Oh my god, I'm glad I missed this ID "debate."

[The Witch]

Just got back from the doctor's and C-SPAN is re-running this ID hogwash. "If you went into a computer shop and asked how I knew the computer had be designed, you'd say 'Look at all these circuits. It couldn't just evolve.'"

Hey. Genius. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it couldn't.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

ok. done. anything interesting in darth cheney's speech?

Also, did any caller manage to mention the FSM?

[Inland]

1. But think of it this way.

If you were a cave man, and you saw a computer, you would think it was invented by gods or a god itself.

Therefore, both reactions are born of what the observer knows and what he doesn't. In the same way a person unable to comprehend evolution declares that there MUST be something supernatural, the caveman is unable to comprehend a a computer and similarly declares it's somthing supernatural.

[longship]

2. Hey. Genius, it not only *could*, it *has*

Electronic circuitry can be and *is* evolved.

And here is a page full of citations:
www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html

Here's another article of an evolved microprocessor:
Creatures From Primordial Silicon

[The Witch]

3. creep-peh.

Did you call up and give this guy what-for? :D

[Endangered Specie]

38. Hmmm, sounds a little to Borgish for my taste

:scared:

[Roland99]

4. I wasn't aware that non-organic compounds could evolve.

[opihimoimoi]

6. evolution, I suppose, falls into different categories..the living kind,

and the non living kind.

Our airplanes evolved over the past 100 years to the point of flying around the world w/o stopping.

Our tools evolved from stone chippers to lazers, etc.

Some might wanna call it PROGRESS, but in this context...its the same.

IMHO

[Roland99]

9. But there's one HUGE difference between the two.

The non-living evolution *has* been at the direction of mankind.

The living evolution occurs on its own via DNA mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.

[opihimoimoi]

16. Yes, it seems the non living Evolution is at the direction of Man...to a

degree...there are a lot of unintended conseque4nces of our actions however....meaning, sometimes, we plan for one thing but get another....

and evolution does not mean we get BETTER all the time...there are times when we devolve/regress from bad ideas...

[bnr65432]

26. computer programs can evove

scientists use computer pograms as models for evolution in living things

sorry, but i cant find a link. I read it in a magazine a while ago and don't remember which one or very many details

edit: spelling mistake

[Roland99]

27. Are the programs rewriting their own based upon the results of formulas?

If not, then it's not truly evolving.

[Orrex]

5. The "Watchmaker" fairytale has been debunked for a long, long time

If that's the best they've got (it is), then they should abandon their idiotic religious crusade (they should).

[papau]

7. "fairytale has been debunked"-just curious - what replaced the watchmaker

in your world view.

As background it appears science not only has no answer to creation questions, but also that science can not ever give an answer, based on what we know of science and the scientific method.

So that leaves creation unexplained and unexplainable.

I agree the Watchmater is unprovable - but what have you seen that justifies the word "debunked"?

In any case I agree that ID is not science.

[KittyWampus]

8. "Watchmaker" presumes a person or being. How about saying the Universe has

an inherent capacity to develop the information and material necessary to make watches.

Further, the Universe has the capacity to generate and develop information about watches but also the capacity to remember that info, store that info, communicate that info and to RESPOND to the info.

And, if the Universe is held to have this inherent capacity, why cannot science study this capacity?

Isn't science the study and measurement of the Universe?

Just because our methods of empirically studying this inherent capacity of the Universe to generate and manipulate In-Formation hasn't developed yet, why operate under the presumption it never will?

The Atomic Model was simply a tenet of Faith until the microscope proved it to be empirical fact.

[Orrex]

12. A point of clarity

"The Atomic Model was simply a tenet of Faith until the microscope proved it to be empirical fact."

If you're referring to the ancient, philosophical Atomic Model, then you're correct, to a point. But it's important to distinguish ancient statements of philosophy and the hypotheses articulated subsequent to the development of the scientific method.

A scientific hypothesis is not at all a tenet of Faith. It is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, subject to revision and modification pending the acquisition of additional data.

A statement of faith, such as "James Van Praagh is not an abject fraud" does not permit modification or the acquisition of additional data.

[papau]

15. Well said - indeed to note that a "scientific" way hasn't developed yet

for folks to even ask the question of how/why creation, but to then suggest we not operate under the presumption it never will, is a bit like having faith, isn't it?

Faith in science :-) - but to suggest this kind of faith in science is the same kind of faith as faith in religion would no doubt be an insult to cryingshame's beliefs - so I won't go there.

:toast:

:-)

[KittyWampus]

30. Actually, Orrex failed to recognize my position was also a scientific

hypothesis. And most certainly a valid one. And just as provable, at this point, as the hypothesis that the Material World is capable of producing Consciousness and randomly accounting for speciation.

What does it say that so many DO presume scientific inquiry cannot empirically measure and study Consciousness or that instruments will not be developed to aid this inquiry?

And I didn't say there IS NO current scientific way to study Consciousness. I said Science hasn't developed instruments to study it empirically the same way it developed microscopes to study atoms.

Currently we DO have a very fine and infinitely adequate instrument to scientifically study Consciousness- The Human Mind. It's just the current crop of Scientists who are wed to Reductionism and Materialism that refuse to recongize the valid contributions of the many Scientists who have studied Consciousness over the millenium.

This situation is beginning to change. It will have to.

[Orrex]

33. Sorry, but that's begging the question

Before we get too far into this, I'll need you to define "human mind" and "consciousness." Both of these are central to your hypothesis, so it is essential that you state explicitly what they are. Also, since you propose to use one to measure the other, you must specifically articulate the differences between them. Otherwise, we can't accept either as a measuring instrument. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem addresses this inadequacy nicely, by the way.

You're arguing that consciousness exists but that science (lower case "s," if you please; it's not a religion) lacks the means to study it, and you draw an analogy between consciousness and atoms, presumably because both are "unseen."

Sorry, but you're essentially saying "consciousness exists, and we'll prove it when we have the means to prove it." Clearly this is inadequate, because it can apply to literally anything, even the logically impossible.

"Godzilla exists, and we'll prove it when we have the means to prove it."

"Square circles that are triangular exist, and we'll prove it when we have the means to prove it."

"Honorable NeoCons exist, and we'll prove it when we have the means to prove it."

See? You need to develop a more elaborate theory, must the way that atomic theory was far more elaborate before the existence of atoms was verified through observation. Surely you don't suppose that atoms' existence was unproven prior to visual confirmation!?

Consider the contemporary example of String Theory. Currently we can't prove it, and we can't even test it or its implications, though it offers a potentially powerful explanatory model of the universe. But until we can test it, it's just an untested hypothesis, and it will remain so until we have the means to test it. Unlike your concept of consciousness, though, no one is saying "String Theory is correct, and we'll prove it when we have the means to prove it." They're saying "It may be correct, but we can't declare that it's correct until we test it in a repeatable, falsifiable way." Your hypothesis about consciousness is an equally untestable philosophy, but you're claiming that it's correct by nothing more than your own assertion (and testimonial evidence).

To demonstrate the existence of the atom, countless experiments were performed, and each was designed so that the chance of something other than an atom would be less and less likely to yield a false positive. That way, the results of the experiment wouldn't be tainted by non-atom results.

After you've specifically described "consciousness" and "mind," please describe the phenomenon that is best described by consciousness and not by some other, already-demonstrated phenomenon.

While you're at it, please list a few of the many scientists who have studied consciousness over the millennia. I don't mean philosophers who've pontificated about it; I mean actual, experimental processes in which consciousness has been observed and tested in repeatable, falsifiable ways.

[KittyWampus]

31. You have created a false dichotomy. Stating the Universe has an inherent

capacity for Intelligence/Consciousness is also a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS as well.

And that hypothesis actually jives with quantum theory to a greater extent then the current Materialistic view.

It helps go a bit further in explaining things than Reductionism.

And by the way, Materialism and Reductionism are NOT the de facto starting points of Science. They might be the prevailing philosophical basis. But they have not ever been proven any more than my hypothetical standpoint has been.

[Orrex]

35. You have an unusual notion of science

Instead of simply asserting that the capacity for intelligence or consciousness is a scientific hypothesis, please articulate that hypothesis and the means by which it can be tested. I've asked this question in two separate posts, but I'll be content if you reply to either.

Quantum theory makes absolutely no (that's NONE, ZILCH, ZERO) claims about consciousness. If you disagree, please give a credible, peer-reviewed source. Ken Wilbur, for example, is not a credible, peer-reviewed source. Neither is Andrew Weil, Deepak Chopra, or any other holistic guru.

I don't think that anyone here is claiming that either Materialism or Reductionism is the starting point of science. However, the starting point of science may be said to be this: The universe exists and is accessible to observation and explanation.

That's it, really. Any assertions beyond that must be supported by reproducible and falsifiable experimental evidence.

[Orrex]

10. A valid question

The most complete answer I can give is the suggestion that you read Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker," which is the most thorough debunking of the fairytale that I've yet encountered.

But, in case you don't care to read 500+ of somewhat dry material, I'll sum up the important part:

It's not just that the Watchmaker is unprovable--it's unnecessary.

Dawkins demonstrates that evolution by natural selection, including the development of complexity, isn't just possible. It's inevitable. Once a chemical compound develops the capacity of self-replication, and once the processes of natural selection set to work on it, the rest is essentially automatic.

"Develops" in this sense doesn't imply a guiding intelligence or an inherent design, by the way. It's simply a function of the chemical properties of the molecule in question.

At this point someone will say "then who created the molecules?" The answer, to a scientist, is "I don't know the process by which molecules came into existence. Yet." Science sees a problem for which it has no answer and says "let's keep looking." Religion, such as creationism, sees a problem for which it has no answer and says "God did it." That's the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy, and it's likewise been debunked for centuries.

But even if we accept the idea of a Watchmaker, we must absolutely ask who designed the Watchmaker. An uber-Watchmaker? Creationist like to pretend that they don't care who the designer is, but they're clearly lying. Comprehending the designer would be much more informative than understanding his design.

Creationists claim that the simplest particles in the universe can't have come into existence on their own (or can't have always existed), so therefore God, the most complex entity in existence, must have always existed or come into existence on His own. Of course, that's the paired fallacies of Special Pleading and Begging the Question.


I'm not sure what you mean by saying "So that leaves creation unexplained and unexplainable."

Much about the universe (creation, as you call it) has been explained, and much more remains to be explained. I'm also not sure what parts of creation you would call unexplainable--could you give an example? Most claims like that are really just a way of saying "we can't currently explain X, and I can't imagine how they'll ever explain X, so X must be unexplainable." That's the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy, too.

But if you mean that the purpose or meaning of the universe are unexplainable, then that's a pure statement of faith. Show me that such meaning or purpose really exists, and then we'll see about explaining it.

[papau]

17. I love Dawkins - and have read his 500 pages - but last I looked he was

saying evolution did not need a watchmaker - despite the current holes in "evolution" - and I neither disagree, nor support his arguement - indeed I suggest that evolution, even of the pause for a long time and then do a lot type, is the only science we have as to the developement of spiecies, and I hope we soon find the reason for moving from one cell to multi-cell, as survival does not seem to get us there.

In anycase, it is not exactly a "debunking of the fairytale" now is it?

:-)

The Watchmaker is unprovable-- we agree - it's unnecessary - as to evolution is one idea - but Dawkins last I looked does not attempt to extend that to creation.

And as I noted above re faith -saying "I don't know the process by which molecules came into existence. Yet." is just another statement of faith - and is not a debunking of anything - although I do like the term "God-of-the-Gaps fallacy".

:-)

In meta-physics the question of who designed the Watchmaker is not a valid question, or perhaps better said is that the person asking the question has not a clue as to the diference between meta-physics and science.

The simplest particles in the universe not coming into existence on their own (or can't have always existed) is the current state of science. No point fight that fact is there? But again I do enjoy the terms "paired fallacies of Special Pleading and Begging the Question" since I do not know how you are applying "logic" to meta=physics.

If we stay in the world of science, all we can say is we do not know the answer and that based on the rules of science as we now know them, we will never be able to answer the creation question.

I believe the only logical responses on the atheist side is to say "It is not an important question" and "I do not need an answer", rather than to profess faith that something in the future will bring forth the answer.

Nothing about creation has been explained - we have a big bang that follows the Bible story quite well, together with QM expansion - but even post creation understanding of the universe seems to have major holes. But post creation explanations do seem possible. Like you I have faith in science!

It is just that creatiuon moment.

Seems like the gap between what science is able to do, and what we -"perhaps" need an answer to must be filled by that God of the Gaps called ..."Science".

I look forward to your proof that there is no meaning or purpose to existance.

This could be a very interesting thread - but I suspect we are back to "I can assert there is no purpose and I do not have to prove anything"????

Well, that was fun.

But if you mean that the purpose or meaning of the universe are unexplainable, then that's a pure statement of faith. Show me that such meaning or purpose really exists, and then we'll see about explaining it.

[Orrex]

25. More good questions

In anycase, it is not exactly a "debunking of the fairytale" now is it?

That depends. If the fairytale implies certainty that a Watchmaker guided the development of life on Earth, then the fact that Dawkins shows the Watchmaker to be unnecessary destroys that certainty.

But if one merely says "A Watchmaker might have done it," well, that statement is hard to refute but equally hard to mine for useful information.

The Watchmaker is unprovable-- we agree - it's unnecessary - as to evolution is one idea - but Dawkins last I looked does not attempt to extend that to creation.

Honestly, it's been about two years since I read him, so I may be a little rusty. He deals primarily with the development of biological life, but I believe that he does address the creationist argument that the universe is so well-suited for life that it "couldn't" have been a matter of chance.

And as I noted above re faith -saying "I don't know the process by which molecules came into existence. Yet." is just another statement of faith - and is not a debunking of anything - although I do like the term "God-of-the-Gaps fallacy".

I don't think that it's a statement of faith, but rather a statement of fact. Saying "yet" does not imply any assertion that one will certainly understand a thing at a later date; it's merely an admission that one doesn't currently know it.

"God-of-the-Gaps" isn't my phrase, by the way, so please don't credit me with it!

I do enjoy the terms "paired fallacies of Special Pleading and Begging the Question" since I do not know how you are applying "logic" to meta=physics.

Well, "Special Pleading" means that someone makes an exception for one principle but not for a competing principle. To wit, creationists claim that God always existed but that the universe could not have always existed, but they make no argument why this should be so, other than their assertion of it. If we are free to assume that God always existed, then we are equally free to assume that the universe did. If you can show me why the universe can not always have existed, then you must show my why God could have.

Begging the Question simply means that the debater is assuming the correctness of the conclusion-at-issue. This is a more subtle fallacy that it first appears, but it's almost always invoked during debates about creationism.

If we stay in the world of science, all we can say is we do not know the answer and that based on the rules of science as we now know them, we will never be able to answer the creation question. I believe the only logical responses on the atheist side is to say "It is not an important question" and "I do not need an answer", rather than to profess faith that something in the future will bring forth the answer.

Generally, the atheist doesn't say that the future will bring forth the answer; instead, the atheist says that the future may bring it forth. And it may not. No statement of certainty is made, so no faith is involved.

Nothing about creation has been explained - we have a big bang that follows the Bible story quite well, together with QM expansion - but even post creation understanding of the universe seems to have major holes. But post creation explanations do seem possible. Like you I have faith in science!

Forgive me, but the Big Bang and the Genesis myth have little in common, in terms of chronology or anything else. That's a common argument put forth by creationists, but it's false.

Additionally, I do not have "faith" in science. At least, not in any way analogous to a theist's "Faith" in God. Based on my experience, I have reason to trust the explanations put forth by science, even as I realize that these are not The Ultimate Answers. That's not faith, though.

I look forward to your proof that there is no meaning or purpose to existance.

This could be a very interesting thread - but I suspect we are back to "I can assert there is no purpose and I do not have to prove anything"????

Well, that was fun.

But if you mean that the purpose or meaning of the universe are unexplainable, then that's a pure statement of faith. Show me that such meaning or purpose really exists, and then we'll see about explaining it.

That fallacy is called The Straw Man. I am not arguing that there is no meaning or purpose to existence, so I have no reason to attempt to "prove" that argument. Instead, I am arguing that we have no evidence that there is transcendent meaning or purpose to existence.

Show me your evidence that transcendent meaning or purpose actually exists, and we'll debate it!

[papau]

32. "Show me yours" Seems fair! :-) , but Trust in blank is not faith?

By the way , "creationists claim that God always existed but that the universe could not have always existed, but they make no argument why this should be so, other than their assertion of it. If we are free to assume that God always existed, then we are equally free to assume that the universe did. If you can show me why the universe can not always have existed, then you must show my why God could have. " is not quite the state of the question since physics now thinks there was a start to the Universe - the big bang.

As to Begging the Question - assuming the correctness of the conclusion-at-issue - I agree it is often used during debates about creationism - but it is used by both sides! :-)

And if something "may be true" I read that as Agnostic - but I realize you do not see a difference between my Agnostic and your current "atheist".

to refresh your memory, Dawkins response re "creation and the idea that the universe is so well-suited for life that it "couldn't" have been a matter of chance" is to reverse the logic (as I and many on DU have fun doing in this area of unprovable conjecture) and to state the "very important" principle that if the universe was not set up for us, we would not be here to observe how exactly it was set up for us (implying many universes but only a few were where humans could pop up - albeit by chance!) Dawkins and Hawkins both seemed to have backed off this because too many folks laughed when they asserted it was an "important principle".

[Orrex]

34. My fault for not following through on my point

"Trust," in this context, is a decision made on the basis of reasonably well-confirmed prior evidence. I distinguish this from "faith," because faith is based upon poorly (or not-at-all) confirmed evidence, if any. Trust can exist without faith, but I'm not so sure that faith can exist without trust. They're really not the same at all.

As far as "universe always existing," I should have used the complete formulation, which is this:

Creationists (generally) say something like: "If God exists, then he either has always existed or else he came into existence by his own power"

But they refuse to allow the opposing position: "If the universe exists, then it either has always existed or else it came into existence by its own power."

The latter, they claim, is impossible. Usually they use a bullshit artificial construction like "everything that began to exist, had a cause," because they think that this gets them out of the loop, because God did not "begin to exist." However, unless they can name something else that did not "begin to exist," then they're simply declaring that God exists, and that's begging the question once again.

Anyway, it's "Special Pleading" because they're saying that God could have always existed or come into existence on his own, but the universe could not. Why is an exception made for God (whose existence is unproven) but not for the universe (the existence of which, in some fashion, has been pretty reliably demonstrated)?

I may have been unclear about the nature of "begging the question." It's fine to assume that one's conclusion is true, but one's argument must be made in support of that truth. The fallacy occurs when the assumption of the conclusion's truth is used as a means of proving that truth. See the circle? I don't believe that credible science makes use of this fallacy in practice, though it's central to most Western faiths.

The Dawkins notion that you're describing is, of course, the so-called Anthropic Principle of the Universe, and it's generally intended more as a rhetorical trick than as a serious explanatory model. Every time your local DJ says "You're listening to WXQR," he's invoking the Anthropic Principle of Radio, which states that if they're not tuned in, you're not talking to them, but if they are tuned in, they you are talking to them.

As far as the "may be true" assertion goes, I see nothing about it that is inconsistent with either an atheist position or an Agnostic position.

[papau]

37. Thank you for the excellent reply - I agree with much you have said - but

do of course disagree on the "judgment calls" one must make in implementing your points, such as what is "reasonably well-confirmed prior evidence."

Faith is based on sufficient evidence for the faith-holder. Trust is based on sufficient evidence for the trust holder. I agree that faith can not exist without trust - but I do not see trust existing without faith. While at the edges there may be a difference in tone between trust and faith, it is not enough, in my opinion, to really "distinguish" trust from faith in our discussion. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The universe always existing is indeed a formulation that was promoted and tested and found wanting, and therefore rejected in favor of the Big Bang. When U of Colorado George Gamow's books came out(all of which are great reads) in the 40's (and later) and explained the big bang I could not put it down! But "Creationists" - which I am not one of in terms of evolution but which I am one of in terms of existence - do not to my knowledge reject the possibility God creating a pulsating universe, with bang followed by collapse, over and over again, nor of the their just being one big collapse in the future, or one big expansion. The choice among the 3 options was made by looking at the physics/math and indeed I am not sure current big bang choice is a "final" choice since there can be no final choices in science - by definition.

However the similarity of the Big Bang to the Bible is obvious. While obvious, it is not of much interest or use to science, but there is no point in denying the similarities.

The question is existing and before existing, as a Big Bang universe has a "before existing". The big bang precludes a "The Universe simply exists and always has" but for some atheists the "no - or less - God needed" answer of the pulsating steady state of bang, expansion, and collapse, and new bang is preferred.

QM is proposed as the "came into existence by its own" power but again science facts get in the way of a QM - and no God or less God - solution.

But I grant you the QM action at a distance with no visible cause as seen by the observer is pretty "god-like". Unfortunately it works only to statistically relate activities of particle - and not existence. A friend tried the alternative approach to understanding QM of "reality" blinking into and out of existence and developed some interesting equations that were good enough to get funding (his is the garage in Maryland that will glow for next few million years! :-) ), but this tossing of the bath water also tosses the baby we call current science.

In any case, God the creator of any steady state universe will always be an alternative to "it came into existence on its own" concept.

I would not call the situation a "begging of the question" - the question is just one that can not be answered. It is not "Special Pleading" - it is just a viewpoint - one can not get to God via logic, nor can one disprove God via logic.

I agree that "begging the question" involves "proof of the truth" that uses the assumption that one's conclusion is true, and is indeed a circle. But again God is not a logic question that one proves or disproves.

To me the interesting point is the inability of science to ever address the creation question. To rename God as the universe which is and always will be is just an avoidance of the word God. Nothing has been explained, and all questions about creation continue, except perhaps it is easier to dismiss them as unimportant.

We started out this post on trust, faith, and required amount of evidence - and I believe we finish with the unanswered questions of what is evidence and how much is enough when dealing with something that can not be proved, or disproved, by science.

Thanks for jogging my memory re the name of the rhetorical trick called the Anthropic Principle of the Universe.

Lastly, "may be true" assertions are just uncertainty and fit everywhere, but they just do not seem to fit, in my opinion, if one posits a certainty that there is no God and then goes on to say that your statement "may be true".

We have folks on the board that claim the atheist position and the Agnostic position equate, with no gods "proven" to date but maybe gods "proven" in the future, which I read as Agnostic only - and not atheist. The logic or lack thereof of my "Agnostic only" is for another night.

Thanks for the discussion!

:-)

[Orrex]

39. A few final thoughts

Faith is based on sufficient evidence for the faith-holder. Trust is based on sufficient evidence for the trust holder. I agree that faith can not exist without trust - but I do not see trust existing without faith. While at the edges there may be a difference in tone between trust and faith, it is not enough, in my opinion, to really "distinguish" trust from faith in our discussion. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm comfortable with that disagreement, but I feel that I haven't articulated my thought as well as I should.

I'd like to distinguish between "Faith" and "faith," first of all. "Faith" describes, for me, a belief in the transcendent, supernatural, or divine and can exist in the absence of external evidence.

This includes inferential conclusions about ultimately mundane events, such as "God saved me from cancer by delivering me to the world's best oncologist." Everything about such a cure is explained by mundane means, even "spontaneous remission," so there is simply no need to put God into the situation in order to explain it. One may still choose to inject God into it and to credit God with the cure, but that's where Faith comes in. The Faithful person can claim that, without God, the cure wouldn't have occurred, but then it's up to him to demonstrate that this is the case. If he can't, then that's Faith once again.

In contrast, "faith" describes the acceptance of evidence and prior experience as indicators of likely future actions and outcomes. It may be said that I have "faith" that the can contains orange juice, but that's only because of my prior experience with similar cans. This kind of "faith" is easily broken, such as if the can actually contains clam juice, or any of a zillion other contrary results. In any case, "faith" results from the analysis of evidence and requires no element not supported by that evidence. There is no suppositional leap whereby the "faithful" person injects an unseen actor into the equation.

Even having "faith" that a total stranger will act a certain way is a decision based upon the predictions you make as a result of prior interactions with other people.

It may be said, I suppose, that this kind of "faith" is equivalent to "trust," but only if we maintain a clear distinction between "faith" and "Faith."

I would not call the situation a "begging of the question" - the question is just one that can not be answered. It is not "Special Pleading" - it is just a viewpoint - one can not get to God via logic, nor can one disprove God via logic.

If God can be shown to entail a logical impossibility (and the Christian God does--lots of them), then his existence is itself logically impossible. Further, if God is not subject to logic, then one can't make any claims about him whatsoever, and that includes claims about "mercy," "grace," justice," by the way. Also, one can't conclude that God is "good" any more than one can conclude that God is "evil."

We have folks on the board that claim the atheist position and the Agnostic position equate, with no gods "proven" to date but maybe gods "proven" in the future, which I read as Agnostic only - and not atheist. The logic or lack thereof of my "Agnostic only" is for another night.

Atheist, to me, means that one can make the following statement honestly: "I do not believe that God exists." That statement makes no claims about future evidence or future beliefs but is simply a declaration about current non-belief. There is also no burden upon the atheist to prove that God doesn't exist. Admittedly, this can have considerable overlap with the Agnostic position, but that's not a problem.

I've enjoyed this discussion quite a bit. Please feel free to continue it or to let it end here, at your preference.

[papau]

42. I am sure we will pick this up again in another thread -just one final

comment (and no, I am not trying for the last word! - we continue in the next thread I am sure)

The "Faith" vs. "faith," where "Faith" describes a belief in the transcendent, supernatural, or divine and can exist in the absence of external evidence, and faith is a "trust" that what has happened in the past in a similar situation will happen again is not a clear cut difference to me. Indeed the idea that true faith requires knowledge of this world - as in scientific, for example - in addition to belief/faith/trust in God, is standard where I hang out. Blind faith is not made fun of, but then it is not elevated to a better higher value. Indeed your objection seems to be to blind faith where God is - and that is all one needs to know. For many this is indeed all one needs to know. How one gets to this quite rational place is not via the atheist search for a "prove it" event. But getting there is still quite rational.

Indeed "If God can be shown to entail a logical impossibility" is an interesting construct since what is logically impossible is based on the thinkers frame of reference and his acceptance of what form of evidence. The idea that claims about God flow from logic and if you do not build a logical construct for each claim, the claim is invalid is an interesting way to avoid the questions that a believer is trying to answer. In any case I look forward to learning of the logical impossibilities require to believe in God/the Christian God and the logically impossible existence of my God. :-)

The claim that there is no burden on the Atheist to prove that God does not exist is I am afraid just the atheist begging for special treatment in the debate. The Agnostic need not prove anything, the atheist affirmations requires proof, lest it be only lowly opinion.

Thoughts for next time.

Does one need to have evidence in order to be rational in believing in God. Perhaps religious belief is rational if there is no rational defeater for the belief, and if God designed our minds in such a way that we can discover Him through experience, we do not need evidence for God.

Perhaps the concept of Induction, and the idea that if God designed our minds to use induction, then we are rational to use it. Indeed this falls into your faith discussion and how we do not need prove that the sun will rise tomorrow if we come to that conclusion through induction. Simply attributing our willingness to accept induction to our knowledge of past history is to ignore our faith that the future will be like the past. Induction provides no conclusive proof, but it is rational, so perhaps belief in God is also rational?

On what basis can one challenge a claim to have had an "experience of God"?” There is nothing "extraordinary" about such an experience when we are designed by God to have such experiences, is there?

We experience things beyond the empirical all the time - if one is listening to music and experiences a sort of ecstasy, must one then prove the "beauty" or support the experience. When we experience things that are beyond the empirical we do not need to support it. If our cognitive faculties are made in such a way that we can discover God through life experience, such as by reading the Bible, then the belief produced by reading the Bible is sufficient and rational.

One need not claim knowledge of God (likes beef/hates pork, etc)in order to claim a rational belief in God. We are only talking about what is rational. Belief in God is rational.

Indeed the debate can be switched about so one sees those that do not believe in God as having cognitive faculties that are not functioning properly. (no offense intended.... :-) )

Often it is said that we do not NEED GOD - Occam's razor - the principle of Parsimony, but in our discussion of rational behavior I suggest that by always being able to offer an undercutting or rebutting, a defeater of the other argument, the principle of Parsimony falls away as a reason to reject God. Indeed believers in God can live very easily with the principle of Parsimony.

Perhaps we conclude that my model could be true, and your model could be true, and that there are no rational defeaters that demand one admit that he is not justified in believing in God because of his religious experience.

[Zodiak]

40. hmm

"I look forward to your proof that there is no meaning or purpose to existance.

This could be a very interesting thread - but I suspect we are back to "I can assert there is no purpose and I do not have to prove anything"????"

Can't prove a negative, but I suspect we all know that. That is one of the first tenets in science. All one can do is support or not support the hypothesis at hand, and even that is done within the realm of statistical certainty. There are no absolutes...absolutes are for religious freaks.

And I did see the CSPAN segment....made me sick that this man can call himself a scientist. He ignores one of the chief tenets of science: just because the null hypothesis is supported, it doesn't mean that you can pick and choose what the null hypothesis actually says. The nul hypothesis is simply "any explanation for th event other than the hypothesis being tested".

It is the twisting of the very definitions of science that makes me really wish we culd yank these "scientist's" tenure.

I also loved how this guy dismisses a paleontologists's argument because he is a paleontologist and says he is right because he is a biochemist. Since when does a scientist get to claim to be right because of his field?

A charlatian jackass was on my TV the other day, and I find it telling that CSPAN didn't even bother to challenge him or allow any follow-up questions from toher scientists.

[papau]

43. Can't prove a negative - can't assert or affirm a negative?

As to your comment (paraphrasing) on scientific ego getting in front of scientific argument - I totally agree with you!

:-)

[hfojvt]

18. I am guessing that Dawkins explanation is not testable

Which development of complexity is inevitable? Dinosaurs? Bees? Ants? Homo Sapiens? Western Civilization?

You can speculate that it did happen that way. You can perhaps demonstrate that it could happen that way. But how, outside of a time machine can you test a hypothesis that says "it did happen that way"?

I would like to know if Mr. Dawkins ever touches upon the question of why certain compounds self-replicate instead of behaving like other compounds.

"Show me that meaning and purpose really exist and then we'll see about explaining it." but until then we will continue to believe and to teach that meaning and purpose to not exist, and that a search for meaning is an unscientific waste of time and energy? M & P, like faeries, exist when you believe in them. They are choices more than they are statements of faith.

[Orrex]

20. You're searching for a transcendent, metaphysical "why"

And that's not what science is about--sorry. You also seem to have the impression that science is about Truth, but it's not. Science is about finding as complete and consistent explanation as possible for a given phenomenon, and if a more complete and consistent explanation comes along later, then we'll adopt that one instead.

Which development of complexity is inevitable? Dinosaurs? Bees? Ants? Homo Sapiens? Western Civilization?
Complexity itself is apparently inveitable, but the precise manifestation of that complexity is a function of the countless environmental factors that have preceded it.

Science doesn't say "homo sapiens developed this way, and we'll never examine the question again." Instead, science offers a means to discover as complete an explanation as possible for the process through which homo sapiens developed. This explanation is based on evidence and, ideally, makes predictions about what kind of additional evidence we might find in the future.

Dawkins does, I believe, address the chemical nature of certain molecules and the impact that their nature has upon the probabilities of potential combinations that they might form. He does not address any underlying "why" of a hydrogen bond, which means that he doesn't speculate about the metaphysical "purpose" or "justification" for that bond. As a scientist, he seeks to explain the evidence.

M & P, like faeries, exist when you believe in them. They are choices more than they are statements of faith.
I submit that these do not exist except as constructs of belief, perception, and convention. A faerie, whether you believe in it or not, does not "exist" in the way that, say, a baseball bat exists.

Sorry, but if you're trying to steer us toward some kind of a "maybe we're all in The Matrix" debate, I'm not interested.

[hfojvt]

23. well I am saying that the question of the origin of life

fails to be scientific in one huge way. "The hypothesis must be testable."

I am not sure if the question of life is a metaphysical one, but it seems that there is much talk about a phenomenon, life, without knowing many of the basics.

I was talking more about "The Neverending Story" than I was about the Matrix. If M & P exist as constructs, why are they less real than a baseball bat which exists as a manufactured product? It is not less real for being manufactured.

[Orrex]

28. What happens when life is made?

An artificial virus has already been made in the lab, as have the essential building blocks of the most basic life. It's very likely that an actual, but simple, living organism will be engineered in the next few decades, and what happens then?

Even if the original life on Earth didn't come about in the same way, the fact that life can be initiated will be sufficient to show that a Watchmaker is not necessary.

Regarding Meaning and Purpose, I would say that their existence is markedly less substantial than that of a baseball bat, because M & P can't be demonstrated to have existence except as social constructs or functions of the brain. If you don't like the baseball bat, then pick any other solid object, and the point is served. The "manufactured" nature of the bat is irrelevant, so a stone or tree or block of ice will do just as well.

For what it's worth, it is my conclusion that "mind" and "consciousness" are functions of neurochemistry, so an intangible conception like "meaning" or "purpose" is likewise a function of neurochemisty. I have seen no evidence to refute this conclusion.

As such, M & P are "real" like memories, but they're not "real" like a baseball bat.

[Zodiak]

41. Let us also not forget coacervates

as found by A.I Oparin that shows that a mixed primordial soup can easily produce a primordial cell by no more means than chemical interaction.

[ComerPerro]

11. Well, lets see. Human tissue, living. Circuits, non-living

what is the difficulty there?

I don't leave a piece of bread out for two weeks, come back to find it moldy, and say "there is life here now, but there was no life before. Someone, some 'designer', must have created this life and placed it on this bread"

[mandyky]

13. I actually enjoyed the debate

I watched the whole 3 hours of the show. The one guy was a bit hard to take, but Darwin's descendent did a good job.

I think we need to watch Cheney's speech - this stuff will all come up in the elction in 08 - Cheney took major aim at Kerry, Hillary, and other Senators who voted for IWR who are claiming they were "mislead". We DUers know it is crap, but hopefully the DNC and the campaigns realize this and find a way to deal with it.

[elehhhhna]

14. So God made computers? I misssed that chapter int he bible.

[Toots]

19. So the computer of today is the same as the one of the fifties?????

Remember Univac. It took up a whole city block and couldn't do a hundredth of what a cheap desktop today can do.

[Orrex]

22. That argument won't work

Because they'll point out that computers are a product of design by intelligent beings.

Instead, the more expedient tactic is to demonstrate that their analogy is flawed.

[Exiled in America]

21. Wake me up when a computer is biological, then we'll talk :)

Not aimed at the OP, but at the quote about evolving PCs.

[Bigmack]

24. I think conservatives are trying to get distance....

... away from the fundies. At least the ID fundies.

This morning's editorial in the RW Copley-owned San Diego Union-Trib came out against ID.

And get this... Charles Krauthamer said this in his op-ed piece today. Normally, I can't read that clown without throwing things, and while I disagree with him about the Cloud Being, he sure ain't on the side of the fundies.
- - - -

"Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today."

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice,

ttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002636485_krauthammer21.html

[nonconformist]

29. So it's more logical to think that the computer appeared out of thin air?

That was the best analogy they could come up with? Cripes. So many things wrong with that I don't know where to begin.

[Odin2005]

36. The IDers mistake...

...is taking absence of evidence to mean evidence of absence, a BIG nono. Also, I don't get where the IDers see design in nature. I don't see it. Michael Behe tries to tell people that some cellular components are "irreducibly complex" anyone who has studied this stuff knows this is hogwash. All of the complex biological structures I know about look like rediculously designed Rube Goldberg machines (devices that are much more complicated than they need be) Most new protiens come about when a chromosomal mishap creates an extra copy of the gene on the chromosome. there is no need for the extra chromosome, and usually mutations eventually make the extra gene to stop funtioning, but occasionally a mutation, instead of messing up the gene, will cause the resulting protein to have a differnt fuction than before. This is why so many enzymes look so jury-rigged, all proteins evolved from mutated copies other protiens. The similarities are only visible in recent gene duplications because eventually the two copies become different enough in structure to make the relationships obscucre.