Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(02-04-2016 09:51 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 05:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The same can be said about a child, or an infant here as well, that they can contemplate where they came from without being taught?

Is this correct?

You seem to be assuming that you have to be taught to be curious. I really don't think that is true.

Somehow, the idea that people can't have thoughts without them having been spoon-fed by some authority seems to summarize the religious mindset well.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 06:57 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 06:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 09:51 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You seem to be assuming that you have to be taught to be curious. I really don't think that is true.

Somehow, the idea that people can't have thoughts without them having been spoon-fed by some authority seems to summarize the religious mindset well.

It's interesting when people don't understand why a question was asked, draw assumptions about it. Usually based on their own religious prejudices.

I don't believe children have to be taught to be curious, and that they're able to draw answers without being taught, even false ones in regards to their curiosity. It was others, Organic Chemist included I believe, who suggested that a particular answer they might draw requires it to be taught.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 07:14 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(30-03-2016 12:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I would think matter being able to organize itself to produce self-aware creatures, is a profoundly astonishing thing, that it even has such capacities, to produce a means of knowing itself? (This in fact has little do with patterns, or the outcome of roles of dice, but the dice itself. )

(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's interesting when people don't understand why a question was asked, draw assumptions about it. Usually based on their own religious prejudices.

Ya mean like yours ... ?
You think your own prejudices are "interesting".

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-04-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 06:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Somehow, the idea that people can't have thoughts without them having been spoon-fed by some authority seems to summarize the religious mindset well.

It's interesting when people don't understand why a question was asked, draw assumptions about it. Usually based on their own religious prejudices.

I don't believe children have to be taught to be curious, and that they're able to draw answers without being taught, even false ones in regards to their curiosity. It was others, Organic Chemist included I believe, who suggested that a particular answer they might draw requires it to be taught.

Still waiting on you to substantiate your bullshit claims and assertions.

Or is your religious prejudice getting in the way of delivering evidence?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 10:04 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 12:39 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  There's a unique argument among Intelligent Design believers which goes something like this:

Life is almost non-existent in our universe with life on Earth being the exception, not the rule. There is an extraordinary number of criteria which must be met prior to life being possible and the odds of so many criteria being met at once is effectively 0%. Because the odds of a natural occurrence is so low, some driving force (God) seems necessary to explain how life came about.

There are multiple shortcomings to this argument. One of the most glaring, but less obvious problems, is that it acknowledges the non-existence of life besides our own from the start in order to calculate the probability of life existing. You can't use the non-existence of life as proof for the existence of life.

Another, more obvious shortcoming is that the "driving force" needn't be God or even living. According to quantum mechanics, reality is formed as it becomes pertinent to the rest of reality (as evidenced by quantum entanglement, quantum superposition, Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, etc.). This means that everything that could possibly be happening is currently happening, but from the perspective of any given thing, we're locked into one reality (multiverse theory). This provides a driving force which makes life an inevitability without the need for a creator or even the need for a birthless/deathless universe (which would imply an infinite timeline in which it's also an inevitability so long as the probability is non-zero).

Did I miss any shortcomings of the argument?

And one more thing. Since reason presupposes the primacy of existence, in what way is theism at all compatible with reason, given it's affirmation of the primacy of consciousness? I've never gotten a coherent answer to this logical problem.

Edit: sorry, this was meant for another thread. I don't know how I messed up and posted it here.

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
03-04-2016, 09:48 AM
Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 09:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's interesting when people don't understand why a question was asked, draw assumptions about it. Usually based on their own religious prejudices.

I don't believe children have to be taught to be curious, and that they're able to draw answers without being taught, even false ones in regards to their curiosity. It was others, Organic Chemist included I believe, who suggested that a particular answer they might draw requires it to be taught.

Still waiting on you to substantiate your bullshit claims and assertions.

Or is your religious prejudice getting in the way of delivering evidence?


Refer to post 128, no hard evidence available.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 09:54 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 09:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still waiting on you to substantiate your bullshit claims and assertions.

Or is your religious prejudice getting in the way of delivering evidence?


Refer to post 128, no hard evidence available.

"But I have no hard evidence to offer."

You have no evidence of any kind to offer.

"Inductive reasoning. "

No. You assert and believe in the absence of evidence. This is confirmation bias generated by your assumption that your ignorance is as good as my knowledge.

"I also don't have any hard evidence to offer a solipsist that minds outside of his own exist."

You assert claims that can be tested and generate evidence, but in reality they do not generate any evidence to back up your claims. This is not equivalent to a philosophical quandary. You're just wrong.

"But I'm surprised people disagree with me here, so I'm interested in hearing people share their stance, whether they lack a belief one way or other, lean towards one position or the other, etc... I also think there's a contradiction between individuals who claim that infants are atheists, and that dolphins have possibly contemplated their origins. These are the only points I'm interested in. I'm not interested in any other argument others may want to draw me into."

You're the moron who claimed that these aren't true, and it has been pointed out to you that there is:
1) no reason to believe that you are correct (you admit to having exactly 0 evidence for your bullshit)
2) evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the animals you assume don't have the mental faculties of humans, are smarter than you think they are and capable of more than you give them credit for
3) that the assertions of infants being atheists is correct through the definition of what atheism is. It is a lack of a belief in a god and infants lack god beliefs. It is really fucking simple but apparently too complex for the pea bouncing about inside your skull.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 09:58 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
And I still don't know what any part of this bullshit red herring has to do with the fact that life arising naturally is a scientifically supported and mathematically inevitable occurrence that happens in the complete absence of any supernature or supernatural myth.

Going to ever explain this one, TommyBoy? Drinking Beverage


And I also don't know why the evolutionary trajectory of Homo sapiens, especially in light of the evolutionary history of the rest of the living world, indicates anything other than the natural biological evolution of one species on Earth that is no more special than any other.

Going to ever explain this one either, TommyBoy? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 10:29 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 09:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Refer to post 128, no hard evidence available.

"But I have no hard evidence to offer."

You have no evidence of any kind to offer.

"Inductive reasoning. "

No. You assert and believe in the absence of evidence. This is confirmation bias generated by your assumption that your ignorance is as good as my knowledge.

"I also don't have any hard evidence to offer a solipsist that minds outside of his own exist."

You assert claims that can be tested and generate evidence, but in reality they do not generate any evidence to back up your claims. This is not equivalent to a philosophical quandary. You're just wrong.

"But I'm surprised people disagree with me here, so I'm interested in hearing people share their stance, whether they lack a belief one way or other, lean towards one position or the other, etc... I also think there's a contradiction between individuals who claim that infants are atheists, and that dolphins have possibly contemplated their origins. These are the only points I'm interested in. I'm not interested in any other argument others may want to draw me into."

You're the moron who claimed that these aren't true, and it has been pointed out to you that there is:
1) no reason to believe that you are correct (you admit to having exactly 0 evidence for your bullshit)
2) evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the animals you assume don't have the mental faculties of humans, are smarter than you think they are and capable of more than you give them credit for
3) that the assertions of infants being atheists is correct through the definition of what atheism is. It is a lack of a belief in a god and infants lack god beliefs. It is really fucking simple but apparently too complex for the pea bouncing about inside your skull.

I stated the view that dolphins and other animals likely don't contemplate their origin. If someone believes otherwise that they possible do, I'd like to know how that's possible absent of a language to ask that question. Also I'd like to hear from those who believe this is possible, but claim that children lack a belief in God/s, to resolve that apparent contradiction between the two positions.

You on the other hand have yet to express a view one way or the other. You haven't stated whether you think it's possible that they do, or whether you hold to a lack a belief one way or the other. What is it? You also haven't stated what the default position here would be, if it we have no hard evidence one way or the other.

But knowing you, you'll avoid answering this, and continue on with your tirades.

Are you actually going to share your take on the question here, or are you just going to focus all your energy on me?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 06:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Somehow, the idea that people can't have thoughts without them having been spoon-fed by some authority seems to summarize the religious mindset well.

It's interesting when people don't understand why a question was asked, draw assumptions about it. Usually based on their own religious prejudices.

Which shows that you utterly missed the point. That's par for the course and why I long ago gave up attempting any sort of conversation with you. I was not attempting to respond to any question you asked, I was commenting on a phenomena that I have observed. Your opinion of my motives or what influences my thinking is as irrelevant as it is laughable.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: