Clarifying My Last Post

[David Sklansky]

When I said there were four aspects of this universe that made a belief in a higher power somewhat reasonable, and then went on to say that one of them, no longer existed, I was speaking of my reason 3. The "just look around you" reason of Not Ready or the "eclipse" reason of godboy.

In other words, the complexity of the universe, this planet, and life on it. While untrained people can perhaps be excused for using common sense to claim that this stuff couldn't happen without Godlike input, advances in chaos theory, complexity theory, fractal geometry, cellular automata, and similar subjects have served to show that common sense is wrong. Sure God COULD have RECENTLY done this stuff, if he exists. But he didn't have to.

It turns out that amazingly complex processes can follow logically from some simple rules and some simple starts. More so if you add an element of randomness. Its not common sense but it is true. Of course a designer could also be the reason for a complex result but it is not necessary. Period. So to argue otherwise in the face of expert objections is ridiculous.

On the other hand if you want to argue that there is no analogous easy explanation for the ORIGIN of those simple rules (basically in this case, the ORIGINAL laws of physics, not the ones that can be logically deduced from them), I believe that as of now, scientists have to agree. Meanwhile, again, even if there was an explanation without God for the original rules, it still doesn't prove he wasn't the originator of them.

As to my comment about not having free will regarding your thoughts, some people misunderstood. I wasn't claiming that you can't control what you think ABOUT. I was speaking only of your CONCLUSIONS. Furthermore I was talking only about those who came to their conclusions after STUDYING the evidence. And the people I was talking about were not atheists, as one poster seemed to think.

Actually the people I was talking are a rare bunch. Those who make a great effort to learn the religion in question, but still intellectually feel that the God, or Jesus of that religion, is somewhat likely (but far from certain) to be a myth. But while their brain force these doubts on them, their hearts are totally embracing what they might think is a 40% shot. Catholics and Jews already give this guy a ticket to heaven (assuming it was their religion he was embracing). And in spite of the words of udon'tknow mickey, spaminator, and Not Ready, I'm betting that if Not Ready asked his John Frame friend, (if I remember, his name correctly), he would too.

[Sharkey]

The origin of the universe is completely outside the scope of science.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The origin of the universe is completely outside the scope of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if it is not subject to natural laws. The investgation of the origin, however is not beyond science scope. It simply does not make claims about it, currently. Science however shows that whatever it has investigated and solved can be explained without an inference to the supernatural. Religious beliefs on the other hand cannot negate what science has proven, and should not even attempt to. They should stay in their arena, namely the supernatural for those who give it credence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Only if it is not subject to natural laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of nature are properties of the universe and have never been scientifically observed outside of it. For the cause of the laws of nature to be determined by its own effect is circular causality.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
For the cause of the universe to be determined by its own effect is circular causation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, sharkey at least science doesn't claim knowledge outside of the universe or without evidence. Talking about circular causation, or lack thereof, you will find better example in the "reasons" [lol] for beliefs in god.

Anyway I quoted a good reply to your silly position and I will repeat it here, with much apologies to those who don't like repeating ad nauseum (I will not do it again), and I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

from The Edge (http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge178.html)

Social-constructionist 'intellectuals,' [and maybe pseudo intellectuals like sharkey] and perhaps even the 'radical ism-ists' culture warriors of The New York Times Book Review might counter that science itself is but one more 'superstition.' But as Sir John Krebs points out below, Dawkins won't have any of this cultural relativism. Krebs quotes one of his favorite passages, not out of The Selfish Gene but from the book River Out of Eden:

Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. Airplanes are built according to scientific principles and they work. They stay aloft and they get you to a chosen destination. Airplanes built to tribal or mythological specifications such as the dummy planes of the Cargo cults in jungle clearings or the bees-waxed wings of Icarus don't.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]'

Since you are the one choosing not to respond with rigour and intelligence, it is your concession.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
While untrained people can perhaps be excused for using common sense to claim that this stuff couldn't happen without Godlike input, advances in chaos theory, complexity theory, fractal geometry, cellular automata, and similar subjects have served to show that common sense is wrong. Sure God COULD have RECENTLY done this stuff, if he exists. But he didn't have to.

It turns out that amazingly complex processes can follow logically from some simple rules and some simple starts. More so if you add an element of randomness. Its not common sense but it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, and much more so if there is a quantum component to the algorithm. Quantum algorithms can test all possible paths simultaneously, and arrange for only favorable outcomes to collapse the wavefunction to a particular result.

[Central Limit]

I agree with Sharkey. Just as a mathematical proof cannot prove its own axioms - the initial collection of facts or assumptions that are taken as "given" - science can not deduce its own initial conditions.

[Central Limit]

David,

It's bad form to clarify posts entitled "one final post about..." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Sharkey. Just as a mathematical proof cannot prove its own axioms - the initial collection of facts or assumptions that are taken as "given" - science can not deduce its own initial conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a jump that you may have faith in, but there is no foundation for it. If a grand unifying theory is discovered and stands the usual rigors of the scientific method, and the most elemental "particles" are determined, then the initial conditions might very well be deduced (not proven, deduced). For example an explanation for the conditions under which matter is favored over anti-matter would go a long way toward deducing the appearance of something out of nothing.

Or, since we label the particles we detect as matter, a "big bang" with sufficient energy might disperse matter and anti-matter enough so that even a small percentage of each survive, creating two universes, the other consisting of what we perceive as anti-matter but which to that universe is matter. A theory of how a "big bang" might create that much energy would then be sufficient to deduce the origin of our universe and the existence of another, or others.

[Central Limit]

[ QUOTE ]

Thats a jump that you may have faith in, but there is no foundation for it.

[/ QUOTE ]


True. I have no problem with that.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]'

Since you are the one choosing not to respond with rigour and intelligence, it is your concession.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ad hominem fallacy:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore X is false.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats a jump that you may have faith in, but there is no foundation for it. If a grand unifying theory is discovered and stands the usual rigors of the scientific method, and the most elemental "particles" are determined, then the initial conditions might very well be deduced (not proven, deduced). For example an explanation for the conditions under which matter is favored over anti-matter would go a long way toward deducing the appearance of something out of nothing.

Or, since we label the particles we detect as matter, a "big bang" with sufficient energy might disperse matter and anti-matter enough so that even a small percentage of each survive, creating two universes, the other consisting of what we perceive as anti-matter but which to that universe is matter. A theory of how a "big bang" might create that much energy would then be sufficient to deduce the origin of our universe and the existence of another, or others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Little if anything in your post qualifies as science.

(Hint: myth-making is not science.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's bad form to clarify posts entitled "one final post about..." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you are being factitious. (I also know that this is a brief hi-jack. I have been doing that lately, sorry.) But, the “final post..." is a final religion post, not a final post period. And this clarifying post is not a religion post, it is a clarifying post. So, no it is not bad form.

[Central Limit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's bad form to clarify posts entitled "one final post about..." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you are being factitious. (I also know that this is a brief hi-jack. I have been doing that lately, sorry.) But, the “final post..." is a final religion post, not a final post period. And this clarifying post is not a religion post, it is a clarifying post. So, no it is not bad form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It's bad form to clarify posts entitled "one final post about..." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you are being factitious. (I also know that this is a brief hi-jack. I have been doing that lately, sorry.) But, the “final post..." is a final religion post, not a final post period. And this clarifying post is not a religion post, it is a clarifying post. So, no it is not bad form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you weren't being facitious? Just kidding. I'll let it go now.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]'



Since you are the one choosing not to respond with rigour and intelligence, it is your concession.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ad hominem fallacy:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore X is false.

[/ QUOTE ]


He didnt attack you, he asked for a response with rigour and intelligence. That is attacking your responses, which is right where the attack belongs.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a jump that you may have faith in, but there is no foundation for it. If a grand unifying theory is discovered and stands the usual rigors of the scientific method, and the most elemental "particles" are determined, then the initial conditions might very well be deduced (not proven, deduced). For example an explanation for the conditions under which matter is favored over anti-matter would go a long way toward deducing the appearance of something out of nothing.

Or, since we label the particles we detect as matter, a "big bang" with sufficient energy might disperse matter and anti-matter enough so that even a small percentage of each survive, creating two universes, the other consisting of what we perceive as anti-matter but which to that universe is matter. A theory of how a "big bang" might create that much energy would then be sufficient to deduce the origin of our universe and the existence of another, or others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Little if anything in your post qualifies as science.

(Hint: myth-making is not science.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt claimed to be science. They are hypotheticals which are certainly possible, and which demonstrate that initial conditions might be deduced under certain scenarios.

And for you to challenge anything as "myth making" when your entire belief structure is based on myth is laughable.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]'



Since you are the one choosing not to respond with rigour and intelligence, it is your concession.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ad hominem fallacy:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore X is false.

[/ QUOTE ]


He didnt attack you, he asked for a response with rigour and intelligence. That is attacking your responses, which is right where the attack belongs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A decision on the quality of my posts is part of what’s at issue. It’s not something to be made so by wishing it into existence. Stopping the process by declaring victory in retreat is no different than a concession.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a jump that you may have faith in, but there is no foundation for it. If a grand unifying theory is discovered and stands the usual rigors of the scientific method, and the most elemental "particles" are determined, then the initial conditions might very well be deduced (not proven, deduced). For example an explanation for the conditions under which matter is favored over anti-matter would go a long way toward deducing the appearance of something out of nothing.

Or, since we label the particles we detect as matter, a "big bang" with sufficient energy might disperse matter and anti-matter enough so that even a small percentage of each survive, creating two universes, the other consisting of what we perceive as anti-matter but which to that universe is matter. A theory of how a "big bang" might create that much energy would then be sufficient to deduce the origin of our universe and the existence of another, or others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Little if anything in your post qualifies as science.

(Hint: myth-making is not science.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt claimed to be science. They are hypotheticals which are certainly possible, and which demonstrate that initial conditions might be deduced under certain scenarios.

And for you to challenge anything as "myth making" when your entire belief structure is based on myth is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

My “entire belief structure” is not in evidence here, nor is it relevant.

Again with your tourette syndrome-like compulsion toward the ad hominem attack.

[Copernicus]

The quality of your posts is not part of whats at issue, its the entire issue. They lack rigour and logic. Asking for logical support for your statements before responding is not a concession. Your failure to provide any semblence of reasoning is.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The quality of your posts is not part of whats at issue, its the entire issue. They lack rigour and logic. Asking for logical support for your statements before responding is not a concession. Your failure to provide any semblence of reasoning is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more predictable accusations on your part, without proof.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The quality of your posts is not part of whats at issue, its the entire issue. They lack rigour and logic. Asking for logical support for your statements before responding is not a concession. Your failure to provide any semblence of reasoning is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more predictable accusations on your part, without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The quality of your posts is not part of whats at issue, its the entire issue. They lack rigour and logic. Asking for logical support for your statements before responding is not a concession. Your failure to provide any semblence of reasoning is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more predictable accusations on your part, without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you’re venturing even further into make-believe.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The quality of your posts is not part of whats at issue, its the entire issue. They lack rigour and logic. Asking for logical support for your statements before responding is not a concession. Your failure to provide any semblence of reasoning is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more predictable accusations on your part, without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you’re venturing even further into make-believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're so easy /images/graemlins/grin.gif A veritable beacon of darkness in the light, and a poster boy for keeping ID out of the schools.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
As to my comment about not having free will regarding your thoughts, some people misunderstood. I wasn't claiming that you can't control what you think ABOUT. I was speaking only of your CONCLUSIONS. Furthermore I was talking only about those who came to their conclusions after STUDYING the evidence. And the people I was talking about were not atheists, as one poster seemed to think.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have recently been convinced that a statement follows logically from some of my beliefs and should therefore be included in my list of beliefs. However, I initially had no real feelings one way or the other for this new belief - nonetheless, as I have been convinced by rational argument I have tried to adopt it to maintain consistency and gradually it is starting to "feel" true to me. Surely this is me having control over my conclusions, no?

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the people I was talking are a rare bunch. Those who make a great effort to learn the religion in question, but still intellectually feel that the God, or Jesus of that religion, is somewhat likely (but far from certain) to be a myth. But while their brain force these doubts on them, their hearts are totally embracing what they might think is a 40% shot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this really a rare bunch? It's not how I would have put it, but it's pretty much my position and I would have thought the position of many Christians. I believe in God and in Christianity as the "right" religion - yet I concede there is a chance I am wrong and it is all just myth. This doesnt seem odd to me at all - who would really claim 100% faith in their ability to know the correct religion?

[Shandrax]

Well, I can't come up with a funny non-related response nor with a good joke, but I feel the urge to write something, because this thread is definitely worth it, so I decided on the following:

I agree completely to David's logic!*

The interesting aspect of logic is that it is a system of argumentation that can do without god. You don't need god to prove that you are right, the inner laws of logic alone are fully sufficient.

A famous side effect is that ancient kings had to deduce their right to rule from the will of god. Obviously logic alone did not lead to the satisfied result.

Humans like to use god whenever they want to explain something that cannot be explained by logic. Maybe we got it all wrong and we should accept logic as god and not vice versa.

* or should I say to David's explanation which seems to be logical, because logic doesn't belong to anyone?

[neverforgetlol]

right... even though science already can explain the origins, and can even SEE the remnants of the big bang in space.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not reply to your posts until they show a bit more rigour and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of the story about the racehorse who was so far behind he thought he was in the lead.

Sharkey, I don't believe you are interested in the truth- I believe you view these debates as a game, and your only interest is "winning". Therefore, I will give you your victory, since I don't care who wins.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually the people I was talking are a rare bunch. Those who make a great effort to learn the religion in question, but still intellectually feel that the God, or Jesus of that religion, is somewhat likely (but far from certain) to be a myth. But while their brain force these doubts on them, their hearts are totally embracing what they might think is a 40% shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this describes me perfectly.

[siegfriedandroy]

Everything is odds to you, Mr Sklansky, sir! I am Christian, and assuming that Christianity is true, I believe God's character is consistent with being very gracious toward the folk you describe, who still believe despite nagging and disconcerting doubt. I cannot be so presumptuous as to know the mind of God, but I know He is gracious, and that there is no favoritism with Him. Your words bring to mind the verse in one of the gospels- "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief."

I especially agree with your acknowledgment that, while modern science can show how physics can lead to amazing creation, etc, there are still no reasonable explanations in a godless universe for why the laws existed or came to be in the first place.

[siegfriedandroy]

What the hell is that guy talking about, Sharkey!? Can you please explain it to me!? Pretty sure he doesnt really have any idea what he's truly saying...

[siegfriedandroy]

No doubt the ad hominem is the most common philosophical weapon wielded in this forum. Never ceases...

[Sharkey]

Ad hominem is the manual self-stimulation of this forum.