I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 11:19 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 09:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

No it doesn't. (Obviously "always"existing REQUIRES space-time). A god that REQUIRES (concurrent) time, is not the creator of Reality, (if a dimension in reality is required for it's existence).
Sorry. Obviously you've never taken either Philosophy or Theology. Any freshman, in either subject knows that "always" is a temporal concept.
It means "timeless".

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, 11:21 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:33 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(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

Wrong. I never said that. Someone else did.

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, 11:25 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 09:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 11:14 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 10:47 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  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.

Time also does not exist apart from space. Spacetime was proven by Einstein's Relativity to be a continuum. Both would have to be "creatures" of a god, if the god created Reality. This theist cannot define "existence" without invoking spacetime, OR Special Pleading. No one ever has. He also cannot use/find any descriptor(s) of his god(s) which do not require spacetime.

A god who "always" existed, requires the concurrent existence of time, along with itself, or the statement is meaningless. A god who requires ANYTHING is no god.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2013, 11:54 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 10:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Well, of course I agree... in that I see no evidence for anything unnatural.

Also, that things currently considered unnatural are simply things of which we don't currently have an explanation but when we do they will be included in the set of 'natural'... which is where, as you say, the 'ignorance' bit comes in.

But the argument here, in itself, is not an argument from ignorance.

It is a circular argument (i.e. if there is something unnatural then it is ... unnatural) and therefore pointless.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2013, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2013 02:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 11:54 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 10:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Well, of course I agree... in that I see no evidence for anything unnatural.

Also, that things currently considered unnatural are simply things of which we don't currently have an explanation but when we do they will be included in the set of 'natural'... which is where, as you say, the 'ignorance' bit comes in.

But the argument here, in itself, is not an argument from ignorance.

It is a circular argument (i.e. if there is something unnatural then it is ... unnatural) and therefore pointless.

Wink

Yes, but that's not all he's doing. He's limiting the possibilities to two options.
Without any proof or explanation, he attempts to limit the conclusion to two only, in order to "force out" (*engineer*) either for himself, and his own "comfort", or for preaching purposes, the conclusion he wants (needs) to make appear to be logical, and limited to only HIS two possibilities. His premise is false. And he has not demonstrated that his two possibilities are the only two. The reason he does that, is that he is ignorant of (all ) other possibilities. Since he KNOWS of no others, he offers only two. That is also an argument from ignorance, (god of the gaps).
"A false dichotomy, that excludes a third option".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This thread was made as a disingenuous trap. Two, and only two positions were outlined, and allowed. It was not made as an open discussion. This Christian, (as most of the members the 33,000 sects of that cult generally think), THEY alone have the truth. They need adherents to join, so their cognitive dissonances are shared, and they can think the more that share, the more reasonable it will seem to be. Safety in numbers.

None of the arguments here have been seriously addressed.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 11:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. I never said that. Someone else did.

Then don't butt in with a comment like that going against a contextual argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 10:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(07-08-2013 08:49 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 11:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. I never said that. Someone else did.

Then don't butt in with a comment like that going against a contextual argument.





"Butt in" ? This is a public board. Sorry if you can't keep up with what you started. It's not a place for uneducated Christians, who think they have something "special", (yawn, just like all the others), with their unexamined, fallacious assumptions, which they obviously don't have the background to support, to preach and use the same old, same old, hackneyed ancient "proofs" that we've all heard a million times. The least you could do , is cook up something new.

That's it ? That's all ya got ? You haven't even attempted to support your nonsense OP.

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
07-08-2013, 10:28 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?

To return to this OP:
Modern life is extremely complex and could not have emerged through random chemical reactions alone. It has come about from simpler origins through a process of evolution by natural selection. When we are talking about pure randomness we are asking the question:
"Could random chemical reactions have resulted in an arrangement of molecules such that the molecules were able to start the process of evolution?" Or more specifically: "Can random chemical reactions cause molecules to self-arrange into a form that self-replicates with a high degree of (but not perfect) information fidelity?".

Once that threshold is reached natural selection can do its work of injecting survival information into the genome by favouring the replication of genomes that survive over genomes that do not survive.

So your argument would have to be this:
"There is no self-replicating set of molecules that can come into existence by random chemical reactions anywhere within the universe such that the molecules could end up on earth."

That's a harder proposition to solve as you're proving a negative, and even our region of space is a diverse and complex place. Moreover, scientists have been putting together prototypes of some or all of the steps that would be required for randomly-constructed self-replicating molecular structures. They're not there yet, but if they produce one example of a randomly constructed set of molecules that undergoes evolution your argument is falsified.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 12:10 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument



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
08-08-2013, 06:26 AM
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?

What do you mean 'randomly'?

The first self-replicating molecules would have come about due to the laws of physics and chemistry. Once replication has begun, all else follows.

I suggest you don't have a clear concept of 'random'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: