Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you believe in GOD?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,149 replies to this topic
GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2131

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:43 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 16 May 2014 - 10:48 AM.

A) I'd ask you to define "more going on", but it's irrelevant to the argument. Even if true, it does not change how we recognize design.

 

B) If you're talking about abiogenesis, then it's even easier. We may not have any conclusive answer as to how life arose here on Earth yet (that I'm aware of), but we do have viable explanations based on evidence that it is at least possible through purely natural means. Though even if we didn't, assuming that it must have been designed would be, as I said before, a false equivalency, as well as an appeal to ignorance ("I don't understand x, therefore it was designed").

 

A) So just to clarify, how do you recognize design? 

 

B) And so you have no proof of your hypothesis, it's merely 'well this might be possible therefore life came about by natural means'.. you're assuming life is natural based upon faith and belief. 


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2132

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:51 AM

 

A) So just to clarify, how you recognize design? 

 

B) And so you have no proof of your hypothesis, it's merely 'well this might be possible therefore life came about by natural means'.. you're assuming life is natural based upon faith and belief. 

 

A) By comparing the subject in question with what we have established about nature.

 

B) You're shifting the burden of proof. We have no examples of anything happening other than by a) natural means, and b) man-made means. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we have zero evidence for any kind of abiogenesis anywhere, I'll spot you that much. Then let's rule out option B (for obvious reasons), and then explain to me, without using terms subjective to you, why a natural explanation would not be sufficient.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2133

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:57 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 16 May 2014 - 10:58 AM.

 

 

A) So just to clarify, how you recognize design? 

 

B) And so you have no proof of your hypothesis, it's merely 'well this might be possible therefore life came about by natural means'.. you're assuming life is natural based upon faith and belief. 

 

A) By comparing the subject in question with what we have established about nature.

 

B) You're shifting the burden of proof. We have no examples of anything happening other than by a) natural means, and b) man-made means. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we have zero evidence for any kind of abiogenesis anywhere, I'll spot you that much. Then let's rule out option B (for obvious reasons), and then explain to me, without using terms subjective to you, why a natural explanation would not be sufficient.

 

 

A) So again, we have not observed nature creating a cell from scratch and goes against a lot of what we do observe therefore have no reason to call life natural or be of natural origins. 

 

B) You have no empirical proof of your statement, therefore can't be deemed as fact. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, you said life is natural but cannot bring forth proof therefore life can't be deemed natural. Also nature cannot produce code therefore DNA could not have natural origins.


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2134

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:01 AM Edited by Bartleby, 16 May 2014 - 11:08 AM.

A) So again, we have not observed nature creating a cell from scratch and goes against a lot of what we do observe therefore have no reason to call life natural or be of natural origins. 

 

B) You have no empirical proof of your statement, therefore can't be deemed as fact. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, you said life is natural but cannot bring forth proof therefore life can't be deemed natural. Also nature cannot produce code because a mind is required to do so therefore DNA could not have natural origins.

 

A) We have observed cells being created from other cells without the need for any mind, and there's nothing to suggest that abiogenesis occurring naturally "goes against" this understanding. If you're going to assert anything about where or how this process started, you need to provide evidence. Failing that, the only answer would be "we don't know", not an assertion that it is impossible.

 

B)  I did not assert that the beginning of life was natural as a matter of fact, I said we have viable natural alternatives given what we know without needing to appeal to something supernatural, therefore the appeal is unnecessary.

 

"Code" is a subjective term. Swing and a miss.


watchclock
  • watchclock

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2014

#2135

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:02 AM

OF COURSE NOT

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2136

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:17 AM

 

A) So again, we have not observed nature creating a cell from scratch and goes against a lot of what we do observe therefore have no reason to call life natural or be of natural origins. 

 

B) You have no empirical proof of your statement, therefore can't be deemed as fact. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, you said life is natural but cannot bring forth proof therefore life can't be deemed natural. Also nature cannot produce code because a mind is required to do so therefore DNA could not have natural origins.

 

A) We have observed cells being created from other cells without the need for any mind, and there's nothing to suggest that abiogenesis occurring naturally "goes against" this understanding. If you're going to assert anything about where or how this process started, you need to provide evidence. Failing that, the only answer would be "we don't know", not an assertion that it is impossible.

 

B)  I did not assert that the beginning of life was natural as a matter of fact, I said we have viable natural alternatives given what we know without needing to appeal to something supernatural, therefore the appeal is unnecessary.

 

"Code" is a subjective term. Swing and a miss.

 

 

A) The cells are acting upon genetic information to replicate. And yes, thermodynamics works against everything. 

 

B) Why is a supernatural appeal unnecessary? Nature hasn't been proven therefore I see no need to exclude other possibilities. To deny the possibility of there being more than the spacetime continuum and the matter contained within it is very close minded imo.

 

Tell that to a computer programmer. Code is symbols used to convey information/instructions.


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2137

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:21 AM Edited by Bartleby, 16 May 2014 - 11:21 AM.

A) The cells are acting upon genetic information to replicate. And yes, thermodynamics works against everything. 

 

B) Why is a supernatural appeal unnecessary? Nature hasn't been proven therefore I see no need to exclude other possibilities. To deny the possibility of there being more than the spacetime continuum and the matter contained within it is very close minded imo.

 

Tell that to a computer programmer. Code is symbols used to convey information/instructions.

A) "Information" is a subjective term. Please explain how thermodynamics is at all relevant.

 

B) Because nothing supernatural has been observed to exist. No one is denying the possibility of anything existing, but nothing is ever presumed to. It seems you're more than willing to butcher the scientific method to suit your argument, but don't really understand what it is to begin with. Again, evidence.

 

Yes, code is symbols we use to communicate. In other words, it's subjective to the observer. Next.

  • *MURDOC* and Failure like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2138

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:26 AM

A) Information is not subjective to an individual.. For example we all agree on objective definitions for each word in our language. DNA code produces objective results.

 

B) A supernatural cause logically answers many big questions, and the evidence of it is the creation of the universe itself.. the evidence is everywhere from the visible matter to invisible laws. 


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2139

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:37 AM Edited by Bartleby, 16 May 2014 - 11:37 AM.

A) Information is not subjective to an individual.. For example we all agree on objective definitions for each word in our language. DNA code produces objective results.

 

B) A supernatural cause logically answers many big questions, and the evidence of it is the creation of the universe itself.. the evidence is everywhere from the visible matter to invisible laws. 

A) DNA itself is not subjective, however to call it "information" is to invoke a subjective concept, since the way we perceive information is by our mind assigning value. Information doesn't objectively "exist", it is something gained by an analysis of something observed by us. To consider it intrinsic to something like DNA is using a loaded and unjustified premise.

 

B) It is not logical to answer a mystery with an even bigger mystery, let alone one that answers absolutely nothing. To assert the universe is evidence of this is to presume your very own conclusion, and logic doesn't get much more circular than that.

  • *MURDOC* likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2140

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:10 PM

A) DNA stores it's instructions through the specific sequential order of the molecules. It is by definition information as the objective sequences create objective results, whether we're there to analyze it or not. DNA uses nucleotides, codons, genes ect the same way we use letters, words, sentences and so on to convey an idea or information/instructions.

 

B) A metaphysical uncaused ultimate cause and creator of the universe would answer a lot, actually.. Yes it'll leave us with even more questions but that's just the nature of discovery.


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2141

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:21 PM

A) DNA stores it's instructions through the specific sequential order of the molecules. It is by definition information as the objective sequences create objective results, whether we're there to analyze it or not. DNA uses nucleotides, codons, genes ect the same way we use letters, words, sentences and so on to convey an idea or information/instructions.

 

B) A metaphysical uncaused ultimate cause and creator of the universe would answer a lot, actually.. Yes it'll leave us with even more questions but that's just the nature of discovery.

A) Okay, I'll accept your definition of "information" for argument's sake. Now explain how this is evidence of design.

 

B) "Discovery" doesn't mean "a conclusion arrived at based on the fact that one personally cannot fathom any other possible explanation". It also would not inform about anything regarding how the universe functions.

  • *MURDOC* likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2142

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:33 PM

A) Because something capable of processing information is needed to initially give meaning to the symbols being used to convey a message. The code requires a programmer. Natural processes have never been observed nor would even be capable of encoding information into sequenced symbols.

 

B) Answering what the ultimate cause to the origin of our existence would be a rather big discovery.. whatever it may end up being.


Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2143

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:44 PM Edited by Bartleby, 16 May 2014 - 12:48 PM.

A) Because something capable of processing information is needed to initially give meaning to the symbols being used to convey a message. The code requires a programmer. Natural processes have never been observed nor would even be capable of encoding information into sequenced symbols.

 

B) Answering what the ultimate cause to the origin of our existence would be a rather big discovery.. whatever it may end up being.

A) It sure didn't take you long to abuse that definition, did it? In this sense, you're still talking about two different kinds of information: the one we just defined ("objective sequences creating objective results"), and information as in "what we subjectively assign value to when looking at something". You are blatantly presupposing DNA requires a mind by comparing it to things we can readily demonstrate were created by minds, such as programming languages. Your comparison is invalid because, again, we can come to this conclusion about these languages by comparing them with the fact that they do not occur in nature and that we make them; the same cannot be said for DNA. This all boils down to the exact same argument we've already gone over: you're poorly defining your words and then exploiting the problems that creates. It's like stacking a deck in your favor, dealing the cards, and then saying "hey, four aces!". By the way, as far as nature not being to encode sequences, we have examples of DNA replicating itself with no need for a mind, so your claim is even demonstrably false.

 

B) Sure it would. That's not what we're discussing. Just saying "I don't know, so god did it" is a vacuous statement.

  • *MURDOC* likes this

watchclock
  • watchclock

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2014

#2144

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:46 PM Edited by watchclock, 16 May 2014 - 12:47 PM.


 


A) So again, we have not observed nature creating a cell from scratch and goes against a lot of what we do observe therefore have no reason to call life natural or be of natural origins. 
 
B) You have no empirical proof of your statement, therefore can't be deemed as fact. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, you said life is natural but cannot bring forth proof therefore life can't be deemed natural. Also nature cannot produce code because a mind is required to do so therefore DNA could not have natural origins.
 

A) We have observed cells being created from other cells without the need for any mind, and there's nothing to suggest that abiogenesis occurring naturally "goes against" this understanding. If you're going to assert anything about where or how this process started, you need to provide evidence. Failing that, the only answer would be "we don't know", not an assertion that it is impossible.
 
B)  I did not assert that the beginning of life was natural as a matter of fact, I said we have viable natural alternatives given what we know without needing to appeal to something supernatural, therefore the appeal is unnecessary.
 
"Code" is a subjective term. Swing and a miss.
 
 
A) The cells are acting upon genetic information to replicate. And yes, thermodynamics works against everything. 
 
B) Why is a supernatural appeal unnecessary? Nature hasn't been proven therefore I see no need to exclude other possibilities. To deny the possibility of there being more than the spacetime continuum and the matter contained within it is very close minded imo.
 
Tell that to a computer programmer. Code is symbols used to convey information/instructions.
Explaining complicated things with other complicated things involves an infinite regress and also begs the question of interest.

To get around this people play with words to the extent that they actually propose there are things which are not 'things' which makes so no sense whatsoever.

Occam's Razor states that probable explanations are the ones that require the fewest assumptions. God and supernatural things are such preposterously huge assumptions that it is hard to seriously credit that anyone finds them intellectually acceptable, this is why I believe that people who do accept those assumption do so out of an unwillingness to accept the quite depressing finality of death.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2145

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:58 PM

A) No I'm not presupposing it has a mind, it's because nature cannot create encoded information. It simply does not have the capacity to do so. 

 

B) It's actually based off what we do know and have observed. We've only observe encoded information/language originating only from intelligence, whether humans, whales or dolphins, but never from natural processes themselves.

 

 

Show me a natural process that can encode instructions into a sequenced physical median otherwise your argument has no evidence.


watchclock
  • watchclock

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2014

#2146

Posted 16 May 2014 - 01:08 PM Edited by watchclock, 16 May 2014 - 01:10 PM.

A) No I'm not presupposing it has a mind, it's because nature cannot create encoded information. It simply does not have the capacity to do so. 
 
B) It's actually based off what we do know and have observed. We've only observe encoded information/language originating only from intelligence, whether humans, whales or dolphins, but never from natural processes themselves.
 
 
Show me a natural process that can encode instructions into a sequenced physical median otherwise your argument has no evidence.

Natural selection fits that criteria, and there are many models as to how both RNA and DNA originally evolved. The reason one of those models has not been chosen as the definite one is due to the historical nature of evolutionary genetics and not those potential models lack of plausibility.

The trick you are employing is to presume that 'information' is inherently complex, it is not.

For the tremendously confused use of the word 'nature' that you are employing, see J. S. Mill's 'On Nature'
  • *MURDOC* likes this

Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Not Bob Marley

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#2147

Posted 16 May 2014 - 01:09 PM Edited by Bartleby, 16 May 2014 - 01:10 PM.

A) No I'm not presupposing it has a mind, it's because nature cannot create encoded information. It simply does not have the capacity to do so. 

 

B) It's actually based off what we do know and have observed. We've only observe encoded information/language originating only from intelligence, whether humans, whales or dolphins, but never from natural processes themselves.

 

 

Show me a natural process that can encode instructions into a sequenced physical median otherwise your argument has no evidence.

A) You're wrong. Even by your own definition of "information". It's that simple. Do even some minor research into DNA and how genetics works, and if you're choosing to not include DNA in your definition of "nature", then you're once again begging your own question, and your argument is invalid.

 

B) Again, false statement. Since you're just repeating yourself now and we've obviously been going nowhere for the past several replies, I won't be commenting again.

  • *MURDOC* likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#2148

Posted 16 May 2014 - 01:11 PM

Show me a natural process that can encode instructions into a sequenced physical median otherwise your argument has no evidence.

Show me an objective "code" in DNA or your rebuttal is meaningless.

The "information" contained in DNA is no no more information or encoding than the positioning and number of bonds between atoms in a molecule "encode" or "instruct" the compound to behave in a certain way under certain conditions.

Tl;Dr: GMS repeats a set of arguments he made months ago despite not answering a single one of the previous rebuttals he fled the topic to avoid.

Again.
  • Bartleby and *MURDOC* like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#2149

Posted 16 May 2014 - 01:16 PM

A) You earlier had just agreed on the definition of information in your own words.. now that you see it goes against your stance you're taking your word back and just telling me I'm simply wrong. You want me to presume your stance is correct that DNA is automatically nature when chromosomes have never been found in nature outside of cells, which we already previously discussed and showed are themselves not considered proven to be natural either. 

 

B) No explanation as to how it's wrong. You just state it being so and leave it at that.. lol I honestly wouldn't expect you comment anymore anyhow. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#2150

Posted 16 May 2014 - 01:21 PM

It's no wonder people don't want to respond to you when your idea of an argument usually revolves around a fundamentally poor understanding of a subject matter, the frustrating inability to grasp the crux of anyone else's arguments, and the simple pig-headedness to think you can win an argument just by repeating yourself ad nauseum.

We're done here.
  • Moonshield, Bartleby, Voodoo and 4 others like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users