Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 08:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 08:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, that's what predetermined means.

Ok.

Quote:That eyes evolved multiple times on earth merely demonstrates that they can be very advantageous.

So something being very advantageous increases the likelihood of it occurring multiple times? But isn't our level of intelligence also very advantageous? Wouldn't pretty much every species benefit from having it? Yet this hasn't led to it evolving numerous times.

our intelligence is greatly exaggerated

when humans first invented writing we began to record information which people applied in their daily lives, as we kept recording we eventually reach a point where there was more information available than a single person could use which resulted in people specializing in applying specific information in their daily lives over others

writing is merely recording language on to a medium (stone, paper etc), and language is simply agreeing to use certain arbitrary grouping of syllables/sounds/symbols to denote things, concepts etc

if you take away all the information we have stored over the centuries then humans don't appear as intelligent as you think
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 10:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have to take into account the probability of something occurring. Just because something is advantageous doesn't increase the probability of it occurring, just the probability that it will persist once it has.

So what increases the likelihood of eyes occurring independently in over 40 different species, as opposed to just being one-off, If it's not particularly eyes being advantageous?

What does the last clause (If it's not particularly eyes being advantageous) mean?

The evolution of the eye from a single light-sensitive cell to something more complex is well-explained. Light sensitivity is common in plants and animals.

[Image: evolutionoftheeye.jpg?width=600&height=283]


And there isn't "the eye" as there are several different types of eye.

[Image: eyecomparisonchart.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 04:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you find that our our sense of awareness, and reasoning and creative abilities being a product of an improbable series of events, a fluke occurrence, extremely unlikely to occur again, to be a hard pill to swallow. That's your problem. Clearly other atheists, and an actual scientist, like Jerry Coyne, doesn't have a problem acknowledging that.

Okay, if that's the argument you're siding with here then forgive me for reading more into it than you intended. Angel

However there are many cosmologists who would argue that given the incredible immensity of our known universe, the chances are actually rather high that intelligence like ours exists elsewhere. So the improbable becomes probable given the fact that we know that we exist. If that makes sense.

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
20-05-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 12:46 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  However there are many cosmologists who would argue that given the incredible immensity of our known universe, the chances are actually rather high that intelligence like ours exists elsewhere. So the improbable becomes probable given the fact that we know that we exist. If that makes sense.

I'm not sure what factors these cosmologists are considering, they might from my guess side with Ken Miller and Karl Giberson, that high intelligence was inevitable, rather than with Coyne who sees it as one-off. Or whether these cosmologists even acknowledge that even if there was life on another planet, given as many years of development as our planet, they likelihood of this life being as intelligent as us, is even slimmer. I'm not particularly sure as to how versed they are in the biological dimensions here.

On our planet, only one species developed this level of intelligence, so whatever ecological niche it sprung from, must have been so rare, that only we have ever sprung from it, unlike eyes and wings, and variety of other convergent factors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 01:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 12:46 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  However there are many cosmologists who would argue that given the incredible immensity of our known universe, the chances are actually rather high that intelligence like ours exists elsewhere. So the improbable becomes probable given the fact that we know that we exist. If that makes sense.

I'm not sure what factors these cosmologists are considering, they might from my guess side with Ken Miller and Karl Giberson, that high intelligence was inevitable, rather than with Coyne who sees it as one-off. Or whether these cosmologists even acknowledge that even if there was life on another planet, given as many years of development as our planet, they likelihood of this life being as intelligent as us, is even slimmer. I'm not particularly sure as to how versed they are in the biological dimensions here.

On our planet, only one species developed this level of intelligence, so whatever ecological niche it sprung from, must have been so rare, that only we have ever sprung from it, unlike eyes and wings, and variety of other convergent factors.

I wouldn't think they generally side with them in way of their convictions at all. I mentioned it before but do you have any knowledge of the inter workings of the ideas behind the Drake Equation? It's preciously the quandary brought up to question what could be out there.

It's also intentionally taking into account the improbability factors. It's just that, even with things being immensely improbable, there still is a good chance of them happening because how vast the universe is, with over as many stars as grands of sand on this single planet that has formed 1, what we deem intelligence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
20-05-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 01:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I wouldn't think they generally side with them in way of their convictions at all. I mentioned it before but do you have any knowledge of the inter workings of the ideas behind the Drake Equation? It's preciously the quandary brought up to question what could be out there.

I looked it over briefly, after you initially mentioned it. I don't know if it's all that convincing though.

Quote:It's also intentionally taking into account the improbability factors. It's just that, even with things being immensely improbable, there still is a good chance of them happening because how vast the universe is, with over as many stars as grands of sand on this single planet that has formed 1, what we deem intelligence.

Sort of like, even though it's immensely improbable that there's another being on another planet, with my same exact genetic makeup, sitting at a computer talking to another you, with same genetic makeup, but given how immense our universe is, there is a good chance of this.

Or is the universe not immense enough for this to be likely?

Is their a good chance of life exceedingly more intelligent than us, that's achieved singularity, and perhaps gone extent and replaced by robots? Or the universe not immense enough for this to be likely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(20-05-2015 02:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 01:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I wouldn't think they generally side with them in way of their convictions at all. I mentioned it before but do you have any knowledge of the inter workings of the ideas behind the Drake Equation? It's preciously the quandary brought up to question what could be out there.

I looked it over briefly, after you initially mentioned it. I don't know if it's all that convincing though.

Quote:It's also intentionally taking into account the improbability factors. It's just that, even with things being immensely improbable, there still is a good chance of them happening because how vast the universe is, with over as many stars as grands of sand on this single planet that has formed 1, what we deem intelligence.

Sort of like, even though it's immensely improbable that there's another being on another planet, with my same exact genetic makeup, sitting at a computer talking to another you, with same genetic makeup, but given how immense our universe is, there is a good chance of this.

Or is the universe not immense enough for this to be likely?

Is their a good chance of life exceedingly more intelligent than us, that's achieved singularity, and perhaps gone extent and replaced by robots? Or the universe not immense enough for this to be likely?

Have you never come across the Drake Equation?

And here's your very own decoder ring.

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
20-05-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Here are the questions you ask a christian. 1 if god is pure love, then why does he have a venfeful, wrathful, violent side to him where he wants to kill everything that doesnt listen to him, and on the other side he loves only what does what he says? 2 why did he give the gift of free will only to control it? 3 he never told adam and eve that eating from the tree was neither right nor wrong he just told them they would die, so why were they punished? 4 why do christians follow some of the laws of moses when in galatians chapter 3 paul says that you cant do that and that we are no longer under the law? I can answer these but ask a pastor these and see what his answers are. The most you'll get is that their god's ways are beyond our understanding which is a contradiction since there would be no point in the bible
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
I also have more questions you can ask them and i can answer all of them but in the meantime try those out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 11:42 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  My argument is that the law of identity is the foundation of logic and that the concept of God violates this axiom because it affirms the primacy of consciousness.

Can you unpack this a little bit, and try and keep it simple, the less jargon the better. What do you mean by primacy of consciousness, and how does God violate the law of identity?


Sure. In simplest terms, the primacy of consciousness principal would be: Wishing makes it so.

As to the second part of your question I'll quote what I said earlier in the thread:

"According to the law of identity, A is A, and taken together with the primacy of existence this means that A is A independently of anyone's conscious activity. On the Christian world view, A is whatever the ruling consciousness deems it to be."

That's how it violates it.


(19-05-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  As far as I can tell, the law of identify is a matter of making distinctions between one thing and the other, such as color and sound. So if the question is, is logic dependent on our abilities to draw distinctions? If so, I guess the answer would be yes.

I'm glad we can agree on this. Just one issue though. Making distinctions between things is a form of conscious activity. The law of identity is metaphysical in nature. To say that the law of identity rests on conscious activity would be to affirm the primacy of consciousness. This would be a reversal of the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship. The identities of things are not dependent on our conscious activity. They are what they are independent of our wishes, likes, dislikes, preferences, wishes, demands or dreams. A rock will continue to be a rock even if it is not perceived by anyone and no amount of conscious activity will make it anything else other than what it is. This goes for any object of consciousness including your own conscious activity. It too has a specific identity and is what it is and does what it does independent of your own wishes, likes, dislikes or preferences. You may wish you had x-ray vision, but your vision will continue to be non-x-ray vision no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.

Logic is dependent on our ability to make distinctions but this ability is dependent on the fact that things have a specific identity independent of the conscious activity by which we perceive them. If things didn't have specific identities then there would be no way of distinguishing anything.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: