Powerful counter-apologetics by Jeff Lowder

[Rumraket]

Jeff Lowder debated christian apologist Frank Turek 22nd september and a video is supposedly on the way.

Jeff Lowder presents one of the strongest cases for atheism and naturalism I have seen to date:



It's long but worth it. You will see many of the usual apologist arguments, such as those used by William Lane Craig and copied by many less well known christian and islamic apologists, powerfully rebutted.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Thank you for sharing this. Took a few days to get threw the whole thing, but worth it.

 

[Elshamah]

Jeff Lowder debated christian apologist Frank Turek 22nd september and a video is supposedly on the way.

Jeff Lowder presents one of the strongest cases for atheism and naturalism I have seen to date:



It's long but worth it. You will see many of the usual apologist arguments, such as those used by William Lane Craig and copied by many less well known christian and islamic apologists, powerfully rebutted.

Has he been able to provide ONE example of coded information emerging naturally ?

No ??!!

:lol: :lol:

 

[Rumraket]

Jeff Lowder debated christian apologist Frank Turek 22nd september and a video is supposedly on the way.

Jeff Lowder presents one of the strongest cases for atheism and naturalism I have seen to date:



It's long but worth it. You will see many of the usual apologist arguments, such as those used by William Lane Craig and copied by many less well known christian and islamic apologists, powerfully rebutted.

Has he been able to provide ONE example of coded information emerging naturally ?

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

I am puzzled by anyone who does not see the error in that question. Its assertion really needs something that are not logical fallacies to back it up.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

You'll have to repeat it for him here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Well, our friend simply asserts that the probability of information arising through naturalism is the same as through supernaturalism.
Mind to explain why he makes that claim ? based on what ? he does not explain anything.

Then he goes on with irrelevant drivel just packed in a tasteful package of a wall of words, with little or no substance to back up his claims.

How do you get a code without a coder? How can code emerge naturally ?

As said. If you reject the truth, every nonsense becomes credible and plausible.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Well, our friend simply asserts that the probability of information arising through naturalism is the same as through supernaturalism.
Mind to explain why he makes that claim ? based on what ? he does not explain anything.

Then he goes on with irrelevant drivel just packed in a tasteful package of a wall of words, with little or no substance to back up his claims.

How do you get a code without a coder? How can code emerge naturally ?

As said. If you reject the truth, every nonsense becomes credible and plausible.

Is there code involved in the formation of every snowflake, no matter how elaborate? Is there code in the formation of a crystal? Is there code involved when energy applied to some molecules spontaneously results in larger, more "complex" molecules?

 

[Rumraket]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Well, our friend simply asserts that the probability of information arising through naturalism is the same as through supernaturalism.
Mind to explain why he makes that claim ? based on what ? he does not explain anything.

Right, it isn't very detailed because it is expected the person watching the video understand what the words mean. Jeff is using the following definitions: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/04/17/the-nature-of-naturalism/

metaphysical naturalism (hereafter, “MN”): the hypothesis that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. MN has three implications.

(1) MN entails the non-existence of all supernatural persons, including God, and so entails atheism.
(2) MN entails that nature causally explains the existence (or, making room for eliminative physicalists, the apparent existence) of the mental world. In other words, MN entails that natural entities are ontologically fundamental.
(3) MN entails that nature does not have a teleological or purposive explanation.

metaphysical supernaturalism (hereafter, “MS”): the hypothesis that the physical world (or, making room for eliminative idealists, its appearance) is a product of one or more non-physical mental entities. In other words, MS entails that mental entities are ontologically fundamental.

personal supernaturalism (hereafter, “PS”): a form of MS which holds that the mental entities in question are persons and that the explanation of the physical world is teleological or purposive. Of course, personal supernaturalists need not claim to know what purposes were being pursued when the physical world (or apparent physical world) was created; but they must hold that there are such purposes.

metaphysical theism (aka “theistic supernaturalism” or simply “theism,” hereafter, “T”): a form of PS which identifies the mental reality responsible for the existence of physical reality with God—in other words, with a unique person who is omnipotent and omniscient and thus, lacking non-rational desires, omnibenevolent as well.

As you can see, none of these hypotheses predict biological information.

Then he goes on with irrelevant drivel just packed in a tasteful package of a wall of words, with little or no substance to back up his claims.

No, he explicitly refutes the argument you make. It starts at about 1:08:00

You know, that silly thing you say that goes something like this:
1. All known codes we know the origin of, were intelligently designed.
2. The genetic code/DNA is a code.
3. Therefore the genetic code/DNA was intelligently designed.

This argument is an inductive argument, and it is logically invalid, because it commits the fallacy of exclusion. Or in other words, it is deliberately constructed to ignore the total evidence. Put in it's correct form that does NOT exclude all the relevant evidence, it would look like this:

1. All known codes we know the origin of, were intelligently designed BY HUMAN BEINGS.
2. The genetic code/DNA is a code.
3. Therefore the genetic code/DNA was designed by God.

Now the fallacy is obvious. Even if you were to include the relevant evidence in your conclusion, it would first of all argue AGAINST your claim that God made the genetic code, AND it would be false. Because human beings did NOT create the genetic code. And just because human beings made codes, it does not mean all codes were designed NOR does it mean God made the genetic code.

The argument is bunk. The conclusion you desire cannot be reached through inductive logic. Get over it.

How do you get a code without a coder? How can code emerge naturally ?

Even if we had no goddamn idea, that would still not make your argument valid.

 

[Visaki]

Haven't got time to watch the video yet but I'll join in on the derailment; Please, Elshamah , define what you mean by "code". (ANyone else that knows what he means and pipe in also).

 

[tuxbox]

Haven't got time to watch the video yet but I'll join in on the derailment; Please, Elshamah , define what you mean by "code". (ANyone else that knows what he means and pipe in also).

I am assuming he means DNA and how it looks like it is coded information. I tried to use a similar argument when I tried to defend my deist position.

 

[Visaki]

Haven't got time to watch the video yet but I'll join in on the derailment; Please, Elshamah , define what you mean by "code". (ANyone else that knows what he means and pipe in also).

I am assuming he means DNA and how it looks like it is coded information. I tried to use a similar argument when I tried to defend my deist position.

That's true, he does in all probability mean that. But I'm looking for an actual definition and not just an example of his definition (whatever that might be).

 

[Elshamah]

.

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Is there code involved in the formation of every snowflake, no matter how elaborate? Is there code in the formation of a crystal? Is there code involved when energy applied to some molecules spontaneously results in larger, more "complex" molecules?

your comparison is invalid. It requires just matter and energy to make snowflakes.

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-design-product-mental-process/

instructional coded information , stored in dna, is however required to make living things.

big difference

 

[Rumraket]

Haven't got time to watch the video yet but I'll join in on the derailment; Please, Elshamah , define what you mean by "code". (ANyone else that knows what he means and pipe in also).

He can't give a definition of it that isn't copy-pasted from something he doesn't understand anyway. And it doesn't really matter however you define "code".

Regardless, this is the sort of argument he has made many times, copied as-is from Elshamah's own website:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

Disregarding the fact that the grammatical issues means there is no argument here, we can still sort of guess what he's trying to argue. And as I shown above, this argument even if stated correctly is still logically invalid. It violates the principle of total evidence.

With the left-out information included, it would become this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. The pattern in DNA was not created by humans.
3. All codes we know the origin of come from a intelligent human mind
4. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent human mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

This argument now contains a contradiction (the conclusion is in contradiction with premise 2) and so is logically invalid.

 

[Rumraket]

instructional coded information , stored in dna, is however required to make living things.

So what? That doesn't entail anything you want it to.

Sorry, information or codes or whatever you want to call it, does not mean God had to create it. It just doesn't. All arguments you have ever tried to make that attempted to reach this conclusion were logically invalid arguments.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

All one needs to create "biological information" is chemistry, generally in the form of - at least - one life-form: no "intelligent mind" required.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

As you can see, none of these hypotheses predict biological information.

So what ?!! its common in science that things are not predicted, but postdicted, that is , reality forces theories to be adapted . Science is far from able to predict everything. Most things are actually just discovered. Would you argue that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background is not 2.7k, because it was not predicted ?

Then he goes on with irrelevant drivel just packed in a tasteful package of a wall of words, with little or no substance to back up his claims.

No, he explicitly refutes the argument you make. It starts at about 1:08:00

1. All known codes we know the origin of, were intelligently designed BY HUMAN BEINGS.
2. The genetic code/DNA is a code.
3. Therefore the genetic code/DNA was designed by God.

Why not:

All known instructed coded complex information can be tracked back to a intelligent cause.
DNA stores CSI.
Therefore, the information stored in DNA requires a intelligent cause.

What dumb arguments you stick to, Mikkel.

Desperated much by the evidence, that refutes your wishful world view ?

 

[Elshamah]

Sorry, information or codes or whatever you want to call it, does not mean God had to create it. It just doesn't. All arguments you have ever tried to make that attempted to reach this conclusion were logically invalid arguments.

Your alternative is chance, or physical necessity....

The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters. Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10^183,946, or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^360,783.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Elshamah]

Greetings,

All one needs to create "biological information" is chemistry, generally in the form of - at least - one life-form: no "intelligent mind" required.

Kindest regards,

James

All one needs to create this very own sentence i write now, and you read, is a electrical signal, a computer screen, a computer, a hard drive etc. No intelligence required.....

Kind regards

Otangelo

:roll: :roll: :idea: :idea: :shock: :shock:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

All one needs to create "biological information" is chemistry, generally in the form of - at least - one life-form: no "intelligent mind" required.

Kindest regards,

James

All one needs to create this very own sentence i write now, and you read, is a electrical signal, a computer screen, a computer, a hard drive etc. No intelligence required.....

Kind regards

Otangelo

:roll: :roll: :idea: :idea: :shock: :shock:

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Biological systems are self-replicating - mechanical/electronic systems are not.

Green flies reproduce parthenogenetically, for example - whereas most other members of the animal kingdom produce through males and females randomly combining their DNA.

It's just chemistry - no "intelligent mind" required.

Your basic problem is assuming dualism - there's no evidence of minds separate from physical systems: monism is the default position.

And you're still touting Meyer's "CSI" nonsense - there's no such thing.

Kindest regards,

James