Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 01:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 01:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't recall suggesting what? Because you still haven't explained:
1) what default positions I hold or what you mean by that

Don't know, thats why i asked you what you believe the default position here should be.

Quote:2) the relevance of your red herrings wrt the OP

Don't recall since, someone else brought up the dolphin thing, in response to one of my post here a few days ago, and I had some questions about that.

Quote:3) why your red herrings matter anyways wrt the existence of anything other than the natural world

My own curiosities.

Quote:Also, I have answered the question about what my views are wrt consciousness and self awareness in other animal species. You'll have to actually read my posts to find it.

No, there doesn't seem to be any post of yours where you expressed your views on whether you think dolphins, and other non-human animals, without a language have possibly contemplated questions about their origin. You've had numerous opportunities to express your views on the topic, but pleaded the 5th instead.

So I don't know, whether you hold a view here, or just lack a view oneway or the other.

The master dodger evades again!

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, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 01:44 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 01:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 01:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I'm still confused as to when questions get to be read as statements.

Do you still beat your wife Tomasia?

Geez, are you this dense to not grasp how often you do LEADING questions with assertions int he question... I've never thought you were that stupid before. I figure you must of gotten bored and began trolling now. Or you've been reading too many agnostic shane posts.

No you assumed that, erroneously I might add. You hear a question that I ask, then you try and draw your own assumptions as to why I'm asking that, but your assumptions are not even accurate. You've attributing claims to me that I don't hold.

You consider it trolling because I'm not sitting here devoting any real time to resolving your incorrect assumptions as I might have in the past, perhaps because my patience is a little thinner.

At one point you even accused me of disparaging individuals who held technical degrees, for merely clarifying a cited stat. I'm not trolling you, I'm just pointing out when you tend to read more into something I've said or asked, which is not really there, and more often than not false.

"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
04-04-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

How on Earth did you infer that I meant that? At no time did I ever say such a thing. I looked back through every post I made and I never even came close to saying or even implying such a thing.

Can you reference the post you think I was implying this or are you getting me confused with someone else? If an answer I wrote gave the wrong impression, I will clarify it. You are carrying on several conversations at the moment. Also, who else do you feel implied this? I am curious.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2016 09:56 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(04-04-2016 08:45 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 06:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

How on Earth did you infer that I meant that? At no time did I ever say such a thing. I looked back through every post I made and I never even came close to saying or even implying such a thing.

Can you reference the post you think I was implying this or are you getting me confused with someone else? If an answer I wrote gave the wrong impression, I will clarify it. You are carrying on several conversations at the moment. Also, who else do you feel implied this? I am curious.

Post 94, this comment in particular: "If you don't teach a child to believe in god, they probably won't on their own."

I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of creator, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.

Or perhaps you might clarify and suggest otherwise, that it's possible that a child, or another animal able to contemplate their origins, and possible answers to that, can also possibly believe in some sort of generic creator/god as a possible answer to that, without being 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
04-04-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(04-04-2016 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of creator, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.

It's not. Children go through all sorts of phases with invisible friends, and weird explanations. They also think Santa and the Easter Bunny are true, for a while. Does your theory also account for the fact they shed those beliefs eventually ?
No. You conveniently omit that little part.

Children's phases are totally irrelevant. Rational ADULTS normally require EVIDENCE for the things they hold as true. Seems you're in short supply of that.

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
04-04-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
"I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of creator, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught."


I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of unicorn, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.

I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of boogeyman, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.

I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of fairy, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.




What relevance does the imagination have on reality?

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
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-04-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
What relevance is there in kids believing in imaginary beings or occurrences with respect to:
1) the origin of life
2) the evolution of life
3) the evolutionary adaptations of humans
4) the existence of your imaginary friends?

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
04-04-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(03-04-2016 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I also don't have any hard evidence to offer a solipsist that minds outside of his own exist.
How do you STILL not understand how the burden of proof works?Huh

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
04-04-2016, 10:32 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(04-04-2016 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Post 94, this comment in particular: "If you don't teach a child to believe in god, they probably won't on their own."

I'm not sure why a belief in some sort of creator, is being ruled out as possible answer that those that might contemplate their origin, might be led to without being taught.

Ah, I see. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. This came from the idea that you raised earlier that if dolphins (or some other creature) can ponder their own existence, then why don't they form HOA's or some other human construct? My point that was running through this is that you can't expect human ideas that are the result of years of a particular need to appear in another creature.

I do not rule out the idea of some sort of creator, it is just the least likely option to me because nothing supernatural has ever even been demonstrated, so it is therefore the least possible option. The claim that every theist I have ever met is so specific that there is no way that they arrived to that conclusion on their own. Are you suggesting that if left alone with no influence by anyone, a group of kids will determine that the origin of the universe was due to a superbeing who had himself nailed to some wood and the only way to appease this being is to ceremoniously eat him in the form of crackers and juice? I really don't think that would happen.

In regards to having to teach children to come up with a conclusion, any conclusion, is absurd. I don't know if you have any children (I have 3) but if you do, you don't need to tell them anything and they will form some conclusion on their own given some event or situation. Right or wrong, they are capable of seeing an event or action and concluding something else from it. You don't have to teach that at all.

(04-04-2016 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or perhaps you might clarify and suggest otherwise, that it's possible that a child, or another animal able to contemplate their origins, and possible answers to that, can also possibly believe in some sort of generic creator/god as a possible answer to that, without being taught.

I do agree with you that if left alone, some children may come up with some superpower answer for an unknown. But, I really, really think that is the exception, not the rule for the aforementioned reasons. This was the Lord of the Flies reference I made in an earlier post. The earlier posts on this comment by others I though was very spot on.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
04-04-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Dolphins and other animals who have similar brains to us may not be able to form complex structures the way we can because of physical limitations.

No hands.

Other creatures who are able to manipulate objects just as well as we can may not have the intelligence to construct the way we do.

Beaver dams, nests, ant hills, termite mounds, etc.

If dolphins had hands, I'm still not sure what kind of underwater tools they could forge.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: