I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 09:06 PM
I need you to attack this argument
Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
I would think that "randomly" needs to be defined in order for the argument to be solid.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:15 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
It's called irreducible complexity IIRC. Creationist used to claim that the eye 'was too complex to develop naturally' and they have since been disproved time and time again...because the eye has actually evolved independently multiple times.

Anyway it's BS, who determines what is and isn't possible? We used to think a lot of things where impossible...like beaming images and sound through the air, or putting men on the moon....Incredible shit happens in this universe every day.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ridethespiral's post
05-08-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:10 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I would think that "randomly" needs to be defined in order for the argument to be solid.

How so? ie Does it need to be specified to be contained by the natural laws of physics? Or does it need to be specified to be anything not caused by a deliberate, intelligent force? I'd also like to add that there's no spacial or temporal restrictions on this argument. So even if it has a nearly infinitesimally small chance of happening, given infinite time it would. Thus, it must be truly impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
This argument is much too vague and purely hypothetical. Fact of the matter is, all those factors did not come about randomly. They all have a reason for coming about... we just haven't discovered all of those reasons.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Is the argument being used strictly in terms of abiogenesis, or for the overall rising of life on earth? (I'm assuming it would obviously include abiogenesis, but is it specifically referring just to the likelihood of life starting from non-life?)

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:40 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2013 10:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
There has been no "single factor" (ever) identified, which IS "impossible".
Highly improbably events happen all the time.
Your jump to your (only) cause is not demonstrated, either in Logic, or with any other reason. You need YOUR cause to be THE cause. You think stating something makes it true.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m-Debunked
Scroll down to #9 for many resources related to this topic.

As far as "life" goes, a number of Evolutionary Biologists have demonstrated that there is no step in the process in which life may have begun, (or could begin) that is "impossible".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

Highly improbably events happen all the time.
The original radio program, which addressed the question of improbable events seems to be unavailable, but this discussion shows how highly improbable events require no intervention, or "designer".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ndent-dice

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:33 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Is the argument being used strictly in terms of abiogenesis, or for the overall rising of life on earth? (I'm assuming it would obviously include abiogenesis, but is it specifically referring just to the likelihood of life starting from non-life?)

This is for abiogenesis as well as life getting to it's current state from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There has been no "single factor" (ever) identified, which IS "impossible".
Highly improbably events happen all the time.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m-Debunked
Scroll down to #9 for many resources related to this topic.

As far as "life" goes, a number of Evolutionary Biologists have demonstrated that there is no step in the process in which life may have begun, (or could begin) that is "impossible".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

Highly improbably events happen all the time.
The original radio program, which addressed the question of improbable events seems to be unavailable, but this discussion shows how highly improbable events require no intervention, or "designer".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ndent-dice

Like I said, this is about the argument itself, not whether or not such a factor does indeed exist. I posted that as part of my first post in anticipation of your very response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

This is a false dilemma -- there's no reason to expect that life either comes about randomly or as the product of an eternal, intelligent force. One could guess at any number of alternatives, such as it being the product of an extraterrestrial intelligent force (such as a distant lifeform) or a side effect to something else's creation (such as a "machine" that creates chemical combinations).

But there's also something to be said about randomness within the context of "the law of large numbers". If I draw a card from a deck of cards with the expectations of getting the Ace of Spades, it'll usually be disappointing but on average will give me results 1 out of 52 times. If I try to draw it 3 times in a row, it'll happen many fewer times but is still going to happen eventually if I try enough times. It will happen randomly, but given the number of draws it will also be an eventuality. If life can exist as a physical structure made up of pre-existing chemicals (and it obviously can because it does exist), then this structure not only can occur if the chemicals are mixed enough times but will occur eventually. When talking about the most primitive form of life (a self-replicating peptide), the chances of it occuring are very small but it can happen within any square inch of the ocean that not only contains those chemicals but is mixing them through motion (which would be practically every square inch of the oceans). And given enough time (like, say, over a billion years?) it's bound to happen eventually.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: