"Where did sentience come from?" is not a "problem:"
If we discovered a mysterious pile of machinery that included clocks and computer boards on the dark side of the moon, it is more reasonable to conclude that some sentience produced it rather than "chance."
The question "Where did the sentience come from" does not change the fact that sentience is a better explanation than chance.
In addition, if it was chance, then the same question could be asked: "Where did "chance" come from?"
It takes 4 laws of physics for life to exist and as far as we know they did not exist before the big bang. So tell me how can a "God" exist to create the universe.
Indeed, the coin/seed is guided by the hand and it's movements like you said. The moment it's released from the hand is also when the hand decided where the seed would go. Chance isn't actually chance as it is guided by our actions, however this is not something we are directly aware of. Chance isn't actually chaos, but rather an infinitely more complex form of order. We have the power to choose, but not the ability to comprehend the choice.
There is 1:1024 chance for ANY predicted series of ten coin tosses. 9 tails and a heads, 1:1024 probability. 4 tails and 6 heads, 1:1024 probability. I hate it when people misinterpret statistics so badly like this.
@RuskePerson I don't see how that's a problem. It looks like you're playing with semantics. Yes, the aforementioned chance is present for any series of ten coin tosses. My video dealt exclusively with the 9 to 1 odds for obvious reasons, and that's why I only brought that one up. If THAT little detail inhibited you from seeing the entire point of the video, I sincerely, deeply apologize.
If there was a big pile of seeds next to the field and a big gust of wind blew over it and across the field, you would find a number of seeds had filled hole x.
Second to my earlier post, there are an infinite number of ways in which the laws of physics could be arranged to allow for life. An infinite number of arrangements permitting.
Why did the sentience choose this particualr one? If there are an infinity of designs for a universe with life, why this particular arrangement?
One thing that is clear, is that no matter how many higher levels one adds to cosmic reality, there is always the question of where somethign came from.
The problem you highlight - if I am correct - is that if the original cause of the universe was non-sentient, we have no reason to believe that the laws of physics should be a certain way. The requirement of life is obviously incredibly specific. The sentience argument however faces problems. First, where did the sentience come from? An infinite series cannot explain itself - it does not complete causation. It also violates the principle of parsimony.
I believe in metaphysical determinism and I agree with you that chance is, at best, a misunderstood concept if not entirely vacuous. However, the leap of a conclusion that you make from causation to sentience does not follow. If I get killed by a rock slide, does that mean the rocks or the rain that causes them to slide down the hill are sentient?
Chance could create life. You simply have the bias of hindsight and subjectivity.
You get a 3 star rating from me. Not bad by theists' standards
By a "theists' standards"? Right ... I won't even start.
The example you used was already addressed in the video. I already stated that we would only be dealing with the origins of the Universe. The direct cause of the land-slide itself would not be sentient, no: a systematic series of events would have directly resulted in its occurrence. However, for that EXACT reason, the origins of the Universe could not have been marked by anything of an insentient nature.
The simultaneous absence of chance and sentience or consciousness decision is impossible, as I illustrated in the video with my reference to a natural deadlock or impasse. In this regard, since chance is not actually initially involved with causality, a "chance" event could not have been accountable for the emanation of the Universe. A DECISION must have been made, and decision necessitates sentience.
I don't really think this is a 'logical' argument for a sentient being - it just seems to state that stuff is improbable, therefore anything that happens in spite of its improbability, especially something like the beginning of the universe, must have a sentient being working behind it.
No, the argument went nothing like that. I never gave chance any intrinsic properties ... I just elaborated on its inability to actually create anything. When using the phrase "time plus chance can create anything" in regards to the origins of the Universe, one has to stop and realize that these two factors are not in any way a trigger ... they cannot elicit or initiate anything in the absence of conscious DECISION. Chance cannot actually "create" anything is my point.
I'd have to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by "chance can't create anything" - do you mean a universe? And do you mean anything if there's no limits to what can happen?
I'd have to admit that I'm no physicist, but I also wonder why you use the argument that the universe could have any laws but it's due to chance that it has those it does: your metaphor of the guy in a field seems flawed because it's perfectly possible for chance to determine something in that sense.
Let me try to elucidate: If the "field" analogy can be corresponded to the origins of the Universe, it makes more sense. If someone walks onto a field full of holes, a choice CAN be made. It would NOT be random if he dropped the seed into one of the holes. For the sake of argument, let's say this man is "God", or the "prime mover". He can make a decision, because he has sentient aptitude. Are you with me so far?
Now, let's imagine a situation in which sentience is ABSENT. So, we do NOT have our man (or God). The seed - however it would be suspended in this illusory realm - is not sentiently encompassed. It is insentient, or inanimate. Therefore, the seed would RANDOMLY, or by a chance event, drop into one of the inestimable holes. Only ONE of the holes kick-stars the fundamentals of gravity, while the countless other holes produce different effects.
But WHAT caused the seed to move? We're talking about the origins of the Universe, because Planch's Epoch prevents us from seeing back any further, into a non-relative realm that would, by definition, be dubbed as SUPERNATURAL. I'm not saying it's unlikely the seed landed in the CORRECT hole in such a solitary state - I'm saying it COULDN'T HAVE. Chance is not an active force. It did not move the seed. So WHAT did (at the specific juncture we're presently discussing)?
I never denied the inherent tendencies of chance - you missed the whole point. Review the video and check your understanding. I clearly articulated that chance is not an active force.
Why do you think that it is impossible for non-existence to give rise to existence? Existence couldn't even mean anything were there no concept of non-existence. You need the dichotomy, otherwise you could not define the meaning of existence, and so it seems very likely that non-existence would be unstable and inevitably give rise to existence is some fashion.
I don't THINK it's impossible. It is impossible. Non-existence denotes a situation of absolute nothingness. The very implication of progression or sequence would be absent, because progression necessitates SOMETHING. Non-existence is merely the lack of existence. If we can formulate a concept of existence - which we can - than we can consequently arrive at a conclusion as to the definition of non-existence.
So we have more dishonesty from evolutionists but this will only backfire and hurt them as their past lies have,time is running out for them, the naturalist scientists will always hold to natural explanations no matter how unscientific they are,ie multiverses and like dawkins they will commit the fallacy of argument ad futuris,appealing to the future that will help get their dogmatic materialism out of their dark hole, the public in surveys have caught onto the scam,their lies are exposed.
You dont get economists consistently saying "and this proves or is consistent with the theory of supply and demand"
the fact is that the claims of evolutionists are hollow,they are pissed off because their natural selection tautology does not explain dna ,that mutations have failed in the macro tests in the lab, that all of their arguments are shot down, ie:similarity, poor design and other fallacious arguments, thats why they get so upset at people questioning this nonsense.
And the premature excitement ,why? if naturalistic evolution were true then they wouldnt get so excited if they had found the proo that they were already meant to havef, but it is an admittance that the past so called missing links were not missing links, how many more times are we going to be told they have found the missing link? lol
There has never been a science filled with such blatant dishonesty such as naturalistic evolution,you had faked embryo drawings,piltdown man, java man, nebraska man,lucy, now you have ida, scientists that do not want this pseudo science credibility damaged anymore are backtracking but its too late dishonest scientists involved let the misconception go out that it was a missing link, even though the paper didnt say that,it was all about selling a bookand tv special, cont:
maybe you are right, i will not right off anything or any possibilities just because it goes against what i believe, i am open minded to consider oher points of view even on id sites.
lest you accuse me of quote mining but he goes on to say
"The whole point, in other words, is that any kind of design (good, bad, or indifferent) is unnecessary for an evolutionary explanation of the various characteristics of living organisms, as far as we can tell via observation."
so that was his counter point, i just posted it because it reminded me of this debate here.
I would say thank you rbairos, you have alot of knowledge about naturalistic evolution, you have proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt and i thank you for teaching me something new , i am humble to learn even from you and your behaviour with me in the past, but i am not convinced by your arguments and when you use over emotional language then it sours things, so as i said you might be correct but you post conjecture as fact and are over emotional, get some balance.
I dont have anything against your position, in fact if you were more cordial instead of going into this language such as denialist and fundamentalist then i would respect your position more, i was in fact respecting your behaviour because you were being more sensible than in the past and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot by becoming over emotional, if you have evidence for your position and not assumptions and speculations then i would respect that, cont:
I'm sorry if using me to convince yourself didnt work because i didnt play your childish game, i didnt mean to upset your faith, you're entitled to your faith but it dosent mean i have to play along to give you confidence in your faultering faith
"My theory 'My toaster created all life on earth' is just as useful an assertion. "
I agree that is as useful as anything else you have come up with so far, just dont argue that the toaster is effective and not effective, try to be consistent.
"..just dont argue that the toaster is effective and not effective, try to be consistent."
Just as I predicted, a reliably obtuse response restating your false dichotomy thats already been clearly addressed *several times* in a row now. For the record *again* no one is claiming evolution *should* produce optimal designs, only that it can refine simpler mechanisms (which is exactly what we observe)
The fact you *keep* bringing up that strawmen is highly telling of your "debating" style.
not that i am interested in this debate, i came across this from allen mcneil by chance while on uncommon descent
"As for asserting that evolutionary biologists as a group use bad design as an argument against design, I would have to conclude that any evolutionary biologist who did anything this dumb deserves to be made fun of. After all, bad design is still design, as is sub-optimal design or any other kind of design.
"I'm sorry if using me to convince yourself didnt work because i didnt play your childish game"
Loud, you raise a strawman, completely ignore how its already been discredited, and then raise the strawman a few more times in a row, never once providing any evidence for your premise that life was designed by a conscious creator. Do you think no one else can read your posts?
you are entitled to rationalise about your faith and denigrate others position, i have no problem with your faith, your over emotional reactions and excitable language shows that you are not trying to convince me but yourself.
You fail to grasp that when you make a claim you must account for the new questions it creates. 'God created life in its current form'. But you refuse to ask 'Why is there such non-optimal design' or 'Why would he create a spectrum of creatures in the *exact* order and genome variation as predicted by natural selection', etc.
Your theory is not a theory at all.
My theory 'My toaster created all life on earth' is just as useful an assertion.
so instead of getting into you are a denier an all of that crap, (you sound like al gore-the debate is over) i am not questioning you, i am just asking relevant questions about evolutionary theory, i know you like to accept the common view uncritically and ridicule or insult people for daring not to fall in line but that is an emotional response not critical thinking, if you have evidence for naturalistic processes then i have no problem with it, so your overblown language is a waste of energy.
Why do you continually associate natural selection and evolution as atheistic? God can anonymously influence the seemingly random directions mutations take, as could an hyper advanced alien preschooler. Evolution doesnt favour atheist philosophy one way or the other its merely a very cohesive model to describe the phenomena of common descent and adaptation and diversification through generations.
Fact is most evolutionists are religious, and most religious people are evolutionists.
"i am just asking relevant questions about evolutionary theory,"
No you are not. You are asking unscientific questions such as 'provide a test that disproves supernatural involvement', or 'you cannot assume to determine whether a design is intelligent or not' etc. Thats not scientific inquiry, thats an appeal to your own faith in a universal supernatural conscious creator.
so before quoting fallacies make sure you understand them, appeal to personal incredulity is what you do when you mock or scoff at things and people when they conduct experiments or show interest on things outside of the mainstream, you live your life appealing to personal incredulity and yet here you refer to this fallacy with a lack of understanding of what it means, look it up on google it will help you.
appeal to incredulity would be if i dismissed something on the basis that i thought it was ridiculous and therefore not so, i have not done that, i have said your proposed mechanisms may be right, but if even saying that the suggested mechanisms may be wrong and other mechanisms are needs,is an appeal to incredulity then that means the atheist evolutionist allen mcneil is a religious fundamentalist and denialist, cont:
Loud, Please describe your theory as to why there is a branching like history of organisms, all incrementally related, morphologically, genetically geographically, geologically and temporally dating back billions of years. Your theory that 'God created (and destroyed) them each in that order in those places with those slight differences' is not even a theory. Do you even accept the earth is older than 6,000 years old?
so natural selection is something unproven as the mechanism, mutations failed to create something new, now that does not mean that micro to macro evolution did not happen, that is quite possible, it just means that the mechanisms proposed are inadequate and have to be taken on faith.
"so natural selection is something unproven as the mechanism, mutations failed to create something new.."
Did you not read the responses below before continuing with your sermon? Something *new* has occurred due to muation and natural selection, *directly* observed at the micro to macro level and supported with thousands of pieces of confirming evidence.
the fruit fly experiements failed , the moth experiments failed, when it comes to turning a kind of something into something completly different, it has always met with failure.
"when it comes to turning a kind of something into something completly different, it has always met with failure. "
Specifically define "kind". The only working definition I can think of is "that which has not yet been identically reproduced in a laboratory setting." Obviously speciation, gross morphological changes, or specific abilities doesnt count ;)
because what you believe is not a matter of concern for me and whether your claims canbe tested is not a concern for me, you may also be correct, that is not a concern for me, why would you be concerned? i am not, i am more interested in other subjects but i am happy to have this discussion meanwhile but its not a concern :>D
no i was making reference to you denigrating the process and then arguing for the process that brought us into being, you do not need to be psychic to see that, maybe you are convinced of your position, but your contradictory positions lead one to think that you are not so sure, thats all i am saying, you talk about the word concerned about what can be tested, then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes, cont:
Loud, you keep calling my position contradictory, which I am not sure is your inability to read my responses, or a deliberate ploy to exasperate me. Evolutions ability is in the adapatation of existing mechanisms to become more well suited, its weakness (in comparison to intentional design) is to replace them altogether with more efficient ones. My psychic prediction is that you will reply having ignored these details and talk of the 'contradiction' again.
"then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes"
Loud, you cannot propose a test for boiling an egg that excludes any possibility of supernatural intervention by definition. You question is contradictory on a fundamental level.
""then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes"
But to humour you, much like a scientist does not have to build a mountain range to test geologic theories, the tests of large scale changes in population occur like any other science: inference and evidence collection. eg. Comparison of fossil age dating to variation in genome between two species, observation of genetic differences in geographically isolated populations, etc, etc.
it does not follow that the mechanisms that you place your daith in can get the job done because of what you believ abou geology, that is a non sequitur that you are commiting.
Do you have any other type of argument besides your own personal incredulity to support your claim that the natural mechanisms by which organisms are observed to undergo speciation and diversification must be influenced by a supernatural conscious creator? No. I'll be back later to read your further arguments from personal incredulity.
"Do you have any other type of argument besides your own personal incredulity to support your claim that the natural mechanisms by which organisms are observed to undergo speciation and diversification must be influenced by a supernatural conscious creator"
You're right about personal incredulty , i am using your own personal increduluty that you cant believe the designer would design something that does not meet rbairos standard, then you argue for how effective the process is, i use that.
"You're right about personal incredulty , i am using your own personal increduluty that you cant believe the designer would design something that does not meet rbairos standard, then you argue for how effective the process is, i use that"
Youve presupposed there is a designer, and that the level of quality or efficacy of his or her designs are unmeasurable. You realize how unscientific your pleading has become dont you?
and you pressupose that there is no designer, saying natural selection did it when it cannot be tested is not scientific, mutations have failed the test of what would be considered macro evolution, that dosent mean that it is wrong, just the jury is out.
Loud the 'jury' is not out. Your claims that evolutionary theory is not testable is plainly wrong. Your challenge to describe a test to eliminate supernatural influence is logically contradictory. Your appeal to incredulity is tiring. The only ones who are undecided are religious fundamentalists and denialists.
Natural selection itself is untestble as a mechanism, saying natural selection plus random mutations did it, that is not scientific. adding mutaions to the processs because natural selection was seen to not be capable alone has born no fruit in the lab in mutation tests, so utionists propose innate potentional, but innate potentional is nothing to do with a trial and error natural process.
Loud, the ability of organisms to mutate and be naturally selected to digest the artificial substance of nylonase discredits your claims. The rapid morphological changes in lizards in isolated communities discredits your claims.
Yes, these may have been caused by an alien tweaking our universe's random number generators but no natural mechanisms have been violated.
. "The rapid morphological changes in lizards in isolated communities discredits your claims"
they were stll lizards, they didnt mutate into something new, speciation is not the same as macro evolution, now when talking about wall lizards and them being moved from their enviroment and an innate hidden potential being released that has nothing to do with natural selection, a trial and error approach that is not even observed.
Loud define for us macro change and why you reject the evidence that shows an extremely detailed history of morphological change spanning back through earths history confirmed by the fossil record, geography and genome variation? Why does this alleged creator create a tree of creatures exactly correctly ordered genetically, morphologically, geographically and temporally. Your arguments that attempt to fit this data are not compelling and more complex than the questions they answer.
how can you claim that a design is sub-optimal ? To do so requires that you know what the original design criteria are. without that information you cant actually assess the optimality of a design you can at best only guess at it.
A design with appear optimal or sub-optimal given the criteria that are used. this simple reality seems to be lost on you in pointing out bad design.
"how can you claim that a design is sub-optimal ? To do so requires that you know what the original design criteria are"
Now, not only must you show that biological life is intentionally designed, but also that its basic shortcomings are also intentional and serve some purpose during the 4 billion year history of life on earth. Your position becomes overloaded and assumes much more than the premise that current life is the result simpler evolutionary processes.
"You have no explanation for the fact that supposedly designed organisms have very basic flaws that are to be expected in terms of incrementally evolved systems, but inexplicable in terms of pre-planned design."
thats a false dichotomy also, who says a creator could not have used a slow incremental process?
Things break down, thats part of nature, thats the second law of thermodynamics things break down, and i do not see any reason why that would not happen with a physiological being.
"thats a false dichotomy also, who says a creator could not have used a slow incremental process? "
Loud, if youre arguing the point that evolution may be a divinely inspired process, great, thats untestable one way or the other. The same applies to whether every arrangment of pebbles you come across on the ground was meticulously placed there by gnomes or not. We're talking about testable hypothesis here.
no we do not say something is an accident, that is unscientific, we actually test something to see the underlying process as if it were engineered, we do not say oh its an accident and therefore it cannot be tested, we assume that there is an intelligible process going on even though naturalists assign no intelligence to it.
"no we do not say something is an accident, that is unscientific, we actually test something to see the underlying process as if it were engineered"
First of all 'accident' is a human judgement call, not a scientific observation. Secondly we test something to create a model from simpler mechanisms. Whether or not you assume the processes are engineered is a different question with different investigative approaches.
i agree with you, we look at it as if it was engineered, evolution when the word is used outside of naturalistic evolution always has an intelligence behind it, and accident means something that was not deliberate , there was no deliberate decision thus accident is perfectly legitimate , unless you are arguing for seeing from aliens or something which i think you are not.
"Things break down, thats part of nature, thats the second law of thermodynamics things break down, and i do not see any reason why that would not happen with a physiological being."
2nd law of thermodynamics deals with the amount of useful energy in a closed system, not an organisms level of adaptation to a given environment on a sun-fueled Earth.
Evolution does not show mechanisms 'breaking down' over time, but becoming more well suited from their previous states.
"Evolution does not show mechanisms 'breaking down' over time, but becoming more well suited from their previous states"
you are talking arguing about the process of something occuring, that is another debate, we are talking abou whether things fall apart once they are made, i would expect the human body to break down over time, just like a car breaksdown and needs to be repaired, or a boeing 747 needs maintenance, arguing because somethings can decay is not designed does not make sense.
" i would expect the human body to break down over time, just like a car breaksdown and needs to be repaired"
Clarification. Not talking about break down of an individual over time, talking about sub-optimal mechanisms in the population as a whole. Example: eye layout with blind spot, or wind pipe doubling up as food transport mechanism causing multitudes of children to choke to death each year, etc.
i dont agree that sub optimal,(your judgement)l = not designed, or because you get bad with the good then that makes something bad, thats part of life, i remember dr john polkinghorne made a good example about earthquakes and plate tetonics and why the bad comes with the good, but too much to go into, none the less, i find your not perfect design therefore not design objection specious.
"i find your not perfect design therefore not design objection specious."
Except that were not taking about design of a blender but designing life. It begs the question of why something smart enough to design a planetful of creatures would leave in such shortcomings that are *also* exactly the expected result of evolution.
Your position keeps leading you to questions outside scientific inquiry.
So just to narrow this down, are you against abiogenesis theories, or the diversification of all life through evolution and natural selection? Is your position all animals likely appeared in their current form with little change and no common descent?
"Your position keeps leading you to questions outside scientific inquiry. "
no your argument about how poor and inefficent naturalistic evolution is leads me to be skeptical, it is your very own disparaging attitude that leads me in certain directions, i am willing to be convinced of your position but your arguments lead me to the opposite direction.
Loud, my observation is that natural selection and evolution will often find incremental solutions to environmental pressures while not being able to replace underlying mechanisms entirely, unlike a designer who would have this ability.
Do you think the plethora of species now living on this planet arrived in their current form with no common descent?
I am not convinced that you truly believe that, you would have to convince me that is your true convinction but i feel deep down you do not have confidence in purely naturalistic processes.
"I am not convinced that you truly believe that, you would have to convince me that is your true convinction but i feel deep down you do not have confidence in purely naturalistic processes."
Sorry we are not debating your psychic ability. The theistic view that an agent could cause the speciation of all life on the planet from a common ancestor without breaking natural rules they put in place is fine by me. Its the testable questions and evidence that concern me.
Furthermore on this video he argues from incredulity when he says that the human body was not designed because it is not designed as he would it expect it to be, so he's talking thru both sides of his mouth, he also contradicts his position when he argues against the mechanism and then believes it was powerful in bringing in the complex cell and can explain dna.
as a devout follower of randi , rbairos always scoffs and rejects things from the argument of incredulity., so he has no credibility or consistency to use that charge against others, also it dosent apply to me because i rightly pointed out that his position is inconsistent and violates the law of non contradiction, he believs the mechanism that brought us into being was not very effective, but then he believes it was so effective to bring about the complex cell and dna.
Loud, as Ive explained before, you keep employing a false dichotomy. You have no explanation for the fact that supposedly designed organisms have very basic flaws that are to be expected in terms of incrementally evolved systems, but inexplicable in terms of pre-planned design. You fail to grasp the difference between complexity and robustness. We know we can evolve complex systems from simple rules but we do not see complex *designed* systems with major uncorrected flaws. Explain..
Even if the argument were successful, it wouldn't even come close to proving theism. Indeed, arguments for theism can serve equally well for the deist, which should be concerning.
It would prove that the origins of our Universe were marked by a sentient being, which corresponds with all systematic bodies of thought that deal with deities.
offthewallur,thanks for pointing this out because he wont answer questions, maybe you guys will have better luck but i have come to expect this from rbarios, i think i will have a debate with somebody that has some evidence for their position and dosent dodge, rbarios has nothing, maybe he will back up his faith with you guys :)
well it is a very emotional issue for rbairos , he already said in other debates he debates for sport, he likes arguing for the sake of it, for me i already told him in debate about god and atheism i could be wrong, hardline followers of randi are the type of people that do not like to give an inch and they are very emotional about these things, if he presents me with evidence and not proof by assertion then i am willing to come to his side, maybe he is trying to convince himself.
Loud, its funny, Ive given you several examples of how evolution is testable on this and other vids in response to your question about how I justify my conclusion for the complexity of life arising on this planet. When I ask you to demonstrate how it must have been the result of a conscious creator, you simply insult me and infer arguments of incredulity. Really.. Its very entertaining.
Offthewallur, just because Loud summarily rejects all evidence for evolution through natural selection does not mean I didnt answer his questions. Perhaps you can prod him to answer what Ive asked him several time: Why must life be the result of a creative process. Youll notice he has never answered except by offering arguments of incredulity.
" I see no evidence of any concious decision making, no. "
so you believe that we were brought into being by an uncreative process, thank you, I might add as you bring up the word that there was no concious decision making, then you also believe the process was unintelligent, unimaginative with no ability to think or plan ahead, with no ability to decide , that is how you believe we came into being.
"..that there was no concious decision making, then you also believe the process was unintelligent, unimaginative with no ability to think or plan ahead, with no ability to decide , that is how you believe we came into being. "
Well planning, decision making, intelligence, don't require consciousness as your PC will demonstrate. But to answer your question again, I dont see any evidence of *conscious intentional* direction in our biological history.
It does not change the fact that non-conscious non-sentient entities can and do in fact carry out tasks that you would consider intelligent. In the case of digital evolutionary algorithms, they produce novel solutions that the original programmers did not and could not imagine, from simple rules with strong analogies to natural physical environments.
Again, please show why you believe life on Earth *must* be directed by a conscious entity?
no it shows that the instructions for the operating system were programmed there by a programmer, the information didn't arise by chance, you yourself argued that the process that brought humans into being wasn't a very efficient process, so it is hard to believe that if it is so inefficent that it could have brought the cell into being and explain the information rich and complex dna, in fact naturalistic answers do not explain , in fact dna presents a chicken and egg problem for naturalism.
you argued that we are poorly made not me, you are arguing against the process that brought us into being and then arguing for it, that violates the law of contradiction, either we were made by an efficient process or not, try to resolve your contradiction.
"you argued that we are poorly made not me, you are arguing against the process that brought us into being and then arguing for it, that violates the law of contradiction, either we were made by an efficient process or not, try to resolve your contradiction"
Not poorly made, non-optimally made.
The contradition lies in your re-interpreting of statements.
but you pointed out the poorness of the eye and choking, you didnt just say that it was non optimally made, so do you believe that the process that brought us into being was efficent or non efficent.
"but you pointed out the poorness of the eye and choking, you didnt just say that it was non optimally made, so do you believe that the process that brought us into being was efficent or non efficent. "
This is an entirely false dichotomy. Efficient enough to produce a light sensing organ, but unefficient enough to avoid obvious functional flaws.
(obvious to a conscious rational designer that is).
"and explain the information rich and complex dna, in fact naturalistic answers do not explain , in fact dna presents a chicken and egg problem for naturalism"
False, we've already established that simple algorithms produce arbitrarily complex and novel solutions through simple evolutionary algorithms, so your claim that this cannot happen in a biological medium is unsupported.
im happy for you to provide evidence not just a claim.
if you have proven established evidence for this origin of life and dna then i am happy for you to present your findings and collect your nobel prize.
"if you have proven established evidence for this origin of life and dna then i am happy for you to present your findings and collect your nobel prize"
Are you rejecting claims of abiogenesis or claims of evolution? If your argument is that remaining questions in science are evidence of a conscious eternal creator than present your findings and collect your nobel prize ;)
">I don't believe it must be and never used those words, I am open to persuasion if you produce credible evidence that life arose by chance."
Youve gone through great lengths to say that my position (that there is no evidence that life arose by a conscious process) is a self-defeating position that would lead my client to be hung were I a lawyer.
So which is it? Where is your evidence of this conscious creator?
it's upto you to show how naturalism is creative without distorting the words meaning and without making silly claims that water is creative because it fills different shaped buckets, lol, the burden is on you to show how naturalism is creative because you are making the claim that it is, get over it, you have no evidence for your faith, stop having a period over it,stop having a period over offthewallurs comments, back up your claims for once.
As Ive stated several times before, complex mechanisms may appear creative to the observer who is not familiar with the dynamics of the system. For example, when reflecting on a liquids ability to reshape itself to its container, it may also appear creative. Even a deep understanding of the equations at work may not dampen the conclusion.
Now, explain
a) Why life is a creative process
b) Why creativity implies conscious
c) Why non-conscious mechanisms cannot produce the effects we see today
now instead of dodging the question and trying to move the debate on which you do on a consistet basis, show how life coming into being can be termed creative without a creator, a simple question, simplified for somebody who gets his science from a magician and believes water is creative because it fills different shaped buckets.
Loud, my example on shape-shifting water was the same now as it was ever time I described it. A little more focus and a little less childish insults would do you good. Ignoring the 3 or 4 insults in your last post, to answer your next question: Youve gone from 'creative' to 'creator'. By 'creative' do you mean 'mindful imagination', 'ability to produce novel solutions' or 'ability to create'? It should be obvious by the water example a process can be the latter two without any need of the 1st
"i mean creative as it pertains to imagination ace, as per its original undistorted definition. "
Is life an imaginative process? as in requiring a conscious entity in order to design its intricate directions? Well I would hope not. It would take quite some imagination to double an airway as a food transport mechanism, causing the choking death of thousands of children per year. Also take quite some imagination to design an eye with a glaring blind which must be fudged with guesswork.
Im glad you finally rested your case. Thats a lot of effort for to present a fallacy of incredulity. Care to answer the questions Ive presented yet?
no dude you got mixed up, i rested my case because you presented an argument that was self defeating, you wouldn't make a good lawyer you would end up getting your client hung drawn and quartered. :)
You: life is a creative process if we were brought into being by a creator.
Thanks for the tautology, or repeating the question. Can you answer it?
"creativity pertains to imagination therefore implies consiousness"
If I program a PC with some simple algorithms that generate novel solutions incorporating an element of randomness that I had not /could not anticipate would you call the the machine imaginative?
"As Ive stated several times before, complex mechanisms may appear creative to the observer who is not familiar with the dynamics of the system. For example, when reflecting on a liquids ability to reshape itself to its container, it may also appear creative."
if that is an admittance by you that you believe the process that brought us into being without a creator is non creative, then I accept your admission and rest my case.
seriously anyone calling anyone else immature while cosying up to dhorpotan just shows they are not right in the head, it shows hypocrisy and a lack of judgement by rbairDross, seriously chumming up to dhorpotan just shows that he is on the same level, rbairDross has no credibility in judging anyone, like i said do not feed the troll and let him go back under his bridge.
Loud, youve spouted off two paragraphs of insults without answering any pertinent questions with regards to the argument presented in this video. Thats good progress usually its 6 or 7. Now back to the topic.
"Loud, youve spouted off two paragraphs of insults without answering any pertinent questions with regards to the argument presented in this video."
there you go folks the evidence that i showed you, proof by assertion and argument ad nauseaum, he asserts that naturalism is creative and then wants to argue ad nauseaum without proving his case, he is the one that is bastardising the english language to suit his position.
creativity pertains to imagination and you cannot have an imagination without a mind or intelligence, to say that you can is to show hypocrisy and to actually change the meaning of words to fit naturalism, but it is dishonest , you cannot change the meaning of words because it goes against your position, creativity pertains to imagination,imagination pertains to the mind, none of those things apply to natural processes.
offthewallur you are right this troll is on here too,
maybe he will start distorting the meaning of words like he did with me and enage in his childish wordplay to prove naturalism and tell doesgodnotexist that water is creative because it manages to fill different shaped buckets, lol.
"water is creative because it manages to fill different shaped buckets, lol. "
Since (a) you do not have a solid definition of creative and (b) do not have any grasp of the mechanisms involved in particle dynamics, you can not explain why it does not apply. You just hilight your own ignorance and immaturity in your attempt to mock others.
offthewallur, if you have something relevant to say affirming or questioning the logic of this video, state it, otherwise stop trolling and go back to making adolescent vids calling people perverts.
You desribe a scenario in which an event is guided (ie by Fred) or it is not (ie, natural processes).You then conclude *everything* based on a guided decision is guided. This disengenious definition of guided also would categorize the random molecular events in my exhaled carbon dioxide as guided since they originated from a decision to breathe out. Hardly satisfying.
According to this definition of guided behaviour, a hurricane is a guided decision of a restless butterfly.
3) Another flaw: You have not eliminated other (admittedly non-traditional) explanations for 'prime move' (which is what your argument really boils down to) such as closed time-like loops of causality.
I have a feeling you're indexing the possibility of an oscillating Universe. You were a bit vague in your indication of my "flaws". Can you elucidate?
"I have a feeling you're indexing the possibility of an oscillating Universe. You were a bit vague in your indication of my "flaws". Can you elucidate?"
You seem to imply the only possibility for sentient behaviour is a primal sentient being. Though thats incorrect, you also need to realize causality can also be perfectly consistent in a loop where future events effect previous ones.
"You seem to imply the only possibility for sentient behaviour is a primal sentient being."
Sentience itself is not a material construct. It is dependent on another body of existence. How can sentient behavior exist in the absence of something that is to BE sentient (aware, conscious).
"Sentience itself is not a material construct. It is dependent on another body of existence. How can sentient behavior exist in the absence of something that is to BE sentient (aware, conscious). "
Another one in the class of "X matter cannot originate from X-less matter" appeal, where X is morality, life, intentionality, etc. Though that statement may seem obviously true to you you have noone has ever shown why.
"Another one in the class of "X matter cannot originate from X-less matter" appeal, where X is morality, life, intentionality, etc. Though that statement may seem obviously true to you you have noone has ever shown why."
Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sentience is the condition of being conscious or aware. Being a mere condition, it is reliant upon SOMETHING to obtain. Can you point to a single instance in nature where sentience exists independent of some sort of "host", if you will?
"Can you point to a single instance in nature where sentience exists independent of some sort of "host", if you will? "
No thats my point. Its a transient property of a material system in the same way a poem is a transient property of the written words that compose it., though perhaps we're not in disagreement here.
"you also need to realize causality can also be perfectly consistent in a loop where future events effect previous ones."
The oscillating universe theory has been abandoned. I don't have enough room to explain why here, but I can PM you a more engaging look into it. Are you aware of the entropic upsurge that would build up from oscillation to oscillation?
"The oscillating universe theory has been abandoned. I don't have enough room to explain why here, but I can PM you a more engaging look into it. Are you aware of the entropic upsurge that would build up from oscillation to oscillation? "
Im not talking about an oscillating universe, im talking about a a single loop. Not very emotionally satisfying, but nonetheless logically consistent.
"Im not talking about an oscillating universe, im talking about a a single loop. Not very emotionally satisfying, but nonetheless logically consistent."
Oh, I see - time-like curvatures, which would essentially violate causality by means of infinite regress. We even get into time travel. I understand how the paradoxes associated to causal loops are related to self-existing information or objects, trapped in spacetime, but I think this is just bastardized jargon. What are your views?
", but I think this is just bastardized jargon. What are your views? "
Personally, an academic exercise, though self-consistent and logical, unlike proofs which claim a sentient creator by claiming all action must ultimately have a "first-chooser" line of appeals.
"Personally, an academic exercise, though self-consistent and logical, "
When expounded on, this can be reduced to an acknowledgement of the possibility of time travel? You believe that to be self-consistent and logical? If you don't know why I keep referring to this engimatic topic, I can elaborate.
"When expounded on, this can be reduced to an acknowledgement of the possibility of time travel? You believe that to be self-consistent and logical? If you don't know why I keep referring to this engimatic topic, I can elaborate. "
Not time travel in the traditional sense, but in terms of scenarios which are consistent, this one raises less questions than an internal sentient prime mover.
1) Quantum Mechanics is a probabalistic description of the universe. There is no deterministic cause for quantum effects, it *is* defined by random variables at its core.
2) More importantly, you erroneously interchanged 'cause' with 'intent' in your argument. Non-sentient forces can indeed be the cause of other events with no need of intent, (ie sentience).
I don't see how Quantum mechanics shows my argument out to be flawed.
"Non-sentient forces can indeed be the cause of other events with no need of intent"
That was the whole point of my video. I understand that, in the popular mind, many people would suspect that the cause of the Universe would not have to be sentient, or intentional in it's actions. I argued against that.
"I don't see how Quantum mechanics shows my argument out to be flawed. "
You go to great lengths to demonstrate how random events are actually deterministic with your example of a coin flip, but QM is probabalistic by definition, not deterministic. ie, There *are* events which are indeed random.
I think there's some confusion. I tried to demonstrate that randomness is NOT deterministic, but subject to chance, and therefore probabilistic. I don't deny that there are random events - I was arguing against the notion of an insentient first cause. The material particles that Quantum Mechanics talks about are contingent - they obtain from the energy in the cosmos encompassing them.
Again, you clearly state in your video multiple times that "Physics and Philosophy insist that every effect we observe in the universe was caused by some preceding action."
This is emphatically untrue.
QM is ruled by randomness / chance, not previous causal factors. An identical condition will not yield the same result. This is not a statistical summary, its inherent to the system.
The conclusions you attempt to draw from your claims are drawn from invalid premises.
"QM is ruled by randomness / chance, not previous causal factors."
Quantum mechanics, being a mere description of physical systems at a smaller level, is still subject to causality. You misunderstand. I'm not saying chance doesn't exist - however, it does not manifest itself in any sort of material way. It's merely a concept, a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred.
"Quantum mechanics, being a mere description of physical systems at a smaller level, is still subject to causality"
It breaks the implication that future events are somehow "sentiently" controlled by previous actions. Im not sure of your claim that its not manifest in a material way. QM describes material behaviour at the most basic level we know.
"Where did sentience come from?" is not a "problem:"
If we discovered a mysterious pile of machinery that included clocks and computer boards on the dark side of the moon, it is more reasonable to conclude that some sentience produced it rather than "chance."
The question "Where did the sentience come from" does not change the fact that sentience is a better explanation than chance.
In addition, if it was chance, then the same question could be asked: "Where did "chance" come from?"
Purushadasa 1 year ago
this is so boring
rchammer90 1 year ago
It takes 4 laws of physics for life to exist and as far as we know they did not exist before the big bang. So tell me how can a "God" exist to create the universe.
aarongregpon 1 year ago
"Everything is either guided, or it is not"
Indeed, the coin/seed is guided by the hand and it's movements like you said. The moment it's released from the hand is also when the hand decided where the seed would go. Chance isn't actually chance as it is guided by our actions, however this is not something we are directly aware of. Chance isn't actually chaos, but rather an infinitely more complex form of order. We have the power to choose, but not the ability to comprehend the choice.
DecepticonLeader 1 year ago
There is 1:1024 chance for ANY predicted series of ten coin tosses. 9 tails and a heads, 1:1024 probability. 4 tails and 6 heads, 1:1024 probability. I hate it when people misinterpret statistics so badly like this.
RuskePerson 1 year ago
@RuskePerson I don't see how that's a problem. It looks like you're playing with semantics. Yes, the aforementioned chance is present for any series of ten coin tosses. My video dealt exclusively with the 9 to 1 odds for obvious reasons, and that's why I only brought that one up. If THAT little detail inhibited you from seeing the entire point of the video, I sincerely, deeply apologize.
doesgodnotexist 1 year ago
If there was a big pile of seeds next to the field and a big gust of wind blew over it and across the field, you would find a number of seeds had filled hole x.
therecanbeonlywon 1 year ago
Second to my earlier post, there are an infinite number of ways in which the laws of physics could be arranged to allow for life. An infinite number of arrangements permitting.
Why did the sentience choose this particualr one? If there are an infinity of designs for a universe with life, why this particular arrangement?
One thing that is clear, is that no matter how many higher levels one adds to cosmic reality, there is always the question of where somethign came from.
KoanPhilosopher 1 year ago
The problem you highlight - if I am correct - is that if the original cause of the universe was non-sentient, we have no reason to believe that the laws of physics should be a certain way. The requirement of life is obviously incredibly specific. The sentience argument however faces problems. First, where did the sentience come from? An infinite series cannot explain itself - it does not complete causation. It also violates the principle of parsimony.
KoanPhilosopher 1 year ago
I believe in metaphysical determinism and I agree with you that chance is, at best, a misunderstood concept if not entirely vacuous. However, the leap of a conclusion that you make from causation to sentience does not follow. If I get killed by a rock slide, does that mean the rocks or the rain that causes them to slide down the hill are sentient?
Chance could create life. You simply have the bias of hindsight and subjectivity.
You get a 3 star rating from me. Not bad by theists' standards
SSJ3Ulcer 2 years ago
By a "theists' standards"? Right ... I won't even start.
The example you used was already addressed in the video. I already stated that we would only be dealing with the origins of the Universe. The direct cause of the land-slide itself would not be sentient, no: a systematic series of events would have directly resulted in its occurrence. However, for that EXACT reason, the origins of the Universe could not have been marked by anything of an insentient nature.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
The simultaneous absence of chance and sentience or consciousness decision is impossible, as I illustrated in the video with my reference to a natural deadlock or impasse. In this regard, since chance is not actually initially involved with causality, a "chance" event could not have been accountable for the emanation of the Universe. A DECISION must have been made, and decision necessitates sentience.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Let's all have a slanging match!
I don't really think this is a 'logical' argument for a sentient being - it just seems to state that stuff is improbable, therefore anything that happens in spite of its improbability, especially something like the beginning of the universe, must have a sentient being working behind it.
AlexR4444 2 years ago
No, the argument went nothing like that. I never gave chance any intrinsic properties ... I just elaborated on its inability to actually create anything. When using the phrase "time plus chance can create anything" in regards to the origins of the Universe, one has to stop and realize that these two factors are not in any way a trigger ... they cannot elicit or initiate anything in the absence of conscious DECISION. Chance cannot actually "create" anything is my point.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
I'd have to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by "chance can't create anything" - do you mean a universe? And do you mean anything if there's no limits to what can happen?
I'd have to admit that I'm no physicist, but I also wonder why you use the argument that the universe could have any laws but it's due to chance that it has those it does: your metaphor of the guy in a field seems flawed because it's perfectly possible for chance to determine something in that sense.
AlexR4444 2 years ago
Let me try to elucidate: If the "field" analogy can be corresponded to the origins of the Universe, it makes more sense. If someone walks onto a field full of holes, a choice CAN be made. It would NOT be random if he dropped the seed into one of the holes. For the sake of argument, let's say this man is "God", or the "prime mover". He can make a decision, because he has sentient aptitude. Are you with me so far?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Now, let's imagine a situation in which sentience is ABSENT. So, we do NOT have our man (or God). The seed - however it would be suspended in this illusory realm - is not sentiently encompassed. It is insentient, or inanimate. Therefore, the seed would RANDOMLY, or by a chance event, drop into one of the inestimable holes. Only ONE of the holes kick-stars the fundamentals of gravity, while the countless other holes produce different effects.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
But WHAT caused the seed to move? We're talking about the origins of the Universe, because Planch's Epoch prevents us from seeing back any further, into a non-relative realm that would, by definition, be dubbed as SUPERNATURAL. I'm not saying it's unlikely the seed landed in the CORRECT hole in such a solitary state - I'm saying it COULDN'T HAVE. Chance is not an active force. It did not move the seed. So WHAT did (at the specific juncture we're presently discussing)?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Your comment was painfully reflective of your misunderstanding.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Also, chance IS inherent in physics. This is quantum physics, you should read into it.
gtg309v 2 years ago
I never denied the inherent tendencies of chance - you missed the whole point. Review the video and check your understanding. I clearly articulated that chance is not an active force.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Why do you think that it is impossible for non-existence to give rise to existence? Existence couldn't even mean anything were there no concept of non-existence. You need the dichotomy, otherwise you could not define the meaning of existence, and so it seems very likely that non-existence would be unstable and inevitably give rise to existence is some fashion.
gtg309v 2 years ago
I don't THINK it's impossible. It is impossible. Non-existence denotes a situation of absolute nothingness. The very implication of progression or sequence would be absent, because progression necessitates SOMETHING. Non-existence is merely the lack of existence. If we can formulate a concept of existence - which we can - than we can consequently arrive at a conclusion as to the definition of non-existence.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
So we have more dishonesty from evolutionists but this will only backfire and hurt them as their past lies have,time is running out for them, the naturalist scientists will always hold to natural explanations no matter how unscientific they are,ie multiverses and like dawkins they will commit the fallacy of argument ad futuris,appealing to the future that will help get their dogmatic materialism out of their dark hole, the public in surveys have caught onto the scam,their lies are exposed.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You dont get economists consistently saying "and this proves or is consistent with the theory of supply and demand"
the fact is that the claims of evolutionists are hollow,they are pissed off because their natural selection tautology does not explain dna ,that mutations have failed in the macro tests in the lab, that all of their arguments are shot down, ie:similarity, poor design and other fallacious arguments, thats why they get so upset at people questioning this nonsense.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
And the premature excitement ,why? if naturalistic evolution were true then they wouldnt get so excited if they had found the proo that they were already meant to havef, but it is an admittance that the past so called missing links were not missing links, how many more times are we going to be told they have found the missing link? lol
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
There has never been a science filled with such blatant dishonesty such as naturalistic evolution,you had faked embryo drawings,piltdown man, java man, nebraska man,lucy, now you have ida, scientists that do not want this pseudo science credibility damaged anymore are backtracking but its too late dishonest scientists involved let the misconception go out that it was a missing link, even though the paper didnt say that,it was all about selling a bookand tv special, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
*write off
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
maybe you are right, i will not right off anything or any possibilities just because it goes against what i believe, i am open minded to consider oher points of view even on id sites.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
lest you accuse me of quote mining but he goes on to say
"The whole point, in other words, is that any kind of design (good, bad, or indifferent) is unnecessary for an evolutionary explanation of the various characteristics of living organisms, as far as we can tell via observation."
so that was his counter point, i just posted it because it reminded me of this debate here.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I would say thank you rbairos, you have alot of knowledge about naturalistic evolution, you have proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt and i thank you for teaching me something new , i am humble to learn even from you and your behaviour with me in the past, but i am not convinced by your arguments and when you use over emotional language then it sours things, so as i said you might be correct but you post conjecture as fact and are over emotional, get some balance.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I dont have anything against your position, in fact if you were more cordial instead of going into this language such as denialist and fundamentalist then i would respect your position more, i was in fact respecting your behaviour because you were being more sensible than in the past and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot by becoming over emotional, if you have evidence for your position and not assumptions and speculations then i would respect that, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I'm sorry if using me to convince yourself didnt work because i didnt play your childish game, i didnt mean to upset your faith, you're entitled to your faith but it dosent mean i have to play along to give you confidence in your faultering faith
"My theory 'My toaster created all life on earth' is just as useful an assertion. "
I agree that is as useful as anything else you have come up with so far, just dont argue that the toaster is effective and not effective, try to be consistent.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"..just dont argue that the toaster is effective and not effective, try to be consistent."
Just as I predicted, a reliably obtuse response restating your false dichotomy thats already been clearly addressed *several times* in a row now. For the record *again* no one is claiming evolution *should* produce optimal designs, only that it can refine simpler mechanisms (which is exactly what we observe)
The fact you *keep* bringing up that strawmen is highly telling of your "debating" style.
rbairos1 2 years ago
rob
not that i am interested in this debate, i came across this from allen mcneil by chance while on uncommon descent
"As for asserting that evolutionary biologists as a group use bad design as an argument against design, I would have to conclude that any evolutionary biologist who did anything this dumb deserves to be made fun of. After all, bad design is still design, as is sub-optimal design or any other kind of design.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"I'm sorry if using me to convince yourself didnt work because i didnt play your childish game"
Loud, you raise a strawman, completely ignore how its already been discredited, and then raise the strawman a few more times in a row, never once providing any evidence for your premise that life was designed by a conscious creator. Do you think no one else can read your posts?
rbairos1 2 years ago
you are entitled to rationalise about your faith and denigrate others position, i have no problem with your faith, your over emotional reactions and excitable language shows that you are not trying to convince me but yourself.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You fail to grasp that when you make a claim you must account for the new questions it creates. 'God created life in its current form'. But you refuse to ask 'Why is there such non-optimal design' or 'Why would he create a spectrum of creatures in the *exact* order and genome variation as predicted by natural selection', etc.
Your theory is not a theory at all.
My theory 'My toaster created all life on earth' is just as useful an assertion.
rbairos1 2 years ago
so instead of getting into you are a denier an all of that crap, (you sound like al gore-the debate is over) i am not questioning you, i am just asking relevant questions about evolutionary theory, i know you like to accept the common view uncritically and ridicule or insult people for daring not to fall in line but that is an emotional response not critical thinking, if you have evidence for naturalistic processes then i have no problem with it, so your overblown language is a waste of energy.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Why do you continually associate natural selection and evolution as atheistic? God can anonymously influence the seemingly random directions mutations take, as could an hyper advanced alien preschooler. Evolution doesnt favour atheist philosophy one way or the other its merely a very cohesive model to describe the phenomena of common descent and adaptation and diversification through generations.
Fact is most evolutionists are religious, and most religious people are evolutionists.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"i am just asking relevant questions about evolutionary theory,"
No you are not. You are asking unscientific questions such as 'provide a test that disproves supernatural involvement', or 'you cannot assume to determine whether a design is intelligent or not' etc. Thats not scientific inquiry, thats an appeal to your own faith in a universal supernatural conscious creator.
rbairos1 2 years ago
so before quoting fallacies make sure you understand them, appeal to personal incredulity is what you do when you mock or scoff at things and people when they conduct experiments or show interest on things outside of the mainstream, you live your life appealing to personal incredulity and yet here you refer to this fallacy with a lack of understanding of what it means, look it up on google it will help you.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"Your appeal to incredulity is tiring"
appeal to incredulity would be if i dismissed something on the basis that i thought it was ridiculous and therefore not so, i have not done that, i have said your proposed mechanisms may be right, but if even saying that the suggested mechanisms may be wrong and other mechanisms are needs,is an appeal to incredulity then that means the atheist evolutionist allen mcneil is a religious fundamentalist and denialist, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, Please describe your theory as to why there is a branching like history of organisms, all incrementally related, morphologically, genetically geographically, geologically and temporally dating back billions of years. Your theory that 'God created (and destroyed) them each in that order in those places with those slight differences' is not even a theory. Do you even accept the earth is older than 6,000 years old?
rbairos1 2 years ago
so natural selection is something unproven as the mechanism, mutations failed to create something new, now that does not mean that micro to macro evolution did not happen, that is quite possible, it just means that the mechanisms proposed are inadequate and have to be taken on faith.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"so natural selection is something unproven as the mechanism, mutations failed to create something new.."
Did you not read the responses below before continuing with your sermon? Something *new* has occurred due to muation and natural selection, *directly* observed at the micro to macro level and supported with thousands of pieces of confirming evidence.
rbairos1 2 years ago
something new as in something entirely different, thats not a sermon that is a fact.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
the fruit fly experiements failed , the moth experiments failed, when it comes to turning a kind of something into something completly different, it has always met with failure.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"when it comes to turning a kind of something into something completly different, it has always met with failure. "
Specifically define "kind". The only working definition I can think of is "that which has not yet been identically reproduced in a laboratory setting." Obviously speciation, gross morphological changes, or specific abilities doesnt count ;)
rbairos1 2 years ago
because what you believe is not a matter of concern for me and whether your claims canbe tested is not a concern for me, you may also be correct, that is not a concern for me, why would you be concerned? i am not, i am more interested in other subjects but i am happy to have this discussion meanwhile but its not a concern :>D
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"Sorry we are not debating your psychic ability"
no i was making reference to you denigrating the process and then arguing for the process that brought us into being, you do not need to be psychic to see that, maybe you are convinced of your position, but your contradictory positions lead one to think that you are not so sure, thats all i am saying, you talk about the word concerned about what can be tested, then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, you keep calling my position contradictory, which I am not sure is your inability to read my responses, or a deliberate ploy to exasperate me. Evolutions ability is in the adapatation of existing mechanisms to become more well suited, its weakness (in comparison to intentional design) is to replace them altogether with more efficient ones. My psychic prediction is that you will reply having ignored these details and talk of the 'contradiction' again.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes"
Loud, you cannot propose a test for boiling an egg that excludes any possibility of supernatural intervention by definition. You question is contradictory on a fundamental level.
rbairos1 2 years ago
""then propose a test for micro to macro using natural processes"
But to humour you, much like a scientist does not have to build a mountain range to test geologic theories, the tests of large scale changes in population occur like any other science: inference and evidence collection. eg. Comparison of fossil age dating to variation in genome between two species, observation of genetic differences in geographically isolated populations, etc, etc.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"But to humour you"
it does not follow that the mechanisms that you place your daith in can get the job done because of what you believ abou geology, that is a non sequitur that you are commiting.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Do you have any other type of argument besides your own personal incredulity to support your claim that the natural mechanisms by which organisms are observed to undergo speciation and diversification must be influenced by a supernatural conscious creator? No. I'll be back later to read your further arguments from personal incredulity.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Do you have any other type of argument besides your own personal incredulity to support your claim that the natural mechanisms by which organisms are observed to undergo speciation and diversification must be influenced by a supernatural conscious creator"
You're right about personal incredulty , i am using your own personal increduluty that you cant believe the designer would design something that does not meet rbairos standard, then you argue for how effective the process is, i use that.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"You're right about personal incredulty , i am using your own personal increduluty that you cant believe the designer would design something that does not meet rbairos standard, then you argue for how effective the process is, i use that"
Youve presupposed there is a designer, and that the level of quality or efficacy of his or her designs are unmeasurable. You realize how unscientific your pleading has become dont you?
rbairos1 2 years ago
and you pressupose that there is no designer, saying natural selection did it when it cannot be tested is not scientific, mutations have failed the test of what would be considered macro evolution, that dosent mean that it is wrong, just the jury is out.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud the 'jury' is not out. Your claims that evolutionary theory is not testable is plainly wrong. Your challenge to describe a test to eliminate supernatural influence is logically contradictory. Your appeal to incredulity is tiring. The only ones who are undecided are religious fundamentalists and denialists.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Natural selection itself is untestble as a mechanism, saying natural selection plus random mutations did it, that is not scientific. adding mutaions to the processs because natural selection was seen to not be capable alone has born no fruit in the lab in mutation tests, so utionists propose innate potentional, but innate potentional is nothing to do with a trial and error natural process.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, the ability of organisms to mutate and be naturally selected to digest the artificial substance of nylonase discredits your claims. The rapid morphological changes in lizards in isolated communities discredits your claims.
Yes, these may have been caused by an alien tweaking our universe's random number generators but no natural mechanisms have been violated.
rbairos1 2 years ago
. "The rapid morphological changes in lizards in isolated communities discredits your claims"
they were stll lizards, they didnt mutate into something new, speciation is not the same as macro evolution, now when talking about wall lizards and them being moved from their enviroment and an innate hidden potential being released that has nothing to do with natural selection, a trial and error approach that is not even observed.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud define for us macro change and why you reject the evidence that shows an extremely detailed history of morphological change spanning back through earths history confirmed by the fossil record, geography and genome variation? Why does this alleged creator create a tree of creatures exactly correctly ordered genetically, morphologically, geographically and temporally. Your arguments that attempt to fit this data are not compelling and more complex than the questions they answer.
rbairos1 2 years ago
how can you claim that a design is sub-optimal ? To do so requires that you know what the original design criteria are. without that information you cant actually assess the optimality of a design you can at best only guess at it.
A design with appear optimal or sub-optimal given the criteria that are used. this simple reality seems to be lost on you in pointing out bad design.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"how can you claim that a design is sub-optimal ? To do so requires that you know what the original design criteria are"
Now, not only must you show that biological life is intentionally designed, but also that its basic shortcomings are also intentional and serve some purpose during the 4 billion year history of life on earth. Your position becomes overloaded and assumes much more than the premise that current life is the result simpler evolutionary processes.
rbairos1 2 years ago
seeding.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"You have no explanation for the fact that supposedly designed organisms have very basic flaws that are to be expected in terms of incrementally evolved systems, but inexplicable in terms of pre-planned design."
thats a false dichotomy also, who says a creator could not have used a slow incremental process?
Things break down, thats part of nature, thats the second law of thermodynamics things break down, and i do not see any reason why that would not happen with a physiological being.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"thats a false dichotomy also, who says a creator could not have used a slow incremental process? "
Loud, if youre arguing the point that evolution may be a divinely inspired process, great, thats untestable one way or the other. The same applies to whether every arrangment of pebbles you come across on the ground was meticulously placed there by gnomes or not. We're talking about testable hypothesis here.
rbairos1 2 years ago
no we do not say something is an accident, that is unscientific, we actually test something to see the underlying process as if it were engineered, we do not say oh its an accident and therefore it cannot be tested, we assume that there is an intelligible process going on even though naturalists assign no intelligence to it.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"no we do not say something is an accident, that is unscientific, we actually test something to see the underlying process as if it were engineered"
First of all 'accident' is a human judgement call, not a scientific observation. Secondly we test something to create a model from simpler mechanisms. Whether or not you assume the processes are engineered is a different question with different investigative approaches.
rbairos1 2 years ago
i agree with you, we look at it as if it was engineered, evolution when the word is used outside of naturalistic evolution always has an intelligence behind it, and accident means something that was not deliberate , there was no deliberate decision thus accident is perfectly legitimate , unless you are arguing for seeing from aliens or something which i think you are not.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"Things break down, thats part of nature, thats the second law of thermodynamics things break down, and i do not see any reason why that would not happen with a physiological being."
2nd law of thermodynamics deals with the amount of useful energy in a closed system, not an organisms level of adaptation to a given environment on a sun-fueled Earth.
Evolution does not show mechanisms 'breaking down' over time, but becoming more well suited from their previous states.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Evolution does not show mechanisms 'breaking down' over time, but becoming more well suited from their previous states"
you are talking arguing about the process of something occuring, that is another debate, we are talking abou whether things fall apart once they are made, i would expect the human body to break down over time, just like a car breaksdown and needs to be repaired, or a boeing 747 needs maintenance, arguing because somethings can decay is not designed does not make sense.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
" i would expect the human body to break down over time, just like a car breaksdown and needs to be repaired"
Clarification. Not talking about break down of an individual over time, talking about sub-optimal mechanisms in the population as a whole. Example: eye layout with blind spot, or wind pipe doubling up as food transport mechanism causing multitudes of children to choke to death each year, etc.
rbairos1 2 years ago
i dont agree that sub optimal,(your judgement)l = not designed, or because you get bad with the good then that makes something bad, thats part of life, i remember dr john polkinghorne made a good example about earthquakes and plate tetonics and why the bad comes with the good, but too much to go into, none the less, i find your not perfect design therefore not design objection specious.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"i find your not perfect design therefore not design objection specious."
Except that were not taking about design of a blender but designing life. It begs the question of why something smart enough to design a planetful of creatures would leave in such shortcomings that are *also* exactly the expected result of evolution.
Your position keeps leading you to questions outside scientific inquiry.
rbairos1 2 years ago
So just to narrow this down, are you against abiogenesis theories, or the diversification of all life through evolution and natural selection? Is your position all animals likely appeared in their current form with little change and no common descent?
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Your position keeps leading you to questions outside scientific inquiry. "
no your argument about how poor and inefficent naturalistic evolution is leads me to be skeptical, it is your very own disparaging attitude that leads me in certain directions, i am willing to be convinced of your position but your arguments lead me to the opposite direction.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, my observation is that natural selection and evolution will often find incremental solutions to environmental pressures while not being able to replace underlying mechanisms entirely, unlike a designer who would have this ability.
Do you think the plethora of species now living on this planet arrived in their current form with no common descent?
rbairos1 2 years ago
I am not convinced that you truly believe that, you would have to convince me that is your true convinction but i feel deep down you do not have confidence in purely naturalistic processes.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"I am not convinced that you truly believe that, you would have to convince me that is your true convinction but i feel deep down you do not have confidence in purely naturalistic processes."
Sorry we are not debating your psychic ability. The theistic view that an agent could cause the speciation of all life on the planet from a common ancestor without breaking natural rules they put in place is fine by me. Its the testable questions and evidence that concern me.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Furthermore on this video he argues from incredulity when he says that the human body was not designed because it is not designed as he would it expect it to be, so he's talking thru both sides of his mouth, he also contradicts his position when he argues against the mechanism and then believes it was powerful in bringing in the complex cell and can explain dna.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
as a devout follower of randi , rbairos always scoffs and rejects things from the argument of incredulity., so he has no credibility or consistency to use that charge against others, also it dosent apply to me because i rightly pointed out that his position is inconsistent and violates the law of non contradiction, he believs the mechanism that brought us into being was not very effective, but then he believes it was so effective to bring about the complex cell and dna.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, as Ive explained before, you keep employing a false dichotomy. You have no explanation for the fact that supposedly designed organisms have very basic flaws that are to be expected in terms of incrementally evolved systems, but inexplicable in terms of pre-planned design. You fail to grasp the difference between complexity and robustness. We know we can evolve complex systems from simple rules but we do not see complex *designed* systems with major uncorrected flaws. Explain..
rbairos1 2 years ago
Even if the argument were successful, it wouldn't even come close to proving theism. Indeed, arguments for theism can serve equally well for the deist, which should be concerning.
geekyviking 2 years ago
It would prove that the origins of our Universe were marked by a sentient being, which corresponds with all systematic bodies of thought that deal with deities.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
I don't get it.
PleaseDontEatThat 2 years ago
offthewallur,thanks for pointing this out because he wont answer questions, maybe you guys will have better luck but i have come to expect this from rbarios, i think i will have a debate with somebody that has some evidence for their position and dosent dodge, rbarios has nothing, maybe he will back up his faith with you guys :)
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I can see rbairos1 doesn't want t answer any of PTBL's questions.
offthewallur 2 years ago
well it is a very emotional issue for rbairos , he already said in other debates he debates for sport, he likes arguing for the sake of it, for me i already told him in debate about god and atheism i could be wrong, hardline followers of randi are the type of people that do not like to give an inch and they are very emotional about these things, if he presents me with evidence and not proof by assertion then i am willing to come to his side, maybe he is trying to convince himself.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, its funny, Ive given you several examples of how evolution is testable on this and other vids in response to your question about how I justify my conclusion for the complexity of life arising on this planet. When I ask you to demonstrate how it must have been the result of a conscious creator, you simply insult me and infer arguments of incredulity. Really.. Its very entertaining.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Offthewallur, just because Loud summarily rejects all evidence for evolution through natural selection does not mean I didnt answer his questions. Perhaps you can prod him to answer what Ive asked him several time: Why must life be the result of a creative process. Youll notice he has never answered except by offering arguments of incredulity.
rbairos1 2 years ago
I will ask you again
do you believe the process that brought life into being was 1. A creative process
or 2. A non Creative process?
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"do you believe the process that brought life into being was 1. A creative process
or 2. A non Creative process?"
I see no evidence of any concious decision making, no.
rbairos1 2 years ago
" I see no evidence of any concious decision making, no. "
so you believe that we were brought into being by an uncreative process, thank you, I might add as you bring up the word that there was no concious decision making, then you also believe the process was unintelligent, unimaginative with no ability to think or plan ahead, with no ability to decide , that is how you believe we came into being.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"..that there was no concious decision making, then you also believe the process was unintelligent, unimaginative with no ability to think or plan ahead, with no ability to decide , that is how you believe we came into being. "
Well planning, decision making, intelligence, don't require consciousness as your PC will demonstrate. But to answer your question again, I dont see any evidence of *conscious intentional* direction in our biological history.
rbairos1 2 years ago
but the pc was programmed by a programmer.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"but the pc was programmed by a programmer"
It does not change the fact that non-conscious non-sentient entities can and do in fact carry out tasks that you would consider intelligent. In the case of digital evolutionary algorithms, they produce novel solutions that the original programmers did not and could not imagine, from simple rules with strong analogies to natural physical environments.
Again, please show why you believe life on Earth *must* be directed by a conscious entity?
rbairos1 2 years ago
no it shows that the instructions for the operating system were programmed there by a programmer, the information didn't arise by chance, you yourself argued that the process that brought humans into being wasn't a very efficient process, so it is hard to believe that if it is so inefficent that it could have brought the cell into being and explain the information rich and complex dna, in fact naturalistic answers do not explain , in fact dna presents a chicken and egg problem for naturalism.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"so it is hard to believe that if it is so inefficent that it could have brought the cell into being "
Argument from incredulity! Youve played that card, try something new.
rbairos1 2 years ago
thanks again for the quick reply ace
you argued that we are poorly made not me, you are arguing against the process that brought us into being and then arguing for it, that violates the law of contradiction, either we were made by an efficient process or not, try to resolve your contradiction.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"you argued that we are poorly made not me, you are arguing against the process that brought us into being and then arguing for it, that violates the law of contradiction, either we were made by an efficient process or not, try to resolve your contradiction"
Not poorly made, non-optimally made.
The contradition lies in your re-interpreting of statements.
rbairos1 2 years ago
but you pointed out the poorness of the eye and choking, you didnt just say that it was non optimally made, so do you believe that the process that brought us into being was efficent or non efficent.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"but you pointed out the poorness of the eye and choking, you didnt just say that it was non optimally made, so do you believe that the process that brought us into being was efficent or non efficent. "
This is an entirely false dichotomy. Efficient enough to produce a light sensing organ, but unefficient enough to avoid obvious functional flaws.
(obvious to a conscious rational designer that is).
rbairos1 2 years ago
we are having a conversation so do not get so excited, i am happy for any evidences you may present, so chill.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"we are having a conversation so do not get so excited, i am happy for any evidences you may present, so chill"
Your comment is neither accurate nor relevant. Please stay on topic. Cheers.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"and explain the information rich and complex dna, in fact naturalistic answers do not explain , in fact dna presents a chicken and egg problem for naturalism"
False, we've already established that simple algorithms produce arbitrarily complex and novel solutions through simple evolutionary algorithms, so your claim that this cannot happen in a biological medium is unsupported.
rbairos1 2 years ago
im happy for you to provide evidence not just a claim.
if you have proven established evidence for this origin of life and dna then i am happy for you to present your findings and collect your nobel prize.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"if you have proven established evidence for this origin of life and dna then i am happy for you to present your findings and collect your nobel prize"
Are you rejecting claims of abiogenesis or claims of evolution? If your argument is that remaining questions in science are evidence of a conscious eternal creator than present your findings and collect your nobel prize ;)
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Again, please show why you believe life on Earth *must* be directed by a conscious entity"
I don't believe it must be and never used those words, I am open to persuasion if you produce credible evidence that life arose by chance.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
">I don't believe it must be and never used those words, I am open to persuasion if you produce credible evidence that life arose by chance."
Youve gone through great lengths to say that my position (that there is no evidence that life arose by a conscious process) is a self-defeating position that would lead my client to be hung were I a lawyer.
So which is it? Where is your evidence of this conscious creator?
rbairos1 2 years ago
it's upto you to show how naturalism is creative without distorting the words meaning and without making silly claims that water is creative because it fills different shaped buckets, lol, the burden is on you to show how naturalism is creative because you are making the claim that it is, get over it, you have no evidence for your faith, stop having a period over it,stop having a period over offthewallurs comments, back up your claims for once.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
As Ive stated several times before, complex mechanisms may appear creative to the observer who is not familiar with the dynamics of the system. For example, when reflecting on a liquids ability to reshape itself to its container, it may also appear creative. Even a deep understanding of the equations at work may not dampen the conclusion.
Now, explain
a) Why life is a creative process
b) Why creativity implies conscious
c) Why non-conscious mechanisms cannot produce the effects we see today
rbairos1 2 years ago
thanks for the quick reply ace
now instead of dodging the question and trying to move the debate on which you do on a consistet basis, show how life coming into being can be termed creative without a creator, a simple question, simplified for somebody who gets his science from a magician and believes water is creative because it fills different shaped buckets.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, my example on shape-shifting water was the same now as it was ever time I described it. A little more focus and a little less childish insults would do you good. Ignoring the 3 or 4 insults in your last post, to answer your next question: Youve gone from 'creative' to 'creator'. By 'creative' do you mean 'mindful imagination', 'ability to produce novel solutions' or 'ability to create'? It should be obvious by the water example a process can be the latter two without any need of the 1st
rbairos1 2 years ago
" A little more focus and a little less childish insults would do you good"
says rbairos speaking out of both sides of his mouth and peppers his posts with mockery,more lack of self awarness
i mean creative as it pertains to imagination ace, as per its original undistorted definition.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"i mean creative as it pertains to imagination ace, as per its original undistorted definition. "
Is life an imaginative process? as in requiring a conscious entity in order to design its intricate directions? Well I would hope not. It would take quite some imagination to double an airway as a food transport mechanism, causing the choking death of thousands of children per year. Also take quite some imagination to design an eye with a glaring blind which must be fudged with guesswork.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"so you believe the mechanism that brought dna into being and the complexity of the cell was a poor and uncreative process.
i rest my case"
Im glad you finally rested your case. Thats a lot of effort for to present a fallacy of incredulity. Care to answer the questions Ive presented yet?
rbairos1 2 years ago
Im glad you finally rested your case. Thats a lot of effort for to present a fallacy of incredulity. Care to answer the questions Ive presented yet?
no dude you got mixed up, i rested my case because you presented an argument that was self defeating, you wouldn't make a good lawyer you would end up getting your client hung drawn and quartered. :)
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Now, explain
a) Why life is a creative process
b) Why creativity implies conscious
c) Why non-conscious mechanisms cannot produce the effects we see today
rbairos1 2 years ago
why life is a creative process, life is a creative process if we were brought into being by a creator.
creativity pertains to imagination therefore implies consiousness
non concious mechanisms producing the effects today, you provide me with evidence and then i might believe it.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Me: Explain why life is a creative process
You: life is a creative process if we were brought into being by a creator.
Thanks for the tautology, or repeating the question. Can you answer it?
"creativity pertains to imagination therefore implies consiousness"
If I program a PC with some simple algorithms that generate novel solutions incorporating an element of randomness that I had not /could not anticipate would you call the the machine imaginative?
rbairos1 2 years ago
"As Ive stated several times before, complex mechanisms may appear creative to the observer who is not familiar with the dynamics of the system. For example, when reflecting on a liquids ability to reshape itself to its container, it may also appear creative."
if that is an admittance by you that you believe the process that brought us into being without a creator is non creative, then I accept your admission and rest my case.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
seriously anyone calling anyone else immature while cosying up to dhorpotan just shows they are not right in the head, it shows hypocrisy and a lack of judgement by rbairDross, seriously chumming up to dhorpotan just shows that he is on the same level, rbairDross has no credibility in judging anyone, like i said do not feed the troll and let him go back under his bridge.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Loud, youve spouted off two paragraphs of insults without answering any pertinent questions with regards to the argument presented in this video. Thats good progress usually its 6 or 7. Now back to the topic.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Loud, youve spouted off two paragraphs of insults without answering any pertinent questions with regards to the argument presented in this video."
there you go folks the evidence that i showed you, proof by assertion and argument ad nauseaum, he asserts that naturalism is creative and then wants to argue ad nauseaum without proving his case, he is the one that is bastardising the english language to suit his position.
cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
So naturalism is an unimaginative, unintelligent, uncreative,unthinking process.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago 2
apparently so
myrmecia1977 2 years ago
creativity pertains to imagination and you cannot have an imagination without a mind or intelligence, to say that you can is to show hypocrisy and to actually change the meaning of words to fit naturalism, but it is dishonest , you cannot change the meaning of words because it goes against your position, creativity pertains to imagination,imagination pertains to the mind, none of those things apply to natural processes.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
rbairos1 is a troll.
offthewallur 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
offthewallur you are right this troll is on here too,
maybe he will start distorting the meaning of words like he did with me and enage in his childish wordplay to prove naturalism and tell doesgodnotexist that water is creative because it manages to fill different shaped buckets, lol.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago 3
Loud, demonstrate:
a) Why life is a creative process
b) Why creativity implies conscious
c) Why non-conscious mechanisms cannot produce the effects we see today
rbairos1 2 years ago
"water is creative because it manages to fill different shaped buckets, lol. "
Since (a) you do not have a solid definition of creative and (b) do not have any grasp of the mechanisms involved in particle dynamics, you can not explain why it does not apply. You just hilight your own ignorance and immaturity in your attempt to mock others.
rbairos1 2 years ago
offthewallur, if you have something relevant to say affirming or questioning the logic of this video, state it, otherwise stop trolling and go back to making adolescent vids calling people perverts.
rbairos1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
theist bastard
KernowCurno 2 years ago
Thanks for the input, KernowCurno!
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
theist bastard
KernowCurno 2 years ago
Gotcha the firs,t time champ. Take it easy.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
You desribe a scenario in which an event is guided (ie by Fred) or it is not (ie, natural processes).You then conclude *everything* based on a guided decision is guided. This disengenious definition of guided also would categorize the random molecular events in my exhaled carbon dioxide as guided since they originated from a decision to breathe out. Hardly satisfying.
According to this definition of guided behaviour, a hurricane is a guided decision of a restless butterfly.
rbairos1 2 years ago
3) Another flaw: You have not eliminated other (admittedly non-traditional) explanations for 'prime move' (which is what your argument really boils down to) such as closed time-like loops of causality.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"such as closed time-like loops of causality. "
I have a feeling you're indexing the possibility of an oscillating Universe. You were a bit vague in your indication of my "flaws". Can you elucidate?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"I have a feeling you're indexing the possibility of an oscillating Universe. You were a bit vague in your indication of my "flaws". Can you elucidate?"
You seem to imply the only possibility for sentient behaviour is a primal sentient being. Though thats incorrect, you also need to realize causality can also be perfectly consistent in a loop where future events effect previous ones.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"You seem to imply the only possibility for sentient behaviour is a primal sentient being."
Sentience itself is not a material construct. It is dependent on another body of existence. How can sentient behavior exist in the absence of something that is to BE sentient (aware, conscious).
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"Sentience itself is not a material construct. It is dependent on another body of existence. How can sentient behavior exist in the absence of something that is to BE sentient (aware, conscious). "
Another one in the class of "X matter cannot originate from X-less matter" appeal, where X is morality, life, intentionality, etc. Though that statement may seem obviously true to you you have noone has ever shown why.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Typo, should read: " Though that statement may seem obviously true to you, you or noone else has ever shown why"
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Another one in the class of "X matter cannot originate from X-less matter" appeal, where X is morality, life, intentionality, etc. Though that statement may seem obviously true to you you have noone has ever shown why."
Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you're trying to say."
Youve failed to demonstrate why "Sentience itself is not a material construct. It is dependent on another body of existence." is true.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Sentience is the condition of being conscious or aware. Being a mere condition, it is reliant upon SOMETHING to obtain. Can you point to a single instance in nature where sentience exists independent of some sort of "host", if you will?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"Can you point to a single instance in nature where sentience exists independent of some sort of "host", if you will? "
No thats my point. Its a transient property of a material system in the same way a poem is a transient property of the written words that compose it., though perhaps we're not in disagreement here.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Its a transient property of a material system in the same way a poem is a transient property of the written words that compose it"
I think that's how I tried to explain it.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"you also need to realize causality can also be perfectly consistent in a loop where future events effect previous ones."
The oscillating universe theory has been abandoned. I don't have enough room to explain why here, but I can PM you a more engaging look into it. Are you aware of the entropic upsurge that would build up from oscillation to oscillation?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"The oscillating universe theory has been abandoned. I don't have enough room to explain why here, but I can PM you a more engaging look into it. Are you aware of the entropic upsurge that would build up from oscillation to oscillation? "
Im not talking about an oscillating universe, im talking about a a single loop. Not very emotionally satisfying, but nonetheless logically consistent.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Im not talking about an oscillating universe, im talking about a a single loop. Not very emotionally satisfying, but nonetheless logically consistent."
Oh, I see - time-like curvatures, which would essentially violate causality by means of infinite regress. We even get into time travel. I understand how the paradoxes associated to causal loops are related to self-existing information or objects, trapped in spacetime, but I think this is just bastardized jargon. What are your views?
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
", but I think this is just bastardized jargon. What are your views? "
Personally, an academic exercise, though self-consistent and logical, unlike proofs which claim a sentient creator by claiming all action must ultimately have a "first-chooser" line of appeals.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Personally, an academic exercise, though self-consistent and logical, "
When expounded on, this can be reduced to an acknowledgement of the possibility of time travel? You believe that to be self-consistent and logical? If you don't know why I keep referring to this engimatic topic, I can elaborate.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"When expounded on, this can be reduced to an acknowledgement of the possibility of time travel? You believe that to be self-consistent and logical? If you don't know why I keep referring to this engimatic topic, I can elaborate. "
Not time travel in the traditional sense, but in terms of scenarios which are consistent, this one raises less questions than an internal sentient prime mover.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"this one raises less questions than an internal sentient prime mover. "
A contentious point, to say the least.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Would you agree to this summary of your argument:
1) Every action *must* contain an element of chance and/or an elemnt of intelligence
2) Chance cannot cause anything to happen
3) Therefore all actions are ultimately guided by intelligent forces?
rbairos1 2 years ago
Two major flaws:
1) Quantum Mechanics is a probabalistic description of the universe. There is no deterministic cause for quantum effects, it *is* defined by random variables at its core.
2) More importantly, you erroneously interchanged 'cause' with 'intent' in your argument. Non-sentient forces can indeed be the cause of other events with no need of intent, (ie sentience).
rbairos1 2 years ago
I don't see how Quantum mechanics shows my argument out to be flawed.
"Non-sentient forces can indeed be the cause of other events with no need of intent"
That was the whole point of my video. I understand that, in the popular mind, many people would suspect that the cause of the Universe would not have to be sentient, or intentional in it's actions. I argued against that.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"I don't see how Quantum mechanics shows my argument out to be flawed. "
You go to great lengths to demonstrate how random events are actually deterministic with your example of a coin flip, but QM is probabalistic by definition, not deterministic. ie, There *are* events which are indeed random.
rbairos1 2 years ago
I think there's some confusion. I tried to demonstrate that randomness is NOT deterministic, but subject to chance, and therefore probabilistic. I don't deny that there are random events - I was arguing against the notion of an insentient first cause. The material particles that Quantum Mechanics talks about are contingent - they obtain from the energy in the cosmos encompassing them.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
Again, you clearly state in your video multiple times that "Physics and Philosophy insist that every effect we observe in the universe was caused by some preceding action."
This is emphatically untrue.
QM is ruled by randomness / chance, not previous causal factors. An identical condition will not yield the same result. This is not a statistical summary, its inherent to the system.
The conclusions you attempt to draw from your claims are drawn from invalid premises.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"QM is ruled by randomness / chance, not previous causal factors."
Quantum mechanics, being a mere description of physical systems at a smaller level, is still subject to causality. You misunderstand. I'm not saying chance doesn't exist - however, it does not manifest itself in any sort of material way. It's merely a concept, a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred.
doesgodnotexist 2 years ago
"Quantum mechanics, being a mere description of physical systems at a smaller level, is still subject to causality"
It breaks the implication that future events are somehow "sentiently" controlled by previous actions. Im not sure of your claim that its not manifest in a material way. QM describes material behaviour at the most basic level we know.
rbairos1