for inductive reasoning or for “to be falsifiable”.

You are being incredibly ignorant to not understand what they mean before them in your argument.

If anyone hasn’t being justifying anything, it is you.

You cannot make extraordinary claims without justification...and without evidence.

All you are doing expecting everyone to accept your words, despite your words - your view being incorrect and your reasoning being flawed.

You have been saying that patterns in life cannot form through natural processes, patterns can only exist through the Designer. So where are your evidence for the Designer? And where are your evidence that patterns cannot occur in nature?

If you gonna answer me, trying avoiding using more of your silly analogies about design of computers or cars or books, etc, because they have nothing to do with first life.

 

[leroy]

T
You need evidence for the existence of the Designer FIRST BEFORE you can conclude LIFE WAS DESIGNED and DESIGN IS CAUSED BY DESIGNER.

That is a very silly requirement, science would collapse if it operates under that assumption,………. Imagine how stupid would astromomers sound if they say “first show me that dark matter exists” and only then you can propose dark matter as a candidate explanation for the additional gravity that is being detected.

You want to claim - “aliens did it” or “god did it” - but you believe nature cannot create patterns in life?

Where’s the evidence for your claim that life cannot occurred naturally without your imaginary Designer?

Perhaps we should start from the beginning………….
Based on your standards…….If the premises where probably true……..would you accept that the conclusion is also probably true? Would the truth of the premises count as evidence for the conclusion? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

That's a funny joke that you just made.

But seriously, I'm still waiting for you to address my points instead of avoiding them or repeat irrelevant things that has nothing to do with what I said.

If you are able to do that, then let's see it. If cannot, then your argument is debunked and back to the drawing board for you. So are you willing to address my points without repeating irrelevant things? I'm thinking no, since you been avoiding it this whole time.

And yes, I am going by your definition of SC. If you cannot defend premise 1, then there's no need to even address premise 2. Are you avoiding my point because you realized that once you do, that your argument falls apart? Just keep in mind that you're the one who said, if it's found, premise 1 is refuted but if you accept it, SC falls apart. So what's it going to be, let my objections refute your argument, you refute your own argument or try to address it without being fallacious?

Well exactly which point did I failed to address?..... the last time that I interacted with you I explained to you why a baby wouldn’t be SC (under my definition) showing that you fails to provide an example of SC that was not caused by a designer…… after that you simply ignored the comment and came back after several weeks…..


But anyway, exactly what point should I address?

Exactly what comment of mine was wrong? Ether quote it or apologize for your false accusation

 

[leroy]

So where are your evidence for the Designer? .

I am proposing the combination of premise 1 + premise 2 as evidence for the an intelligent designer that created life.

So what exactly is your objection.

1 Leroy is wrong because the premises are wrong, unsupported, fallacious unfalsifiable etc.

Or

2 Leroy is wrong, because even if the premises where true, that wouldn’t count as evidence for a designer.

Which of these two represent your objection?

 

[gnostic]

That is a very silly requirement, science would collapse if it operates under that assumption,………. Imagine how stupid would astromomers sound if they say “first show me that dark matter exists” and only then you can propose dark matter as a candidate explanation for the additional gravity that is being detected.

What does dark matter have to do with life or biological matters?

You are bringing up things that are irrelevant to this thread and to your argument about life being designed by this imaginary Designer.

Your ID/SC argument was originally about the Designer being either aliens or god that predated first life on Earth.

You wanted to make assumptions of imaginary being(s)...the Designer...was the cause of life origin.

But the problem with Specified Complexity (and Intelligent Design) is the Designer, which make your argument (the attributes, premise and conclusion for SC as a whole), not falsifiable, which means SC doesn’t even qualify as being hypothesis.

Falsifiability required some observations, which you don’t have.

In most Falsifiability example, books and articles, the authors often use the “all swans are white” example.

The problem here, is with the observer making generalization that all swans are white after only observing some white swans. This is he problem with induction, which is making generalized conclusion based on limited observations.

The generalization is found to be false, when black swans have been discovered.

Falsifiability required observations just as inductions do, but being falsifiable is a lot more than JUST inductive justification.

FALSIFIABILITY is about testing the assumptions by showing that assumptions, especially generalization assumptions, can be shown to be false.

But your SC assumptions required zero observations for the Designer, which in your case, the Designer predated all life on Earth.

Hence your solution is that SC was caused by Designer.

How do you observe such entities like this Designer of yours?

Your argument is even worse than the problem with induction. With zero observations of the Designer, your argument (for Design and for SC) is nothing more than unsubstantiated argument - a pseudoscience concept.

I have already addressed your illogical arguments for SC, and yet you keep wanting me address them again.

The problem is with science or with falsifiability, but with your circular argument and your tendencies to use false equivalence fallacy (meaning bringing up unrelated and irrelevant comparisons between life and man-made objects).

 

[gnostic]

I am proposing the combination of premise 1 + premise 2 as evidence for the an intelligent designer that created life.

So what exactly is your objection.

That just it, you have no evidence that Intelligent Designer created life, so your premises are not falsifiable.

Your premises are not evidence for anything. They are just your claims about something that you believe, they are your opinions.

Opinion doesn’t equal to evidence, leroy.

And as to your question, it is number 1, but it isn’t just your premise that is wrong, unfounded and unfalsifiable, it is your entire argument (especially attribute 4 and your conclusion).

Also unfounded and unfalsifiable is in your original claim that the Designer predated first life being aliens or god.