Posts by darkl1ght3r

14

Eveloution presupposes design

by Snotrag in

an intresting article comparing the two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/evolution-presupposes-des_b_537507.html.

the odds are just too long to have life by chance..

darkl1ght3r

However, most deals will still simply be random patterns of cards, and non-random patterns like 4 Aces, or a sequence like Jack, Queen, King, and Ace are vastly fewer in number compared to all the possible random combinations. And if a dealer dealt enough of them in a row, or even one that is lengthy enough by itself, then we would interpret this a sign of intelligent design, (similar to how SETI looks for such non-random patterns in radio-signals, to discern design).

Can you tell me what it is that would make 4 aces a non-random pattern? Or J Q K A, for that matter? Why are those any different than any other "random" set of 4 cards? Keep in mind what "random" means as it relates to statistics.

And no, "we" would not necesserily interpret that as a sign of intelligent design. It would be interpreted ONLY as a highly improbable event,the cause of which would still be in question unless we had good reason to attribute it to intelligence. The SETI example doesn't lend much help to the case, BTW. As SETI does not look for non-random, meaningful signals. They look for one thing: artificiality, which does not need to be a non-random pattern, complex, or meaningful. In fact, as far as they're concerned, the simpler the better. It's an accepted fact among scientists that "information", order, and complexity are not sufficient to point to non-natural causes. You should really look into what the good folks at SETI themselves think of the intelligent design proponents who hijack their science for psuedo-scientific goals.

bohm has sufficiently destroyed your second point. No need for me to re-hash. However I'll reiterate, you can't cite probabilities as support for your case when we have no way of determining what those probabilities are. Anyone who throws out "woowoo" big numbers in regards to the odds of life developing on it's own is just talking out of their ass.

ReMine shows that given even assuming the alleged evolutionary age of the earth, and generous assumptions on the number of trials available for such attempts, that such a non-random sequence will simply not occurr within even the lengthy hypothetical time frame.

No. That's complete bullsh!t. He can't show that at all. Remember, just because the odds of something occuring are, say, 1 in a million, that does not at all mean that it will take that many tries to see the event happen. There's nothing preventing that that occurence being the first in the series, or the tenth, or the 1,854th. You also disregard the innumerable number of trial runs that can all be running at the same time.

Oh, and just what is the "evolutionary age of the earth"? Evolution is dependant on an old earth, but not vise-versa. The age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The only place I could find that term in use is on fundamentalist anti-science websites.

14

Eveloution presupposes design

by Snotrag in

an intresting article comparing the two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/evolution-presupposes-des_b_537507.html.

the odds are just too long to have life by chance..

darkl1ght3r

You can't cite the argument from "long odds" after the fact. That's cheating. It's like shooting an arrow and then painting a bullseye around where it struck.

For example, what are the odds that all of your previous ancestors would happen to mate with all of your correct female ancestors, all at exactly the right time (since a different sperm or egg would have produced a different person), all through 100's of generations, all the way down to... you? Since those odds are so astronomical, your existence must have been specifically planned and designed, and the universe must be intended solely for you.

Silly isn't it?

The argument presupposes that rare events don't happen unless they are designed with intent. But of course, we know exceedingly rare events do happen all the time. Look at it this way... what are the odds that after thoroughly shuffling a deck of cards you deal out 4 aces from the top? Without getting in to the specific numbers, they're exactly the same as dealing out any other set of four cards. We think such an occurence is amazing because we imbue meaning into 4 aces. Yet, nature has no "prefrence" between a set of 4 aces, or a set of 8 of spades, 2 of clubs, king of clubs, and a 6 of diamonds. Both are equally "rare" so, given enough trial runs, we will end up with 4 aces off the top. Eventually.

I forget where I heard the saying but, "The only thing necessary to turn an improbability into an inevitability is time."

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

darkyl, I think that one of the problems with your position is that the Creationists/ theistic arguments are generally not as vague as you present them. At least not the ones in the writings by the prominent theorists.

THat is a very good point. Although I don't see how you say you've never seen a creationist argument phrased that way... the broad sweeping argumets are far more common in the fundamenalist type churches. And for proof of that, you need look no further than JW publications. Then agan, one thing you and I both know and can agree on is that the JWs don't exactly represent the pinnacle of Christian apologetics. BUt trust me, I still listen to Christian radio and have downloaded lots of sermons about evolution and "proof" of God's existence, and those arguments are pretty common. But you're right, I wouldn't expect Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer to make those kinds of statements.

The more intelligent apologetics are much more deliberate and reasoned in their argumentation than the the knee-jerk fundamentalists. However, based on the ones I've read they still skirt pretty close to ending up in the same place. For example, the argument from complexity, which is a cornerstone of the ID movement, argues that complex life could not evolve and bears indications of design. That still raises the question: is God not complex? If you say, "Well, thats complex biological life," then you've just arbitrarily defined God to be exempt from your argument, and you're back to the point where you must provide justification for how you are able to assert, let alone affirm, anything positive about God's nature. How do you know God isn't biological? How do you know he is"spiritual"? What is "spiritual"? Are spiritual things complex? Why is he a "he"? Why does God have a gender when gender is a biological trait? That kind if thing... (not saying you are making those claims, just using them as examples).

And even if all the "evidence" of design is proof of a designer, (I'll repeate wobble's question which went completely unanswered), why the quantum leap of logic to say that it must be a "God" that did it? You still can't be certain that it was a god, let alone your God.

You're in effect saying, 'If X is true, then God exists.'

What I'm saying is, 'Provided X is true, show me the link between X and God. Otherwise I could just as easily say that If X is true then Voltron exists.' Which would be really awesome, btw. :)

Voltron, FTW!

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

So Darkyl, I guess then if creationists make the argument that: "electronic DVD equipment requires a designer", then they can be legitimately charged with "special pleading" by atheists for not also including God in the same argument (even thought the theists don't even believe that God is "electronic DVD equipment" to begin with).

No no no no no.

Holy smokes dude. This isn't that hard. READ THIS PAGE and then re-read my last post.

Your analogy fails again because God is not electronic DVD equipment. Nowhere in the initial premise is such an equivocation made. The subject of the claim is unrelated to God. It is not special pleading because no sane person equates God with electronic DVD equipment. However lets go back and look at the subjects of the claims in question, and compare it with the one you just used:

"All things..." - Literally everything. Assuming God exists, this would include God. You must resort to special pleading to not include God.

"All effects..." - Nearly everything we know of. Assuming God exists, this could include God. If it does not, you need to provide evidence of how you know God is not an effect, i.e. an uncaused cause. If you cannot, you must resort to special pleading to not include God.

"All life..." - God is supposedly alive. Assuming God exists, this would include God. You must resort to special pleading to not include God.

"All electronic DVD equipment..." - God is not DVD equipment. You do not need to resort to special pleading to not include God.

Now, special pleading is not inherently wrong, IF you can provide a rational justification as to why the exclusion is being made. However if you cannot, then it becomes a logical fallacy.

And the atheists have no burden of proof whatsoever to back up their charge of special pleading, -such as to try to substantiate that God for rational reasons should also himself be included in the category of "electronic DVD equipment".

Are you through beating that strawman to death?

The only thing that atheists have to do to back up their charge of "special pleading" is to point to the fact that theists have not provided a rational explanation for whatever their special definition of God is, and why he is not a thing, effect, or life!!!

Logic... it's not that hard. Or, at least it shouldn't be.

21

Fear....they called

by 4mylove in

well, i'm being brave enough to type from home.. apperently when my husband went to eh memorial one of the brothers asked him for his number and he provided it.

we were having a peaceful evening when he listened to a voicemail.. i am physically getting ill, shaking, crying and hoping this is nothing.. caller said, "it showed alot of respect by you coming to the memorial...".

i feel my life is over..... 4.

darkl1ght3r

What the eff??? There's some cold people on this board!!!

Nah, your life isn't over, even though it may feel like it. Just remember to stay honest and true to yourself, unless of course if you need to bust out with some "theocratic warfare". Vent here for support. It WILL settle down in the long run. Take care.

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

hooberus:

Special pleading involves making an argument about items with specific characteristics [e.g., an "effect"], and then (without proper justification) exempting something with those same characteristics from that same argument. For example a person tries to exempt an "effect" simply because it is blue in colour.

Ok. I don't disagree with that definition. Special pleading = an insufficiently justified exclusion.

However it is not "special pleading" to point out that something not believed to have the specific characteristic/s [i.e. not an effect] need not be included in the same argument.

Agreed.

The problem with Darkl's response is that the "theistic argument" in the OP was not that "all things must have a cause", but instead more specifically that "all effects" must have a cause.

That's not a problem. It's semantics. I used them interchangebly as I've seen the argument phrased both ways from creationists. But I will grant you, they're not necessarily the same thing.

In order to demonstrate "special pleading" he needs to show that God himself would have to be be an "effect", and that he is therefore being unjustly excluded by the theist from a comprehensive argument specifically about effects, such as the one in the OP that "all effects require a cause".

Here is where you start to go wrong. I don't need to demonstrate anything about God. Nor could I (nor could anyone, for that matter). I am not making an assertion about God's nature. (Why would I attribute demonstrable"qualities" to a being that I don't believe exists?) The theists are the ones making the assertion that he is an "uncaused cause". The burden of proof rests on the theists to logically explain how he could posess such a quality, i.e. how they know he is uncaused. Otherwise, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It is the atheists here who charge that it is "special pleading" for theists to not also include God in specific written arguments about things like "effects" , etc. Hense they need to demonstrate that God should also logically be included under such categories [i.e., "an effect"] in order to substantiate their charge of special pleading.

Yes, I am making the charge of special pleading. But you are indeed shifting the burden of proof. See the stick-figure cartoon on the first page of this thread. You are asking the atheist to "prove you don't have a baseball" without providing evidence that you actually have a baseball.

If I make an argument specifically about Toyota Camrys and runaway acceleration caused by their throttle design, it is not necessarily special pleading to not include Hondas in the same argument, since Hondas do not share all of the characteristics of Toyotas. If you charge that it "special pleading" for me to not include Hondas in the same argument, then you need to demonstrate that Hondas necessarily have these same chracteristics (e.g. same throttle design), and should also be included. If you can't then you shouldn't charge special pleading.

Analogy: Fail. But let's work with it anyway. :)

The theistic argument I cited above (regardless of whether it be "effects" or "things"), was not about "Toyotas", it is along the lines of "all cars". The theistic argument is in effect saying, "All cars (not just Toyotas) are required to have 4 wheels, but not Hondas because Hondas are not cars."

That is a perfectly valid assertion if it can be demonstrated that there is a qualitative difference between a car and a Honda. If such a difference cannot be demonstrated, then it becomes special pleading because you are forced to come up with your own definition of what a "car" is, a definition that arbitrarily excludes Hondas.

Since you cannot demonstrate anything qualitative about God (or can you?), you are simply creating an arbitrary definition for God that happens to exclude him/her/it from "all things/effects".

It is not up to me to prove your definition of God incorrect. It is up to you to prove that your definition has merrit, whatever that may be. Otherwise, you are simply making an unjustifed exclusion.

The other theistic claim I cited presents an even more clear-cut case of special pleading: Life can only come from non-life.

Is God not... life? Please address this point in your response.

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

bohm:

Yeah, sorry I came off pissy. And that goes to DD and BTS as well. Despite the abrasive tone these conversations can take on sometimes, I love having them! But I'm a masochist for this type of thing...

And I believe you are right about the type of universe that DD and BTS are arguing for, but my mind does a loop-de-loop when I try to make sense of it. On the one hand you have our "universe" or possibly even a multiverse, and then you have another, completely different and completely seperate type of universe that is somehow 'above' the one that comprises our reality, a spiritual realm.

But... (and here's part of my problem with that concept), once that spiritual realm is confirmed to exist, and manifests in OUR reality, as supposedly it does if we owe our very existence to it, it then becomes part of the universe at large, i.e. "all that exists". That is also a good explanation of why I prefer the definition that I described above. If it exists and influences our reality, then we should be able to measure and quantify it somehow. If it (or it's effects) cannot be measured and quantified, how are we then supposed to be able to distinguish it from non-existence?

My other problem wit that concept is that it's completely useless to science. Science works by taking the complicated and breaking it down into the less-complicated, or explainable. If you are trying to explain something, and your explanation only adds a further, unnecesserily more complicated layer on top of the problem, then something has gone wrong in your explanation, and you've explained nothing. That is why positing a whole different plane of reality, one even beyond other multiverses, seems contrived, simply to accomodate the God factor.

It's the difference between saying "The paperboy delivers my paper every morning," and "It may look like the paperboy delivers my paper, but it's really little green men from mars in league with the Illuminati."

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

bohm - "That definition of 'universe' may be a poor one, but at least he provide one - if you follow these debates that is what i mostly ask people to do; provide proper definitions (see: cause, effect, regression, infinite, eternal, ...). I know it sound pedantic, but it is impossible to have a discussion when we dont know what each other mean."

Poor one? What the hell are you talking about? It's a perfectly acceptable and common definition of the word, especially in discussions such as this!!! From Wikipedia:

The Universe comprises everything we perceive to existphysically, the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy. The term Universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world, or Nature.

The word Universe is usually defined as encompassing everything. However, using an alternative definition, some cosmologists have speculated that the "Universe" composed of expanding space-as-we-know-it, is just one of many disconnected "universes", which are collectively called the multiverse [1] .

From Princeton WordNet:

Noun

S: (n) universe, existence, creation, world, cosmos, macrocosm (everything that exists anywhere) "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"

I specifically noted that that was the definition I was using. I am well aware that it can be confused with more colloquial definitions, which is why I asked that DD define what he meant, which he did not do, leaving me to guess at the intended meaning of some terms.

I suppose next we should clear up what is meant by "God".

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

The funny thing is, that not even all naturalists would agree with that assertion. String theorists believe there are an infinite number of universes, where anything is possible.

That is not an inherently naturalistic assertion, or a presupposition. It's a word definition. If something can be reasonably determined to exist, then it can be said to be part of the universe (all that exists). Guess what... those other "universes", if they exist and regardless of whether or not we're aware of them, are part of "our" universe. Isn't that a mind fuck? :)

That statement also proves Darkl1ght3r is not neutral as to the question of the existence of God or the supernatural, and explains why he won't except the idea that he starts with a presupposition about God.

In what way? Please, in your own words, lay out more clearly the presupposition you believe I am making. I'll freely admit, I'm making the presupposition that God, and any argument that makes a case for his existence, should make sense if I am to take it seriously. Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong.

87

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r in

how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.

step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.

all effects require a cause.

darkl1ght3r

DD:

That is your presupposition not mine or those who ascribe to string theory.

*Sigh* No. That is not a "presupposition". It's a fact based on the definition of the word, and it has absolutely nothing to do with string theory.

Don't you love it when they start talking down to us.

Sorry... I shouldn't have phrased it that way.

BTS:

Logic underpins what we deem as "Laws", not the other way around. First comes logic, and we use logic to come up with natural laws

That is so fractally wrong.

We do not "use" logic to "come up" with natural laws. Natural "laws" are based on one thing and one thing only: Observation. We call them "laws" because we have observed that nature will tend to behave in a consistant fashion. If logic underpinned our natural laws we would have to chuck quantum mechanics out the window. You seem to forget that a statement can be logically sound and still be incorrect. For example: "All dogs are grey. Mary has a dog. Mary's dog is grey." That syllogism is logically sound but factually incorrect due to the initial false premise.

Logic "works" only because nature behaves in a consistent and predictable fashion.

An infinite regression is illogical in and of itself because we end up with the problem of transgressing an infinite past. If everything that ever happened before today lacked a moment of time where T = 0 then an infinite past brings about the impossibility of ever getting to the present date.

Wrong again. There is nothing inherently illogical about an infinite regress. It is counter-intuitive because of our limited frame of refrence. There are two problems with that argument. First of all you're trying to impose an abstract philosophical and mathematical concept onto reality. Second of all, you assume that it would be impossible to to exist on any given point on an infinite timline. Yes, that IS an assumption, and is more than likely a false one.

Look at it this way... There is undeniably an infinite set of real numbers extending both directions, positive and negative, from zero. This is a basic mathematical concept. What you're saying is similar to stating that because that infinite set exists, then we can never count to 3. Yet: 1... 2... 3. Do you now see the problem with your argument?

And no, no special pleading here. If an uncaused cause did not begin to exist (i.e. is eternal) then it doesn't need a cause; and exactly the same applies for the Universe. If the Universe is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause either. This is why the argument is actually not special pleading for "God", because this reasoning has been used by many atheists for the natural Universe itself.

Ok, you are actually partially right on this one. One may apply the argument to God or to the universe. However, there's one HUGE difference between God and the universe: We know the universe exists. You're making an equivocation fallacy. Simply because the atheistic argument involves a similar facet, doesn't mean the theistic application is not special pleading. It is special pleading only in the theistic argument because "all things must have a cause" is NOT a necessary premise in the atheistic argument. You've created a "law" and then defined your God to be immune to that law. That is the definition of special pleading.

In the real world, they [infinities] do not exist.

You're making quite a claim here. Prove it. :) You are assuming that an infinite regress is an actual problem. It's only a "problem" because we can't comprehend it.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when all other possibilities have been exhausted, that which remains must be true.

I've never liked that saying. It just doesn't work well in the real world. Yes it sounds good, but it also assumes that you are aware of all possibilities. Such is rarely, if ever, the case. Particularly in subjects as complicated as this.

If the Universe is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause either.

It clearly can't be, because it is a series of causal events. See Kant's quote above.

Kant is a philosopher. Simply because he says it cannot be so, does not make it not so. He was citing his opinion, not a fact. Other philosophers might (and do) disagree with him. The very paper you link to as proof that it "can't be" says in the very first paragraph that the issue is "anything but settled". However, I would not be justified in citing the opposing opinion and declaring that "it clearly CAN be." Bottom line: We don't know.

Even if I accepted the premise that infinities are impossible, consistency and the rules of logic demand you apply the same reasoning to God. Otherwise it's simply special pleading.

So far, you are only proving the point I made in my original post.