On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[Autodidact]

There's Auto, missing the point again. =(

Please explain it to me then.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect.

Surely you DON'T feel that merely saying something makes it true, do you?

If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?

When was the last time YOU perceived an individual atom? How about an electron? Can you perceive that? Hmnnnn... I guess your perception is flawed.

 

[Sententia]

Surely you DON'T feel that merely saying something makes it true, do you?

Then why believe in god or creation?

When was the last time YOU perceived an individual atom? How about an electron? Can you perceive that? Hmnnnn... I guess your perception is flawed.

You can though actually percieve those examples and the effect of those examples so simply not having had the opportunity yourself you are implying perception to be flawwed?

Are you seriously questioning whether or not atoms and electrons exist?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Then why believe in god or creation?

Why not? It's true!

You can though actually percieve those examples and the effect of those examples so simply not having had the opportunity yourself you are implying perception to be flawwed?

Amazing, then they didn't exist during Plato's time then? They CERTAINLY did not perceive them then.

Are you seriously questioning whether or not atoms and electrons exist?

Red herrings such as this only detract from understanding. Please avoid them whenever possible. Thanks

 

[Sententia]

Why not? It's true!

LOL. Prove it and write nature/SA etc and shut the atheist masses up already. If you could prove this all along why not come forward? Why hide the truth?

Amazing, then they didn't exist during Plato's time then? They CERTAINLY did not perceive them then.

Ahh you were accusing auto though... and I was unaware she was born in the time of plato...

I know you have a valid point but try and make it.

Red herrings such as this only detract from understanding. Please avoid them whenever possible. Thanks

Oh... I was just asking you to clarify your argument... My fault dude. I didn't realize you were just being funny.

 

[kmkemp]

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect. When we say, no effect, we mean, the same as random chance. They are synonymous. So if God is invisible, and cannot be perceived with any sense, and only creates effects that equal random chance, then by definition, that is the same thing as not existing. You have now defined God as a non-existent being, which is to say, you have asserted that God does not exist.

If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?

You're simply putting God in a box and then showing that your God doesn't exist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

LOL. Prove it

I have seen God. Prove me wrong.

Ahh you were accusing auto though... and I was unaware she was born in the time of plato...

You are great at missing points. Work on your aim.

I know you have a valid point but try and make it.

It's not my fault if you can't follow along.

Oh... I was just asking you to clarify your argument... My fault dude. I didn't realize you were just being funny.

Your sarcasm, is yet another red herring.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect.

I'd be interested in the mathematics that 'proves' or otherwise supports the contention that the advent of life or sentience or sapience is "an effect that does not deviate from random chance."

 

[Sententia]

I have seen God. Prove me wrong.

I do not feel so inclined. Technically you must validate your own claim to others... It doesn't work the other way around.

IE... if I write Nature and say hey I have discovered an alien signal that only I can hear accompanied by such a challenge to prove me wrong. Heh. I think they might get a good laugh. However they not responding to me proves what? That they can't disprove me so I must be right?

Could I then tour the country and say when I provided nature the challenge to prove me wrong they declined to answer. (Misrepresenting without lying.)

Why prove you wrong? If you are happy to believe such, and it seems that you are, and your not harming anyone... why prove you wrong?

Surely you DON'T feel that merely stating something that cant be disproven means it must be true, do you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Surely you DON'T feel that merely stating something that cant be disproven means it must be true, do you?

You would do well to keep that question in mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Programs are written to create "random chance". That's by design and it's quite difficult to do.

No computer program creates "random chance". Some "random number" generator programs are actually pseudo-random number generators - they don't produce numbers that are actually random, but their distribution matches random distribution well enough for whatever purpose they were designed for. Other random number "generator" programs don't actually generate the random numbers themselves; they harness an actual random phenomenon (e.g. thousandths of a second between keystokes on a keyboard) and then apply factors to that random number to get the range right.

You are under the mistaken impression that God should feel the need to prove himself. He did, and we call those instances "miracles". It's a small wonder you won't accept those either.

Could you give an example of a miracle that she, I, or some other random person should have noticed and accepted, but apparently overlooked or rejected?

I'd be interested in the mathematics that 'proves' or otherwise supports the contention that the advent of life or sentience or sapience is "an effect that does not deviate from random chance."

Deviation from random chance is usually determined by the Z-test or Student's t-test, depending on the characteristics of the sample. However, with a sample size of one, the standard deviation is zero, which makes all the equations for either test blow up with divide-by-zeros all over the place.

I'm getting a bit out of my depth here, but I suspect that when you get down to the emergence of individual genetic traits, it might be possible to come up with either a statistical analysis of actual evolutionary data or a verifiable computer model (assuming an adequately thorough of the mechanisms of random mutation) that could be used to generate the distribution of data points you need. I doubt that this approach could be directly applied to something as complex as bipedalism, though.

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect. When we say, no effect, we mean, the same as random chance. They are synonymous. So if God is invisible, and cannot be perceived with any sense, and only creates effects that equal random chance, then by definition, that is the same thing as not existing. You have now defined God as a non-existent being, which is to say, you have asserted that God does not exist.

I disagree. I don't think that ineffective is the same as non-existant. The mere fact that some factor does not have a statistically significant effect on some outcome does not mean that the factor does not exist. For instance, I have had no significant effect on the 2008 Tour de France, the current world price of oil, the world's population growth rate, or most other quantifiable measures that anyone might care to make. However, I do exist.

If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?

It can be said that it's not necessary for the thing to exist. Whether it actually exists or not requires more information.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect.

I'd be interested in the mathematics that 'proves' or otherwise supports the contention that the advent of life or sentience or sapience is "an effect that does not deviate from random chance."

Deviation from random chance is usually determined by the Z-test or Student's t-test, depending on the characteristics of the sample. However, with a sample size of one, ...

At issue is whether the appeal to "random chance" serves as the godless equivalent to the God-of-the-gaps.

 

[Autodidact]

Surely you DON'T feel that merely saying something makes it true, do you?

You disagree with this definition ?!? You include "no deviation from random" as "an actual effect?" Isn't lack of deviation from random the very definition of a lack of an effect?

When was the last time YOU perceived an individual atom? How about an electron? Can you perceive that? Hmnnnn... I guess your perception is flawed.

Of course it is, so is all of ours. But the point is that an atom is not DEFINED as something that cannot be perceived. In fact, we now have the ability to perceive the effect of a single atom, even a single electron.

Are you saying that God has an effect, but that so far we just happen to lack the ability to detect it? I thought (the thread) was saying that God's effect = random chance, by definition. If so, then God's effect is defined as random chance, and to put it simply, why not just call God random chance?

 

[Autodidact]

You're simply putting God in a box and then showing that your God doesn't exist.

Well if you can't define it, how can you talk about it? Jayhawker says that God = no different from random. Yell at him if you don't like it.

 

[Autodidact]

I have seen God. Prove me wrong.

Really? Can you show me? btw, I've seen the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Prove me wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At issue is whether the appeal to "random chance" serves as the godless equivalent to the God-of-the-gaps.

I don't think it does. Do you?

 

[painted wolf]

IMHO... I think it depends on the atheist... just as it depends on the theist.

Some hold random chance to be as much a 'proof' against god as others hold gaps in scientific knowledge as 'proof' for god.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I'd be interested in the mathematics that 'proves' or otherwise supports the contention that the advent of life or sentience or sapience is "an effect that does not deviate from random chance."

Did you have to dig up those goalposts to move them? Your thread is about random mutations and their role in evolution, not abiogenesis. If you want to argue that abiogenesis proves the existence of God, start a thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well if you can't define it, how can you talk about it? Jayhawker says that God = no different from random. Yell at him if you don't like it.

Just don't yell at me for Autodidact's confusion/distortion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you have to dig up those goalposts to move them? Your thread is about random mutations and their role in evolution, not abiogenesis. If you want to argue that abiogenesis proves the existence of God, start a thread.

Actually, my thread is about emergence. Thanks for playing.