This is the thread where Led Zeppelin provides "proof" that God exists...

[Led Zeppelin]

Certainly computers are information processing systems; that's what we built them to do. Eyes on their own are more correctly called information accumulators. They don't do any processing on their own, but rather pass what they take in to the brain. But I get your point and I don't disagree.

The big question, though, is how this proves the existence of a god. Your argument is that our ability to process information in the way we do could not have happened naturally. However, there is no evidence for this beyond your statement. If some god had created this system and presumably wanted us to take advantage of it, we would have found evidence of it. Perhaps it would show though our inherent, shared understanding of the world. Yet no where is this in evidence. The very fact that we have multiple different languages, and multiple different understandings of the world and the universe, as well as many different views on gods and religion, across the many peoples and cultures in the world, seems to go against that idea.

If we know that apples only come from apple trees, then an apple should indicate to you that there must also exist (or at least had existed) an apple tree.
I am not a paleontologist, but I assume that if they found a fossil of a just a T-Rex skull buried somewhere, they wouldn't say "Wow look at this! This dinosaur lived without a body."
When one thing indicates the existence of another thing, then that one thing is evidence of the other thing. Whenever we see an IPS, it indicates that an intellect has assigned a value based on a certain physical characteristic or quality of one thing, so it can be used to represent something that it is not. A metal can be an excellent conductor of electricity, but it can never be a conductor of "0s and 1s" unless an intellect assigns these values.

It does not matter if it happened yesterday or a billion years ago. Or whether or not every IPS shares a common ancestor. Or whether or not they can gain complexity over time. When you find an apple, you know it came from an apple tree.

You've made some interesting points, but they are mostly philosophical, no? Even if I might agree with them, neither you or I are the standard which those arguments will be judged by. Surly you must agree that, when presented with evidence for the requirement such an intellect, I can safely say that 6 or 7 billion people will say this is evidence for God. And not only that, many if not most of those will say "This is the God we have been telling you about for thousands of years" Perhaps rightfully so. I am not required to disagree with them. Nor I am obliged in anyway to prove my own standard. That is the strength of my argument.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

BTW if any of this sounds simple and easy to understand, keep in mind that you yourself are an example of the most capable and sophisticated type of real life information processing system found anywhere in nature. And so it stands to reason that a correct understanding of these systems should come easily and perhaps even be intuitively known in us. While on the other hand, an incorrect understanding would be one that leads us away from what we can already know about ourselves and will seem overly-complicated and difficult for us to comprehend. No?

 

[Mythtaken]

You've made some interesting points, but they are mostly philosophical, no?

No, I think my points were largely based on observable fact, science and technology.

Surly you must agree that, when presented with evidence for the requirement such an intellect, I can safely say that 6 or 7 billion people will say this is evidence for God.

The problem here is that you've not presented any such evidence. You've several times made statements about information processing systems and the requirement for an intellect, but not backed up those statements with any tangible evidence. In fact, you've weakened your own argument by using technological examples, such as logic gates or computers. While both of these can be construed as types of information processing systems, neither requires any "intellect" to operate. The computer you're sitting at right now is performing dozens of tasks involving the processing of various types of data, all in the background without the involvement of any intellect.

At this point you can argue that the computer was designed by an intelligent human to do these things, and you'd be correct. And that's a big problem with the root of your argument. Information processing systems only exist because we created them, either physically, like a computer, or semantically, like language. As I've said earlier, our brains evolved to organize information into "systems" and therefore we see the world and the universe as a series of systems.

Your argument relies on two important parts. First, information processing isn't naturally occuring, which we've already discussed, and second, there has to have been a pre-existing intelligence which created an information processing system for all things. Like that grand system, there is no evidence for that intelligence. We have been looking for it throughout all of humanity's existence without success.

Nor I am obliged in anyway to prove my own standard. That is the strength of my argument.

This is fundamentally true. We are all free to believe anything we like and have no obligation to justify it. However, when we choose to put forward our beliefs in the form of an argument, we do need to provide fact and evidence if we are to be successful in convincing others.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Your argument relies on two important parts. First, information processing isn't naturally occuring, which we've already discussed,

Information processing could not have arose naturally in a universe with no pre-existing intellect. Because, without an intellect, you have nothing to assign a value to anything. (When you say "naturally occuring" you make it sound as if I am arguing that IP does not exist in nature.)

and second, there has to have been a pre-existing intelligence which created an information processing system for all things.

If every IPS shared a common ancestor that could change in complexity over generations, it would still be true that that common ancestor required an pre-existing intellect to assign a value to something.

I understand you want to talk about evolution. Can show one logical step evolution can provide; that takes some "thing" which cannot acquire or process any information at all -and makes it closer to a thing that CAN, without appealling to an intellect of somekind?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

At this point you can argue that the computer was designed by an intelligent human to do these things, and you'd be correct. And that's a big problem with the root of your argument. Information processing systems only exist because we created them, either physically, like a computer, or semantically, like language. As I've said earlier, our brains evolved to organize information into "systems" and therefore we see the world and the universe as a series of systems.

I do understand your point. But again these definitions are taken from Oxford Dictionary, an authoritative source for the English language.

INFORMATION
1.facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"
2.what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

INFORMATION PROCESSSING
the processing of information, typically by a computer or by an organism, so as to yield new or more useful information.
"we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall"

These terms are not just imaginary placeholders for things we don't understand. Nor are they illusions cause by a bias or symptom of our thought process. Information processing systems are real things. They operate within the laws of physics. That's how we identify them! They use a physical property of one thing to convey information about the physical property of another thing or environment. Conceptually this not even such a complicated process for us to understand. Much easier than understanding conventions or ideas used in say, cosmology or quantum mechanics.

Our visual system is an example of an IPS. A computer is another example. I'm just simply pointing out that there is no logical progression of events that can cause information processing to begin in a universe where there is no intellect to assign a value to anything.( A "pre-existing" intellect, as you called it) Because information processing requires a scheme that says "let this thing equal a different thing". You seemed to agree with this last part at least, but you don't follow it to a conclusion. You're obviously a pretty smart guy. But I think you are used to being told that everything can be explained by small changes in shapes of things over time.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Mythtaken, I have given you perfect evidence for what you call a "pre-existing intellect". You cannot even conceive a better evidence for it. Even if someone wrote "God Was Here" in the sky. With stars.

Atheism is false. It's a false belief. It forces you into a loop of giving different wrong answers, over and over again for this specific problem I have presented to you. That is the nature of a logic error.

 

[We are Borg]

You use the Post hoc (ergo propter hoc) fallacy trough out this all and a few others. Atheism is not a believe at all its a rejection strictly speaking. I went to a Christian school when i was a child because the nearest public school was bad really bad. But even when i was 6 years when i went to that school i never believed in God. For me the stories that we heard where just that stories with a moral behind it. The logical Error is yours you make the assumption that your view is the only one that is correct. You forget that there are books that predates the Bible with thousands of years but yet you are fixated on it that its the truth and the only truth about God. If the Bible is true like you say then you do not get to cherry pick what is right or wrong its all correct or all wrong its the word of God. By that definition we need to kill God for genocide not once but multiple times.

 

[*SD*]

Atheism is not a believe at all its a rejection strictly speaking

Yup. It's basically "I don't believe this particular claim" - usually "because I see no reason to"

I can't even take LZ seriously any more which is why I'm not really contributing much to this thread. Especially given his general track record.

 

[*SD*]

I have given you perfect evidence for what you call a "pre-existing intellect".

If there were such a thing as "perfect evidence" - whatever the hell that means, then you certainly didn't provide it.

Even if someone wrote "God Was Here" in the sky. With stars.

WOW! You actually got something right! You're correct! If SOMEONE, somehow, managed to write "God was here" in the sky with stars, that wouldn't be any sort of indication that God was, in fact, there. Presumably, someone who could achieve this could also write "God wasn't here" in the sky with stars too, no?! You'd be hilarious if you weren't a troll.

Atheism is false. It's a false belief. It forces you into a loop of giving different wrong answers, over and over again for this specific problem I have presented to you. That is the nature of a logic error.

And now you're back to being wrong again. That didn't take long. I'd explain why, but you already know.

 

[Mythtaken]

Information processing could not have arose naturally in a universe with no pre-existing intellect. Because, without an intellect, you have nothing to assign a value to anything. (When you say "naturally occuring" you make it sound as if I am arguing that IP does not exist in nature.)

If every IPS shared a common ancestor that could change in complexity over generations, it would still be true that that common ancestor required an pre-existing intellect to assign a value to something.

I understand you want to talk about evolution. Can show one logical step evolution can provide; that takes some "thing" which cannot acquire or process any information at all -and makes it closer to a thing that CAN, without appealling to an intellect of somekind?

Boy, you take a couple days away from the computer to get all your voting duties sorted out and all heck breaks loose.

So again, your argument hinges on that pre-exsiting intelligence that created these information processing systems. Yet, as has been pointed out, you've offered nothing to demonstrate this intelligence and no one has ever found evidence of some universal information processing system.

What you have is a horse and cart argument. You are pointing at the cart and claiming because people built carts, horses had to have been designed to pull carts. We humans invented the concept of information processing systems (among thousands of other "systems") because that is the best way for us to describe and understand many of these processes. You've taken this invention and incorrectly assigned it to an unknown, unseen, entity and called it job done.

You keep saying "Information processing could not have arose naturally in a universe with no pre-existing intellect. Because, without an intellect, you have nothing to assign a value to anything." The reality is that the world, nature, the universe, all work just fine even if no one assigns a symbolic value to anything. The only reason any symbolic values exist is because we created them to help us remember and understand things. God is not required for the universe to run.

 

[*SD*]

reality

I'll just leave that there. Actually no, I'll state that reality isn't a concept LZ is either familiar with, nor gives a shit about. That's it, I'll leave that there.

 

[Mythtaken]

Mythtaken, I have given you perfect evidence for what you call a "pre-existing intellect". You cannot even conceive a better evidence for it. Even if someone wrote "God Was Here" in the sky. With stars.

Atheism is false. It's a false belief. It forces you into a loop of giving different wrong answers, over and over again for this specific problem I have presented to you. That is the nature of a logic error.

If you had indeed provided perfect evidence, I'd have likely been convinced. But you didn't. Instead you've pulled out the same old watchmaker argument that's been debunked over and over, gave it a new coat of paint, and hoped this time it would get some traction. To be fair, it was a decent take on that argument. But Now that we've reached the point of "atheism is bad, god is real" it seems this discussion has reached it's peak. Still, I've enjoyed it.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

We humans invented the concept of information processing systems (among thousands of other "systems") because that is the best way for us to describe and understand many of these processes.

This is simply not true. The scientific literature is literally chocked full of material relating to IP systems that have been identified in nature. Biologists discover them and map them out to learn where they begin and end and how the coding works. That's their job. And this is literally like half of my entire point. It's think its silly that we have to argue about this.

You keep saying "Information processing could not have arose naturally in a universe with no pre-existing intellect. Because, without an intellect, you have nothing to assign a value to anything." The reality is that the world, nature, the universe, all work just fine even if no one assigns a symbolic value to anything. The only reason any symbolic values exist is because we created them to help us remember and understand things. God is not required for the universe to run.

Yes, I keep saying that. It's an a priori. An argument based on deductive logic. Reality never defies logic. So, If by "the universe will still work fine" you mean "nothing will ever be able to acquire and process information" then I will agree with you.

If a thing represents another thing, then that thing is symbolic of another thing. When you look at a trees, the data stream your eye sends to the brain is not green and it does not have leaves. The data stream contains a symbolic representation of the tree. Vision is not just a chemical reaction. It's a subjective experience. Some animals "see" with sound.

 

[Mythtaken]

This is simply not true. The scientific literature is literally chocked full of material relating to IP systems that have been identified in nature. Biologists discover them and map them out to learn where they begin and end and how the coding works. That's their job. And this is literally like half of my entire point. It's think its silly that we have to argue about this.

Yes, of course. That's exactly what I've said. We "find" new processing systems because we look for processing systems. That's how we see the world. If our brains worked in some other way, that is how we would see the world.

Yes, I keep saying that. It's an a priori. An argument based on deductive logic. Reality never defies logic. So, If by "the universe will still work fine" you mean "nothing will ever be able to acquire and process information" then I will agree with you.

Actually, it's an argument based on reductive logic. You've taken the fact that we process, store and use information and tried to break all of existence down into a simple information processing system and called that god, or at least evidence for god.

Reductionist logic tends to introduce bias by breaking things down into simpler pieces. Imagine a video depicting a domestic situation where someone was hurt. Show that to lawyers or police officers and they will see it in terms of what laws were broken or crimes committed because that is how they are trained to assess the situation. Show the same video to social workers or psychologists and they will see it in terms of underlying social conditions and mental health issues because that is how they are trained to assess the situation. Neither are wrong, but both fail to see a full and accurate account because of their bias.

This is the fundamental problem with the watchmaker argument. By trying to reduce everything down to a simple creator-creation relationship, it can't help but find a conclusion in it's own argument, as you have done.

I know you've already accused me of being "indoctrinated" into seeing evolution in everything. And that is somewhat true. I do accept evolution as fact, not because I've been brainwashed, but because it has held up to intense scrutiny and rigorous testing. That is the fundamental difference in our world views. To put it in your terms, religion is a closed information processing system which pushes back against all outside information, where science is an open information processing system which thrives on new information that encourages change and new concepts.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

You make some really great points concerning bias. I see it like this:


Give any example of an IPS that you think did not required a pre-existing intellect.
Then give an example of an IPS that did.
Now compare the two.
The fundamentals of both examples are identical. Regardless of what shape they are or what they are made from. A physical property of one component is being used to represent a physical property of something else. On it's face, you have no way to explain how you determined "example 1" from "example 2". There was no "test" you performed that gave you an answer. It's just your/our own bias. You want to categorize them in whatever way you think helps your side of the argument. And you should assume I will do the same.

So we need to find a useful constraint based on some known reality that holds true both inside outside of these systems that can't be affected by our bias. Yes?

All I have done is applied the following constraint; Only an intellect can assign a value.
And then asked,
"Must there be a value assigned to a constant/variable anywhere in these systems?"
You are the one who is saying "NO! Don't do that!!"

So what else should we do then Mythaken? What other constraint can we possibly apply here that would be better for finding out whether or not a prexisting intellect is nessecary? One that can't be affected by bias. Any ideas???

 

[Mythtaken]

All I have done is applied the following constraint; Only an intellect can assign a value.
And then asked,
"Must there be a value assigned to a constant/variable anywhere in these systems?"

I agree this is what you've done. And again, this is reductionist logic, trying to break everything down into a hash table of key-value pairs. In doing so, you've overlooked the big picture. How those key-value pairs are assigned doesn't matter. What's important is the concept of information processing systems.

What I've been arguing is that information processing systems ARE NOT naturally occurring at all. They are artificial constructs created by we humans to help us make sense of the natural world. As you rightly pointed out, we have countless examples of how we create such systems in our science and technology, and how we also use information processing concepts and systems to describe what we see in nature. This is clear evidence that we humans create and employ these systems.

You also stated that information processing systems are can't occur naturally because they require an intelligence to assign values to variables. However, you cited this as evidence for the existence of a god creator, without considering the simpler and more reasonable idea that we are the authors of these types of systems, even though it fits with what we know about how our brains work and how we experience the world. You haven't provided any contradictory evidence that such system existing outside of us.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Alright, Mythtaken. You can have the last word. I appreciate that you have been polite and engaging. Goodbye.