I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 10:17 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Two sticking points, for me...

"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."

I'm not sure I can agree with the first assumption.
The Game of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life indicates that all we need to know are the original simple(?) physical laws and the original state (if there was one) and all is explained.

The processes that take us through the continuum ...
Physics ---> Chemistry ---> Biology ---> Gwynneth Paltrow
are not random.

'Life' itself is a human-constructed model.

But if the argument is "If any one factor relating to the rules of the 'game' or the original state can be proved to be unnatural, then it would necessitate the existence of an unnatural force."

Then, I would agree.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-08-2013, 10:24 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Two sticking points, for me...

"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."

I'm not sure I can agree with the first assumption.
The Game of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life indicates that all we need to know are the original simple(?) physical laws and the original state (if there was one) and all is explained.

The processes that take us through the continuum ...
Physics ---> Chemistry ---> Biology ---> Gwynneth Paltrow
are not random.

'Life' itself is a human-constructed model.

But if the argument is "If any one factor relating to the rules of the 'game' or the original state can be proved to be unnatural, then it would necessitate the existence of an unnatural force."

Then, I would agree.

Yes

There is no "factor" that's impossible. It's been demonstrated in the lab.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/0...ists-on-t/

It's an argument from ignorance. It's a conclusion jumped to, because someone lacks sufficient creativity to cook up any other explanations.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:59 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  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.

Thanks for the feedback. This was quite helpful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:30 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "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.

"Eternal" here doesn't mean unchanging or outside of time. It means always existing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:33 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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).

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" - You
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:39 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:15 PM)Anudist Wrote:  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.

Obviously they all exist and are thus "possible". The idea is whether or not they could possibly have reached the point they're at without an intelligent driving force. I see your argument though. It is extremely difficult to prove something impossible without knowledge of what happens given infinite time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:41 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:30 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 10:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "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.

"Eternal" here doesn't mean unchanging or outside of time. It means always existing.

Um....

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:44 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Two sticking points, for me...

"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."

I'm not sure I can agree with the first assumption.
The Game of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life indicates that all we need to know are the original simple(?) physical laws and the original state (if there was one) and all is explained.

The processes that take us through the continuum ...
Physics ---> Chemistry ---> Biology ---> Gwynneth Paltrow
are not random.

'Life' itself is a human-constructed model.

But if the argument is "If any one factor relating to the rules of the 'game' or the original state can be proved to be unnatural, then it would necessitate the existence of an unnatural force."

Then, I would agree.

Yes

Hmm.... Very good feedback. I've responded to some of these points such as the meaning of "random" in this argument and don't feel like repeating myself. But you seem to have hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:41 PM)Anudist Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 10:30 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  "Eternal" here doesn't mean unchanging or outside of time. It means always existing.

Um....

I realize the two are very similar. The difference being that always existing within time means you can affect events within, whereas being outside of time, you can't operate within time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:47 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 10:41 PM)Anudist Wrote:  Um....

I realize the two are very similar. The difference being that always existing within time means you can affect events within, whereas being outside of time, you can't operate within time.

Time as the concept that we know it as exists solely within this universe. Eternal would therefore have to mean "outside of time". Your statement is contradictory.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: