I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 09:46 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:20 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  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.

As stated in a recent post I made, "random" here has been defined as anything that's not driven by an intelligent force. Thus your "reasons" would fall under this definition of "random".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2013 10:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:44 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(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.

No, there is no "factor" but the two questions cannot be separated.
Even IF one could come up with "a factor" (and no one has), the argument is still invalid, by Probability. See the links.

And lastly, the HUGE jump to "eternal intelligent" cause is but one of many explanations possible, and actually it's THE LAST possible explanation one would entertain, and just the result of a (cultural learning process .. "indoctrination") ..bad habit" of jumping to that conclusion. A omnipotent god who makes smart machines almost as smart as she is, who are endowed with the ability to make smart children who are endowed with the power to make universes if they shit their pants on the Tuesday before, could have made the universe.

Your definition of "random" is false. Have you ever taken a course in Probability, Chaos Theory, or Statistics ? Apparently not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
It's a fucking stooopid argument.

Its mother was a hamster and its father smelled of elderberries.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
05-08-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:46 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 09:20 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  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.

As stated in a recent post I made, "random" here has been defined as anything that's not driven by an intelligent force. Thus your "reasons" would fall under this definition of "random".

But that's not what random means. If that's your definition of random, then obviously if you could prove that life isn't "random" then you've proven that it's "driven by an intelligent force". But equivocating words like "random" makes the argument fallacious.

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
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
05-08-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:44 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  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.

Let's say the idea of a non-eternal intelligent force such as extra-terrestrials or robots falls into the category of "life" here. If they're non-eternal, then they also had a starting point, so if they then become our "god" or "creator", then as you guys always say, "Who created god?"

I did touch on the law of large numbers in another post. If it has a very small chance of happening, it will given infinite time. That's why for this argument, it has to be something truly impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:50 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  But that's not what random means. If that's your definition of random, then obviously if you could prove that life isn't "random" then you've proven that it's "driven by an intelligent force". But equivocating words like "random" makes the argument fallacious.

Ok, so rephrased a bit it's 100% solid. That's the feedback I was looking for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlackEyedGhost's post
05-08-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:42 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(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.

As for how life got to it's current state, I believe that the theory has been well established as not only plausible, but probable.

Abiogenesis is a bit trickier, because there is no way to knowingly replicate the exact conditions that it would have occurred in. However, plenty of plausible theories and experiments have been done to show that it is indeed possible.

My problem with this statement is that it attempts to lead the reader into an argument of incredulity. It's a not so clever attempt to move the goalposts and shift the burden of proof. I suppose if any of the factors were proven impossible to have happened, the argument would have a leg to stand on. But none have, so it doesn't.

"Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist"

Well, given the incredible number of factors that happen in the entire fucking universe every second, both known and even more yet unknown to us, I'd say that the chance of life arising is pretty damn good. Especially given the "goldilocks" conditions that the earth happens to have arrived at.

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
"Eternal" beings, cannot "do" anything. It's an oxymoron as "beings" cannot be "alive" and NOT "change". Change refutes "eternal", (and requires spacetime).
Creation refutes "eternal", as it "marks" a point" from "eternal past to "eternal future". It's meaningless.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2013 10:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:58 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 09:50 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  But that's not what random means. If that's your definition of random, then obviously if you could prove that life isn't "random" then you've proven that it's "driven by an intelligent force". But equivocating words like "random" makes the argument fallacious.

Ok, so rephrased a bit it's 100% solid. That's the feedback I was looking for.

Wrong. It's 100 % crap. Even if you could prove it wasn't "random", you've jumped to a "cause" which has no justification, among the many possibilities. Your premise is false, and your conclusion is not necessarily (and totally not proven), the ONLY possible cause.

I see from your profile, you think Jebus was one of the many sons that the Hebrew war god, (the god of the armies/lord of hosts) had.
Apparently what you "needed" was to tell yourself you still had enough reasons to maintain all the cognitive dissonances that believers need to dismiss, to maintain their delusions.

It would be really nice if just for once, a religionist would actually know something about science, math, probability, (or even the Bible for that matter).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:15 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Considering given circumstances and necessary components of what we call life, you are only dealing with probabilities, not possibility. Obviously it's possible, as what we know to be building blocks of life are present everywhere, and as already pointed out, given enough time they WILL produce the right combination.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: