Fluther: Atheists, why do you not believe in a god?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

I go back to my question: So what? Assume there was a god. Assume there still is one, and It is still active. As you present in your essay on DNA, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever approach any level of ‘understanding’ of That. So what do we do? Should we be six or seven billion blind people, all trying to describe the elephant by the little parts that we can feel, or hear, or smell, or taste? Or imagine? Do we continue to waste our time defending “the one, true religion”, each against the other?

We don’t know how much time we’ve got left on the planet or in the cosmos. It seems a better use of the time to keep trying to figure out what we can see and taste and touch and smell and hear (and imagine) and be as objective and factual as possible, rather than try to develop new “concepts” and religions for this god we won’t know anyway.

God or no god, I’m with science.

WasCy (10112

)“Great Answer” (2

)

Just as with any phenomenon that science observes, to learn more, we observe closer, with more powerful telescopes and microscopes, higher math, strict linguistics, in all curiosity, in pursuit of truth. Our drive to know is propelled by our desire for truth. We believe the truth will set us free.

Funny thing about my personal theosophy… is that… I believe… God IS Truth.

I believe we should accept that Truth, and attempt to understand it, the very best we can, no matter what it turns out to be… in Truth.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies there is nothing about lacking confirmation bias which makes someone less interested in looking for answers. Nor does holding confirmation bias make the holder search for answers. Quite the opposite. One who has a strong confirmation bias generally spends their time searching only for bits of information that point to their being right. If someone believes a fallacy, the stronger their confirmation bias, the less likely any information they find will shake their belief in the truth of the fallacy. The stronger the confirmation bias, the stronger the filtering of incoming data. Data that supports the belief is elevated to ironclad proof without any meaningful analysis, and data that challenges the belief is discredited by whatever means are necessary.

ETpro (34605

)“Great Answer” (3

)

Agreed GA.

Are you suggesting I’m suffering from “confirmation bias”?

Shall I consider the words of abiogenesis proponents as negentropy (unintentional lies)?

I must say, that I was very interested in abiogenesis. It sounded so plausible. I was fascinated by spontaneous order. It was so believable. Digging deeper, I found them to be false gods. I never set out to disprove a false god. And if I attempted to prove a genuine God, then I have failed. For all I have discovered, in truth, is evidence for an original author, and evidence for an immaterial realm beyond our physical realm. An original author is not necessarily the same thing as a God, or any religious deity. An immaterial realm is not necessarily the same thing as a Heaven, or any religious afterlife. I don’t know what they are. But I cannot deny them.

And if they are as I have found them to be, mysterious and removed, then science could go a long way in exploring them further. Admitting this, is a rejection of the supernatural. I’ve said before, I don’t believe in the supernatural. If there is a God, or an original author, or an immaterial realm, then it is perfectly natural for them to exist.

What I find supernatural is the idea that the cosmos can ultimately write a sentence and carry on a conversation with itself here on fluther. That in my book would take a miracle.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – there are just several points in the designer argument your discussing that I can’t quite get around. Just a couple:

(1) In order to calculate the likelihood of random formations or combinations of molecules to form DNA in the end….we have to assume the conditions present in a prebiotic earth. Without an accurate picture of those conditions, any calculations regarding what is likely to happen in such conditions are faulty.

(2) There’s a double standard at work in several places, it seems. Most profoundly is that in defense of criticism over “why all the junk DNA” you state that we have shown that certain sequences previously considered “junk” turned out to serve a function, and that the better we understand DNA the more this may be the case. However, the more we understand or learn about the possible conditions on a pre-biotic earth, the more and more plausible – or at least possible – descriptions of how abiogenesis might work, and therefore we might show that life emerged spontaneously in the end. Although more clearly the case with junk DNA, the underlying nature of the criticism is that it’s not reasonable to draw conclusions about whether one thing or another is evidence for or against something until we have a better and more complete picture of all the factors involved. Where it is not okay to do so with junk DNA, where we have a profound understanding of it in many ways, and current living examples of it, it certainly can’t be okay where we know next to nothing about the surrounding conditions, how much of x there was in y for how long….etc.

(3) I’m uncertain about your argument about an intangible realm of information. We’re getting more into philosophy than anything there. I’ll say that it seems more like you’re talking about knowledge than information there. I also have to say that the CD example falls flat – the similar weights are a function of manufacturing really. A CD is essentially a page. If it holds 1000mb of information, sure…it weighs the same if it has 150mb or 700mb. But if you want to store 1001mb of information as opposed to 150mb, it’s going to weigh twice as much (you’ll need two CDs).

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Acusing? Certainly not. Needling? Always.

As to abiogenesis, it is fascinating how closely the math regulating the non-linear equations governing a dynamical system when it is far from equilibrium and affected by one or more strange attractors. We see the same sore ot fractal “diversity” with features almost the ames but subtly different and that structure reflected in an infinite regreasion from the macro to the micro and quantum levels of scale.

ETpro (34605

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I provided what I see as a wonderful summary of the leaps and strides being made in biochemistry as scientists explain more and more of the pieces of the abiogenesis puzzle.

Yet without skipping a beat, you continue to raise the issue of DNA, as if that was a dealbreaker, rather than a strawman. Without any justification, you dismiss the relevant biochemistry as a pseudoscience. You seem unable and unwilling to accept that your “all codes need authors” argument assumes as a premise that which needs to be demonstrated. You dismiss as irrational, scientific explanations which provide hard evidence that many of the pathways involved are entirely possible, while embracing an explanation which has no evidence and breaks every natural law known. And, If this is pointed out, you circle back and wheel out the same tautological, god of the gaps, non seuiturs.

All I hear is textbook motivated reasoning.

In the meantime, I’m loving every minute of new discoveries in this field of research.

AdamF (4002

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@iamthemob “In order to calculate… we have to assume the conditions… any calculations…in such conditions are faulty.”

Is that not all the more reason to consider genuine testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable mechanisms for code authorship?

The calculations go far beyond the conditions of pre-biotic earth.
“Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys the size of atoms typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be many orders of magnitude less than one in 10183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, “The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…”, and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed “gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers. This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[2]

There’s just not enough time or matter in the universe to allow for any type of non intelligent authorship. And that’s just for the transmitter. The odds get much worse when we consider that a receiver mechanism and full communication protocols must arise simultaneously. Remember, natural selection would never allow a random sentence to exist for too long without a receiver mechanism in place to carry out the instructions.

@iamthemob “There’s a double standard… defense the junk DNA”... (vs)... conditions on a pre-biotic earth…”

Both sciences have new discoveries. Research on junk DNA has been very fruitful, providing science with more incentive for further study. Research on abiogenesis consistently presents greater problems with the theory. I don’t suggest stopping either one, and abiogenesis provides knowledge gained in chemistry and so called self organizing systems. It has indeed been fruitful on those fronts. But more and more abiogenesis proponents are revealing their “confirmation bias” towards proving an authorless code scenario, simultaneously acknowledging the issues that prevent it from being possible.

”...no code exists to send information from protein sequences to sequences in mRNA or DNA. Therefore, it is impossible that the origin of life was “proteins first”... Scientists cannot get around it by clever chemistry.”
Yockey

“The self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of “informational” catalysts would be a near miracle”.
Leslie Orgel (Abiogenesis proponent) emphasis mine
________

And Martin Line warns that even with “a membraine enclosed ribozyme capable of plymerising itself and its counterpart copy…”
“The pathway proposed is not intended to represent reality”
and requires “a formidable conceptual leap” and
“If support for some of these steps can be shown, final resort to an intelligent creator for the origin of life (Gibson, 1993) may yet be premature”
Martin Line, A Hypothetical Pathway from the RNA to the DNA World
emphasis mine

@iamthemob “I’m uncertain about your argument about an intangible realm of information… more into philosophy…”

Ultimately, I think what we’re talking about is an ontological subject.

@iamthemob “if you want to store 1001mb of information as opposed to 150mb, it’s going to weigh twice as much (you’ll need two CDs).”

Only the medium weighs twice as much. The information doesn’t affect the weight at all. I can use two CD’s, or one mini DVD. Now it weighs less than ever. I can transmit it through an email or a forum thread. Now it weighs nothing at all. How much does the internet weigh?

Hey @Rarebear! You around? Can you share with @iamthemob the premise behind Bono’s thoughts and the infinite mediums he can express his weightless thoughts upon? I know you hate SBS… so how about “Mysterious Ways”? Remember how destroying one, two, ten thousand of those mediums doesn’t affect Bono’s original thought whatsoever?

Most impressively, when Bono dies, or when I die, our thoughts are still accessible through whatever mediums are left to represent them. Even if only one medium is left, this thread, my thoughts will be accessible to generations way beyond my physical life. Destroying all the mediums does not affect the original thought. It only affects our physical ability to access those thoughts.

Where are those thoughts after I die? If you can access this thread, and tap into my thoughts after I’m dead, or even just out for some tasty pie, then my thoughts must exist beyond the physical representation of them.
________________

@AdamF “You dismiss as irrational, scientific explanations which provide hard evidence that many of the pathways involved are entirely possible, while embracing an explanation which has no evidence and breaks every natural law known.”

I’m still reviewing your links @AdamF. There’s a lot to hunt through to find the “hard evidence” that you speak of. Thus far all I’ve found is a challenge against the chiralty argument. You’ll need to give me a bit more time to browse through the forest of information you laid on me. Unless of course you’d like to direct me to some specific papers with specific “hard evidence” which refutes my position. That’d be nice so I wouldn’t have to rifle through so much.

In the meantime, what says you about the specific papers from respected and renowned abiogenesis proponents who admit in their own words that a functioning example of abiogenesis would be a near miracle and should not be based upon “if pigs could fly” scenarios?

Here’s a different Orgel paper that supports the first one linked way above.
”...the self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of informational catalysts would be a near miracle”
Then he goes on to debating Morowitz on his contradictory data.

Here’s a link to the Martin Line paper above quoted to @iamthemob. You can download the PDF here
In his own words, ”“The pathway proposed is not intended to represent reality”.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

To get this conversation back on track…
I see no reason to believe in a god. I’m not certain there isn’t one, but if such a being exists I’m pretty darn sure it’s nothing like the god of the bible. Now, what do I believe? That the world we live in is a wondrous place. That we should be kind to and care about one another. That bacon is delicious.

augustlan (47745

)“Great Answer” (5

)

’‘a 16-bit microcomputer with on-board memory has access to no more than 216 bits of directly accessible memory (about 65k bits), while that same microcomputer with memory based on ternary logic would have direct access to 316 or 43 Mbits of memory.’’

I’m unclear how the first paragraphs address or respond to my first concern. This may be because I need to state it more clearly.

In order to calculate the likelihood of the spontaneous generation of life, we would have to know as much about the existing conditions at the time of its formation. We’d also have to know what it was that we believed was actually formed.

As we know so little, perhaps really nothing at all, about the conditions, or what we’re trying to describe, making any real calculation of likelihood by either side seems ridiculous. It seems as practical as my asking you the likelihood that I could reproduce a typed, transcribed copy of Hamlet that I had produced myself by the end of tomorrow. Any prediction you’d make would be greatly affected by whether (1) you knew I’d have access to the internet tomorrow; (2) I had access to a print copy of Hamlet; (3) my average typing speed; (4) how much free time I had; (5) whether I’m the kind of person who would just blow off doing it; etc. etc.

So the monkey analogy seems problematic. All of the parameters and conditions are known. Could we reasonably make a calculation if we didn’t know what Hamlet was, or that English was a language, or that the observable universe was actually bigger than the island of Manhattan?

The problematic, and liberating, thing about knowing so little is that you can try almost any crazy idea out. But the diligent attempts to show the spontaneous generation of life is not in any sense showing one’s confirmation bias – it is also the only actual method to prove that a designer is the only remaining explanation. Unless every avenue possible for random generation is explored it’s improper to conclude that design is the answer. Because design is the simplest answer that requires the least rigor to arrive at.

When a theory for abiogenesis turns out to be flawed or false, it does not, further, increase the likelihood that design is the right answer. We’d have to know the pool of potential explanations – and we have no idea of its size at this point.

The problem remains, though, that there’s no reason to draw a conclusion in favor of a creator, because the only support for that conclusion is our lack of knowledge of what happened, and the fact that we can’t explain how it happened otherwise.

Regarding the information argument – I just don’t see the point of it. You’re right that the information on the CDs doesn’t weigh more – but the information needs to be stored on more CDs the more there is. The more information in an email, the more energy is expended in its drafting. The more resources required on various servers to get it all where it needs to be. The fact that information may not be physically tangible doesn’t mean that it’s immaterial. The creation and transmission, as well as maintenance, of information uses resources, be they matter or energy.

PS – I am still not seeing how any of this is really off-track. The arguments for a code designer seem nearly identical to those for God generally – and don’t seem like arguments or evidence for such entities’ existences, but rather show how the other side has failed to clearly disprove their existences. I actually think, @augustlan, that you’d be hard pressed to find too much in the above discussion that doesn’t clearly parallel a god/no god discussion.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@iamthemob It’s in Social, anyway. I’m just late to the discussion and my answer wasn’t in keeping with all of the recent ones. No worries!

augustlan (47745

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies DNA is not the counterexample. DNA is not a process. It is a molecule. Marshal is asking for a demonstrable mechanism or process that can account for the information represented BY the DNA molecule.

Semantics. You know what SavoirFaire meant.

That prohibits DNA being used to prove itself. We want the mechanism responsible for encoding it. Thus far, the only “proven” mechanism (as @ragingloli requests) is sentient authorship.

The premise begs the question because it already assumes that whatever mechanism responsible for coding DNA could not have occurred naturally. To quote, ”there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.” The premise cannot state that “there is no process” until the original argument itself is proven.

chocolatechip (3009

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@augustlan – I wasn’t worried. I know what’s where. I was just giving you the business, because I am that kind of sassy.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

augustlan (47745

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@augustlan – I am unimpressed by your whip-cracking. I have been unimpressed since you abandoned your leather-themed avatar. For some reason, I find calligraphy less threatening. ;-)

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Premise 2 has two parts: “all codes are created by a conscious mind” and “there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.” DNA is a counterexample to the first part. Your response, then, is a non sequitur.

The obvious retort, of course, is for you to bring up the second part; but in that case, evolution is the counterexample. DNA is a code that was not created by a conscious mind, and evolution is the process by which it does so.

You might think that this does not answer anything because DNA and evolution are precisely what is at issue—but that is the point I am making. Remember: my real objection is that premise 2 begs the question. I does so because it presupposes that DNA and evolution are not counterexamples in order to prove that DNA and evolution are not counterexamples. The response that they are counterexamples begs the question in the opposite direction, but I am not denying that. I am using that fact to point out where the logical flaw in the argument is. Premise 2 and it’s denial both beg the question when used against someone who doesn’t already accept the conclusion, thus the argument fails.

Simple logic.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Sorry @SavoirFaire, I find your logic faulty. To claim “DNA is a couterexample”, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is an exception to the rule. Anonymous authorship has never been an acceptable exception to the rule when determining a code exists with forensic linguistics, cryptography, decipherment, or any other information science.

Please don’t claim DNA is a counterexample again until you can demonstrate that, A.) DNA is not an information bearing code at all, but something else entirely, or B.) provide a demonstrable alternative authoring mechanism that accounts for the information represented by DNA, or any other code for that matter.

In light of the formal definition of code, as set forth by Purlwitz, Burks and Waterman, (probability space A mapped to probability space B), with no claims of authorship mechanics, we find that codes are not authors in an of themselves. Thus, we cannot possibly accept that DNA is a counterexample on that basis. Nor can we claim it as counterexample based upon its authoring mechanism being anonymous.

Thus, your claim of non sequitur falls because there is no disconnection between premise and conclusion. Premise 2 doesn’t really have two parts. It’s the same premise stated in two different ways. Thus, I have no need for “the obvious retort”. If you insist upon presenting it, please demonstrate how evolution can operate without first having a code to operate upon. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@chocolatechip “The premise begs the question because it already assumes that whatever mechanism responsible for coding DNA could not have occurred naturally.”

Why shouldn’t it?

@chocolatechip “The premise cannot state that “there is no process” until the original argument itself is proven.”

I do not deny the possibility of a black swan (natural author mechanism). But I have no reason to believe in one until it is present. Just how long do you suggest that we wait for a black swan to appear before accepting the original argument is proven? We have countless precedent running 30,000,000 years or more (though that proves nothing). These logic traps are bs because you could use them to disprove any theory, always claiming that something else could be responsible, we just haven’t found it yet. That’s no more logical than just claiming God did it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If “respected and reknown proponents of abiogenesis” agreed with your interpretation of their quotes…... they wouldn’t be proponents of abiogenesis.

That should be causing some cognitive dissonance, right about now.

AdamF (4002

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@iamthemob “As we know so little, perhaps really nothing at all, about the conditions, or what we’re trying to describe, making any real calculation of likelihood by either side seems ridiculous.”

Then your doubt should be directed at the abiogenesis proponents, and not at the information sciences.

I agree with you that any calculation is dependent upon the quality of input. Since we don’t know the exact pre-biotic conditions, but we do know the dimensions of the universe, I suggest that thermodynamics provides a much more stable set of input than speculations of “what if” scenarios demonstrated with synthetic techniques.

Science, which we all seem most concerned with, moves forward with knowledge known. It is held back by dogmatic speculation. We come to this discussion with much knowledge known about code authorship mechanisms and thermodynamics. I suggest we use this knowledge as catalyst for future research.

@iamthemob “The problem remains, though, that there’s no reason to draw a conclusion in favor of a creator, because the only support for that conclusion is our lack of knowledge of what happened, and the fact that we can’t explain how it happened otherwise.”

That’s just not the case at all. Abiogenesis may be suffering from a lack of knowledge about certain conditions, but the Info Sciences are not concerned with pre-biotic conditions whatsoever. Thermodynamics is medium independent. The calculations are based upon known quantities and are not dependent upon a specific molecules used to transmit and receive information. It accounts for radio waves, light, weight, color, sound… any medium that could be used to express codified information. We could have just as easily been beings of electromagnetism, or dark matter, if those mediums were used to express the genome.

@iamthemob “You’re right that the information on the CDs doesn’t weigh more – but the information needs to be stored on more CDs the more there is. The more information in an email, the more energy is expended in its drafting.”

The same info could be represented and communicated with smoke signals, drum beats or color codes as well. The info is independent from the medium which expresses it.

There are five known manuscripts for the Gettysburg address. Each one has small differences, but they all represent the same info source. Some are longer and some shorter. 256 words is the generally accepted version.

Language, and the way we use it as medium to express a message is the only roadblock to efficient communication of mindful meaning. For instance, German has approximately 30% redundancy as opposed to 50% redundancy in English. You can generally say something much shorter and faster with German than with English. But if our cellphones get bad signal 40% of the time, our conversation would be lost with German, whereas with English, we could still communicate with one another.

So the fact that you may need two CD’s to communicate info is only because of the efficiency of the binary language chosen to transmit and receive it. The same disk would be much more efficient with ternary or quaternary code.

The rest of the article clearly explains the advantages of ternary and quaternary logic over and beyond binary logic. The higher power logic provides many more expressive qualities that are unavailable with simple binary.

As this comment illustrates,
“Binary logic is like driving through Manhattan and only to be able to drive straight and make right turns. Ternary logic is being able to drive straight and turn left and right. Not only can you get somewhere potentially faster, in a one-way grid, you now can reach places you couldn’t reach before.
We will have to work with 729 commutative functions in ternary logic as opposed to 8 in binary logic.”

Or this perspective,
“Asynchronous vs Synchronous is analogous to: 3-dimensional design vs 2-D ones. Digital vs Analog
Synchronous methodologies are simply a way to break down real world asynchronous problems into smaller and easily digestible bits, to be given out to the many less talented engineers to solve, who required tools to assist them. Or rather for the general engineering community to understand and use easily.
Asynchronous design probably require a very different mindset which few people can master.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

How should I interpret their quotes @AdamF?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Hey @Rarebear! You around? Can you share with @iamthemob the premise behind Bono’s thoughts and the infinite mediums he can express his weightless thoughts upon? I know you hate SBS… so how about “Mysterious Ways”? Remember how destroying one, two, ten thousand of those mediums doesn’t affect Bono’s original thought whatsoever?”

I’m still following this thread, but I don’t quite understand this.

Rarebear (25192

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Remember you said you hated Bono and Sunday Bloody Sunday? I thought I’d change the tune to Mysterious Ways for your consideration.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies LOL! Oh yes. I still don’t like the song, but I’ve softened on Bono.

Rarebear (25192

)“Great Answer” (1

)

The problem with discussing thermodynamics here is that evolution as a theory is, really, medium independent as much as thermodynamics. We talk about the evolution of ideas, the evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.

And thermodynamic interactions are, in fact, highly context-dependent. Matter behaves differently depending on how much if it there is and how much space it is contained in. The smaller the space, the effect seems much the same as cooling. Likewise, the more matter in a given space, the same result. Gradually and continuously decrease the space or increase the matter and you can actually change the matter’s state – from gas to liquid, e.g.

It makes no sense, therefore, that turning to thermodynamics somehow removes concerns regarding the conditions of a pre-biotic earth.

I think you also over-state the case when you claim that we have a greater understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as opposed to our knowledge of biological interactions. In terms of what we thought or expected from what we understood to be principles of thermodynamics, the universe keeps surprising us by doing the opposite. How, for instance, can galaxies be accelerating away from each other? We guess – an educated guess, based on what the math might indicate, but it’s still in essence a guess. (initial discussions regarding dark matter seemed little different from scientists telling the world “it’s magic!”).

So, how is it that thermodynamics clearly provides a more stable set of rules for our analysis? Further, what is the objective benefit of that?

Also, by stating that there is a stable set of rules for thermodynamics, we also state the the universe generally follows certain physical laws. However, just as we do not know of any code that exists without an author, no law or rules are devised outside of an intelligence either. So if we assume authorship on one level, where do we stop? Why should anything be attributed to chance?

And if it is the case that everything is part of the plan, we’ve been able to figure out so much by disregarding that as a factor – so what use is it as a theory? Assuming an intelligence caused something will inevitably mean the end of investigation into the matter.

It’s interesting that you say that my criticism should be directed at those supporting abiogenesis. More assumptions ;-), as I do. Personally, I don’t discount the possibility for intelligence at work. But as mentioned earlier, the only way to actually prove intelligence is either (1) for it to reveal itself, or (2) we demonstrate the impossibility of any random genesis. When it comes to scientific explanation and exploration, the concept of “design” never, as far as I’ve seen, led to investigation that would not have been done without the concept. Therefore, I end up investing more interest in abiogenesis as a theory because investing in a design or intelligence explanation requires I draw a conclusion.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies {sigh} I am afraid you have again missed the point. My complaint is that premise 2 begs the question. It states that all codes are created by a conscious mind, but whether or not DNA—which premise 1 assumes is a code—was created by a conscious mind is precisely what is at issue. I don’t think it was, so why should I accept premise 2? There’s no reason for me to accept it based on the argument given.

But the specific problem is that premise 2 assumes what it needs to prove. Granting premise 1 for the sake of argument, the statement ”all codes are created by conscious minds” is a universally quantified proposition. Therefore, DNA falls under the quantification. Therefore, premise 2 assumes that DNA was created by a conscious mind—and that’s the conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove. Therefore, premise 2 begs the question.

Again, this is basic logic. In fact, your response to @chocolatechip basically concedes my point when you shift away from a deductive argument to an inductive one. As such, I must conclude that you actually know I am correct regardless of whether or not you are willing to publicly admit it.

I’d like to also note that I am only granting premise 1 for the sake of argument. I worry that there is equivocation going on here between “code” or “language” used in a loose sense and used in a strict/formal sense. DNA is certainly not a language in any formal sense with which I am familiar, even if we might refer to it as such loosely. Similarly, it may be a code under some definitions, but not others. As the petitio principii fallacy is much more obvious, however, I am not particularly interested in taking this tack against the argument.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@iamthemob “We talk about the evolution of ideas, the evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.”

Well yes, we talk about it that way, typically, but earlier I thought we agreed to distinguish between the evolution of energy/matter as equal to change, vs the evolution manifest by altering an information mechanism. In my book, change is not equal to evolution, at least not in the same sense as code manipulation is.

The evolution of “ideas” or the genome is not the same concept as the so called evolution of “stars and galaxies” or mudslides, or erosion, or cloud formations, or anything that does not represent a predetermined outcome. Ideas and Genome require code manipulation to evolve. The others don’t.

So it is incorrect to claim “stars and galaxies” under the heading of “medium”. They are not mediums which represent something other than themselves. But code does, and always represents something other than itself. The code on this page does not represent the code on this page. It represents our thoughts about the subject we’re discussing. Stars and galaxies only represent themselves, and nothing beyond themselves.

@iamthemob “thermodynamic interactions are, in fact, highly context-dependent. Matter behaves differently depending on how much if it there is”

Odd to speak of matter having a behavior. I believe our own language limits us from discussing the concept properly. We must be careful not to personify materialistic concepts with behaviors. We will never be completely clear on the subject until a new vernacular arises to isolate and properly describe the differences between properties of materialism and concepts of mind and thought. Science should have no issues with my suggestion, as it consistently expands the available lexicon to describe unique phenomenon.

Regardless, to address your statement, energy/matter, despite how many variables it may be found to form, can always be used to represent information. As long as a mind can observe it, the energy/matter can be manipulated to represent something other that what it actually is. Currently, you and I are manipulating electricity and photons, arranging them differently than their natural state, so that we may communicate the thoughts of our minds with one another.

@iamthemob “It makes no sense, therefore, that turning to thermodynamics somehow removes concerns regarding the conditions of a pre-biotic earth.”

What difference would it make what the conditions were? If there is mind and energy/matter, then a code may be authored regardless of the conditions. If there is only energy/matter, no alternative mechanism has ever been demonstrated to allow code formation.

@iamthemob “I think you also over-state the case when you claim that we have a greater understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as opposed to our knowledge of biological interactions.”

Abiogenesis studies pre-biotic conditions upon abiotic molecules to create biotic compounds. And though “biological interactions” may result from that, those building blocks alone do not account for any meaningful structure or communication system or protocol. “Knowledge of biological interactions” does not account for the information catalyst any more than knowledge of the universe dimensions does. The difference is that we DO know the dimensions of the universe whereas we can only suppose the initial conditions of pre-biotic earth. I suggest the data of the vast dimensions of the universe envelope the data for pre-biotic earth. So I’ll be happy to support any initial conditions you wish. But I’ll also want to know how the lesser data sample of abiogenesis wrote and interpreted a sentence, and then engaged an action to fulfill the instructive meaning of that sentence, when greater data sample of thermodynamics states it is impossible for the entire universe.

As Yockey warns us earlier, this is not a chemistry problem. This is an information authoring and communication problem.

@iamthemob “So, how is it that thermodynamics clearly provides a more stable set of rules for our analysis?”

Because the data sample from thermodynamics includes the entire known universe, thus enveloping the data sample from abiogenesis.

@iamthemob “Further, what is the objective benefit of that?”

A more accurate equation to base future research upon.

@iamthemob “by stating that there is a stable set of rules for thermodynamics, we also state the the universe generally follows certain physical laws.”

In layman terms, yes, unfortunately we do.

@iamthemob “However, just as we do not know of any code that exists without an author, no law or rules are devised outside of an intelligence either.”

Agreed. I’ve been making that point for years. The laws of the universe were written by humans to describe observable phenomenon. They were not bestowed to us by the cosmos. Most Materialists don’t see the irony in claiming otherwise. The universe does not speak to humans.

@iamthemob “So if we assume authorship on one level, where do we stop? Why should anything be attributed to chance?”

Because we shouldn’t “assume authorship” on anything that isn’t a code. But if it doesn’t have a code, chaos is king. Until a mind harnesses and rearranges that chaos to form a meaningful sentence.

@iamthemob “And if it is the case that everything is part of the plan, we’ve been able to figure out so much by disregarding that as a factor – so what use is it as a theory?”

Without a code, I can’t personally claim “that everything is part of the plan”. Those who do must be capable of demonstrating the code by which they read the plan from, or demonstrate the logic that allows them to promote such a concept.

I can do that for my personal theory, which I haven’t shared here. But the logic trail involves interdisciplinary relationships that I just don’t have the what-for-all to explain at this point in our discussion. Without first understanding (not accepting) but just understanding the concepts we are currently discussing, further dissertation would be unheard, misinterpreted, waved away as nonsense, and altogether rejected by those who had not pursued the same interdisciplinary research as I have. I’m sorry if this sounds arrogant. But you know as well as I do that truth is earned. You have knowledge based upon research that I am very ignorant to. Dare I judge your ideas without first pursuing the same course of knowledge that you have pursued? Call me foolish if I did dare.

@iamthemob “Assuming an intelligence caused something will inevitably mean the end of investigation into the matter.”

Knowing there is an end, and knowing what that end may be are separate issues. We read mystery novels even though we know they will resolve. The joy is in the curious journey getting there.

@iamthemob “the only way to actually prove intelligence is either (1) for it to reveal itself, or (2) we demonstrate the impossibility of any random genesis.”

1 – Anonymous authorship has never been reason to assume natural authorship.
2 – Proving a negative is not allowed for God concepts. Thus it should not be allowed for random genesis. It is fallacious to claim “you can’t prove random genesis or God didn’t do it”

@iamthemob “When it comes to scientific explanation and exploration, the concept of “design” never, as far as I’ve seen, led to investigation that would not have been done without the concept.”

Perhaps you’ve heard of Alan Turing. Of his many achievements, one often overlooked is the genius team he lead to break the secret German Enigma code in WWII.. This would never have been possible if he didn’t understand the basic fundamental relationships between codes and sentient authors.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Am I wrong, or do nearly all the questions about God on this site wind up at this place?

josie (30934

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Everything you wrote is not to be trusted since you haven’t justified logic to be a criterion of knowing. Before you respond, make sure you’re able to avoid an infinite regress without resorting to circular reasoning or an assumed axiom. Philosophy 101.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@SavoirFaire “but whether or not DNA—which premise 1 assumes is a code… I am only granting premise 1 for the sake of argument.”

Your argument is with genetics, not me. DNA was not determined to be a code. It was discovered to be a code by Gamov and Yockey.

Read all about it here:
Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life
Hubert Yockey

It’s a lovely tale, especially how Gamov (the brilliant linguist) escaped from Russia in the middle night to America, joining Yockey and team. If you have any further doubts that DNA is not a genuine code which fulfills Purlwitz, Burks and Watermans formal definition, you can contact Hubert Yockey here. He’s an old man who loves talking to pretty young gals. Go shake his tree.

Earlier you touted, “simple logic”. OK, try this one…

All men are mortal = All codes have sentient authors.

Socrates is a man. = DNA is a code.

Therefor,

Socrates is mortal. = DNA is sentient authored.
____________

Logic traps can take anything circular. Topple the DNA premise without toppling the Socrates premise.
____________

@SavoirFaire “DNA is certainly not a language in any formal sense with which I am familiar, even if we might refer to it as such loosely. Similarly, it may be a code under some definitions, but not others.”

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
Hubert Yockey

Nucleotide = Character
Codon = Letter
Gene = Word
Operon = Sentence
Regulon = Paragraph
Chromosome = Chapter

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@lawkes I have taught Philosophy 101, and I can tell you that you are quite mistaken. Many arguments are made on the basis of agreed upon premises, rather than undeniable axioms. This makes them open to foundationalist questions, for sure, but few people reject logic. And of course, others reject foundationalism itself. Regardless, am I to take your response as an admission that you do not accept logic and reason as the proper way to proceed in arguments?

It is worth noting, however, that many things that can be said in favor of logic. First, consider the following dialogue between a Skeptic and the Stoic Epictetus:

Skeptic: Convince me that logic is necessary.
Epictetus: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?
Skeptic: Yes.
Epictetus: Then must I use a demonstrative form of argument?
Skeptic: Yes.
Epictetus: Then how will you know whether I argue fallaciously?
Skeptic: {silence}
Epictetus: Don’t you see how even you yourself acknowledge that logic is necessary, since without its assistance you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?

As the truly epic Epictetus notes, accepting logic is the price of admission when entering the arena of reasoned argument. If you wish to depart said arena, you are free to stop responding. But if you wish to continue, you will have to accept these terms.

Aristotle famously thought that very little, if anything, could be said in favor of the fundamental axioms of logic. This was not because he thought they were in question, however, but because he thought they were more certain than anything else that could be brought to mind. Not accepting something like the law of non-contradiction, according to Aristotle, is simply proof of mental incompetence.

Despite this, Ibn Sina did give us this wonderful quip: “Those who deny [the law of non-contradiction] should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped.”

Feel free to get someone to give you a personal demonstration if you’d like.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You have responded only to a side-comment that I explicitly said I wasn’t interested in. Moreover, you have misinterpreted it: all I said was that I worry there is equivocation going on, not that DNA is not an actual code.

Do you have anything to say to the actual substance of my response? The closest you get is your analogy to the standard example of a categorical syllogism. The example cannot really prove any point, however, as question begging arguments are always valid. Indeed, they can even be sound. Yet they are still fallacious for all that, and so cannot be legitimately used in a debate.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

You’ve responded exactly the way I said you would, with an assumed axiom.

Why should I trust your assumptions? A logical leap of faith is no different then a religious one. In that case, I will assume God exists then.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

The appearance of beating someone with a wrench is evident, just as the appearance of not beating someone with a wrench, but I infer no “law of noncontradiction” in the so called logic from the reality of appearances. This inference is not evident. You understand the difference?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes It is not an assumed axiom. I gave you reasons to believe it, and a method for confirming it. Even if it were an assumed axiom, however, it would be far more plausible of one than yours. A religious leap of faith is different from a logical one, if only because the latter requires far less in the way of ontology and explaining away contradictory evidence.

But as you have not answered my previous question, I suspect you are not actually interested in reasoned argument. C’est la vie.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (1

)

You have not answered my question, so I will not be answering yours.

If it is an assumed axiom, then it cannot be more plausible. It is assumed.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes “Plausible” means “seeming reasonable or probable.” That something is assumed doesn’t make it implausible, and different assumptions can have different levels of plausibility. If I were to simply assume that you have devil horns on your head, that would be less plausible than if I were to assume you had at least three fingers.

Regardless, I gave you ways of reducing the amount that needs to be assumed. I’m sorry that doesn’t fit with your canned responses, but you’re going to have to engage the actual arguments presented or move on.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

What makes logic more reasonable or probable if you’re assuming it out of thin air?

Again, I specifically asked you to respond to me only if you’re able to justify knowledge by avoiding infinite regress without resorting to assumed axioms, or circular reasoning, but you did just that.

If you insist on attempting to refute @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, then you better start using justifications rather then assumptions, otherwise your arguments present no value.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes Please read: I am not assuming it out of thin air. I have reasons for affirming it, and no counterexamples. Furthermore, logic and reason are rock bottom necessities for having any sort of debate at all. Even if they are assumptions, they are necessary assumptions. God is not.

So here’s my question again: do you reject logic and/or reason? I doubt it, and I doubt that @RealEyesRealizeRealLies does either. And even if both of you do, it remains a fact that the argument given—if it is really an argument—must assume some usefulness for logic. So either we accept logic and the argument is fallacious, or we reject logic and it is not really an argument at all. In either case, we reject the argument. And since the argument is my target, this is a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

I’ve given you my counter example. I’m unable to know if you’re being fallacious as I have no justified criterion of knowing to rely on. I make no claims, you do. Now you’re claiming assumptions are necessary. An assumption within an assumption?

I’ve also countered your “self-evident” example, but you didn’t respond. The appearance of beating someone with a wrench is evident, just as the appearance of not beating someone with a wrench, but I infer no “law of noncontradiction” in the so called logic from the reality of appearances. This inference is not evident. You understand the difference?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes If you have no justified criterion of knowing, then you have no justified criterion of knowing whether or not you’ve actually countered anything I’ve said. You also have no way of supporting the argument that I am targeting; so again it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.”

Moreover, your putative counterexample doesn’t work since Ibn Sina is not asking you to infer anything. Set yourself on fire: you will know that it is not the same as not being on fire—no inference needed. That or you will burn to death. Either way, problem solved.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Exactly, which is why I make no claims, but you still do. You use these assumptions to try and “refute” someone else’s argument, sounds pretty nonsensical to me. Looks like you didn’t understand the counterexample at all, never mind.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes You are here on this thread making claims. If you really wanted to make no claims, you would remain silent. You want to be a Pyrrhonian, and in that endeavor you are a hypocrite. I am instead a radical fallibilist—I accept that I could be wrong about anything, including logic, but I am willing to make claims based on what evidence I have while keeping in mind that they are all defeasible.

As for using assumptions to refute someone else’s argument, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies and I are both operating in the arena of reasoned discourse. Treat it as a game if you must, but it remains the case that he and I share this assumption and so can continue to use it within the confines of the game.

As for your putative counterexample, the way you present it makes it look like it rests on what is evident and what is inferred. I responded to that. Just because you don’t like the response, doesn’t mean it is incorrect. If I have misunderstood your intention, however, feel free to explain it further.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

I’m asking you for justification, what claim did I make? False accusations.

I’ve explained my example as best as possible, key term reality of appearances. if you don’t understand this, then we’re done.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

You speak of reasoned discourse, yet you cannot justify reason, interesting.

If you haven’t noticed yet, I’m using your own method against you as you’re doing to @RealEyesRealizeRealLies

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes I think you’ll find that this post is full of claims. And if you wish to abandon your putative counterexample, that’s your own choice.

And yes, I can tell that you are trying to use my own method against me. This is standard Pyrrhonian fare. What you are failing to recognize—because you are too caught up in a dogma to notice—is that I have, in fact, responded to your challenges.

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@SavoirFaire – perhaps I’m wrong – but it seems that @lawkes believes that you’ve made a claim to “know” something about whether life formed spontaneously or through the intervention of an intelligence. I don’t think you did – I believe that @RealEyesRealizeRealLies was making a claim that he knew that there was an intelligence behind DNA and that it did not form randomly – and you were pointing out what you saw as flaws in his claims to that knowledge.

Is that right?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@iamthemob That is correct. Presumably, even a Pyrrhonian like @lawkes cannot really object to that without remaining completely silent (in which case he would still not be objecting).

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (0

)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Apathy is a claim? I said I have no reason to believe in something without justification, how is that a claim?

The second part was to show, not claim, hence why I only linked to the topics. I never argued it. It’s more like Psst, look there.

I’m not abandoning my example, you’re simply dismissing it because you don’t understand the disconnectedness between the reality of appearances and self-evident.

You have not responded to my challenges, if anything you have proven that knowledge is unjustified, and we only make subjective assumptions, however the key difference here, is I don’t continue to make things up out of thin air and use them as arguments, but you do which is why I called you out on it.

This is your own method turned against you. If you don’t like it, then perhaps you shouldn’t be dwelling into philosophy.

The burden is on you to justify a criterion in a way that one can verify its legitimacy, otherwise, you will just attract mindless drones, as you can see with the fundamental assumptions of religious claims.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes There are many assertions in the post I linked. You make claims about arguments, and even mention a certain one as not having been refuted yet. Do you wish to defend any of those claims, or will you renounce them all? It is your choice to renounce them, of course, but you certainly did make them. You also have a number of presuppositions at play in your argument. For instance, you have taken on the standard Pyrrhonian assumption that knowledge can only be justified by some form of foundationalism. Will you defend this claim? Do you even realize that you are committed to it?

And yes, you are abandoning your putative counterexample if you refuse clarify it at all. I have made my response, and you’ve simply brushed it off. Tell me why my response doesn’t work. Explain the putative force of your argument. Because until then, my responses to your challenge—justifications for the use of and belief in logic from Epictetus and Ibn Sina—seem quite adequate.

Finally, @iamthemob points out that my participation in this thread has been focused on one thing: an argument was presented, and I questioned it. Surely, you cannot object to questioning an argument… right?

SavoirFaire (28831

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The correct interpretation is that it is extremely easy (either on purpose or through lack of understanding) to find pseudo support for a claim by hijacking selected sentences or paragraphs from published researchers.

Yes, quotes can be useful when used fairly. But as any evolutionary biologist, or climate scientist can tell you, they are also easy to use purely for quote mining.

In the case you cite, Orgel tells you exactly what he’s talking about, “the citric acid cycle”, which is one of the earliest formed metabolic pathways in cells. In other words, its a selective critique of one pathway missing a vital step, that may be being advocated by someone who is in the “metabolism first” camp, rather than the “replicator first” camp. Not everyone trying to solve a a scientific problem believes the solution is in the same place….but they all (the one’s trying to tackle the problem) think a solution is there. That’s self-evident from their choice of academic pursuit.

Perhaps more importantly, the field of abiogenesis is an advancing productive science. That overrides any quote taken from anyone about any problem, regardless of how (mis)interpreted. It also categorically indicates that there are a large number of professional scientists and labs who are not phased by any of the issues you raise as insurmountable obstacles…including the “propopnents” that you’re quote mining from.

This should be ringing alarm bells with respect to the validity of what you see as insurmountable obstacles. To be honest, the fact that it doesn’t is what perplexes me the most.

But before you go back down the code route (it’s begging the question), please place it off to the side, and any Yockey arguments you have on standby.

The solution to how abiogenesis could have occurred is a problem for biochemistry. So, to understand the potential for a solution, requires you to step outside the arugments you’re most comfortable making, and tackle this issue in a different paradigm.

Do we have evidence that molecules like RNA could arise without sentience. Yes.
Could these molecules copy themselves. Yes.
Could they potentially catalyze such reactions under natural conditions. Yes.
Can cell like structures form naturally. Yes, in the form of spherical fatty acid membranes.
(see linked papers, or not…)

Do we have all the pieces of the puzzle. Not at all.
Are there questions like “Yes, but how could this have occurred?” Absolutely.

But there is nothing to indicate to these scientific labs, than any of this is insurmountable. Frankly, this story is following the same path that every scientific endeavour follows when trying to tackle any complex problem.

Whatever your theistic views, there is no basis whatsoever for arguing that the games over and there must be a ghost somewhere in that machine.

I’ll just end this rant by pointing out that that horse your backing has been in pretty much every major scientific race run so far…suffice to say, I wouldn’t put my money on it.

AdamF (4002

)“Great Answer” (2

)

That’s the second time you accused me of making assertions without telling me what assertion. After the links, I said the thesis has yet to be refuted. I never said it personally because this is not my thesis nor did I argue it. Why would I speak of apathy and then make claims of non-refutations?

I never made a claim that knowledge can be only justified by x form. You mentioned foundationalism, not I. I asked not stated. I asked for justification for the criterion for knowing, that’s not a claim.

You didn’t respond to my counter example, you just repeated the same argument without the infer, clearly missing the entire point of what I said. I’m not going to repeat it again because you clearly didn’t understand it the first time..

@SavoirFaire wrote “Again, this is basic logic.”

What do you call this? You’re not assuming logic?

If you accuse me falsely with your vague remarks again, I will be ignoring you from now on.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – What was your counter-example? Please repeat it, and explain why you think it was relevant.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Counter-example to what? Relevant to what?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – the counter-example that you just stated @SavoirFaire did not respond to. The counter-example that you’ve referred to in nearly every post.

There should really be absolutely no ambiguity in my request.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

This is in response to the “law of noncontradictions”.

The appearance of beating someone with a wrench is evident, just as the appearance of not beating someone with a wrench, but I infer no “law of noncontradiction” in the so called logic from the reality of appearances. This inference is not evident. You understand the difference?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

The point here is, that if you’re going to make claims, then justify those claims, and when I call you out on your bull shit, don’t tell me assumptions are necessary, or that you have no way of justifying something without assumptions, because that tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re part of some cult or a cult leader. The same people you accuse (religious ideologies).

This is your own method thrown back in your face.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – what do you understand the law of noncontradiction to be?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@AdamF Did you miss when I said:

“I don’t suggest stopping either one, and abiogenesis provides knowledge gained in chemistry and so called self organizing systems. It has indeed been fruitful on those fronts.”

or

“I do not deny the possibility of a black swan (natural author mechanism).”

or

“I don’t believe in the supernatural. If there is a God, or an original author, or an immaterial realm, then it is perfectly natural for them to exist.”

or

“And though “biological interactions” may result from that, those building blocks alone do not account for any meaningful structure or communication system or protocol.”

@SavoirFaire “Do you have anything to say to the actual substance of my response?”

Based on the quotes I just gave @AdamF, it should be obvious that my argument is inductive. You may consider exercising a bit of practical skepticism.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

”“Who can I trust—perhaps far and away the most important epistemological question that anyone can ask. Why? Because the vast preponderance of knowledge affecting the quality of your life and how you live it is knowledge that you don’t personally have.

I don’t understand anything, I make no claims. I only question.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – presenting a counter-example is a claim. By defining it as a counter-example, you assert that it undermines the example – it counters it.

You state that there is no reason to infer the law of noncontradiction from the reality of appearance. That is also a claim.

It is necessary therefore to ask what you understand the law of noncontradiction to be.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (2

)

I’m not claiming, I’m telling you why your claim is false.

If you’re trying to tell me that I can’t justify my counter-example, then that proves my point that knowledge is unjustifiable. It’s your example over mine, or mine over yours. That means anyone can be right and wrong.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – I ask again – what do you understand the law of noncontradiction to be?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

I answer again, I don’t know anything, I make no claims.

See what I mean? Justification is fucked. You’re stuck with infinite regress, assumed axioms, or circular reasoning.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – this isn’t infinite regress. I am not asking for you to state what the law of noncontradiction is. I’m not asking you whether you “know” anything. I’m asking you what you understand the law of noncontradiction to be. That question does not require justification as it doesn’t require you to make a claim about what the law is or what you know to be true.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (2

)

Knowledge is person’s understanding.

I don’t understand, therefore, I don’t know.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Now, if you want to tell me you understand logic, then justify it in way that I can know it’s not fallacious, without assumed axioms, avoiding infinite regress, or circular reasoning.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – I ask again – what do you understand the law of noncontradiction to be. I will not ask for justification. I am interested in and trying to determine what your approach to it is, as you make claims about it.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

My claim is that it’s not self-evident because we’re assuming logic is the criterion for knowing.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – that is not my question. I did not ask about what the claim was. I asked what your understanding of the law of noncontradiction was.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I don’t have an understanding of it, hence, I don’t know, hence, I make no claim of knowing what it is.

My “claim” is merely a refutation.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – what is it that you are refuting?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

The “law”.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – how?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Through my subjectivity. Obviously, I cannot justify knowledge.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – can you meaningfully explain what that is?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I just told you, I don’t understand it, therefore, I don’t know it. I can’t explain that which I do not know.

The burden of justification is on you and saive since you claim to know.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – where did I claim to know anything about the law of noncontradiction?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

My mistake, @SavoirFaire did, not you.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – so you don’t understand and can’t define what the law of noncontradiction is?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

That’s correct, I don’t know anything. I make no claims of knowing anything. I’m nearly silent. I just question and ask for justifications.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – but how do you know what to ask?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I don’t, hence the subjectivity.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – but you did ask, right?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Yes. It’s as valueless as any other argument here since it’s unjustified.

What it comes down to is subjectivity vs subjectivity. Everyone claims to know even though they cannot justify it because they just can’t resist. That makes everyone into a religious cult since it all rests on assumed axioms. Each cult is explaining to each other why they’re wrong based on these assumed axioms. The way I see it, from a subjective point of you, is to just shut the hell up and mind your own business since you’re both equally wrong or right, but you will never really know.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – does that apply to all arguments?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)

All arguments are fundamentally based upon assumed axioms, or circular reasoning, so I would think so, but then again, my answer is subjective, so you’re back to square one.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – so that would mean you think you’re wrong?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

I could be right or wrong. Just like anyone else who makes claims on assumptions. They could be right or wrong.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Good stuff. Have you ever heard of this philosophical idea – solipsist?

Trusting only oneself since you can only access your mental states.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – So then it’s possible to know something objectively?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (0

)

If there is no justification of an objective, then anything can be possible.

Keep in mind, I’m answering you subjectively so it’s yes and no.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – If anything is possible, then wouldn’t there be justification for some objective?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

My statement that anything is possible was done through my subjectivity which means I’m writing without justification, which means take what I say with a grain of salt.

Likewise, all arguments on this thread should be taken with a grain of salt, since they’re based on subjectiveness (assumed axioms, or circular reasoning). If the argument is not based on these two then you’re stuck with the problem of infinite regress.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – is subjectivity absolute?

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I don’t know, is it?

If you say yes, then how do you know?
If you say no, then how do you know?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@lawkes – I’m asking you. Please answer.

iamthemob (17196

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I did, I don’t know.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

I’m about to go to sleep, you got anything else to ask before I go?

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Based on the quotes I just gave @AdamF, it should be obvious that my argument is inductive. You may consider exercising a bit of practical skepticism.”

Look at this link and the example of deductive reasoning provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Read your own argument as provided above which tries to equate your argument with the same classic deductive argument as provided by wiki.

“All men are mortal = All codes have sentient authors.
Socrates is a man. = DNA is a code.
Therefor,
Socrates is mortal. = DNA is sentient authored.”

How is what you are arguing obviously an inductive argument?

By the way, if your premise two is valid, then the first premise is not. Because then all we can say is that some codes have sentient authors, and others may or may not, because we haven’t established whether DNA has an author or not….hence begging the question. The same can’t be said for the Socrates argument. The premises in that argument can be exchanged with each other, both are valid, both are sound. They are not equivalent deductive arguments, despite your assertion that they are.

Anyways, the winds are blowing 8ms…I’m going kitesurfing. Have a nice night, day, morning, wherever on this planet you may reside…

AdamF (4002

)“Great Answer” (2

)

Too many posts to read through everything, but

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Why shouldn’t it?

Because you cannot assume the answer to the argument you are trying to prove.

chocolatechip (3009

)“Great Answer” (0

)

The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

What do you mean it isn’t an inductive argument @AdamF?

I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that DNA is sentient authored any more than I can prove absolutely that Socrates was mortal. But I can induct the logic of both premises with good old fashioned a posteriori empiricism.
__________

I did not assume that abiogenesis was or was not the answer @chocolatechip. It would beg the question if I assumed that it could without any evidence to support the premise that it could. Abiogenesis wasn’t a part of either premise one or two. I have no reason to introduce abiogenesis into the argument any more than introducing clipped toenails. There’s no reason to see any relationship whatsoever.

This is really confounding to me how you guys keep claiming that I’m begging the question. Exchange “abiogenesis” with “bullshit”. I don’t know for sure that bullshit can’t write a code. I’ve never seen bullshit write a code, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen… right? How about dung gnats, piss ants or the wicked witch of the west? They might be able to author code too. How about a God? If there is one, do you think that God has any less of a capacity to write a code than abiogenesis, bullshit, dung gnats, piss ants or the witch?

I mean really… where does it stop with these ridiculous logic traps? Has “begging the question” turned into the latest fallback position when all else fails?
___________

My argument inducts an original author. If you wish to attribute God properties to that, then be my guest. How will you explain that to the time travelers and extraterrestrials?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies wrote, “I mean really… where does it stop with these ridiculous logic traps? Has “begging the question” turned into the latest fallback position when all else fails?”

That’s why you use the same garbage against them. They’re begging the question with logic since they assume logic is a “necessary” assumption for knowing (no justification needed), and then they’re telling you that you’re begging the question while they remain guilty of doing the exact same thing.

That’s about as nonsensical as it gets.

lawkes (342

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I did not assume that abiogenesis was or was not the answer @chocolatechip. It would beg the question if I assumed that it could without any evidence to support the premise that it could. Abiogenesis wasn’t a part of either premise one or two. I have no reason to introduce abiogenesis into the argument any more than introducing clipped toenails. There’s no reason to see any relationship whatsoever.

Since this is a really long topic, I’ll remind you of this:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Has “begging the question” turned into the latest fallback position when all else fails?

No, begging the question is the first line of defense against fallacious arguments. We’re trying to point out that a certain argument is nonsense, and your response to that is, “please stop, I don’t like it when you point out these logical fallacies”?

chocolatechip (3009

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Please don’t attribute your random quotes to me @chocolatechip. Don’t put words in my mouth.

@chocolatechip “No, begging the question is the first line of defense against fallacious arguments”

The fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, is committed when a proposition which requires proof IS ASSUMED WITHOUT PROOF, or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it.
emphasis mine

Premise 1 is proven because DNA conforms to Purlwitz, Burks and Watermans formal definition of code. It is also proven because it is the only thing in nature which runs through Claude Shannon communication protocols without fail which is the reason Hubert Yockey mapped the transcription process directly from Shannon protocols. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Say please and I’ll link you up.

Premise 2 is proven because (as you quote) “there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”. Don’t believe me? Just find me one. Just one. That’s all you need @chocolatechip. Just one.

Please “don’t stop”. I do like it very much when you try to point out these logical fallacies. Especially when you commit the most truant of them all in the process.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

The argument suffers a severe detriment when the plausibility of abiogenesis is considered in the context of the size and age of the Universe, compared with which our area and duration of observation is proportionally, effectively negligible.

Get back to me after I’ve explored and observed most of the Universe for most of its history, rather than one unimaginably minuscule speck of dust for a couple thousand years, and I might have that black swan for you.

——————————————————————

The existence of another consciousness is a highly unsatisfactory explanation for the existence of our consciousness, for it raises such similar problems.
1. Consciousness is a peculiarity of living organisms (gimme a proven example otherwise?)
2. Life exists exclusively on Earth (gimme a proven example otherwise?)
Therefore, no consciousness existed before Life on Earth, to create it.
(unless we go back in time at some point to do it, huh?)

Otherwise, what is your explanation? non-alive Consciousness? How does that work? A living consciousness from another planet? How did they come to be? A consciousness that entered from outside the universe? How is that possible?
You give me one natural process known to science that creates consciousness, which is not itself based on code. Just find me one. That’s all you need @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. Just one, and then I’ll be pretty much convinced.

——————————————————————

In the meanwhile, I’m a lot happier, whatever the problems in specific theories, with small, self-replicating molecules coming together occasionally in the countless gazillions of dice-throws involved in the history of chemical collisions over half a billion years of Earth’s existence (try the stats, they make fair support for it), than I am with a consciousness of unknown nature arising spontaneously, without the influence of one scrap of code or yet another consciousness, and proceeding to create one or a few bits of RNA in the oceans of Earth, before disappearing forever.

The_Idler (9613

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I never quoted you as saying anything you didn’t say in this topic. You were, however, arguing in defense of the validity of those three points.

There is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

This preposition is ASSUMED WITHOUT PROOF. One cannot state that there is (absolutely) NO natural process known to science that creates coded information, because we have not yet answered the question of whether DNA, a type of coded information (semantics aside), was created by a natural process or not.

chocolatechip (3009

)“Great Answer” (0

)

I’m not an atheist, but I think I can answer your question.

I’m not a bible-thumping fundamentalist either, but I want to be saved and be with God in Heaven someday. Back when I was an straddling the fence, I attended a couple of different churches regularly. I sat in on a few Catholic sermons, but they were all in Latin and there was too much pomp and circumstance, and I didn’t really feel God’s presence. I also started to read the Bible at this time. I went to a Pentecostal church for a couple of months, but found it a little depressing the way they said one thing while really saying another. Like, they’re always saying how God was loving and forgiving while at the same time telling all these tales of how cruel and spiteful God is to people. It was enough to make me say, even if Christianity is all literally true like Christians say, no way would I worship such a God.

I also went to a non-denominational church. Their ideology was about the same as the Pentecostals, but they seemed more honest with themselves. The pastor freely admitted that some things in the Bible are contradictory, and then he would give his explanation; usually due to some translation error in which he would start talking about specific words in Greek or Hebrew and how the translated English words didn’t quite mean the same thing or were translated incorrectly. I was really impressed with his intelligence and the research he put into his sermons. I also loved the worship sessions there, the singing of modern Christian music and just losing yourself worshipping God. It was wonderful! Then I had to move for my job and haven’t found another church like that again.

By this time, I had read the Bible, and it really opened my eyes. I can see why it would make a lot of fence straddlers turn away from God rather than to God. Like the Pentecostals, the Bible says that God is “lovingkindness” and then is full of tales of how cruel and spiteful and unjust God is. Then I learned that the Bible was once a whole bunch of little separate books, and there was originally many more. The books currently in the Bible were actually picked and chosen by a group of religious scholars. That right there is a red flag. When I pray each night, I hold my Bible in my hands, but I don’t believe the Bible is the literal word of God. It can’t possibly be the word of a loving, kind, and just God. I believe it is full of translation errors and mis-selected manuscripts. Obviously, the Bible we have has been corrupted by, well, you know who…..

And there’s the issue of Jesus. I accept Christ Jesus as my saviour, but is He God? I accept that Jesus is the son of God, and that He is our “representative” before Jehovah, and will speak for all who are saved on Judgement Day. But as some religions claim, Jesus never actually claimed to be God. Jehovah really hates worshipping false Gods, and I don’t want to commit that sin. But I also want to be saved through Jesus. So that’s one big dilemma for me. I can only hope that God really is forgiving and will understand my dilemma and my confusion.

I hope this helps answer your question why atheists don’t believe in God, and maybe will give you some tools to reach out to them and save them.

Answerbagger (332

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Thanks for your contribution @Answerbagger. The path you share is revealing. I’ve always been interested though, and no Christian has ever been capable of explaining it, but what exactly do you think that Atheists need to be saved from? Perhaps it’s just my own experience, but I find that Atheist friends come closer to expressing the love of Christ to the world than my Theist associates. They’re less self righteous, more tolerant, less judgmental, less likely to hold grudges, and altogether more concerned with the fate of the human condition than most Theists who think, ‘screw this place, judgment day is coming soon, so why give a damn’.

I expect to find a tremendous amount of surprised Atheists in heaven. I expect to find a great number of so called Theists missing in action. Remember Christ hung out with those who the religious leaders of the time judged as lowest of the low scum of the earth. And then he turned around and rebuked the Pharisees as over zealous and judgmental. I really think most Theists have it all wrong. They should be more concerned with the log in their own eye, rather than the speck in the Atheist eye.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (3

)

@chocolatechip Of course we can truthfully claim “there is (absolutely) NO natural process known to science that creates coded information”, until one is discovered. Truth statements don’t fall on the criteria of “until”.

Asking if DNA was created by a natural process or not is exactly the same as asking if an anonymous note was created by a natural process or not. Anonymous authorship has never been acceptable reason for claiming natural mechanism must exist for code authorship.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Saved from? Losing out on immortality and eternal happiness in paradise. Only that…

Answerbagger (332

)“Great Answer” (0

)

Eternal happiness should not be expected in heaven. If the bible myth is to be taken at face value, heaven had some big problems before earth or humans ever existed. So bad that ⅓rd of all angels were cast out. If we are to retain our identities in heaven, then we must retain our free will. Our free will shall prevent everyone in heaven from eternal happiness.

And immortality is assured in both heaven and hell, if you believe in that sort of thing.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)

So bad that some angels, that supposedly and unlike humans, had not “free will”, allegedly rebelled against the tyrant
Also, I do not want eternal life, especially if it would only consist of worshipping that god for eternity. and eternal happiness, while knowing that many of my friends, and family, would burn in hell, forever? I would actually have to be happy about them frying eternally, to be eternally happy. I do not want to be such a person, ever.

ragingloli (51958

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You wrote: “They’re less self righteous, more tolerant, less judgmental, ” about atheists. You and I must not know the same atheists. Most atheists I know are very self-rightous, untolerant of theists, and extremely judgemental. I, of course, am the exception. :-)

Rarebear (25192

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@The_Idler

“1. Consciousness is a peculiarity of living organisms (gimme a proven example otherwise?)”

Thoughts are a property of consciousness. Homer has been physically dead for thousands of years. Yet we still have access to his thoughts via the mechanism of the words he wrote. His thoughts are just as vibrant today as they were when he lived. His words are not equal to his thoughts. His words only represent his thoughts. His words are a physical representation of a non physical thought. Just like our words here represent our thoughts. But our thoughts are not here, and neither are our consciousness.

We know the thoughts must exist. We just don’t know where they are. We can’t see, touch, taste or smell our thoughts. Physical concepts of “where” do not apply to non physical phenomenon.

“2. Life exists exclusively on Earth (gimme a proven example otherwise?)”

I agree with your assessment from a position of hard marxist materialism. But from a linguistic perspective, “life” can take have other traits. The words of Shakespeare really “spring to life” when read with the proper fervor. What we mean by that is that they have some unknown animator quality which is perceived only in the realm of thought, yet it is altogether invisible to the physical senses we trust.

@The_Idler “Otherwise, what is your explanation? non-alive Consciousness? How does that work?”

I do not know. We should speculate on this together. Does the qualia of being “alive” require a physical mechanism to be alive? Or is the physical mechanism simply the vehicle for representing it in a physical realm? I plumb for the latter.

@The_Idler “You give me one natural process known to science that creates consciousness, which is not itself based on code… Just one, and then I’ll be pretty much convinced.”

Well, honestly friend, if I could do that, I’d be too busy writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and wouldn’t have the time play with everybody here on fluther.

Best I can figure, is that since consciousness is not necessarily a property of physicality, then it must (may) have a dimensionless attribute which is not bound by the same physical laws of our dimension. Of course, speculation rules the day here.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@Rarebear I’ve never known Atheists to gather regularly in groups with the sole purpose of passing judgment upon others. I’ve never known Atheists to attribute the results of their actions upon unseen external forces working for or against their original intentions.

Yes, they can be intolerant of Theists, but that’s a bi-product of being intolerant of stupidity and ignorance. Jesus shared the same flaw.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies -

You’re absolutely right. Those are dilemmas I can’t explain. I can only give my testimony and leave it for you to decide what’s right for you. I won’t play “holier than thou” or pretend that my choice is the right choice for everyone. Unlike a lot of Christians, I accept that my choice may not be the right one for you, and so you have a right to your choice. After all, a loving kind God could not have created a universe where anyone can be put to eternal torture. Maybe Hell is a perfectly benign place, just absent from God. Or maybe you’ll be utterly destroyed, a.k.a the second death. Who knows?

Answerbagger (332

)“Great Answer” (1

)

That’s closer to the teaching of Jesus than what you’ll hear from any pulpit. Let’s remember that Jesus was not a Christian.

Christianity was an invention of humans. And like all human inventions, they will be replaced, improved upon, or eventually rejected altogether in favor of something else.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I feel the same @ragingloli.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “I’ve never known Atheists to gather regularly in groups with the sole purpose of passing judgment upon others.”
You should go to one of your local Skeptics in the Pub events. But I concede the point.

Rarebear (25192

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Oh man I’d love to. Never heard of that. I’ll look it up. What a great people watching opportunity!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951

)“Great Answer” (0

)