Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[borrofburi]

First: you've moved the goalposts. Second: please define, in a rigid matter, the difference between "pattern" and "information", and please specify how a "pattern" does not contain information (because, damn, I wonder why my grandma's always takling about buying fancy new crocheting patterns if there's no information contained in them...).

sorry to post just a link, but this website explains it better than i could :

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm

That page does not talk about information, it creates (and refuses to rigidly define) "design" as some sort of metric. Your original argument was that DNA contains too much information to have been formed by chemical processes (which is patently false); you've moved the goalposts yet again. Moreover you went from a potentially interesting (but not yet defined) argument to "look, dna kind of looks designed", which is, quite frankly, entirely and utterly unconvincing and rationally bankrupt.

But hey, if we're playing linking games I'm going to borrow even less of your time than you took from me and ask you take 2 minutes of your time to listen to marshall's crap be quickly and efficiently explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOHT_dTDQbQ (start at 4:25 if you're feeling particularly pressed for time).

The answer is: the way Marshall and other IDers (and young earth cerationists) do this "information has to come from an intelligence" game is to do it buy (1) borrowing terminology from information theory and (2) IGNORING the rigid definition of "information". They NEVER define "information" in a rigorous manner, and instead dance around it and make bold claims that are entirely insubstantial and unfalsifiable without a rigid agreed upon definition of information.

that is simply not true.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm#997

Fundamental Law 1 (FL1)

A purely material entity, such as physicochemical processes, cannot create a nonmaterial entity. (Something material cannot create something nonmaterial.)
Physical entities include mass and energy (matter). Examples of something that is not material (nonmaterial entity) include thought, spirit, and volition (will).

Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
...
This is a case of creating and destroying information.

This is also not a rigid definition of information; and even if it were, it is wildly divergent from the defintion that actual information theory uses (you know, the actual science these apologists are pretending to emulate). These words "fundamental entity" are not rigid, and why on earth isn't it a property of matter? These are horribly unjustified. Something I would be far more inclined to accept is, say, something quantified as actual information theory does (you know, again, real science).

That you can create and destroy information does not mean information is "purely non-material"; rather, it means that information is an emergent property due to the order (or organization) of material things and as a result it is a property of material things even if it itself is not material (because if it were just "material" then we wouldn't need a second word for it). And of course you can order matter and then un-order it (any child with a lego set can tell you that). It doesn't make the information "non-material" (whatever that even means, "non-material" is yet another one of those words that you have not really defined), but rather a property of material (although again, material here is not well defined (e.g. is light a material? Electromagnetic radiation? Potential energy?)).

And actually, I'd continue on, but until you've defined "material" and "non-material" there's really no point. I will not play a game where the goalposts are so easy to shift. It seems to me there are no problems with saying that information, while not a material istelf is a property of material (similar to, say, colour). But that depends, of course, on what "material" means; you're trying to say that information is non-material and non-material is proof of design, to which I say: bollocks. Currently the definition of "material" you have does not include EM radiation, colour, plasticity, elasticity, taste, etc. All of which are emergent properties of various types of matter in various formations yet you would hardly argue that their existence proves god.

Still more: you still haven't shown how the orginzation of atoms in a crystal aren't information (except to merely claim they're not). Even these "rigid definitions" (which aren't rigid) say that the order of atoms in a crystal are information. And the truth is: they are information; anyone who has taken a basic class artificial intelligence (and understood the bit about simulated annealing search) will be able to tell you that. The problem, then, of course, is that information itself is not evidence of design.

If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight.

This is a problem with your scale, and not reflective of reality. In other words: it's false. It's "true" only in the sense that if I weigh myself in my car on a car scale, and then I go and eat a large lunch next door and weigh my car again, the two weights will b the same. The truth is, the CD's weight will have changed, you just can't detect it.

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.7

(Argh, I was wrong, I can't help but continue on a little more) The above is wrong, and is really an act of defining things precisely so that you can make your claim that all "information" is designed. Th problem here is that you've caused a major problem: either DNA does not communicate information, or information can arise from statistical processes. Moreover evolution does not argue chance plus time causes new (useful) information, rather chance + time + selection causes new (useful) information. Of course, the problem, is that statistical processes DO create new information: a sequence of dice rolls does contain information, even if it's not necessarily useful to us (at least, according to the actual scientific definition of information).

See this for examples of how new information can arise from evolutionary processes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

Second Law of Information (LI2)

This is just stupid, because it's not a "law", at least you don't mean to say it is (otherwise you're being a dishonest prick using circular reasoning); rather it's meant to be a corollary to LI1... At least learn the vocabulary to properly communicate your meaning. Then you introduce ANOTHER undefined term "code"... Argh.

And I'm getting sick of your splitting up my posts into multiple pieces (currently my post is already pre-split, but if you split it any more... well I guess I'll probably just stop talking to you, and you can go and claim "victory" by copy pasta, and feel all good about yourself yet having failed to accomplish anything other than boost your ego by doing nothing more than copying and pasting gigantic swaths of text. Also, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not enjoying the ridiculous amount of copy pasta, and I'm quickly believing you do not read my posts but rather just copy and paste things in response to key phrases; in which case you're no better than a chat bot, and will quickly find yourself just as silenced as a chat bot.

 

[ron baker]

how can you define with science alone, what is right, what is wrong ?
does absolute truth exist ?
is your world view based only on absolute proofs ?

We can often get to within 15 decimal places of the truth.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

I support the first amendment to the US constitution which includes tolerance for others' beliefs. (But I don't have to accept those beliefs or accept that they be thought in public schools.)

I know I'm jumping in here late, but why does the universe need a cause and God does not?

--
rb

 

[Story]

Since you avoided my post I want to say 3 things.

Japhia888, are you aware that saying "we don't understand what causes x" therefore "god did it" is fallacious?

Are you aware that the big bang does not in anyway denote that the universe was born or created at that time?

Do you contend that scientists shall never find an explanation for the universe because it's magical in the same way that people contended that there were magical explanations for evolution, electricity, bio-organisms, flight, diseases, madness, death, etc?

 

[Japhia888]

how can you define with science alone, what is right, what is wrong ?

Science does not define what is right or wrong. What science does is accumulate knowledge which reflects the way our reality works. Consequently, I use the law to know what is right or wrong.

exellente. Therefore, you already admit, science is not the only source, you base your world view on.

 

[Japhia888]

does absolute truth exist ?

What do you mean by absolute truth? Do you mean truth in a sense that is 100 percent true, where there is no degree of error involved? Incidentally, I don't know if such exists.

Do squaere circles exist ? according to your answer, you don't know how to answer, and your answer being a absolute truth.

 

[Japhia888]

observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally.

And this is what?

How can there be observational evidence if such cannot be detected with observation?

Please provide evidence for such, the following may suffice:

a. Studies
b. Evidence
c. References

just study the kalaam cosmological argument, and you will know.

 

[Japhia888]

I think you really need to stop trolling .

i suggest you search someone else to debate, of which you do not feel the counterpart is trolling.
I feel not motivated to debate with someone, that accuses me of trolling.

 

[Japhia888]

well, there is more then 1 mechanism proposed and its still a field thats not fleshed-out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

could you point out by your own words, what mechanisms are presented there, exactly ?

make an educated guess of what it could mean.... it may be just jibberish or it might actually mean something...

as said, upon common agreement, it could have a meaning, and be coded information.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I think you really need to stop trolling .

i suggest you search someone else to debate, of which you do not feel the counterpart is trolling.
I feel not motivated to debate with someone, that accuses me of trolling.

I can't blame him. After you said "Study the Kalam Cosmological Argument" I couldn't help but think that you're either badly informed or trolling.

 

[Japhia888]

its interesting that you still use that heavens forum as if its a reliable source, while most if not all of the assumptions on it have been disproven.

1. heaven forum is my own virtual library. Its my source, where i have easy information on hand. You cannot disprove a assumption, since it reflects only a personal interpretation and opinion of reality.

-monogenesis
-gestural theory
-Self-domesticated ape theory
-Synergetic approach

- which do not find any empirical evidence, backed up by science. tis pure speculation without any base at all. Wishful thinking at best.

it's almost as if you didn't even take the time to read, went to that heavens forum, searched for anything related to evolution of speech and quoted a piece which would be the most relevant to the argument.

how is it that you are not skeptical at all in regard of the proposed 4 hypotheses, since there is no evidence at all to back up the mentioned claims ?

and the answer is the same; "micro evolution is macro evolution, just on a different timescale"[

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/does-gene-duplication-provide-the-engine-for-evolution-t292.htm

Evolution by gene duplication predicts a proportional increase in genome size with organism complexity but this is contradicted by the evidence. It is not genome size but intergenic regulatory sequences and gene regulation hierarchies that determine complexity. Gene regulation networks are irreducibly complex and constitute an insurmountable barrier for the theory.

 

[lrkun]

exellente. Therefore, you already admit, science is not the only source, you base your world view on.

This is not the proper conclusion. You asked me a different question. To be specific it is on the issue of right or wrong. You did not ask about my world view. Pay attention to your train of thought.

 

[lrkun]

Do squaere circles exist ? according to your answer, you don't know how to answer, and your answer being a absolute truth.

You did not ask me a question with respect to square circles. You asked me if absolute truth exists. I answer to such that I don't know if an absolute truth exists. Again, please be mindful of your questions and the answers attached to such.

 

[lrkun]

just study the kalaam cosmological argument, and you will know.

But that argument has already been debunked.

 

[Japhia888]

i could go on ranting what is wrong with both arguments, but first... Which stand do you take, the first or the second?

they don't contradict each other, they complement each other. The same is explained from different angles.

 

[Japhia888]

You don't start counting at infinity, that's the whole point.

So where do you start counting ?

...said the guy who says it's all magic. :lol:

you should only laugh, after having a more compelling and convincing and rational explanation. So far, you have failed to provide one.

 

[Japhia888]

Also, Japhia, I'd advise you to read this to begin with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

and you, this one:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

 

[Squawk]

Do you honestly think people believe that a bacteria morphed into a human without intermediate stages that were near as dammit identical to previous states? If so then you are unequipped for this discussion. If not then are being disingenuous. Which is it?

thats a extrapolation of what i quoted.

An extrapolation? Really. Perhaps you should clarify for me, since I am unsure of your position. I proposed two alternatives, perhaps you can agree with one of them or alternatively show why neither applies.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

i suggest you search someone else to debate, of which you do not feel the counterpart is trolling.
I feel not motivated to debate with someone, that accuses me of trolling.

First off, this is not a debate. Debates are structured and should be between two stances that are viable. This is merely a discussion, a discussion in which you will not answer simple questions.
Second, nice try at a cop-out. The reason I feel that you are trolling is because you are refusing to answer questions. You can prove me wrong and show all of us that you are not a troll by answering my first question. Can you define evolution in a biological context? Your refusal to answer this question has already said something about your character.
Moreover, you also have not corrected your earlier statement about macroevolution. You first stated that macroevolution was not speciation, yet quote your own source that stated it was. So which is it? Do you think macroevolution is or is not speciation? Words have definitions for a reason.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

So where do you start counting ?

At now. And you count back into infinity.

you should only laugh, after having a more compelling and convincing and rational explanation. So far, you have failed to provide one.

I'd like to refer to you to the first two pages of this thread, where naturalistic mechanisms have been laid out for you.
I was only pointing out the irony of the fact that people who jump through all these hoops, who go through decades upon decades of research about nature, the universe and all laws therein are accused of taking the convenient route by someone who thinks that it was all done by magic and nothing else.

Also, Japhia, I'd advise you to read this to begin with:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

and you, this one:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Yes, Rivius, please check it out. It's fantastic.

I clicked on a random chapter - happened to be the one about ERVs - which contains gems such as:
Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species.
and
It is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding.
and directly after that
The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture.

The whole thing is a barrel of laughs. You should really try it, Rivius. It's great.

.

 

[Japhia888]

This is not a rigid definition. It is metaphysical bullshit. If god has no past or future, then the sequence of events (since all sequences of events imply time) you propose that god undertook can not exist. There is no "before time"; there can be a "before time as we know it" but time is a requisite for ANY sequence of events. There is no "outside of time", for time is a requisite for a sequence of events; anything outside of time is permanently unchanging; nothing outside of time could create time because an unchanging thing can not create anything (since creation implies a 'before' creation and an "after" creation, which is a sequence of events, which requires some form of time).

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/is-timeless-divine-action-coherent-t374.htm#1300

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

Sorry but the bible can not prove itself to be true.

I just cited the bible, because the bible confirms God existing in a timeless eternity.

Since I doubt the validity and veracity of the bible, you have to show it's true using evidence outside of it before I will lend any credence to its words. Moreover we're not even talking about your christian god yet, you're still arguing for deism. You have yet to provide anything even slightly able to move someone from deism to your christianity (because you continue to try to use the bible, the very thing that non-believers doubt, to prove that the bible is true (which, honestly, is blatant circular reasoning, and is just silly (and a little bit insulting))).

the provided link just shows, how the presented view of timeless eternity is coherent with the view of the bible of state of affairs.

Besides, after this you go into a "something has always existed but it was a really special something and it existed in a really special way" rant; what you continue to fail to realize is the effects of occam's razor on your special pleading.

in what sense does my argument consist in special pleading ?

The big bang does not mark the beginning of "everything there is"; it marks the beginning of the universe as we know it.

say that to all cited secular scientists, mentioned here, which don't agree with you :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

instead it is synonymous with "our models don't really understand what happens here, at least not very well". Ultimately, what the big bang marks is not necessarily "everything coming from nothing" as you presume (it could, but we don't know that), but rather "the universe as we know it coming into existence from something we do not yet understand".

As said. Many scientists definitively would not agree with you :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The analogy of course is simple: we humans, being very intelligent (at our brightest moments, pretty stupid during other moments) have traced back the existence of the universe, with models that all point back to something very small as the origin. Prior to that point we see "nothing". That doesn't mean "nothing" is the right answer (it might be, we don't know); rather it probably means that our models are failing to account for something, even something we couldn't possibly understand because our universe as we know it lacks the initial universe-creating elements (as the female above also lacked part of the initial fetus creating elements, although if she had happened to investigate egg cells enough she might begin to understand the process better, and possibly even be able to genetically recombine other similar humans). That our models break down at the big bang is NOT a place for you to say "well obviously god dun it", any more than that the ancient greek's models of reality were not able to understand lightning was a valid place for them to say "well obviously god dun it".

I understand you try to come back, and defy the second premise of the kalaam cosmological argument. Lets be frank. It stands on quite solid rational ground, and you will not find a satisfying answer to rebut it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is supported by both philosophical and scientific arguments. Arguments under the former category involve showing that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

Before I move on, I just want to offer some definitions of the different types of infinity lest my opponent choose to attack that particular argument.

Potential infinities are sets that are constantly increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never attain infinite status. A more accurate description would be to say that their members are indefinite. An actual infinite, by contrast, is a set x that contains a subset x' that is equivalent to x. "The crucial difference between an infinite set and an indefinite collection would be that the former is conceived as a determinate whole actually possessing an infinite number of members, while the latter never actually attains infinity, although it increases perpetually. We have, then, three types of collection that we must keep conceptually distinct: finite, infinite, and indefinite."

Also, I can create matter from "nothing", since matter and energy can translate into each other. And guess what: energy has no volume and according to your own logic, is therefore nothing.

thats not my logic.....





[