*Waitress brings an omelette to the table*
Me: How do you suppose that omelette got here?
Him: What?
Me: *pointing* That omelette. How did it get here?
Him: The waitress just brought it.
Me: Obviously! But where did she get it?
Him: Can’t we just eat?
Me: There are only two possibilities.
Him: *nodding while he chews* Mmm.
Me: Either is was made on purpose or it wasn’t.
Him: *shaking his head* So…we’re not just gonna eat.
Me: Which do you think is most likely?
Him: Pass the jam.
Me: *passing the jam* Answer the question.
Him: Well…ten minutes ago I ordered a ham and cheese omelette. Probably the waitress told the cook to make one.
Me: So you’re guessing the omelette is an intentional act of creation?
Him: Yeah. That’s my ‘guess’.
Me: But it could be random.
Him: *not looking at me anymore* Mmm.
Me: Neither one of us saw anyone make it. It could have evolved.
Him: *reading the placemat ads* Yep.
Me: The humble, open-minded answer is: “I don’t know how this omelette got here.”
Him: Sure.
Me: In our limited understanding, we can’t ever know the whole truth.
Him: *to the waitress* Where did you get this omelette?
Waitress: *puzzled* Um…I picked it up from the cook in the kitchen…
Him: *back to me* Satisfied?
Me: That’s just her opinion.
Him: Pay the check. I’m waiting in the car.
290 Responses
I think this guy summed it up nicely:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/#comment-447070
Dear John,
Let’s put this through my structure again. Is there a description or explanation of evolution that does not require intent or agency?
Yes.
I have, at several intervals, noted that nonrandom is not the same as intended. Non-chaos, equally, is not the same as intended. We’ve had this discussion, and you seemed to agree. And yet, here you are, playing the same little game. It’s a little disappointing.
What’s disappointing is having the comments that atheists disagree with labeled as ‘little games’.
Your definition of ‘random’ is convenient because it allows you to put an awful lot of organization and structure under the heading of ‘unintended’.
My point is, that when we come across something as simple as an omelette we assume it didn’t arise from chaos. It didn’t arise ‘randomly’. It was intended.
When we come across more complex things, like helicopters and baseball diamonds, we also assume they were created intentionally. Random activity is more likely to result in no baseball diamonds or helicopters.
This isn’t a controversial concept. You don’t like it because chemistry and biology looks a lot like a helicopter.
(Also, as a little aside: “Natural Selection” acts a lot like software.)
To be sure!
Natural Selection is a stellar piece of A.I.!
It accounts for all those variables!
Plus, it cares! It cares about the survival of life.
It ‘intends’ for life to survive.
Of course, I mean ‘intends’ in an ‘unintended nonrandom’ way.
It’s not about what is convenient, it’s about what is philosophically sound. If you want to talk in terms of true dichotomous terms around the idea of intent, the words are “intended” or “unintended”.
Unintended is not the same as random. You can have intentionally random things. Excel’s random number generator is an example; it was intentionally coded, but is random. Equally, the rate of cooling of the cup of coffee in front of me is nonrandom (i.e. it is predictable at a certain scale) but also unintended.
This spawns from logical laws of identity. A thing cannot be A and not A at the same time, in the same way. And, therefore, the cooling of my coffee cannot be both intended and unintended. And yet the rhetoric you’re employing, where random means the same as unintended, leads us to violations of the laws of identity and of noncontradiction.
That’s why, if you want an intellectually defensible argument, you need to be strict about your terms and exactly what you mean. You also need to have a defensible process by which you assess the events you are looking at. That’s why I built and offered one based on Occam’s razor: try it first with as few entities as possible; try it second only with already established entities; try it third with speculative entities — and admit the hypothetical and speculative nature of the conjecture at this point.
You don’t actually seem to have any issue with any of those steps.
But, then you changed the language to chaos. I don’t like being the to tell you this, but a thing can be unintentional and non-chaotic. The cooling of my coffee (which is now tepid) is an example. As such, we do not have a true dichotomy. Therefore, you can’t say that ‘if it is non-chaotic it must be intentional’, which is what you’re implying. That simply isn’t a defensible intellectual step.
The other thing you seem to be applying is a relationship between complexity and intent. (To an onlooker like myself, it appears you’ve changed a word to simply repackage the standard ‘Design’ argument.) Such a relationship is false. I’ve drawn a few very simple doodles of a piece of paper next to me; the simplicity does not imply unintentionality. Equally, the trajectory of all the bodies of the solar system are complex; it requires interrelationships described by calculus, perturbation theory and gravitational theory. And yet, no part of that implies intent.
The thing that implies intent is the necessity of intent to explain something that natural explanations fail on. But even that only opens up the question, it is no more than the implication.
A commenter with less patience, or perhaps less trust in your desire to actually engage with the topic, might have just said “that’s full of fallacies, mate. Shut up.” But you’re getting useful and nuanced explanations of the fatal flaws in your approach to this question.
My very first comment listed (I think) 5 reasons to accept the omelette was intentionally created. None of that had anything to do with simplicity nor complexity. It’s irrelevant to the discussion on intent. So is randomness, as I’ve been at pains to explain.
So, perhaps you could actually explain the problem with my ideas in the discussion with you, instead of just imagining my biases and trying to discard my input that way.
“A commenter with less patience, or perhaps less trust in your desire to actually engage with the topic, might have just said “that’s full of fallacies, mate. Shut up.” But you’re getting useful and nuanced explanations of the fatal flaws in your approach to this question.”
I completely understand that dialogue with me is beneath you. I am humbled by the attention I’ve received.
The problem with your ideas is that you are assuming your conclusion.
You believe the universe is unintentional. Therefore, the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry are unintentional. Abstract concepts like emotion, reason, logic and consciousness are also unintentional. Intelligence is necessary to identify intention. But intelligence itself is unintentional.
Am I still misunderstanding?
I’m not assuming the conclusion. I provided a process of thinking about the question. A process you have accepted in discussion, then ignored the very next time you engaged your question.
No one has said, or even implied, this conversation is beneath either of us. But I’m trying to engage your woolly ‘this feels intentional’ argument by offering specific ways of investigating the claim and interpreting the observations. It does not feel you are engaging my input. Some smug implication that I’m being arrogant isn’t productive, nor funny. It does raise the question of what the objective here is.
Your attempt to agree with me seems basically right. (I actually take issue and have questions with bits of it…) But none of that was/is my point. My point is you need a better method of distinguishing intent from unintent than how you feel. If you rely on how you feel, as opposed to something we can share, I can’t actually distinguish between how you sincerely feel and what you need to pretend to feel to get your theology across.
We can start again, if you want. Do you care to reiterate your point?
My point is that the universe is either intentional or unintentional.
I believe we agreed about that.
My other point is that intelligence arises from intelligence.
We agree on that point as well.
I believe we parted ways when you said: “Random and unintentional are not the same. Evolution is an unintentional nonrandom process.”
My understanding of random is something that is made, done, or chosen without method or conscious decision. Random lacks intelligence.
The act of rolling dice is intentional. The results are random numbers.
I’m having trouble understanding how something can be unintentional and nonrandom at the same time. How can dice be unintentionally rolled to yield nonrandom numbers?
Who said a die roll would be unintentional and nonrandom? I certainly didn’t. I said that intentionality and randomness are completely divorced from each other. One has no bearing on the other. They are not a dichotomous pair. There is both overlap and gaps if you try to make them a dichotomous pair.
Where have you gotten your definition of random from? And why does ‘consciousness’ or “intelligence” have any defining say on it?
You said: “Evolution is an unintentional nonrandom process.” I used the rolling dice analogy because it’s simple. Is there some observable, repeatable event that will serve as an example of something ‘unintentional and nonrandom’?
The cooling of a cup of coffee. The trajectory of the moon around the earth. The arc of a bouncing basketball.
Okay.
You said: “Occam’s razor means it’s not just a toss up: you don’t speculate agents and intent; if you have a sufficient explanation without intent or agency, that’s the more reasonable position.”
I agree completely. That’s why I’ve never suggested ‘Spirits of Coffee Cooling’. We can call the cooling coffee an unintentional nonrandom process. But you wouldn’t claim your cup of coffee came into existence via an unintentional nonrandom process. The laws of thermodynamics and physics act upon things that already exist. My point is, if the laws of physics can’t make a cup of coffee by themselves, why should I think they can make my brain?
Right. I get it.
You and Sean Carroll believe the universe in unintended.
And — this is the point here — there’s an explanation of how that can be. We’re done at point 1 of the structure I keep offering.
That’s what I said.
You and Sean Carroll believe nothing is intentional.
Oh, bother to read in context, or you’re not really reading at all.
We were talking about the advent of complexity, and you know it.
So, no, your characterisation there doesn’t follow from what I said (and I’m not at liberty to talk for Sean Carroll).
Okay — so we now agree that nonrandom and unintentional things exist. That’s great. That’s an area we were disagreeing on, and I have now made my case convincingly; your reply convinces me you are convinced. We are, now, at least there.
It’s important to point out when reasonably big shifts in the conversation like that have happened.
We do have to ask, now, what you do accept physics can build. Stars? Planets? Beaches? A tree? A jellyfish? Where is the shift, as far as you’re concerned?
You have to ask the same question. If the entire universe is unintended, how did intention arise? If everything is unintended, there is really no such thing as intention. I believe you pointed out that something cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘Not A’ at the same time.
My view says the laws of physics are part of the intended universe. They are the rules established by intelligence. That’s why we can depend on them for scientific inquiry. So there is no ‘shift’ from intended to unintended.
So I take you back to my initial structure:
(1) Can it be explained without intent? If yes, end. If no, go to 2.
(2) Can it be explained with intent from already established agents? If yes, end. If no, go to 3.
(3) Can it be explained with intent from nonestablished agents? If yes, go to 4. If no, double check initial observation.
(4) Time to do some research.
Ok.
So you are comfortable that the universe is explained without intent.
Is it safe to assume that you believe everything is determined?
That’s not a logical step from where we just were.
Are you denying that intent can arise for the first time?
I don’t see how you can get intent from an unintentional universe. Remember, it can’t be ‘A’ and ‘Not A’.
If you’re willing to admit an appeal to faith, I’m cool with that.
What are you assuming I am calling A and not A?
The universe.
It is either intended or unintended. It cannot be both.
Correct.
But unless you’re making the fallacy of composition, the universe can be unintended and contain agents with intent.
That wouldn’t make the universe intended at all…
And by saying that intent can arise, I am not saying the universe is intended…
So, are you making the fallacy of composition?
Yes. I am making the fallacy of composition.
Fallacious to the core.
So help me understand how can the universe contain agents with intent? Where do they come from?
Again, if you tell me, “I have faith that intention just popped in somewhere”, I will accept that.
Do you remember me sending you a link about ‘proto-intelligence’? Intelligence exists on a spectrum, and as such, is something that can be generated by evolution.
You have already said that intent comes from intelligence. Intent is also related to consciousness, which relates to neuroanatomy — a structure which evolves.
(Don’t think I didn’t notice you completely switching objection without conceding the previous one: do you concede the law of noncontradiction objection you raised doesn’t hold?)
But, hey, I’ve got a little trick here: let’s go back to the structure I proposed: Is there an explanation without intent? Yes, evolution. But let’s pretend there isn’t.
Is there an explanation involving the intent of a known agent? No. (Not that I know of.)
Is there an explanation involving the intent of an unknown agent? Well… err… only by also calling on processes that are also unknown. We have to multiply our entities were quite profoundly.
Alright then… time to fund some research. Probably into consciousness.
(And no, I don’t have faith that intention just popped in. Intentions exist now. Explanations for events in cosmological antiquity don’t require intention. That is what I’m saying.)
“Is there an explanation without intent? Yes, evolution.”
That is precisely why I made my little dice rolling analogy. You are begging the question when you say evolution is unintended.
Evolution is the mythical god of the godless. It strives toward goals. It selects things. It intends for life to flourish.
Evolution created intelligence.
Evolution created consciousness.
Evolution gives people a sense of morality.
And you’re gonna tell me that I don’t need faith to believe that? Ok. Tell me why you believe it so I can believe it too.
Evolution does not select for things. It is the consequence of survival or failure to survive. It is that ‘survival’ that is referred to as ‘selection’. Evolution is the result, not the cause, of such selection.
Evolution does not have goals.
Evolution does not intend anything. If it did, it could make steps ‘backward’ (i.e. away from what you imagine to be its goal) to pursue a more prosperous route. It doesn’t.
Evolution didn’t create intelligence or consciousness. They evolved.
And I’m not begging the question, either. Go back to my structure:
Can evolution be sufficiently described without intent? Yes. That is how it is described. That’s the entire scientific description.
So, I shouldn’t need to explain evolution at this point. And you shouldn’t really expect me to be able to give an account of evolution: how much does an individual atheist need to know to satisfy you that your guesswork isn’t satisfactory? All that aside, here’s a brief off the top of my head:
It’s really simple: physical and/or genetic variation is inherent in species that reproduce in generations; high fidelity with some variation. Those differences lead to differences in rates of survival and propagation. Axiomatically, those that survive and propagate more contain the genes that lead to their survival.
The selection process — i.e. what will increase risk to an individual or what an individual needs to increase it’s chances of survival — changes in different environments. As such, different genes ‘win’ the survival battle and propagate. This leads to gradual change over time.
This gradual change over time is evident in the fossil record. But it is also evident in the appearance of a family tree among species: that certain Finches, for example, contain profound similarities and differences. Variation and selection accounts explains these changes. In more recent generations, it has become evidence in the genomic similarity too. You can map the genetic similarity between species in the same way you can map a family tree. This ‘phylogenetic tree of life’ bears incredible similarity to the tree of life drawn by anatomical similarity.
Evolution explains gradual change and, logically, can account for any change along a spectrum in a trait controlled by genes.
Brains are controlled by genes. Cranial size among early hominids increases over time, and so does evidence and quality of tool making. Cranial size increases along side a proxy for intelligence: tool complexity, and culture and art and fire and clothes. This is evidence that intelligence exists along a spectrum. (So is the comments thread down here!)
A similar spectrum of intelligence exist between species — groups of individuals that are defined by their genetics. Yet more evidence that intelligence is influenced by genetics and therefore susceptible to evolution.
“Can evolution be sufficiently described without intent? Yes. That is how it is described. That’s the entire scientific description.”
And if I was to say, “Evolution is the process God used to bring about the variations of life on Earth”, I would be adding unnecessary agency to the process.
It still seems to me like you’re comfortable with ‘spooky magic’ as long as we don’t suggest a magician.
So what is the next logical step from here?
Can I ask if you believe everything is determined yet?
Well, yes, I would say adding God (or any agency) into a process that provides sufficient explanation without agency is a violation of Occam’s razor.
And I don’t see where the magic is in my description.
And you can ask about my position on determinism, but I’d rather not go down that rabbit whole until we iron a few things out here… which for now is the magic issue. Where’s the magic in my description?
(It’ll be a while before my next response. It’s bed time here.)
You don’t see the magic in your description because you’ve labeled it ‘science’.
We agreed that the available evidence indicates that intelligence arises from intelligence.
You said, “Evolution didn’t create intelligence or consciousness. They evolved.” So, since you know that evolution isn’t intelligent, we have a problem. We have intelligence arising from…what? Magic. Evolution is magic!
Evolution is not science. It cannot be observed. It’s a creation myth that lacks a creator.
You use the word ‘Evolution’ to explain the universe the same way I use the word ‘factory’ to explain my car. A factory doesn’t possess intention. It cranks out nonrandom products. Pull the roof off the factory and you’ll see rows of machines busily assembling parts. The machines are not intelligent. So I can conclude that there is no intelligence necessary to build automobiles. Cars emerge from the inherent properties of ‘factory’. The people in the factory evolved from primitive machines.
You cannot correct my error without removing me from the factory. So it is with evolution.
All the explanations for the universe must come from within the universe.
If God exists, he has to be a product of Evolution. Of course, if God evolved, he wouldn’t be God.
That’s the point where believers in (Darwinian) Macro-Evolution go:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YdwXBbXGS0I/maxresdefault.jpg
But, that was a nice effort anyway.
P.S. Are you SURE the Universe is more like a machine than like a self-poured cup of cooling coffee? I mean, you don’t think there’s a SIMPLER explanation than intelligence comes from Intelligence? Right? (Like self-pouring, and then cooling, coffee?)
“Evolution is not science. ”
If that really is what you believe, then I fear you don’t understand what science says about evolution or what the purpose of the scientific method is. I think the best thing for you to do is step away from religious apologetics for a few days and concentrate on reading what scientists say about evolution.
” I think the best thing for you to do is step away from religious apologetics for a few days and concentrate on reading what scientists say about evolution.”
If intelligence doesn’t rise from intelligence, what good will reading do?
What an odd question.
It’s the darnedest thing: I know when I’m being misrepresented… I was quite careful about what I said about intelligence arising:
But, hey, moving on.
The analogy of a car factory to evolution is poor; it misses on a significant level. There is no explanation of the machines without intent. The machines have no characteristics allowing for the process of evolution, they have features that evolution hasn’t ever created, and they have features we have reason to believe evolution could not create (I’m thinking rotary joints). None of that is true about humans (or any other species).
I’ve already listed evidence that is available that you could investigate in your life time. Add to that ring species, fruit fly experiments and the E. coli experiment. All evidence and observations one can make (and the experiments one can replicate) in one life time.
Not to mention, science isn’t that narrow. We have observations by proxy for exoplanets and stars, and I don’t see any one going blue in the face demanding that’s not science either. The fossils and the genetics evidence are observations by proxy. And, in case you hadn’t heard, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
I think I was too restrictive in my analogy. That’s my fault.
The factory doesn’t just produce cars. The factory produces all the components within the factory. The factory is ‘evolution’.
No reproduction. No inheritance. No death. No survival. No generations. No variation.
All of those things are within the factory.
All those things are explained by the existence of the factory.
What are you talking about? Neither a factory nor the components have those features.
Are you denying that organisms have those features, now?
What are you talking about when you claim ‘Evolution’ explains the universe?
I never said that.
Yeah. You did.
“Is there an explanation without intent? Yes, evolution.”
The context was the existence of the universe.
Here’s the whole comment:
(Link)
The context is the emergence of intelligence.
Yes.
‘Evolution’ explains whatever you need it to explain. It seems to me that ‘the emergence of intelligence’ is an impressive feat for an unintended factory.
The factory analogy doesn’t work.
I’m no longer convinced this is a conversation. It’s not that you aren’t agreeing with me, but that you’re not addressing the points I am making. I’m replying to what you actually say, but it’s like shouting into the void because you come back with a barely related comments completely unhinged from what I said.
I’m no longer convinced this is a conversation either.
You’re happy to allow the emergence of intelligence (which makes intention possible) as long as we assume that it comes from evolution (which is unintended). Again, spooky magic without a magician.
Rather than address my ideas, you dismiss me as either ‘playing games’ or ‘completely unhinged’.
Now you’re sounding like all the other atheists. All that’s left to do is call me a Dickhead.
The first of us to dismiss the other person’s ideas here was you. Don’t get all high and mighty. I have had to point out that you’ve been misrepresenting my views more than once.
I have been addressing your points. The factory analogy is false. There’s nothing magic about evolution.
I do like this strategy, though: be as pigheaded as possible — misrepresent the opposition; never concede a point , just move on; never engage with the fact; make vapid analogies — and as soon as the other side says something you can be offended by, play the ‘angry Atheist’ card. At least now I know this was a game and not a discussion. Just a shame I wasted so much time on you, first.
You forgot to call me a Dickhead.
I am not the interlocutor you are looking for.
Fallacious and facetious. It’s a charming combination.
@Dave.
Thank you,man. Although,on the one hand it is somewhat disconcerting that you actually have been digging around on Google or someplace for such ancient posts, and it makes me a little concerned that you have some rather unsavoury ulterior motive in the wings.*shrugs* If you’re a bit of a psycho, what can one do right?
Although I think you might want to have a moment or two of introspection , perhaps?
On the other hand it was nice to read this.
For what it’s worth Anne Sykes and I became Facebook friends not long after if I recall, although we keep in touch very little.
She is still a Christian and I haven’t gone to hell …yet.
Ark,
I am admittedly disappointed in the ad hominems and aspersions on my motives. I have made it abundantly clear that my concern is for your eternal soul.
It still is.
If you think it is psycho to care about someone one meets online in a blog dealing with matters of the soul, I must update my definition of psycho.
I have friends who are unbelievers who are not offended at my concern, and who have never gone off on me if I said I would pay for them. They may shake their head and cycle, but they still stay thanks.
I don’t give up easily on people. I am not giving up on you yet.
Dave
Luke 6:28 – (ESV) bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Heh… not “would pay for them”, but “would *pray* for them. But I would pay for them as well, were I able.
Dave
Now you see… I should not have attempted to use my Pixel for posting… the autocorrect will be the death of me…
My unbelieving friends never shake their head and cycle. But they do shake their heads and chuckle. But they may ride cycles, be they pedalled or motorized.
Dave
Demonstrate I have a soul and maybe we can have a more productive discussion.
Give up, Dave.
God gave Doug free will. Nothing you (or God) can do to reach a person who won’t put aside his pride.
Ad hominem is the only way he communicates now.
Isn’t this an oxymoron? If unintentionally run someone over in my car as they cross the road, it happened randomly; a freak accident. Random is defined as: made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision, so for something to be un-random, it would be made, done, or happening with method and conscious decision. It’s impossible for this to happen unintentionally since the only way for something to be done on purpose is with intention and thought.
And this is why you thought Einstein was a Christian.
“I have no idea what Jasmine is saying, but I DO know she’s a Christian. Therefore–something about Einstein.” –Ark
Do you escort Jasmine to the bathroom as well?
What a really nice friend you are .
Creepy… but nice creepy…. for a christian …who admires David Wood.
*Trigger Word*
(And Amanda goes wild Yaaaaay! )
Yaaaaay!
See. If I make you laugh the burns don’t hurt so much….shame…
*sigh* He was not a Christian. I believe I corrected my error by saying he believed in a Creator and called Him God. However I will quote Einstein saying:
And—
Now tell me how you would randomly solve a rubix cube, Ark.
Also, don’t kid yourself, Ark. You’re the one who introduces the creep factor to the conversation. Every time. We know what’s on your mind.
Really? So enlighten me Jasmine, what is on my mind?
Why, you don’t know? You need someone to think for you now?
You come on this blog and spend your time trying to post what you think are intelligent comments designed solely to insult and undermine every atheist and you think I should lay down and whimper?
Oh really?
I should take the crap you write that you claim is ”gospel” from someone who can’t even make a reasoned defense of what she believes and who swears by a frakking meglomaniacal sky god who metamorphosed as a human 200 years ago, got nailed to a fucking cross for sedition by the Romans considered a beautiful human sacrifice by your barbaric death cult religion and is someday going to save your sorry backside and lead you into the next world and you want to preach this shit to kids?
And threaten them with eternal damnation if they do not comply?
And we have Islamic fundamentalists strapping bombs to kids and young people; suicide bombers, and middle eastern wars and terrorists flying into buildings all because of belief in your fucking Middle Eastern make believe piece of shit deity, Yahweh.
And you have the sheer bone ignorant audacity to call me a creep?
There are kids being abused by Priests the world over, there are millions dying of AIDS because Catholics refuse to sanction contraception.The christian religion is one of the wealthiest and corrupt organisations in the world and yet most of its believers as with all religions are poor.
And you call me a creep.
Are you for fucking real, lady?
Seriously? Are you out of your mind?
Hey, you’ve already decided what you want to believe. I keep telling you that the way you interpret the Bible isn’t the way every Christian interprets it, but you would hear none of it. I don’t expect you to lay down and whimper. I do expect you to perhaps not act like a know-it-all and consider the likelihood that your interpretation of Christianity could be false. Keep your atheism, I’m not trying to take it off you. No need to scream and cuss and grab at your security blanket every time I make a comment that isn’t sugarcoated. I’m not even attacking atheism for heaven’s sake! Merely your messed up perspective of Christianity. But hey, if it upsets you too much, I’m happy to leave you be. If your void is really that—a void—I hope it appreciates the vehemence with which you defend it.
Smile …
Let’s strike a compromise.
I give you my word I will never call you out or ‘cuss’, or berate you for your beliefs.You have my word. And you can even rag me over atheism, and say any bad things you like, providing you promise to let any kids you have, or come into contact with, find their own feet as far as god-belief is concerned?
Teach them all about religion, no problem …. as many as you can, and atheism, but let them decide when they are old enough to make a choice based upon critical thinking. How’s that ?
Fair?
So when is ‘old enough’? What if my child adamantly decides they want to become a Christian at six? What of a child with down-syndrome, does that mean they can’t ever make a choice because their critical thinking is impaired? Either way, you can’t force someone to believe something. I can teach my kids Christianity, but it is still their choice to believe it.
No. It is not really a choice for a child as they initially look to you as a source of truth: as a provider and nurturer. And this includes what they believe.
And why would they adamantly want to become a christian at six? Unless they were influenced in some way?
Would you let your child smoke at six?
Would you let your child become a Muslim at six because her best friend at school is a Muslim?
The Jesuit Priest who said, give me a child ’til he is seven and I will give you the man (paraphrase) said this for a reason.
Please don’t be coy with me , Jasmine, I am not ignorant in these matters.
As for when is old enough?
When were you old enough to drink, drive, smoke , have sex, get married, own a firearm, vote?
That seems a reasonable guideline to start with. So pick one…
How are you to prevent a child from forming beliefs until they’re 18?
I didn’t say you were to prevent them. I merely asked for your word not to inculcate religious beliefs.
Children are naturally curious. They will ask questions … but you know this already.
I expressly said teach all religion, or as many as you can, and atheism.
This of course will probably be an eye opener for many parents as they too will be obliged to learn alongside their children.
And you avoid completely -or as best as you can – emphasizing your faith, or making absolute statements based on faith, and certainly to the exclusion of all others or denigrating others.
And you never ever tell children they will be punished or sent to hell or what ever version you adhere to.
Fair enough?
But this is the same problem with teaching your child anything. It would be negligent for you to not teach your kids what you adhere to. How will they understand what is true if everything you teach is ambiguous or optional? Kids don’t stagnate. They’re either being taught, or being neglected. I can’t teach them how to cross a road, how to have good manners, how to eat with a fork, how to ride a bike, or how not to talk to strangers unless I teach it as truth. Why does that change when it comes to what life philosophy you choose? Wouldn’t it be deceitful if not hypocritical of me to downplay and underemphasize something I believe to be true? Children are still going to build their beliefs based on what they see, and what they are taught, whether you like it or not. I actually think it’s very dangerous to a child to leave everything open until they’re “old enough”, because by then they are without foundation.
Instead, I will teach my children Christianity, and like JB, I will also teach them to think and know the WHY behind whatever they choose to believe, regardless of their age. Critical thinking is not something you arrive at. It’s something you are taught, and to teach, you must have truth.
Teaching children about smoking or drinking or having unprotected sex is based on fact and there is no reason why such lessons should be considered ambiguous.
Same as crossing the road.
Teaching them critical thinking skills is going to keep them in good stead for life, especially if you lead by example and especially if you develop the skills at as early an age as possible.
Ethics and morals are not exclusive to Christianity and to assume they are by divine providence is indemonstrable.
I have mentioned on occasion I was brought up in a Christian household although it was never inculcated. We went to church and attended Sunday school but it was never mandatory.
I eventually grew out of it and rejected all the supernatural premises and especially the nonsense of sin and atonement etc, which are, quite frankly, simply disgusting.
To inculcate Christianity without the option of allowing the child to reject the instruction by at least comparing it with other religions then you are indoctrinating; preaching a faith based belief system that is founded upon a reward and punishment scheme that demeans and belittles, threatens and denigrates.
That is child abuse, plain and simple, and if one promotes this as the absolute truth, then a person is guilty of passive/aggressive child abuse. Period.
I’m sorry, there really is no middle ground.Indoctrination s indoctrination.
Watch the Dawkins movie, The God Delusion. It’s on my blog or find it on You Tube and see how other religions as well as Christianity inculcate.
It truly is an eye-opener and some parts made my toes curl.
eg A Pastor making plays about Hell and eternal damnation and torture to scare young people about ”sin” and homosexuality?
A Christian who believes adulterers should be executed … by LAW!
A Jew who believes the earth is 6000 years old and a Muslim who believes atheists are evil, should keep their women in check and not allow them to dress like whores and Islam will definitely conquer the world.
Really?
Yeah… and they live among us !
I think, yet again, you are still leaning on your own understanding that Christianity cannot be taught as absolute truth without threat.
But you have not demonstrated that it is absolute truth. All you have done is made an assertion and effectively barred the gate to further inquiry.
And this is the point that you are not comprehending, and is the reason why that, to assert such a thing is not only wrong but abusive.
Why are you so afraid of nurturing a child that is perfectly capable of critically analyzing the evidence and making their own choice in this regard?
You do not need to inculcate religion to teach a sound moral and ethical basis, neither does religion have to be involved to stress empathy and tolerance.
Do you not beleive in free will?
How is teaching the concept of God as an absolute truth denying a child free will? You can teach someone something you believe is true, but they still have the choice to believe it or not.
You said earlier a child is incapable of critically analysing something, but I believe with your contradiction here. Yes, a child can analyse and choose what to believe. It doesn’t have to be taught to them as simply a “belief option” in order for them to do that. Because I would be inconsistent and hypocritical, not to mention negligent if I didn’t teach something I personally believe is true to be truth.
Maybe I am covering this topic on the two threads?
I will stick to this one and we can ignore the other, okay?
I have stated that you have not yet demonstrated that what you believe is the absolute truth and until you do all you are making is an unsupportable faith claim.
So first, you should have the integrity to show that it is /em>absolute truth.
I think it wise that you demonstrate this before we progress.
I will wait for your answer ….
You don’t have to prove something to believe it’s true, Ark. This is what I’m saying. Whether I want to or am incapable of giving proof for something still doesn’t change the fact that I believe it is absolute truth. Maybe I am making an unsupportable faith claim. But whether I demonstrate it or not, it’s what I believe to be true, so I will share it with my kids.
I don’t understand gravity in the least. Apart from the effects it has on objects, you can’t see it. Going by the effect, I’m going to teach my kids it exists.
Fair enough. Then by the same maxim, you agree with Ken Ham sharing with his kids … and as many kiods he can lay his metaphorical hands on that the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs and the world was flooded and if they don’t believe what their dad says because its what he believes because it is ”in the bible”, they will roast in Hell?
That’s perfectly okay is it?
When have I ever said anything about using the threat of hell against children? And where did I say anything about teaching any kid not my own? And did I even mention anything about Ken Ham? I’ve never seen any of his stuff.
You haven’t.
And I am glad we have got that put of the way.
So what about the Exodus?
Virgin Birth, The Resurrection?
Adam and Eve?
Noah’s Ark?
Sodom and Gomorrah?
Incest,
Stoning Adulterers?
What about it?
Do you consider these biblical events historical and should be taught as biblical truth to (your) children.
Start with the first two.
Virgin Birth
Resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
I will teach my children those two things, yes, because I believe that they are true.
Again,belief is not necessarily based on fact.
And of course there is no evidence for either.
How about Noah’s Global Flood, and the Exodus and Adam and Eve and Original Sin?
All three of which have been refuted by evidence.
Will you teach these as fact?
I never said belief was based on fact, Ark. What part of this are you not understanding? If I believe all of those things to be true, regardless of whether I can prove it or you can disprove it, it doesn’t change the fact I have chosen to believe it is true. Therefore, since I believe and live out of this truth, it would be negligent of me not to pass on to my children what I believe is the truth. Honestly, “fact” doesn’t have to have anything to do with it.
Appreciate your honesty, and I mean that.
I would lie t know where you stand regardoing the other things I asked about.
Adam and Eve, Original Sin Flood and Exodus.
Do you beleive they are real historical events/people?
Yes, I do believe they are real.
Now this is where the problems arise.
Not only are you at odds with the scientific evidence you are also at odds with a great many Christians of other sects/denominations.
To state you consider Noah’s Flood to be true is bordering on being wantonly reckless, and to teach this to children is blatantly lying to them.
The Human Genome Project has unequivocally demonstrated that there was never a single human (Adam and Eve) couple as sole progenitors of our species.
Therefore, there could not possibly have been Original Sin (apart from the fact this is simply invented doctrine.)
The Exodus of course is even more of a problem for you as the evidence demonstrates that there never was an Exodus as described in the bible, and no, I am not referring to absence of evidence , although there is none, but the evidence of the Internal Settlement Pattern .
So, if archaeology and science show unequivocally that the things you believe are false/did not happen should you not believe them?
Well, I’d say yes, you should, that is not allowing you the freedom to make a choice based on what you believe.Or based on faith, rather than evidence.
But why must children be obliged to follow such beliefs when they fly in the face of every scrap of evidence, much of which can be demonstrated quite easily?
Your faith is your business – your choice and you are entitled to it. And I mean that.
Why do you not afford the same respect to your children?
If, as adults, or as young people , they choose to freely follow a religion without any coercion, then that is their choice.
Why are you denying them this, especially when practically every scrap of evidence refutes the faith claims?
It all depends on your sources, Ark. There is just as much evidence from scientists and archeologists that are FOR Christianity that you can’t ignore. You obviously listen to your sources and take what they say as fact because it’s in your own interest to do so. But regardless of all that, you’re not lying if it’s something you believe is true. My faith is definitely my business, agreed. But the point remains, if you believe something is absolute truth, be it the fact crossing the road without looking is dangerous, or that God exists, you are a negligent parent if you do not teach what you believe is truth.
No, Jasmine, I am sorry, there are not.
You are referring to Creationists.
And Francis Collins ( a Christian)
who headed the HGP cannot deny his own research that unequivocally shows that there was no original couple as per the biblical tale of Adam and Eve.
However, if you can direct me to a single, peer reviewed paper from a Creationist or a specialist in plate tectonics regarding the biblical tale of the Flood for example, I will reconsider.
Or the Exodus.
I reiterate, no matter how convinced you are that what you believe is truth, if the evidence demonstrates this is simply a faith based conclusion then to teach this as fact is not only wrong , but could well be harmful.
If it turns out that everything science says about your religion and it s claims is wrong then it is a simply matter for the individual to then turn to your god, ask for forgiveness and become a Christian?
I am sure he would be amenable , yes?
So why insist the child be indoctrinated when it should not be necessary? Why are you afraid to allow things to take their natural course?
Surely your god will look after his own?
This is your opinion. Not a fact. You’ve read up on every Creationist? You’ve heard every Christian viewpoint on history, archeology and science? You’ve taken into account every document of proof Christian historians and scientists have given? Even a simple Google search of “proof biblical flood” brings up more entries that claim it’s plausibility than it being irrefutably false. This is still a matter of sources, which means I still have evidence—be it provided by historians, or personal experience—to back my belief that it is the truth, so reiterate that I would be a negligent parent if I did not share that with my children.
Genetics is clear, the human race does not condense into a single source couple. This is not opinion, it is fact.
Not my opinion at all.
Rather,the consensus of the scientific
community.
I don’t need to read every Creationist as their basic doctrine on Flood Geology is the same. It is what they have founded their doctrine upon: Acceptance that the biblical tale is true.
So it is not simply a matter of sources at all as the sources you choose – Creationists – are not employing science.
To give an example that might help even more.
Oil exploration these days often utilizes what is known as the Time Temperature Index.
It’s fascinating, and while I can’t claim to understand all the scientific parameters basically it shows that oil takes x amount of time and temperature to form and would therefore be impossible under a Young Earth paradigm.
One reason why you will never find ( as far as I am aware) a geologist who is a Young Earth Creationist working in this area of oil exploration.
It has a few problems but it does demonstrate that no serious geologist will ever likely accept a YEC model.
Here’s one link. There are quite a few.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Current/1997/newell/newell3.html
Definitely worth a read.
You don’t teach your children Hinduism as a truth claim not any other religion besides you version of Christianity?
Why not? What evidence do you have that refutes Hinduism and why do you consider their beliefs wrong?
The entire scientific community isn’t in agreement though. There are many widely varied theories and conflicting proofs. It’s still a matter of sources, no matter which way you dice it. You believe the ones that agree with you.
Simple. I don’t believe they’re the truth. My experience plus the evidence I have seen makes me believe that Christianity is absolute truth. Why would I teach something I don’t think is true? Why is this so difficult to understand? Answer me yes or no:
If you believe something is infallibly true—regardless of why you believe it—should you share it with your children?
The entire scientific community agrees there was no Global Flood as per the bible.
(I will retract this if you can cite one for me.)
Creationists do not qualify as scientists in this regard.
It is not difficult for me to understand. You are simply refusing to accept that you might be wrong.
No.
Such certainty is not only ridiculous and close-minded, it is potentially dangerous and grossly irresponsible.
Surely you would not countenance a parent teaching their children that the Earth is Flat, even if that parent believed it to be ”infallibly true”
I have never taken this approach to anything let alone my kids, and neither should you.
Well, that’s your opinion.
Not my opinion.
It is my opinion that Liverpool are the best soccer team in the world. This, I acknowledge, is largely an emotional claim and the evidence does not support it.
Nevertheless ….
And neither does the scientific evidence support any of the claims you are making here. In fact, the majority of Christians do not acknowledge the biblical deluge anything but myth.
I imagine that some of them might also consider your stance on this and other similar issues to be disingenuous and in some cases, reckless and downright irresponsible.
For the record, do you beleive the Earth is flat?
But if you wish to teach your children that the Biblical Flood for example, is fact and there is evidence to support this claim, then you are simply willfully ignorant and leave yourself open to charges of child abuse.
If the biblical flood is so prevalently false, how do you explain the first several entries I get when I google “proof biblical flood”? Is that not something I could dare to call “proof”? You are so fond of telling people to google stuff, so I did. And I find proof. Now I’m wrong for believing it because your invisible group of preordained scientists say that it is false? This is really just a big battle of wits.
I’m sure there are plenty worse things to believe in than a prehistoric flood that would be in better stead for being labelled as child abuse, Ark. Don’t let your emotions and personal experience sway your judgment. I have every right to teach my children what I believe is true, and as hard as you have tried, you have no grounds to say that I shouldn’t.
Until I see you preach this hard against Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, your preaching against so called “indoctrination” will have no merit with me.
The first three entries that appear on the Google when one types “proof biblical flood” are:
1.Help writing my essay on the holy bible.
2.Proof Biblical Israelites were black
3.Creation museum touts new dino skeleton.
So, no evidence there…
Try this …
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html
It answers one aspect of your biblical claim of the flood
So do you beleive the Earth is Flat, yes or no?
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Which version?
Any.
No.
Actually, without some facts, your belief is just opinion. There is no reason to choose Christianity over atheism unless there is something that differentiates one belief from another.
Well perhaps the only facts that back up some beliefs are your own experience. If you experience one aspect of something and it works for you, your quality of life is better, your relationships are healthy, and you find yourself blessed in many areas, perhaps the facts of one’s experience can back a belief? “Test all things”, is is said.
Sure! Personal experience counts.
You won’t win any points with Ark for claiming personal experience but that’s okay. You’re beliefs are not ‘fact free’.
“Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events.” “The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness.”
These quotes are from Wikipedia. Your definition, I note, is the definition Google offers you when you don’t bother to dig in to the question at all.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness)
It’s not just a source-duel either: we know the way the moon orbits the planet is both nonrandom and unintentional. Equally, the trajectory of a ball that has fallen off a shelf and is bouncing down the aisle is nonrandom and unintentional. So, clearly, the Google-provided definition is lacking. Nonrandom things are simply ‘predictable’ at the scale of single events.
And that’s not to mention the fact that it’s a method of logical thought to be able to provide proper dichotomous pairs, instead of offering false dichotomies — such as whatever sophistry you were alluding to make “random” and “intentional” a dichotomous pair.
HAHAHAHA! And I’m supposed to believe Wikipedia, the user-edited encyclopaedia over Google? That’s cute. You realize you’re trying to argue that randomness is ordered, right? That random and patterned are synonymous? You are trying to make the point that something can be unintentionally intentional. Unpredictably purposeful. And you call this logic?
@John – I know you said I was polite commenter, but you have to realise I was talking with you and you were being reasonable. I can see why being faced with what Jasmine has replied to me with here (and in her following comment) might invoke the wrath of credulous impatient yelling.
@Jasmine – I direct you to sections of the comment you replied to in rebuttal to nearly all the nonsense you accidentally sneezed out there instead of a thought out reply.
Where you say
I actually opened with:
Where you said
I already said:
So, no, I don’t expect you to believe one source over another. I expected something a lot less reasonable. I expected you to engage your brain. That’s my error.
Well my apologies. I can only process so many contradicting theories at once before I crack and the sarcasm leaks out.
The problem with these debates is that atheists are ALWAYS demanding solid, physical, undeniable proof of God’s spiritual existence, yet when Christians ask for the same kind of evidence from the atheists, they fall back on ethereal, philosophical concepts of logic and mental fact that have no physical proof either. I can never prove God’s existence to satisfy a person who believes He doesn’t exist. I’m not afraid of questions I don’t know the answer to. Yet atheists project the assumption they know everything, and they truly only know it the same way I know what I know: by faith. Honestly, if someone could admit that, atheist or non, we could part ways friends.
Do you have that little passage saved as a little get-out clause for whenever you’re feeling out of your depth. Because it has literally nothing to do with our conversation at all.
It appears to make me the idiot, where I’ve been actually quite reasonable, polite and consistent.
In fact, given your accusations here, I challenge you to show where I have presented “contradicting theories” or asked for “solid evidence” here, or ever requested “proof” anywhere.
I apologize if you think the entirety of that comment was made to you. It was not referring solely to your contribution to the discussion.
You took this definition:
And then said this:
I apologise. That’s a typo.
I do not apologize. I’m Australian and that spelling is acceptable in both British and American English.
“Nonrandom things are simply ‘predictable’ at the scale of single events.”
^ that is the typo. (Not the word ‘Apologize’.)
It should read:
Ahhh right. Gotcha now. I get used to Americans picking at my spelling, so my bad.
I don’t proof read my comments, so as long as a persons comment is intelligible I try to autocorrect in my head. It’s worth giving the benefit of the doubt on things that, if one cares to think about the conversation they’re having, one can actually figure out.
For the record, the way you randomly solve a rubix cube is perseverance.
If you don’t know what you’re going with a rubix cube, each move is an example of a random intentional event: you intended the move, but nothing about it is predictable to you or on lookers. (It’s a good bit of imagery for imagining certain people trying to navigate logical and rational discussions.)
Also taken from that same Wikipedia page:
This means that random events can be predictable, on scale; the individual events aren’t. You could do the maths here: there are 26 independent smaller cubes on a rubix cube. There are 9 degrees of freedom (3 in each axis). A good mathematician could tell you how many truly random movements you could expect to solve a rubix cube in. It’s just a more complicated version of how many times you have to roll a dice before you can expect to roll a 4.
I can’t do the maths. But I can tell you that the strategy, given your parameters, would be perseverance.
Go ahead, prove it to me. So far all you’ve given me is theories, not proof. Video yourself solving a rubix cube with no method or intention, but simply random combinations, then maybe I’ll be impressed.
Sceptical of maths, are we?
As 26! is a 27 digit number (26! = 4*10^26) I think I’ll save myself the several heat deaths of the universe and several terabytes of memory card space (not to mention the upload time!) one should expect this to take.
But, maybe you can get a die and demonstrate the basic principle yourself. Plan to roll the die 60 times. Predict the number of times each 6 numbers will come up before you start. (Your sceptical of maths, so I doubt your ability here. You should be guessing 10 occurrences of each number.)
But before each and every individual roll (or event, or trial) try to guess what the number will be that time.
What you’ll notice is that individual events are unpredictable, because they are random. However, on scale, the events become predictable.
That’s the same principle.
Should I believe that the billions upon billions of complexities of the entire earth and universe evolved from a principle that cannot be demonstrated to me on a mere rubix cube? Is that logical, you think?
Firstly, allow me an update to my previous comment. A rubix cube has 26 independent cubes, and 9 rotational freedoms, each with a rotational symmetry of 4. 36! = a 37 digit number, so we’ve just added a factor of 10 to how many universe heat deaths I would have to endure to entertain your sudden demand for physical evidence of the simplest statistical axiom: given infinite trials, every possible outcome will be reached.
Secondly, you’ve made a huge mistake with comparing the universe to a rubix cube. Here’s why: with a rubix cube, one specifies the significant outcome ahead of time; you are looking for the uniform colours on each side. Whereas, in reality, each configuration of a rubix cube, no matter how unimportant to you, is equally likely. So, where I would have to get a camera and video card that would record for several heat deaths of a universe to record getting the outcome you’ve asked for at random, I could get an equally likely outcome in one move. Or, 36, if you want to be pedantic about rotational symmetry. But I could do that before the kettle boils.
Thirdly, you are even more wrong than just that to compare the universe to a rubix cube. The universe has processes by which things are selected. Coalescence is favoured by gravity. Entropy makes those coalesced bodies emit energy — and in very dense circumstances, like a star, that energy also undergoes entropy, which in turn supports biological complexity. There are principles in the universe that favour localised complexity.
So, to recap, talking about the probability of ‘this’ universe is irrelevant, because you don’t get to decide what a ‘significant’ outcome is. And there are favoured or selected pressures in how the universe organises itself under blind and unintended forces.
First, to mathematically solve the posed Rubik’s Cube problem, you’d have to set up your parameters. You’d have to know succinctly how many moves you are from solving the Rubik’s Cube before you could calculate how many incorrect combinations you could do within those amount of moves.
Setting up parameters requires intention to begin with.
If you do not set parameters to be within a finite amount, then, you could literally have an infinite amount of incorrect moves. ( You can be rotating the same grouping of columns/ rows an infinite amount of times, although it gets you no further along than when you begun).
Without any parameters, the chance that you unintentionally solve the Rubik’s Cube as n ( the number of moves) goes to infinity, is zero.
But, I’m pretty sure that a typical Rubik’s Cube can be solved in 20 moves or less, but it was a matter of a mathematician to intentionally solve that.
I remember my Abstract Algebra professor mentioning group/ ring theory to solve it. I get the basics of how you’d go about getting to that solution of “within 20 moves”. Of course, that takes a very specific and intentional sequence of moves.
Oh, but you can never actually reach an “infinite amount of trials”- just by the definition of “infinite”.
I assume thisis what you’re talking about. It appears to be 26 moves or less.
We’re talking about random moves along each degree of freedom (of which, there are 36, 3 in each plane, with a rotational symmetry of 4).
You may be missing a point, though. I said:
(Emphasis added)
It is possible that one never rolls a 2 on a die, but actually, statistically speaking, you ‘expect’ a 2 within 6 rolls.
But I’m not really sure what your point is.
I’m a math major, I was just pitching in to a mathematical proposal. You have to set up your parameters in order to solve this problem. There are an infinite amount of incorrect moves you can do. Without parameters, the chance you have to solve the problem as the amount of moves goes on to infinity is zero.
You cannot practically say “given an infinite amount of trials, every possible outcome will be reached” because you can never reach those infinite amount of trials in reality. Once you think you have enough trials, you’ll need at least one more. 1 + infinity= infinity.
How are there an infinite number of incorrect moves? There are only 9 moves you can make — to rotate by one order of symmetry (90 degrees) either layer 1, 2 or 3 in either axis x, y or z.
And for the record, I can practically say, in principle mean “given an infinite amount of trials, every possible outcome will be reached”.
There are an infinite amount of incorrect moves without any parameters. Lets say it takes a rotation of one plane once to solve the puzzle. You can rotate the others an infinite amount of times, in any order. As the number of required moves goes up, so do the corresponding amount of incorrect moves. Without any parameters, the random chance goes to zero.
But no, you’ll never cover every possible outcome. Give me an infinte number of trials, I’ll tell you a trial you missed. You never reach infinity. Thus, you never cover every possible outcome.
It’s the paradox of the Grand Hotel. If there is an hotel with infinitely many rooms, and all rooms are booked, you still have room for one more guest. In fact, you still have room for infinitely more guests.
You’re confusing principle with practice. I can practically say it and I in principle I can mean it. Neither of those deal the practical issue of actually performing infinite actions.
Let’s look at it differently. You are only ever a maximum of 26 moves away from completing it. Given infinite moves (which, in mathematical models, you just parse — you don’t get into the practical issues), you will perform the correct 26 (or few) consecutive moves.
So long as the 26 moves are possible, which they are (that’s the point of saying it can be solved in 26 moves), given infinite moves the correct 26 moves will happen. That’s the definition of a possible move or sequence.
No matter what, at every stage you are a finite number of possible steps from the solution.
But, there also seems to be an important point here, so let’s simplify the example to see if we can come to an agreement…
Roll a die many times consecutively. You can expect to roll a 1 with six moves. However, it is possible that you roll non-1 numbers 10,000,000,000,000 times in a row. Both these facts are true.
Does this need parameters set?
If yes, what parameters?
If no, why does the Rubik’s cube need parameters?
And, as a final question, does this have anything to do with the actual topic of this post?
If I understood you correctly the first time: without any parameters, you can keep making the SAME incorrect move, over and over and over, into infinity.
It takes parameters/rules (which requires intentionality–to reach a specific goal) which will basically say, “Okay–when you’re going in circles, try something else!” 🙂
But I admit, I’m just about out of my depth here.
Yes, Amanda, that is what I was saying. You can make the same move an infinite amount of times on a Rubik’s Cube ( or go back and forth an infinite amount of times) unless stated otherwise. And even when you decide to “randomly” go about it, that is an intentional approach.
Rolling a die, as soon as you start with a “6” you’ll then never have the possibility of starting with a “5”. That “outcome” is out of consideration, no matter the amount of trials. Then the infinite amount of outcomes that could come about with starting with a “5” are out. Same with the possibility of starting with a “1”,”2″,”3″, and “4”.
Plus, by which side are you measuring when you count the die? The top, bottom, front, back, right or left? Are you using the same one every time? What if I said “use the side that says ‘6’”? You’d never get a “1”.
Behind a mathematical result, there is a rule guiding how you measure it.
No one is denying that you can make the same move over and over again. That’s why you parse the function as independent trials. Like rolling a dice. Like putting the counter back in the bag after every selection.
If you make infinite moves, you should expect a subset of infinite ‘do and undo’ moves in sequence. But you don’t expect to see that in any defined subset, because as well as happening infinitely, it also happens as a vanishingly small fraction of the ensemble of moves.
Just like if you roll a dice infinite times, you should expect a subset of infinite 6s to be rolled. But you should also expect to see a 6 in any given 6 rolls. Because, that’s how probability and infinity play out.
And the intentionality is not in the moves, either. Because there is no reason to say any move should not be the same as the previous move. That’s like setting a parameter to forbid a 6 being rolled directly after a 6. It’s not random because it inhibits information entropy, and random was the only parameter of the question. The moves are random.
I can’t actually pinpoint our disagreement here. But I’ve been clear about the fact I’m looking at statistical expectation.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to be talking about certainty. Or, in fact, denying that a rubik’s cube can be solved by infinite random movements. But that’s the same as saying a rubik’s cube is impossible to solve at all. So long as there are moves that can solve it, it will be achieved through infinite random moves. By definition of being possible.
And there is a way of calculating how many moves you can expect it to be solved by.
(And you simply stop when it is solved.)
I’m saying, there are an infinite amount of ways to NOT SOLVE the Rubik’s Cube, especially when you are NOT INTENDING TO. I mean, one could see that if you are one move away, you could do that move- but since you have no intention to solve it, there is no expectation that it’ll get solved.
In an infinite set, there is always room for one more element, and thus, infinitely more subsets that include that element ( so on and so forth).
If the correct answer is the answer you stop at, there are infinitely many ways that you’ll never get to it unless you intend to.
(But stopping at the correct answer is a parameter. That is intentional.)
Which leads to where statistics leads, it saids “In N number of trials, what is the chance …?”
In a continuous case, the probability of one certain event to happen among an infinite amount of possiblities is zero.
Statistically speaking, the probablitlity of me being my exact height in continuous terms is zero. I agree that it’s actually quite bizarre. You have to say “Less than or equal, or greater than or equal” but you can’t measure any particular event, because then you get zero. So to expect any exact outcome in an infinite amount of possibilities defies statistics. As I said, it is bizarre- but it’s mathematically true.
Probability* Wow, I don’t think I ever misspelled something that way before lol.
And says* instead of saids haha. Fingers seem to have a mind of their own today.
Fact from which one can, by induction and abduction, come to the conclusion — with high confidence intervals — that the omelette was created on purpose, in no particular order:
(1) People make omelettes.
(2) One can observe the omelette making process, and even duplicate it ones self.
(3) Omelettes often arrive with otherwise-redundant features of their creation: arriving too hot, for example.
(4) Some alternatives, like evolution, can be excluded because omelettes are not know to have generations or reproduction.
(5) Omelettes can arrive according to preset orders.
Thank you!
You’re welcome.
I’m not sure what your point was, but I hope this helps with your piece.
The point was to help illustrate that everything exists either by intention or randomly (unintended).
Several insist that there are other options but so far they haven’t specified them.
Ah, well… let’s look at that more closely.
Random and unintentional are not the same. Evolution is an unintentional nonrandom process. There are other processes — especially within physics — that are organising processes, but not intentional. So there’s your first problem: intention and unintentional is a true dichotomous pair, there aren’t other options; intentional and random are not a true dichotomous pair, as unintentional nonrandom processes are observed.
Ok.
So you agree with the premise that the universe is either intentional or unintentional?
That was the premise. The word ‘random’ showed up as the dialogue progressed.
The follow-up question that I never got to ask is how do we decide whether something is intended or unintended? (Realizing that we can’t KNOW for certain.)
I believe intention cannot exist apart from intelligence.
Yes, the universe must be either intentional or unintentional.
I wouldn’t invest too much in being ‘certain’ (see my first comment).
I’m not confident in giving a way to establish intent in broad terms. But Occam’s razor means it’s not just a toss up: you don’t speculate agents and intent; if you have a sufficient explanation without intent or agency, that’s the more reasonable position.
If you don’t have a reasonable explanation without agency, you first call on agents you can identify and have supporting evidence for already… like chefs.
If you still can’t conjure an explanation, you are into the realms of pure conjecture and speculation — hypotheses that need further investigation; you have not gotten as far as proof of spooky magic.
If by ‘spooky magic’ you mean ‘an immaterial creator of the universe’ then I agree, there is no proof.
Neither is there any proof of ‘spooky magic’ in the form of spontaneous generation.
The hypothetical event we call the ‘Big Bang’ has some evidence but the theory is plenty spooky too.
The fun question for me is, “Does the universe seem intentional or unintentional”? There will be, I suspect, some assumption of magic with either option.
“… seem…”? Okay, how do you propose we evaluate the options on that question?
I take you back to my previous comment: we have explanations without intent and agency for huge amounts of the data. We have considerable evidence for the Big Bang, and ‘expansion from a singularity’, which is what you mean by the Big Bang, is very very far from the only explanation we have.
To me the interesting question is whether we need intent to explain the data. And I don’t see that the answer to that is yes.
So you would conclude that universe is unintentional. That’s all I was trying to get from the other conversation.
Instead of answering the question, this person insisted that I was ‘narrow minded’ for suggesting there were only two options.
To your question, regardless of the number of explanations, there are only two catagories: intentional or unintentional.
A pile of sand on the beach is there either intentionally or unintentionally. So is a three-story sand castle with working drawbridge. But we would only assume the sand castle is intentional.
I propose we evaluate humanity in the same way. Do we seem more like a pile of sand or a sand castle? Totally subjective and non-scientific. But at present, we have no way to evaluate ‘spooky magic’.
We can go back to the structure I have already laid out.
Do we have explanations for how piles of sand might build up, without intent? Save for the ‘how many grains of sand before it’s a pile’ question, yes; yes we do.
Do we have explanations for how three story sand castles with drawbridges might come to be, without intent? Save for the vanishingly small probability of quantum answers, no; no we do not.
Do we have explanations of three story sandcastles with drawbridges come about, with a know agent? Errr… the drawbridge is a bit of an ask. The three story sandcastle, yes — there are competitions and competitors we know of. There’s a known agent.
Is there a know mechanism for humanity — both as individual organisms and as a series of interlinked metacommunities, without intent? Yes, yes there is.
It may not strictly be magic. But it’s certainly scientific thinking: evidence and reasoned logic.
I might as well save us a back-and-forth and guess at where you’re going to go with this: consciousness. You’re going to go there, I imagine. We’ll bypass the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument from ignorance smugness and I’ll direct you again to the structure I have already laid out: “If you still can’t conjure an explanation, you are into the realms of pure conjecture and speculation — hypotheses that need further investigation; you have not gotten as far as proof of spooky magic.”
So the universe is unintentional.
I’m fine with that.
Okay. I’m curious as to what you’re now building. Do tag me in it or link to a post or something, won’t you — I’d love to see the follow up.
I’m not necessarily building anything else on this topic. Just trying to establish that the world was either intended or it wasn’t. That is the foundation upon which we build the rest of our worldview.
You’re always welcome to comment on future posts. I’m always grateful that your commentary is polite and well reasoned. If you hold any sway over the other atheist commentators, you might give them some lessons in proper debate. The internet would be a better place.
Intelligence arises from intelligence.
Intelligence is necessary to comprehend existence.
I’m willing to listen to your criticisms. If these are false, I need to know why.
I hope you’ll agree that posting on your blog that I’m wrong doesn’t demonstrate that you are right.
Intelligence does arise from intelligence.
That is not to say that intelligence arises only from intelligence.
Nor is it to say that any preceding cause is equal or superior in intelligence.
It is possible for subsequent generations to be more intelligent.
There appears to be a spectrum of intelligence between species. (Some dolphins and chimps have convinced me there is considerable overlap between the lowest scorers of some species and the highest scorers of others.*)
Spectrums allow for evolution.
There are proto-intelligence** models that mean intelligence could have arisen from proto-intelligence. And the proto-intelligences are simple enough to be able to see how they arose from non-intelligence.
*I do hope you’ve found my occasional quip entertaining. I was of the impression this was a comedy blog, after all.
**Not in the comments section down here, but at this website: http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811
In the beginning was nothing. Then nothing evolved. And omelette.
~CQW
…but which came first, the omelette or the omelette pan?
Dave
John,
There is little chance (see what I did there) that the unbelievers will assent to the Intelligent Designer. Because if they are honest, they know that it would be the first domino that would fall, leading to admission of their own guilt and sin and need of a Savior.
It is fear of the Almighty’s perfect standard and requirements for His creation that is ultimately the reason for their rejection of His existence.
It is that whole microscope thing from last post all over again. The microscope would be turned in upon their own hearts, to reveal the truth of what God says about them. No microscope, no guilt. No guilt, no sin. No sin, no need of a Savior.
I would be deeply interested in hearing what the atheists would honestly say to this exercise: Pretend that you believe in God for a moment. What would that mean in your life?
I am curious if any of them would answer candidly, devoid of snark or sarcasm or mockery.
The atheists may ask of me the converse. Pretend that I do not believe in God. What would that mean in my life? It is a fair question.
I would no longer feel guilty for things I do that I could get away with. I would be much more selfish and less empathetic. I would only obey the laws for fear of the temporal consequences to me. I would not be compelled to share Christ with others and be concerned for their souls. Practically, it would be an easier life, and more concerned with my own personal happiness and fulfillment that concern for others when push comes to shove. I certainly would not concern myself with those who still believed. I would shrug and say, “If it makes you happy and you feel fulfilled, then go for it.”
I really am interested in what an atheist would say to my exercise. Certainly, out of all the atheists in the world, there must be those who have some level of fear that they are wrong about ultimate issues.
Dave
Matthew 11:29 (ESV) – Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Dave: I actually like your question for Theists the best. “Pretend you don’t believe in God for a moment.”
Most Atheists would do well to really, REALLY try that. (Because, as you’ve pointed out before, their actions already betray that they believe. Especially when it comes to morality, they are driven by their consciences and act mostly on faith.) I would say “Let’s pretend you REALLY buy the whole ‘right/wrong are just opinions’ thing for just a little while…”
mrsmcmommy,
I like that line of thinking. I just wonder how many would be willing to honestly struggle with their inner dialogues and doubts about unbelief and the logical consequences of what you brought up.
Can they do that, with openness, honesty, and lack of vitriol and mockery? I would say they can’t, if they want to be taken seriously by the atheist realm as a whole. If they said “sometimes I do wonder if there could be a God and that I am wrong”, then they will weaken their stance. Interesting.
Dave
Luke 23:39-41 (ESV) – One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
Dave –
You’ve got Ark pegged BTW. Angry at God that he denies. Something happened.
~CQW
It’s so peaceful around here when it’s the middle of the night in South Africa.
CQW,
I am developing an Ark theory. I could be wrong, but I may just be on to something.
One of the major themes of the Diatribe or Ark is indoctrination of children. Comes up a whole lot. So…
Do you see any patterns forming?
I must think upon this some more.
But in the meantime, for your reading pleasure, I give you…
https://everyonehasastory.me/2012/05/09/an-answer-for-arkenaten/
Dave
(Who loves solving the puzzle of how people;s minds work… especially my own)
Luke 6:28 (ESV) – bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Apparently, Dig-Dug used to have another blog which, like his sense of decency, has disappeared now.
Dave –
Wow.
~CQW
“’Pretend you don’t believe in God for a moment.’ Most Atheists would do well to really, REALLY try that.”
That is my position, no pretence necessary.
You probably don’t believe in an old man in the sky. But that’s different.
It’s not possible for a human to live as if there is no God. At the very least, we must treat Nature itself as God.
“It’s not possible for a human to live as if there is no God.”
That’s utter nonsense. Millions do it every day.
No, they SAY “I don’t believe there’s a God.” But they don’t live it…
Not even Richard Dawkins.
Here’s a link:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/famous-atheist-shoots-down-atheism/
Determinism and free will is philosophically fun and it’s very easy to get tied up in knots about it. At no point in that process is any god necessary and it most certainly does not mean that those who don’t believe there is a god live like they do. That’s simply theist wishful thinking.
“Philosophically fun and it’s very easy to get tied up…”
That’s kind of what Violet said, too! (Although she used to term “over-thinking.”) Yeah, philosophy is great and thinking is fun…until it gets too hard. 🙂
Philosophy is the backbone of rational thought, so I suggest you Atheists stop running away from it when it starts leading you toward the spiritual reality you INSIST “isn’t necessary.”
If you were better at philosophy, you’d know you were wrong.
Who’s running away?
If you were better at philosophy you’d not be supporting the ridiculous analogy in this blog post.
if you were better at science you’d come up with a way of demonstrating your god unambiguously instead of relying on the ridiculous analogy in this blog post.
I’m sorry, “Running away” was a bad choice of phrase. What I should have said was that most Atheists are quick to DISMISS philosophy and try changing the subject, when it starts turning out answers they don’t like. (For the record, I’ve also had Atheists tell me that Quantum Physics is a “junk science” and mathematics “looks good on paper” but “isn’t reliable.”) Philosophy, physics, math… You don’t want me to get better at “science.” You want specifically Evolutionary Biologists to do all my thinking for me 🙂
But, as I told Violet, I appreciate the honesty in your comments. Also, when you suggest I need to “come up with a way of demonstrating [my] god” you mean physically. That’s your preferred definition of science. It’s okay if you have a prior commitment to only material/physical answers, as long as you’re honest about it. (Here is Atheist Biology Professor, Richard Lewontin, explaining the bias very clearly.)
I have no problem with the idea of accepting there are things other than the material, they just need to be able to be confirmed by means other than people saying they exist. Personal assertion isn’t a reliable method of determining that anything exists.
How would we confirm something other than material exists?
Normally it’s up to those who propose an idea to show the test that demonstrates their idea and then they publish that so that others can replicate and confirm the results. It’s not my job to tell you how to test your ideas. I’m just here to poke holes so that you can improve your methodology and eventually come up with an idea I can accept because all the holes have been plugged.
I proposed philosophy. You chose the easy way of being “skeptical” of something you don’t understand in the first place.
disagreeing with you is not the same as not understanding. Philosophy is wonderful at coming up with ideas and challenging them, it is not very good at demonstrating them to be true. For that you need something supplementary. If you think philosophy is sufficient to prove your ideas, if is your prerogative to have a go.
YOU have decided that you require “something supplementary.” But you will not explain what that “something supplementary” is.
That’s okay.
I already explained it to you. You want to look under a microscope and see a tiny, bearded man, controlling each individual cell, wearing a name-tag that says “God.”
You’re biased toward physical experiments, and AGAINST logical reasoning. Atheists usually suck at philosophy…but they depend on it constantly.
To say “philosophy isn’t sufficient to prove ideas” IS a philosophy. But that’s okay. It may be over your head.
“Pretend that you believe in God for a moment.”
I’d much rather accept something as true based on demonstrable and repeatable evidence. That’s true of everything, not just a god (which god by the way?) Deciding, or pretending, to believe in something just because isn’t an honest activity in my opinion.
is there anything that you base your thinking and conclusions on that you do not have “demonstrable and repeatable” evidence for….
“is there anything that you base your thinking and conclusions on that you do not have “demonstrable and repeatable” evidence for….”
Why specify ‘ thinking and conclusions ‘ in the question? This blog post is about the Christian god and how it’s supposed to exist and how everyone should believe it is it? In that context, especially with regards belief, I hope not. I don’t want to be guilty of proclaiming something to be absolutely correct and find that a later discovery shows it to be wrong.
With regards to thinking and conclusions , I am sure it’s possible that something could be found that doesn’t meet the standards defined for demonstrable and repeatable evidence. I do however do my best to make sure that I’m not making claims that can’t be supported and I likewise take pleasure in challenging those that fail, hopefully my own included.
“This blog post is about the Christian god and how it’s supposed to exist…”
Why specify “Christian” in your question?
That’s wrong.
This blog post is also about the Muslim God and the Jewish God and the Deistic God. And the God of Plato and the God of Aquinas and the God of Einstein. Any Necessary Being responsible for the Cosmic Omelette would have to be the same one in all of those cases, just called by different names and descriptors.
thank you for your kind response.
so you are looking to be “open minded” and want others to convert to your “open minded” position. If that is true then we are both encouraging each other to, for lack of a better word, convert.
That’s quite how I would word it. I don’t like the use of the word convert. It implies a belief based system and I prefer an evidence d based system. With regards to this blog post, the analogy of humans make omelettes with god makes humans is flawed and and the conclusion that god exists can not be made from it. It’s a straightforward failure of logic.
Missed a not in my reply. Second word in 🙂
That is the most psychotic thing I’ve read or heard today. And, as it’s 00:06 here, I’ll add ‘or all of yesterday’ to that as well. I was irritated that you seem to think I’m not convinced of the claim a God exists through self-delusion, but to see that you would be completely unhinged of human emotion or moral compulsion if you also weren’t convinced is troubling.
I’ve never believed in a God — however many people who now don’t, once did. Those people don’t need to imagine what it is like to believe in a God, because they’ve already done it.
I suppose, if I believed in a God I’d also believe in homoeopathy and alien landings because I’d suddenly list the ability to question things.
If I believed in a God, I’d be pretty judgemental and terrified! I’d worry that It’s punish me for arbitrary nonsense like whether my clothes contain mixed fibres. Oh, I know you think you’ve come up with a good reason that’s not a real imperative from God, but I wouldn’t be so convinced of the mental gymnastics a person jumps through to reach that conclusion. I would not know whether to stone an unruly child, or celebrate the upheaval of the old generation by the new (as Jesus encourages — father against sons and all that), and be very concerned that one that issues alone I have a 50% of burning in Hell.
Or, of course, I wouldn’t particularly take to the Christian interpretation of a God — or any written down interpretation in any books — and therefore have no special access to knowledge of otherwise inaccessible moral or metaphysical claims, and thus is makes precisely no changes at all.
Person made omelette therefore an invisible super-being made existence. It’s Christian logic in a nutshell! 🙂
Intelligence is required to create omelettes but not required to create human beings. Atheist logic in a nutshell! 🙂
“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” Hebrews 3:4
I bet God would make an awesome omelette. 🙂
Not quite. Maybe ‘Based on experience, intelligence is required to create omelettes, but we have no idea what is required for existence to be’, which really says nothing because you’re comparing apples and oranges, and don’t seem to be the slightest bit concerned about it.
No. YOU are comparing apples and oranges. You’re jumping back and forth between intelligence and existence.
It requires intelligence for omelettes to exist. Reason dictates that humans, which are vastly more complex than omelettes, also require intelligence in order to exist.
Being aware of existence requires intelligence. (Sometimes we call that ‘sentience’.)
Intelligence ALWAYS rises from intelligence. There is no evidence in nature that refutes this truth.
Atheist logic says omelettes (and human beings) just appear from nothing and for no reason.
I’m not aware of any atheists confusing omelettes with existence. It seems to be a Christian preoccupation.
I didn’t say atheists confuse omelettes with existence.
And I haven’t mentioned Christianity either.
If you are done with the conversation just say so. I will stop wasting my time clarifying my comments.
You don’t need to clarify your comments, they simply make no sense, and you don’t appear to understand my attempts to point out the flaws. If you’re finding it all frustrating, I’ll happily duck out. 🙂
Intelligence arises from intelligence.
Intelligence is necessary to realize that you exist.
What doesn’t make sense?
“Intelligence arises from intelligence.”
How do you know that?
Here is the response you gave on Violet’s blog. I could not reply there.
I’ll respond here. You said:
“If you can’t show your statement to be true, then it’s false.”
You cannot show that the above statement is true.
“You falsified [that intelligence rises from intelligence] when you denied your god could be created by an intelligence.”
Intelligence rises from other intelligence.
This is demonstrably true. There is no recorded instances of chaos bringing about intelligence.
Lack of belief in God does not falsify the claim that intelligence rises from intelligence.
“If you want your assertion to be adopted, you must support it and demonstrate it. Your failure to do that is all that is required to reject it.”
You already believe intelligence comes from intelligence.
You won’t admit it because doing so will cause me to ask where human intelligence came from.
You (and Violet) don’t want to think about that. It’s easier to just say “nobody can know because it’s all too complicated”.
Human intelligence is the product of brain activity resulting from chemical interactions. Your belief that some higher intelligence is not an answer with merit and you still have the problem of the inte lligence that created your god.
” “If you can’t show your statement to be true, then it’s false.”
You cannot show that the above statement is true. ”
It would help the context if you included your previous comment that the one above is a direct response to. There is a similarity in style and content that clarifies. Taking it in isolation and thereby removing that contextual meaning is somewhat dishonest.
“Intelligence rises from other intelligence.
This is demonstrably true. There is no recorded instances of chaos bringing about intelligence.”
I get that you firmly believe that assertion. It’s undemonstrated and there is no proposed method of confirming it, which leaves it unattractive as an explanation. It also has the infinite regress issue of which intelligence made the intelligence of the one that made that one that made humans, etc… Calling an arbitrary stop kills the idea. You also don’t have any case of humans creating anything intelligent, which brings into question the intelligence of humans. If it takes intelligence to create intelligence and humans can’t create intelligence than can they called intelligent? If humans are not intelligent then the claim that they are created by an intelligence becomes moot.
Evolutionary theory explains how intelligence can emerge from biological and chemical processes. Scientific testing and advances shows the biological and chemical activity behind the brain activity that implies intelligence. In that sense, the evolutionary explanation is far more advanced than the assertion above.
I’ll skip the bit where you make assertions about what I believe and my motives, please don’t do that.
“It would help the context if you included your previous comment that the one above is a direct response to. There is a similarity in style and content that clarifies. Taking it in isolation and thereby removing that contextual meaning is somewhat dishonest.”
You cannot prove any of those statements are true.
So your claim that statements are false unless they can be demonstrated true is self refuting.
The context doesn’t matter.
Intelligence arises from other intelligence is fully demonstrable.
You are sitting in front of a computer, where did it come from? It was not created an accident of chaos. Intelligence designed and built your computer.
It is not necessary to answer the question, “Who built the computer?”. Intelligence is the final explanation.
Likewise, it is not necessary to explain where God came from. It’s probably beyond our ability to understand anyway. God exists differently than we do. The same way that people exist differently than computers.
“Evolutionary theory explains how intelligence can emerge from biological and chemical processes.”
Biological and chemical processes are not chaotic either. Evolution suggests intelligence as well.
Context is very important, which is why you’ve made the statements you have.
Humans using computers means that humans know how to build and use computers. It says nothing about any god. If you want to demonstrate your god, then do so. Saying humans are intelligent and can make computers or omelettes doesn’t achieve that.
Evolution has no requirements for intelligence, the whole point of evolution is that is isn’t intelligently guided.
“Context is very important, which is why you’ve made the statements you have.”
You cannot prove that the above statement is true.
“Humans using computers means that humans know how to build and use computers.”
True. It also means that computers arise from human intelligence.
It demonstrates that intelligence arises from intelligence.
The statement is true.
“It says nothing about any god.”
Also true.
I established that intelligence always rises from intelligence. Why would I need to mention God?
“…the whole point of evolution is that is isn’t intelligently guided.”
Indeed. That’s the whole point of evolution. We agree.
Computers aren’t intelligent. That humans can make computers only tells you that humans can make computers. It does not follow from that that intelligence always arises from intelligence, that is a claim you have consistently failed to demonstrate. You need to invoke your god because the intelligence assertion is what you are attempting to use to argue your god into existence.
Computers aren’t intelligent. You are correct.
The point is that computers REQUIRE an intelligence to bring them into existence.
Rejecting this is intellectual dishonesty.
“You need to invoke your god because the intelligence assertion is what you are attempting to use to argue your god into existence.”
Very good! So you DO understand the implications of my claims.
And you’re so committed to atheism that you’re willing to repeatedly reject what you know to be true.
That is called ‘Faith’.
The problem isn’t the implications of your claims, the problem is that your arguments about intelligence aren’t supported and you haven’t shown how they mean your god exists.
You’re incorrect.
My claims that intelligence arises from intelligence are fully supported.
The implications of these claims are, as I’ve mentioned before, a matter of faith.
“My claims that intelligence arises from intelligence are fully supported.”
By what? constantly repeating the claim does not count as full support.
Humans have not created intelligence, so the assertion that intelligence creates intelligence fails there. Unless you want to say humans are not intelligent. The alleged intelligence that is claimed to have created humans has not been shown to exist. Your intelligence begat intelligence claim has failed on two counts.
“Humans have not created intelligence. the assertion that intelligence creates intelligence fails there.”
Where I live, humans are created by something we call ‘birth’.
Birth is where one intelligent human creates another intelligent human.
Where you live, do babies grow on trees?
You’ve changed the definition of creates to include reproduction. Bravo. Is that how your god made humans?
You need to get a point and make a statement. I’m tired of twirling around in circles.
Welcome to my world.
The Planet Dizzy
Just looking at the logic of the idea that we were randomly made: The actual statistical chance that we were randomly made to survive on this planet, in a solar system that is just perfect for our survival, and with bodies that just happen to let us eat, breath, think is very improbable.
Going by the numbers, it is far more likely that we were created by something, than spat out of nothing and just happen to land in the perfect universe for us.
The Atheist would respond: it’s not random. It’s “natural selection.” (Just wait… it’s coming.)
Natural selection seems pretty bent on making the perfect universe for us.
It’s a very intelligent, purposeful process. We can stand in awe of its provision. But please don’t capitalize its name. 😉
Sorry to be so sacrilegious there.
Natural selection doesn’t explain life either.
There has to be something to ‘select’ before evolution can get rolling.
It’s impossible to assemble an omelette without ingredients.
Can’t make something from nothing.
natural selection defines how animals change, it doesn’t define how they came to be or how the universe exists.
So…. then natural selection doesn’t explain much.
If it needs information to even get started, and we don’t know where that came from, then we’re back to a choice between random chance and intentional planning.
natural Selection explains an awful lot about how organisms change.
“we’re back to a choice between random chance and intentional planning.”
Why are those the only choices? It could also be inevitable without intention. If you wish to show that the universe was planned intentionally, you need to show there is something to do the planning.
Inevitable without intention is a position of faith.
If you wish to show that the universe is inevitable, you need to show there is something that necessarily exists.
“Inevitable without intention is a position of faith.”
You might need to define what you mean by faith. Isn’t faith a good thing anyway? Something to be held up and aspired to?
“If you wish to show that the universe is inevitable, you need to show there is something that necessarily exists.”
You will need to explain what you mean by necessarily exists.
Faith is anything you believe that you cannot prove.
Most of the things we believe require some level of faith.
Faith isn’t something we aspire to. Actually, faith is inevitable. 🙂
If you didn’t mean the universe could necessarily exist, what did YOU mean when you said the universe could be inevitable?
I’m make an effort to avoid belief, I accept things that can be demonstrated and don’t believe those things which can’t. It’s a great place to be.
Inevitable as in not random and not intelligently planned.
Inevitable means ‘certain to happen’ or ‘unavoidable’.
If you don’t believe things that can’t be demonstrated, you’ll need to demonstrate how you know the universe is ‘unavoidable’. Otherwise, you’re taking it on faith.
I don’t know it was unavoidable.
You don’t know it wasn’t intentional either.
That’s what this discussion is about. 🙂
We’re trying to think about which unprovable possibility is best.
“We’re trying to think about which unprovable possibility is best. ”
Isn’t it best to try and find a way of testing which ideas are the most plausible in an effort to actually determine which is correct?
Having a list of unprovable ideas and picking whichever I like the most and declaring that one the best one strikes me as a most unsatisfying methodology and downright dishonest. If all options are unprovable then the only honest thing to do is say we can never know and not pick.
Of course it’s best to conduct tests. But not everything is testable via natural processes. You can’t test to conclusively conclude that kindness exists. How would you suggest I prove the truth of the statement, “I love my children”?
Again, you’re going to have to admit that faith is necessary before we can believe ANYTHING.
Kindness is a name we give certain behaviour, it’s not a thing.
Love is the name we give an emotion, the result of chemicals in our brain, that we can measure and detect. Our actions based on those chemical interactions can be tested.
Please list these love chemicals.
The question betrays a lack of understanding. It’s not specific love chemicals, its brain activity (which can be measured) which our bodies experience as an emotion (which can be measured) which we call love.
So I need to take it on faith that you know precisely how love works. 🙂
I’d rather you didn’t. You could take it on faith that the scientists who have done studies on the subject have accurately reported their methods and results and that those who have replicated the same have also done so accurately.
Is that how it works for you, Limey?
You’ve studied research papers and scientific reports to figure out how to fall in love?
You have some studies that prove when you’re filled with compassion?
If that’s what you wish to believe about me, go right ahead.
Understanding some of the scientific explanation of how something works and knowing that no god is required to explain or experience it does not change the wonderfulness of the experience.
I don’t believe anything about you until you tell me.
That’s why I asked the questions.
I know mrsmcmommy has already said an atheist will tell you ‘natural selection’ is the answer. But it’s true. It’s not the universe being perfect for us, it’s us being selected for survival here.
The imagery of ‘a puddle proclaiming the warping of the ground its sat in perfectly formed for it’ comes to mind. We all know water changes shape to fit the puddle, not the other way around.
And this ‘perfect universe for us’ you talk of appears to be fiction. Human habitation is only possible on less than all of the surface of the Earth. Space and oceans and polar climates and arid deserts are all less than perfect for our survival. Not to mention the inhospitality of other planets.
Would you expect to find your species on a planet not suitable for life?
Yes!!! I had to wait longer than I expected, but thank you, Allallt.
I should have put money on it… 😉
What I really wanted to do was reply to the comment that said natural selection is making the universe perfect for us. But, unfortunately, that comment didn’t have a reply button.
Glad I brought some joy, though.
Hopefully Rainy Day still reads through and sees this…
You speak as if it is all for our survival. You forget that there are other creatures here. We have areas for us. We aren’t supposed to sleep in the ocean.
We have a very very narrow range of where we are “supposed” to be. The rest is fatal.
With that in mind, how do you evaluate that the universe is perfect?
How do yo know it is not? Isn’t it just your opinion that it isn’t?
Taking your comments as a basis here, particularly this one:
I am inferring a proposed purpose. Said proposed purpose is human survival. Given a purpose, one can evaluate design. The extreme weather and climate, and saline water and deadly bugs all are flaws in a design built for that purpose.
So no, it’s not an opinion. If you doubt the purpose I speculated, offer a purpose and we can work on that to evaluate it. If you don’t think we can know the purpose, then you cannot evaluate it and cannot conclude (rationally) that it is perfect.
That’s why I asked you how you evaluate it. To stop me from speculating, you then slapping down my speculation and then me repeating my question of how you would have evaluated it.
I have to admit, you are right. The world we live in isn’t perfect. It has flaws for our personal survival (“our” meaning man.)
But think of all of the different things that have to line up perfectly for us to even be alive. (I’m using the term perfectly loosely on this one)
I’m not looking for you to come back with anger on this one. I just wanted you to think about that.
Don’t you find it strange? All the chance that happened?
In a universe with several billion galaxies, each containing several billion stars, where we have found oodles of Earth like planets, where natural selection moulds the biology to the environment and entropy encourages localised complexity.
No. I don’t find it strange.
In the previous comment you said you were taking the numbers. What numbers?
I don’t see that I said that.
And, I am also talking about the universe as a whole.
Okay. What about the universe could be different to how it is? What convinces you that if it were different other intelligence wouldn’t be sitting around asking the same question?
Does mean there is no intelligence at a Cracker Barrel
No! There’s enough intelligence at Cracker Barrel to make oatmeal and pancakes too!
Moral of the story: Always think twice before going to lunch with someone named John.
And your last name is Bacon.
What is left for breakfast?
People make omelettes, we know people make omelettes, so what?
So whenever we see an omelette, we know intelligence made it exist.
That’s important!
Will humans are intelligent so it’s hardly a surprise they’ve got creative with food. Food is important.
Yep!
The same logic applies to humans as well. Since humans are intelligent it’s reasonable to conclude that we exist because an intelligence made us.
We don’t think omelettes exist without humans. It’s silly to think humans exist without God. Right?
You’d be hard pushed to find a human who hasn’t witnessed another make an omelette. So serve an omelette and the recipient will connect it to that previous witnessed event and say yes a human created it.
So on that logic there must be lots of gods who witnessed other gods create humans and it takes one god to see a human to recognise another god created it.
You don’t need to witness the omelette being made to know that a human made it.
Likewise, God doesn’t require other gods to witness the creation of human beings.
Do you agree that human intelligence requires a higher intelligence in order to exist?
Someone who has never seen an omelette might have no idea what one is so if they saw one out of context they wouldn’t necessarily think a human made it.
Do you agree that a higher intelligence that can make humans needs an even higher intelligence to make it?
No.
The intelligence that made humans is base reality.
You don’t know that.
You’re right.
Here’s a picture:
http://boldtgallery.com/var/albums/places/zambia/travels_and_daily_life/nsalu_cave/nsalu_cave_markings.jpg?m=1440689076
I don’t know what it’s supposed to be or say. I didn’t watch anyone make it. But, I’m pretty sure it was done on purpose, by something intelligent.
It looks like markings a human could make. You’re human. Not really a hard stretch given humans are known to have been in that part of Zambia.
I’ll assume you know there’s a very specific process for determining whether something was made by intelligence or not… And, once it has been determined that something was done intentionally, by a living thing, scientists can even set out to determine WHY. They can decode ancient symbols/languages. And they can make very plausible theories about values and rituals…
The reason humans are “known to have been” in that part of Zambia is because scientists can recognize when something was done intentionally–like cave markings and old tools–and then they extrapolate out from there. (And, the more complex something is, the less we need the experts to tell us it was done on purpose. Even an idiot can tell some times.)
If you’re going to suggest I can’t trust my own eyes and experience to figure out when something was done intentionally, by intelligence, then please tell me now. There’s no reason to continue the conversation. 🙂
Remains of human would also tell scientists that humans have been there.
If you’re trying to tell me that the same process that’s used to determine the presence and the activities of ancient humans is the same as that which can be used to determine your god exists then you’d better get on with it otherwise this conversation won’t have any value.
Bones tell you how intelligent a creature is?
Fascinating.
Yes, I’m telling you the process of recognizing the product of intelligence is the same no matter how big or small the piece of art.
Bones tell you they’ve been there.
Talking about ancient people doesn’t make your god real.
Bones tell you a creature has been there. We’re talking about intelligence. There are bones all over the globe; but we know which animals are intelligent (and which aren’t so much) by what they DO.
For example: being “skeptical” of everything is really easy. Doesn’t take much intelligence. Reasoning through these issues without getting angry, takes both mental and emotional intelligence.
” but we know which animals are intelligent (and which aren’t so much) by what they DO.”
I agree, first you need to establish that the animal in question actually exists though. Bones tell you humans were there, paintings tell you they were intelligent.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” Matthew 5:8
This is John Branyan’s blog. It has his name on it. He claims to be the writer behind it. He has a photo of himself on it.
But have we ever seen John—in person—sit down at a computer, write an article, and then post it?
No. We have not. So anybody could have written this post. In order to stay true to tried and tested facts, we must not just assume John wrote this post. We must first have proof he exists.
Likewise, when you see a sandcastle on the beach, you have to know the builder’s name and what color his/her hair is and whether he/she condones slavery, before you can admit that–yes–an intelligent person must have built it.
(Link: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/one-god-shy-of-a-picnic/comment-page-1/#comment-3452 )
then you have never seen my sandcastles on the beach… ..
I can’t say for sure whether I’ve seen one of your sandcastles. (We can’t say anything with certainty.)
Plus, before we even BEGIN that conversation, I need to know your opinion of slavery.
slave to Christ Yes.
slave to sin, Not any more
Aghhhh! So you think slavery is “okay”?!?!?!?!
(*melts down*)
🙂
gotta define the term slavery… if you are asking about the subjection of another human being against their will then yes i am against that. if you are asking about the position of slave that looks more like “employment” then not so much
I totally agree, Steve. It’s a complicated topic, even for grown-ups to handle…
But my point to Allallt was that humanity itself was in its infancy 3000 years ago. So, telling people, “Just don’t have slaves!” wouldn’t have worked that well any way.
It would have the same effect, if I told my 15-month-old, “Poopy diapers will no longer be tolerated!” She’s not ready for that. On the other hand, my 5-year-old gets in big trouble when she has an accident in her pants. She’s supposed to know better.
Now that we live in 2017, we are expected to make more grown-up decisions. We live in the age of grace and freedom, because we have moved, as a species, closer to God… Or at least we are supposed to have. 🙂
are you saying that we are “smarter” now… isn’t that a little snobbish, but totally agree about the poopy pants bit. messy situation
I’m saying God has always planned to bring his fallen creation closer to him… and we’re on that journey.
Most of our Atheist friends don’t even realize how much they’ve benefited from “religious” thought. But we’ve built on the foundation which was laid 3000 years ago in Israel. We would be wrong to go backward and re-institute some of those old laws. But, they were necessary, to learn from them and bring them where we are today (by God’s grace).
seems like many stand on a moral high ground they really don’t even think exist. but they sure benefit from its sure footing.
“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” Romans 2:15