I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2013, 06:39 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.

No, it would necessitate further study and understanding. There is nothing to indicate that these randomized events would have come about a different way - that is unless you have managed to compile evidence showing that there are numerous outcomes to numerous universes. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 12:25 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:  

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

That wasn't Bucky's quote, it was mine. And it's true... if your definition of random is "not driven by an intelligent force", then proving something isn't random proves logically that it is "driven by an intelligent force". But the reason I called the argument "equivocating" is because it seeks to attack a certain definition of random (made or done without conscious decision) and then substitutes this meaning that you've suggested (made or done unintelligently).

If I roll a 6-sided die, the outcome will be random. That doesn't mean that I'm not an intelligent agent, nor does it suggest that the die "came from nothing". Nonetheless, the outcome of a die roll will be random despite being the product of intelligence.

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
08-08-2013, 12:40 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 isn't an argument. This is shifting the burden of proof. The take home bit is that you can't prove a negative, so the premise is false.

Also, random =/= the way the universe works

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 03:12 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 03:59 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
The argument is an exercise in futility. Since every step in the process in which hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecules and phospholipids naturally arrange themselves, without any intervention, into proto-cellular structures, and continue to go on to form mechanisms that form self-replicating cells, the false assumption is that there *is* a factor has been proven false, in multiple labs, (including Dr. Jack Szostak at Harvard .. see the prior link), even stating the "argument" in the first place is pointless.

If there is no such "factor", then even stating this argument is a complete waste of time.

All events can have a probability assigned to them. From 1.0, to very small probability numbers. There is no such thing as "random". Every event has a specific probability. Even if the event has a low probability, it's irrelevant. Highly improbable events happen all the time, with no "intervention". If there was a "supernatural" intervention, it would have been the LAST possible explanation one would entertain, as it would be the absolute least probable, not the most probable. It would go to the end of the line, and sit there, until ALL other possible explanations had been ruled out.

The attempted (trap/engineered) rhetorical "trick" in this thread is to present a series of false assumptions, false premises, and only one of many possible conclusions. The thread was "designed" for a perfectly obvious reason. That's about all that's "designed" here.

The response is : "Nice try, Try harder next time".

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, 04:24 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?
I'd also say no for the reason that this is a cart before the horse question. Or at least the phrasing of it.
The implication here is that these factors came together for the purpose of sustaining life, when it's actual just that life is the result of these factors.
If the factors were different, maybe life as we know it would be different, or maybe non-existent. But so what?

These particular factors are only "good" relative to the fact that they allowed us to be here and ask these question. But there's nothing inherently good in these factors in and of themselves.
In fact, these factors would be considered "bad" to another life form that sprung up under a different set of factors than the ones the universe has now, since our factors might have prohibited that life form from every developing.

[Image: ae1n9c.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 03:38 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?

Hi,

If anybody say evolution is a random process, then that person has not understood the concept of evolution. Genetic mutations are random, yes, but the selection of beneficial traits, which is the essence of evolution, is not.

Also, this argument does not include the time factor. In fact, it seems to me that a very short perior of time is implied here. However, it took alone 60 million years for our ape ancestors to evolve to the modern homo sapiens. I don't want to go into detail, why it took so long and how it is in agreement with the model.

In summary, this argument is based on obviously wrong assumptions. And a simple answer to that argument is "no".

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 03:49 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
The OP is typical ID propaganda.
And even if it was a valid. Aliens would be just as probable if not more so.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 04:49 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(26-10-2013 03:38 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
(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?

Hi,

If anybody say evolution is a random process, then that person has not understood the concept of evolution. Genetic mutations are random, yes, but the selection of beneficial traits, which is the essence of evolution, is not.

Also, this argument does not include the time factor. In fact, it seems to me that a very short perior of time is implied here. However, it took alone 60 million years for our ape ancestors to evolve to the modern homo sapiens. I don't want to go into detail, why it took so long and how it is in agreement with the model.

In summary, this argument is based on obviously wrong assumptions. And a simple answer to that argument is "no".

60 million years? Consider

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
26-10-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(08-08-2013 12:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  


I think the fallacy is well explained here.
These are not atheists though, but pastafarians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(08-08-2013 06:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(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.

No, it would necessitate further study and understanding. There is nothing to indicate that these randomized events would have come about a different way - that is unless you have managed to compile evidence showing that there are numerous outcomes to numerous universes. Drinking Beverage
I think this is the main reason why this argument is fallacious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: