Life in the AI [Archive]

Similization

26-09-2007, 06:47

When I see AI I think Artificial Insemination. Just the agriculture in me.Hehe :)

God, artificial intelligence? How could he be artificial?You misunderstand me. An AI is, in the very simplest terms, an amalgamation of computer routines created to perform non-random decision making.

ESS, which is what inspired me to ask, proposes a very similar mechanic in geoscience. Alas, I'm finding it impossible to convey what ESS proposes in a couple of lines, so I opted for the AI analogy. In hindsight, a better analogy might have been the human brain.

A brain is, in a manner of speaking, a medium in which an enormous amount of separate, low-level information exchanges takes place, and magnitudes fewer, but still enormously many exchanges of the total of that low-level information takes place... And so on ad damn near infinity. At the lowest levels, this information exchange is so simple that it is only very slightly affected by higher level exchanges, and subject to randomness. At the highest levels, the exchanges aren't random at all, but have given birth to actual sentience and are dictated by it.

ESS proposes something very similar about Earth, though obviously without the high-level exchanges that somehow results in a mind. And in a nutshell, that's what an AI is, except that an AI is designed to that end, whereas the natural counterpart just happens to exist because there's sufficient complexity.

At least as it relates to my OP, your question makes more sense if you reverse it: can a universal system of non-random decision making be called God?

Vetalia called it materialist theism, so it apparently can. But if so, it is a deity devoid of intent and personality. At most, it is mindless and pointless creativity.

Again I apologise for the disorganised ranting, but I'm having a hard time explaining myself, I'm making breakfast, and I'm trying to work. Besides, I never claimed to be very bright :D

Ruby City

26-09-2007, 09:21

Are you suggesting the earth, the universe or god is an artificial intelligence? :confused:

Artificial means made by humans. It can also mean fake, for example artificial diamonds made by humans are only fakes, it's the natural ones made by nature that are real.

Artificial intelligence can mean either computer programs made by humans that can adapt and improve on their own which is a lot more common then people think or computer programs made by humans to fake intelligent behavior such as bots in computer games.

Vetalia

26-09-2007, 09:31

Artificial means made by humans. It can also mean fake, for example artificial diamonds made by humans are only fakes, it's the natural ones made by nature that are real.

For the time being, yes. However, in the quite near future artificial intelligence will be self-forming and self-evolving; the "artificial" moniker would serve solely to describe it as a non-carbon based intelligence.

Turquoise Days

26-09-2007, 18:10

What do you mean by earth system science? I ask because my understanding of the phrase is limited to a field of the environmental sciences combining Geology, ecology, metereology etc.

Good Lifes

26-09-2007, 18:11

Deus Malum

26-09-2007, 18:51

Hehe :)
*snip*

Reading through that, it sounds like a slightly better described and more physically consistent version of Gaia Theory.

Deus Malum

26-09-2007, 18:56

This is getting pretty deep but I'm going to try to throw in an answer.

God is a self perpetuating being. Non carbon based. No beginning. No end.

The natural evidence of God is the observations of total order in the universe. The laws of nature apply at the closest and furthest realms of the universe. (There are different laws for observable and subatomic but the laws of each are universal) Every observation of science confirms a total order that could not happen in a random creation. God is nonrandom. The very evidence is nonrandomness. The sun, the planets, the stars, the atoms, follow very specific rules.

I'm not sure how the mind of God developed or what type of thought processes go on or if those thought processes are still developing. There are some things there are just not answers for at the human level.

To be honest, the existence of natural order isn't really evidence for the existence of God, or Gods. It shows one thing and one thing only: that our universe is a physically consistent universe. Whether or not it is physically consistent because of the mechanism behind its existence, or because of a supra natural entity, is more or less impossible to determine, and it is absurd to suggest that this order is strong evidence for anything of that sort.

And to clarify, the laws governing subatomic particles, everyday life, and macroscopic particles aren't different. Our understanding of them relies on separate fields of physics, but that is a limitation of our current understanding, not a real, physical difference in the laws of physics depending on what scale you're looking at.

If you were feeling really masochistic and had a ton of time on your hands, you COULD work out the state of the air particles in a room from a purely Quantum Mechanical framework. The calculation would take an enormous, ENORMOUS amount of time, but it would be doable. The reason we use statistical mechanics to describe those air particles instead is a matter of simple convenience for us, because we don't have either the time, or the computing power, to work those problems out in a reasonable amount of time the other way.

Similization

26-09-2007, 19:48

What do you mean by earth system science? I ask because my understanding of the phrase is limited to a field of the environmental sciences combining Geology, ecology, metereology etc.You're indeed right. The idea I presented is neither ESS nor a scientific theory. It is pure speculation. The inspiration for it is ESS however, extrapolated to cover the entirety of existence.Reading through that, it sounds like a slightly better described and more physically consistent version of Gaia Theory.That's not very strange at all. Gaia Theory was the forerunner for ESS, and would probably still be called so if the name hadn't had such powerful religious undertones.

Good Lifes

26-09-2007, 20:27

To be honest, the existence of natural order isn't really evidence for the existence of God, or Gods. It shows one thing and one thing only: that our universe is a physically consistent universe. Whether or not it is physically consistent because of the mechanism behind its existence, or because of a supra natural entity, is more or less impossible to determine, and it is absurd to suggest that this order is strong evidence for anything of that sort.

And to clarify, the laws governing subatomic particles, everyday life, and macroscopic particles aren't different. Our understanding of them relies on separate fields of physics, but that is a limitation of our current understanding, not a real, physical difference in the laws of physics depending on what scale you're looking at.

If you were feeling really masochistic and had a ton of time on your hands, you COULD work out the state of the air particles in a room from a purely Quantum Mechanical framework. The calculation would take an enormous, ENORMOUS amount of time, but it would be doable. The reason we use statistical mechanics to describe those air particles instead is a matter of simple convenience for us, because we don't have either the time, or the computing power, to work those problems out in a reasonable amount of time the other way.

I agree with the last two paragraphs.

Order is always a sign of intelligence. How many times could you roll a set of dice and come up with 7 every time before you would suspicion that someone loaded the dice? 100 times? 1000 times? 10,000 times? Of course it would be mathematically possible to role a 7 10,000 times in a row with a normal set of dice, but I bet you wouldn't believe it. How does an archaeologist determine if something is natural or man made? It is dependent on the object showing order. Is it a pile of rocks or a wall? What type of order are the rocks in? Is it natural metal or an ax head? Is the iron in a refined and shaped order?

It is true that some order can be shown through random mixing, but never complete, without exception, order. Every time a scientist does an experiment or an observation the scientist finds total order, total compliance with set laws. Just as you said in your final paragraph. This would not be true in a randomly occurring universe. Every time a scientist makes an observation s/he rolls a 7. How many sevens can be rolled before you begin to think someone loaded the dice? Billions every day since the beginning of the human animal, without exception. What are the mathematical odds of that?

Deus Malum

27-09-2007, 03:40

I agree with the last two paragraphs.

Order is always a sign of intelligence. How many times could you roll a set of dice and come up with 7 every time before you would suspicion that someone loaded the dice? 100 times? 1000 times? 10,000 times? Of course it would be mathematically possible to role a 7 10,000 times in a row with a normal set of dice, but I bet you wouldn't believe it. How does an archaeologist determine if something is natural or man made? It is dependent on the object showing order. Is it a pile of rocks or a wall? What type of order are the rocks in? Is it natural metal or an ax head? Is the iron in a refined and shaped order?

It is true that some order can be shown through random mixing, but never complete, without exception, order. Every time a scientist does an experiment or an observation the scientist finds total order, total compliance with set laws. Just as you said in your final paragraph. This would not be true in a randomly occurring universe. Every time a scientist makes an observation s/he rolls a 7. How many sevens can be rolled before you begin to think someone loaded the dice? Billions every day since the beginning of the human animal, without exception. What are the mathematical odds of that?

Except that what we call order is the product of randomized factors and, often enough, random perturbations. And perceived order is again no indication of an external intelligence.

For instance, the odds of getting a particular arrangement of the 52 cards in a standard deck of playing cards is something on the order of 1 in 10*67. That's a PHENOMENAL number. It's fucking huge, really beyond our scope to even comprehend. But to suggest that, because those cards have been shuffled (randomly) and arranged in that order, they MUST have been ordered that way by an outside intelligence, is absolute tripe.

Your line of reasoning also depends on the faulty assumption that our existence, that those 7s coming up, is somehow significant, which is something equally impossible to determine. I could say that the fact that my deck of 52 cards was arranged in such an unusual manner, its arrangement is somehow significant, but that doesn't MAKE it significant, and I have no way of determining its significance.

Edit: And yes, I actually did calculate that number out.

Deus Malum

27-09-2007, 03:50

As to your question on the archaeologist: How indeed? How does he determine whether something is man made or natural? "It is dependent on the object showing order" is a misleading. If it were that obvious, the archaeological profession would be in shambles.

In reality, an archaeologist determines whether or not something is man made by making a comparison. What does he compare it to? Why other things that he knows are man made, and other things he knows are natural. And it is through this comparison that its nature can be determined. One can not look at a watch, with no frame of comparison, and tell it is man made. One MUST be able to say "this has gears. Gears do not occur in nature." If the archaeologist has nothing to compare it to, then there is nothing he can not tell if the watch is designed or not, because he does not know of gears, and can not compare it to, say, sand.

Unfortunately, this kills the teleological argument. If everything in the natural world is intelligently designed, then we have nothing we can compare that is NOT intelligently designed that can tell us that it is not the natural product of random perturbations, certain initial conditions, certain constants, and certain laws that govern the interactions of those constants, conditions, and perturbations.

Intelligent Humans

27-09-2007, 04:59

Well if God is an artificial intelligence looking over all existance, then that would mean they would have to have been created by a higher power, right?

no, atoms and molecules spontaneously gathered together and out of coincidence, god, the AI machine, was made

...

hard to believe in any gods without any proof:headbang:

Jonathanseah2

27-09-2007, 05:37

Ahhhh.... finally a topic on which I can ramble intelligently on.

Simply put;
Postulate (aka assumption):
There exists an unchanging rule or set of rules that applies to the universe. We call this the Theory of Everything (TOE)...
No, we don't have it yet.

1. Therefore, the universe's exact state + the rule(s) is all that predicts the next state of the universe.
2. Therefore, all phenomena is a result of those rules. IE, the universe is, at least, weakly deterministic.

That's it. But here is the clarification:

1. When we observe lightning, we see the light resulting from the collisions of electrons / positive ions movement and the energy released.
2. The phenomena of what we call lightning is made up of an indescribably many individual particles.
3. We can make up some "laws" that govern lightning; say, lightning prefers to strike the highest available point.
4. However, the lightning does not really "obey" those laws we make up on the large scale.
5. The lightning only follows the smallest scale law, or the TOE.
6. So why do we observe our "law" that lightning hits the highest points?
7. That's because our "law" is a consequence of the system of particles, making up the lightning bolt, obeying the TOE.
8. This is called emergent behaviour.

The emergent behaviour of the entire universe is probably what will be called, by the OP, Universal System Science. =P
And since it is basically everything, including the TOE and every single state of the universe; I guess you're fully justified in calling it God.

But that's just a label that you put on it. The universe is really a system of individual particles obeying the TOE, and that's it.

Good Lifes

27-09-2007, 05:38

Except that what we call order is the product of randomized factors and, often enough, random perturbations. And perceived order is again no indication of an external intelligence.

For instance, the odds of getting a particular arrangement of the 52 cards in a standard deck of playing cards is something on the order of 1 in 10*67. That's a PHENOMENAL number. It's fucking huge, really beyond our scope to even comprehend. But to suggest that, because those cards have been shuffled (randomly) and arranged in that order, they MUST have been ordered that way by an outside intelligence, is absolute tripe.

Your line of reasoning also depends on the faulty assumption that our existence, that those 7s coming up, is somehow significant, which is something equally impossible to determine. I could say that the fact that my deck of 52 cards was arranged in such an unusual manner, its arrangement is somehow significant, but that doesn't MAKE it significant, and I have no way of determining its significance.

Edit: And yes, I actually did calculate that number out.
Once is of course mathematically possible There have been perfect bridge hands (each player got 13 of the same suit) So gravity works in a certain way in the Milky Way through pure chance. But the cards were also shuffled in every other part of the universe and they fell in the same order in every corner of the universe. Billions and Billions of shuffles in the remotest galaxies and all came out in the exact same order. Not one exception in any of the laws of nature. Every law being a separate deck of cards that could have been shuffled differently on at least one other place in the universe. But every deck of cards (natural law) was shuffled a billion billion times and they fell in the exact order without one exception. Let's see that would be 10 to the 1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Jonathanseah2

27-09-2007, 05:40

If you were feeling really masochistic and had a ton of time on your hands, you COULD work out the state of the air particles in a room from a purely Quantum Mechanical framework. The calculation would take an enormous, ENORMOUS amount of time, but it would be doable.

Haha, its being done at this very moment!

The air in your room is doing it... =P

The best complete simulation of any system is the system itself.
Ooooo... That's sounds nice and zen-like. =)

Sorry, I'm a bit hyper... =/

Good Lifes

27-09-2007, 06:22

One can not look at a watch, with no frame of comparison, and tell it is man made. One MUST be able to say "this has gears. Gears do not occur in nature." If the archaeologist has nothing to compare it to, then there is nothing he can not tell if the watch is designed or not, because he does not know of gears, and can not compare it to, say, sand.

Archaeologist find new, never before seen metal objects on a regular basis and determine whether they are nature or intelligence all of the time. Not by having comparable parts but by being of a form that is more refined and organized than in nature.

http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/Microprobe/Electron%20Microprobe%20Analysis%20in%20Archaeology/57B35729-6D01-4027-AC38-3BFF4732B176.html

In this example, the ball looked to be man made but the chemical make up was of nature. The iron wasn't refined as it would be if man made.

http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/Microprobe/Electron%20Microprobe%20Analysis%20in%20Archaeology/91CA57EA-C7FE-4740-B000-19B1031A3F12.html

In this example, what looked like ordinary rock turned out to be slag from a smelter. This is known because the microscopic makeup shows a change in the makeup compared to nature.

Deus Malum

27-09-2007, 14:47

Archaeologist find new, never before seen metal objects on a regular basis and determine whether they are nature or intelligence all of the time. Not by having comparable parts but by being of a form that is more refined and organized than in nature.

http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/Microprobe/Electron%20Microprobe%20Analysis%20in%20Archaeology/57B35729-6D01-4027-AC38-3BFF4732B176.html

In this example, the ball looked to be man made but the chemical make up was of nature. The iron wasn't refined as it would be if man made.

http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/Microprobe/Electron%20Microprobe%20Analysis%20in%20Archaeology/91CA57EA-C7FE-4740-B000-19B1031A3F12.html

In this example, what looked like ordinary rock turned out to be slag from a smelter. This is known because the microscopic makeup shows a change in the makeup compared to nature.

You just proved my point here. They are determining its origin by COMPARING it to what is normally found in nature, and determining that it is more refined and organized.

If nature itself is intelligently designed, we have nothing to compare it to that ISN'T intelligently designed.

Cookesland

27-09-2007, 21:04

no, atoms and molecules spontaneously gathered together and out of coincidence, god, the AI machine, was made

...

hard to believe in any gods without any proof:headbang:

Who's to say the atoms and molecules aren't the higher power?

No, it's not hard to believe in the existance of god when there isn't proof he doesn't exist

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 01:47

You just proved my point here. They are determining its origin by COMPARING it to what is normally found in nature, and determining that it is more refined and organized.

If nature itself is intelligently designed, we have nothing to compare it to that ISN'T intelligently designed.

We have all of the areas of the universe to compare to. We have every aspect of science in each area of the universe to compare to.

In the beginning----BOOM-----little bits of energy go flying in every direction. These little bits of energy randomly tossed into the nothingness could form in innumerable ways. The energy that would become the Milky Way could form in any random way. The energy in the furthest galaxy to the north could form in any random way. The energy to the south could form in any random way. The energy in any part of the entire universe could come together in any random way. Physics could be different in some random somewhere. Gravity could be different in some random somewhere. Light could be different in some random somewhere. Chemistry could be different in some random somewhere. Every galaxy or at least every galactic group should be a separate experiment in how little bits of energy could come together. The randomness of the Bang could easily produce areas of order as the bits of energy in that area came together. But the randomness should not produce exactly the same thing---not in one area of science---but in every area of science. OK, maybe by chance gravity would be the same everywhere. But light would be different. Or vice versa. But that's not the way it is. Absolutely everything works exactly the same way everywhere. That my friend is not what happens with a random occurrence. Show me one place in the entire universe where those bits of energy that were thrown out randomly came together in a random way. Show me once where the dice came up other than 7 or once where the cards fell in a different order in any aspect of science that we can know.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 01:52

We have all of the areas of the universe to compare to. We have every aspect of science in each area of the universe to compare to.

In the beginning----BOOM-----little bits of energy go flying in every direction. These little bits of energy randomly tossed into the nothingness could form in innumerable ways. The energy that would become the Milky Way could form in any random way. The energy in the furthest galaxy to the north could form in any random way. The energy to the south could form in any random way. The energy in any part of the entire universe could come together in any random way. Physics could be different in some random somewhere. Gravity could be different in some random somewhere. Light could be different in some random somewhere. Chemistry could be different in some random somewhere. Every galaxy or at least every galactic group should be a separate experiment in how little bits of energy could come together. The randomness of the Bang could easily produce areas of order as the bits of energy in that area came together. But the randomness should not produce exactly the same thing---not in one area of science---but in every area of science. OK, maybe by chance gravity would be the same everywhere. But light would be different. Or vice versa. But that's not the way it is. Absolutely everything works exactly the same way everywhere. That my friend is not what happens with a random occurrence. Show me one place in the entire universe where those bits of energy that were thrown out randomly came together in a random way. Show me once where the dice came up other than 7 or once where the cards fell in a different order in any aspect of science that we can know.

Except that it CAN happen with random occurrence. This also assumes that the speed of light and the force of gravity are not fundamental to the make-up of our universe, and go part and parcel with its formation. Really, you're just stabbing in the dark at what you perceive as order and improbability, when you're simply relying on hindsight with a predetermined view of what "really happened."

And again, you CAN'T compare the universe to other parts of the universe, and science to other parts of science, to determine whether the universe is designed or not.

That would be like comparing a gear in a watch to a gear in the SAME watch.

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 02:13

Except that it CAN happen with random occurrence. This also assumes that the speed of light and the force of gravity are not fundamental to the make-up of our universe, and go part and parcel with its formation. Really, you're just stabbing in the dark at what you perceive as order and improbability, when you're simply relying on hindsight with a predetermined view of what "really happened."

And again, you CAN'T compare the universe to other parts of the universe, and science to other parts of science, to determine whether the universe is designed or not.

That would be like comparing a gear in a watch to a gear in the SAME watch.

We're not just talking of gravity and light. We are talking of every aspect of science. Every aspect with not one exception that you can find.

The various gears in a watch are different. The various scientific aspects of every part of the universe are without exception exactly the same.

Pick one aspect of science and show how the bits of energy randomly thrown into nothingness, allowed to randomly form into anything they desired formed differently in any of the innumerable areas of the universe.

All you need is one exception. That should be easy since there are billions and billions and billions of places to look and dozens of aspects of science.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 02:28

We're not just talking of gravity and light. We are talking of every aspect of science. Every aspect with not one exception that you can find.

The various gears in a watch are different. The various scientific aspects of every part of the universe are without exception exactly the same.

Pick one aspect of science and show how the bits of energy randomly thrown into nothingness, allowed to randomly form into anything they desired formed differently in any of the innumerable areas of the universe.

All you need is one exception. That should be easy since there are billions and billions and billions of places to look and dozens of aspects of science.

Because randomness has constraints.
Variance has constraints.

One shouldn't be surprised when a six-sided die rolls a 6. It's a bit more interesting when it rolls a 7.

Similarly, if space itself warps around gravity, then one shouldn't be surprised when gravity acts as gravity is expected to act in the presence of matter. One SHOULD be surprised be when it does not in fact act that way. Again, you seem to be under the impression that those factors, gravity, light, and the like, have the uniformity they have, the constancy they have, for some magical reason, when it is in fact the nature of space itself. If it was physically consistent, and there are models that can be generated that are physically consistent, for those constants are in flux, then yes, we could observe them. However, we have no indication that we SHOULD be able to observe variance, because in our present understanding of those constants, not only do they NOT have variance, they SHOULD NOT have variance.

Again, one shouldn't be surprised when a six-sided die rolls a 6. One may be intrigued, but one still shouldn't be SURPRISED when a six-sided dice rolls a 6 6 times. One SHOULD be surprised if a six-sided die rolls a 7 even once.

HotRodia

28-09-2007, 02:43

There's plenty of them. Modern guidance and measuring systems fit the description, and I'm sure a million other things do as well. In a sense, IT is all about emergent self-regulation. But that's not what I was getting at, I only meant to use it as a comparison of the principle.

In the universal scheme of things, humanity can't have much of an impact on anything. We're all on one little planet on the outskirts of one little galaxy, neither of which have been or will be around for very long. Much as I'd like to think we matter on that scale, it seems pretty ridiculous to claim we do.

Anyway... I think I've failed to get my idea across. Unfortunately I don't really know how to clarify.

Your idea is actually something I've considered myself for quite a while, but I decided to throw some humor into the mix.

I'm of the opinion that governments are the most obvious examples of emergent self-regulatory systems, though you've mentioned some other good candidates for the job.

A Catholic theologian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, proposed something that you might find relevant to the topic. He developed a model for considering the ways in which human thought would exist as a global phenomenon.

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

It's not too much of a leap to imagine that as the noosphere develops, it would have an increasingly strong consciousness of its own, and that it develops along side our aggregate psyches. Rather than having been created by God or having created God already, we may be in the process of creating God.

But that's just random musings.

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 03:22

Because randomness has constraints.
Variance has constraints.

One shouldn't be surprised when a six-sided die rolls a 6. It's a bit more interesting when it rolls a 7.

Similarly, if space itself warps around gravity, then one shouldn't be surprised when gravity acts as gravity is expected to act in the presence of matter. One SHOULD be surprised be when it does not in fact act that way. Again, you seem to be under the impression that those factors, gravity, light, and the like, have the uniformity they have, the constancy they have, for some magical reason, when it is in fact the nature of space itself. If it was physically consistent, and there are models that can be generated that are physically consistent, for those constants are in flux, then yes, we could observe them. However, we have no indication that we SHOULD be able to observe variance, because in our present understanding of those constants, not only do they NOT have variance, they SHOULD NOT have variance.

Again, one shouldn't be surprised when a six-sided die rolls a 6. One may be intrigued, but one still shouldn't be SURPRISED when a six-sided dice rolls a 6 6 times. One SHOULD be surprised if a six-sided die rolls a 7 even once.

One would bet the die were loaded if it rolled six every time it were rolled and it was rolled billions of times over the thousands of years since the emergence of the human animal.

Not once has there been found to be an exception not only in light and gravity but in every scientific observation in every aspect of science, in every corner of the universe that has been observed.

How many times in a row would you roll a die and have it come up 6 without exception before you would suspicion that something wasn't random?

How many things would have to have total consistency to make not only light and gravity form exactly the same from random bits of energy randomly blasted out? How could those random bits going at incredible speed in opposite directions make exactly the same atoms, and the atoms make exactly the same molecules. Why wouldn't those bits of energy make something unimaginably different than an atom? They were billions of light years apart. Gravity isn't strong enough to reach out that far. What force would bring them together in exactly the same way everywhere?

You need only find one exception in any aspect of science to disprove the theory. That is the way science works. Find one exception and the theory is either destroyed or in need of modification. Consider the theory as a scientific reviewer. Find the exception that destroys the theory.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 03:33

One would bet the die were loaded if it rolled six every time it were rolled and it was rolled billions of times over the thousands of years since the emergence of the human animal.

Not once has there been found to be an exception not only in light and gravity but in every scientific observation in every aspect of science, in every corner of the universe that has been observed.

How many times in a row would you roll a die and have it come up 6 without exception before you would suspicion that something wasn't random?

How many things would have to have total consistency to make not only light and gravity form exactly the same from random bits of energy randomly blasted out? How could those random bits going at incredible speed in opposite directions make exactly the same atoms, and the atoms make exactly the same molecules. Why wouldn't those bits of energy make something unimaginably different than an atom? They were billions of light years apart. Gravity isn't strong enough to reach out that far. What force would bring them together in exactly the same way everywhere?

You need only find one exception in any aspect of science to disprove the theory. That is the way science works. Find one exception and the theory is either destroyed or in need of modification. Consider the theory as a scientific reviewer. Find the exception that destroys the theory.

Except that you don't. The constancy of physical constants is something taken into account in our present understanding of the physical rules of our universe. It'd be absurd to suggest that we should reach OUTSIDE the bounds of our knowledge and understanding to chase shadows.

And in discussing the randomness of the universe this way, you're assuming something about the nature of the "die" that you don't have. If you KNEW that the dice was 6 sided, yes, you can say that rolling a 6 repeatedly is improbable (and yet even this low probability says nothing about the statistical significance a particular, improbable, outcome). However if you don't know the variance of a constant like gravity (which we don't, since we haven't observed any variance) you really can't say anything that isn't pure speculation.

One could say, in grand conjecture, that the fact that the gravitational constant does not vary is somehow significant. However if the gravitational constant CAN NOT vary, where does the significance lie? One could say, again in grand speculation, that because the gravitational constant is not 0, it is somehow proof of the existence of something that set the dial to be non-zero. However this assumes that the gravitational constant COULD be 0, which is something we have no way of proving.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 03:52

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 03:52

Except that you don't. The constancy of physical constants is something taken into account in our present understanding of the physical rules of our universe. It'd be absurd to suggest that we should reach OUTSIDE the bounds of our knowledge and understanding to chase shadows.

And in discussing the randomness of the universe this way, you're assuming something about the nature of the "die" that you don't have. If you KNEW that the dice was 6 sided, yes, you can say that rolling a 6 repeatedly is improbable (and yet even this low probability says nothing about the statistical significance a particular, improbable, outcome). However if you don't know the variance of a constant like gravity (which we don't, since we haven't observed any variance) you really can't say anything that isn't pure speculation.

One could say, in grand conjecture, that the fact that the gravitational constant does not vary is somehow significant. However if the gravitational constant CAN NOT vary, where does the significance lie? One could say, again in grand speculation, that because the gravitational constant is not 0, it is somehow proof of the existence of something that set the dial to be non-zero. However this assumes that the gravitational constant COULD be 0, which is something we have no way of proving.

But I'm not limiting you to gravity. I'm allowing you to use any field of science and any aspect of that field.

Maybe, against all reasonable odds, one aspect is universal. We are talking of every aspect beating those same odds every time without exception.

Similization

28-09-2007, 03:54

But I'm not limiting you to gravity. I'm allowing you to use any field of science and any aspect of that field.

Maybe, against all reasonable odds, one aspect is universal. We are talking of every aspect beating those same odds every time without exception.Alright. Mars. Mars could have ended up with a sprawling biosphere. It didn't.

But you're arguing a non sequitur. The universe is, for example, a far more suitable place for rocks than it is for human beings and organic lifeforms in general. That means that even if you bloodymindedly cling to the idea that a product of the universe must say something about why the universe is there, your conclusion falls apart. Hell, by that argument, we're just so many cockroaches hiding behind the fridge of existence.

EDIT: HotRodia I'll get back to you when my brain's out of this fucking red haze of toothache. And on that note, GL if your god's real, kindly ask it for some divine painkillers for me, thank you.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 04:00

Alright. Mars. Mars could have ended up with a sprawling biosphere. It didn't.

But you're arguing a non sequitur. The universe is, for example, a far more suitable place for rocks than it is for human beings and organic lifeforms in general. That means that even if you bloodymindedly cling to the idea that a product of the universe must say something about why the universe is there, your conclusion falls apart. Hell, by that argument, we're just so many cockroaches hiding behind the fridge of existence.

EDIT: HotRodia I'll get back to you when my brain's out of this fucking red haze of toothache. And on that note, GL if your god's real, kindly ask it for some divine painkillers for me, thank you.

It won't help much, to be honest. The mouth is one of the most sensitive places on the human body. Once the pain starts, it's not going to go away until whatever's causing it stops.

Sorry :(

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 04:15

Alright. Mars. Mars could have ended up with a sprawling biosphere. It didn't.

But you're arguing a non sequitur. The universe is, for example, a far more suitable place for rocks than it is for human beings and organic lifeforms in general. That means that even if you bloodymindedly cling to the idea that a product of the universe must say something about why the universe is there, your conclusion falls apart. Hell, by that argument, we're just so many cockroaches hiding behind the fridge of existence.

EDIT: HotRodia I'll get back to you when my brain's out of this fucking red haze of toothache. And on that note, GL if your god's real, kindly ask it for some divine painkillers for me, thank you.

Mars is what it is because of the universal laws. The light and heat it gets are determined by the inverse square law. The atmosphere is what it is due to the law of gravity

We may be a group of cockroaches. Certainly we are on an insignificant planet circling and insignificant star, circling an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant corner of the universe. But every aspect of that planet and everything on that planet and that star and that galaxy and everything in that universe follows the universal laws. There is nothing random about this little speck of dust.

HotRodia

28-09-2007, 04:18

EDIT: HotRodia I'll get back to you when my brain's out of this fucking red haze of toothache. And on that note, GL if your god's real, kindly ask it for some divine painkillers for me, thank you.

Sorry to hear about the toothache, mate. I look forward to reading your response.

Similization

28-09-2007, 09:10

Mars is what it is because of the universal laws. The light and heat it gets are determined by the inverse square law. The atmosphere is what it is due to the law of gravityYou oversimplify. Mars does not exist because of the laws of physics. An object like Mars can exist because of the laws of physics, but physics in and of themselves are just a framework within which shit happens. Perhaps it helps if I drag your deity into it; your deity (I assume) explains why shit happens. Physics explains how. Not why.

In hindsight, physics can show you that events did not have to unfold the way they did. All the various events that turned Mars into a hellhole and Earth into a paradise, could have not happened. No laws of physics dictated they would, only that they could. That they did was, superstition and my own speculations aside, pure chance.

But every aspect of that planet and everything on that planet and that star and that galaxy and everything in that universe follows the universal laws. There is nothing random about this little speck of dust.It's a non sequitur. The universal laws you're talking about do not cause events, they're simply the framework within which events can take place. It's not so different from a jar of marmalade; such a jar can hold any amount of marmalade within certain limits. It can't hold less than no marmalade, and it can't hold more than can fit in it. But within that variable anything goes, and the jar itself exerts no influence over how much marmalade it holds.

Curiously you seem to both have misunderstood my OP, and to be gettting us back on topic, so I'll try to clarify again. Evolution is mechanism that makes non-random choices. It is not a concrete thing you can point your finger at, yet it makes decisions and changes the entire biosphere in the process. It works because there's enough complexity for a mechanism like that to work. And I'm sure you have at least a rough idea of what the complexity is and how the decision making takes place.

ESS is pretty much the same thing, it's just on a much grander scale than evolution, and indeed, evolution is both part of ESS and to some extent governed by it. It is the the mechanism that governs the interaction and reaction of the spheres of Earth (Litho, atmo, bio etc), just like evolution does it for us organisms.

I hope I'm not assuming too much, but I assume you don't see any contradiction between systems like the ToE and ESS and your deity. If that's the case, there shouldn't be any conflict between the Universal System Science concept I proposed (let me just stress that it's a lay-wanker idea, nothing more, and certainly not a field of science), at least not that I can think of, because USS is nothing more than ESS (or evolution for that matter) extrapolated to cover the the entirety of the universe. So perhaps my AI analogy wasn't so hopeless, at least not in your case. Stuff like evolution and ESS are frequently presented by theists as "God's Autopilot", and though somewhat less lofty, AIs are the same thing; autopilots for various human needs.

Any divine aspect of the idea isn't terribly interesting from the perspective of your type of beliefs, precisely because USS would just be another level of automation for a creator deity.

On the other hand, and I'm reaching here, really bright people have at times sounded like they suspected physical reality might not be wholly mindless. And since I myself used the human brain as an example of really interesting emergent behaviour, perhaps that notion has merit. I personally doubt complexity at the intergalactic level is sufficient to give rise to even a flicker of sentience, but I'll freely admit my perspective is hopelessly fucked. I'm just one tiny bag of elements on a tiny globe of elements, zipping around a tiny amalgamation of similar tiny bodies of elements. There's no way I can grasp the enormity of physical reality.

And that's more in line with what I wanted to talk about. This thread was never meant as a New & Improved theist bash-fest. Very simply, I find the concept I presented very interesting, and want to hear your opinions of it. Could such a system, for example, be harnessed? Is there even enough information exchange going on at that level for such a system to exist?

.... Now I'm off to the sadi.. Dentist. Have a nice day all of you. I'm quite certain I won't. Why, oh why does it have to be so complicated to get one's jaw fixed? Seriously... The time wasted on it alone would be enough to buy a house, and the bills! Woe is me :(

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 16:14

You oversimplify. Mars does not exist because of the laws of physics. An object like Mars can exist because of the laws of physics, but physics in and of themselves are just a framework within which shit happens. Perhaps it helps if I drag your deity into it; your deity (I assume) explains why shit happens. Physics explains how. Not why. I totally agree. This is why there should be absolutely no conflict between religion and science. Those on each side that want to see a conflict don't understand both sides.

In hindsight, physics can show you that events did not have to unfold the way they did. All the various events that turned Mars into a hellhole and Earth into a paradise, could have not happened. No laws of physics dictated they would, only that they could. That they did was, superstition and my own speculations aside, pure chance. Of course it need not have happened. But it happened because all of the natural laws came together to make each planet, each star, each galaxy what it is. None of them follow different rules.

It's a non sequitur. The universal laws you're talking about do not cause events, they're simply the framework within which events can take place. It's not so different from a jar of marmalade; such a jar can hold any amount of marmalade within certain limits. It can't hold less than no marmalade, and it can't hold more than can fit in it. But within that variable anything goes, and the jar itself exerts no influence over how much marmalade it holds.
What I've been saying isn't that they are cause but that they are universal. All of the bits of energy flying everywhere should have (if they were random) formed matter (or some other order) totally differently in different places. There would have been some sort of order in each corner of the universe, but that order should not be consistent absolutely everywhere without exception. There should be some exotic unimaginable order somewhere.
Curiously you seem to both have misunderstood my OP, and to be gettting us back on topic, so I'll try to clarify again. Evolution is mechanism that makes non-random choices. It is not a concrete thing you can point your finger at, yet it makes decisions and changes the entire biosphere in the process. It works because there's enough complexity for a mechanism like that to work. And I'm sure you have at least a rough idea of what the complexity is and how the decision making takes place.

ESS is pretty much the same thing, it's just on a much grander scale than evolution, and indeed, evolution is both part of ESS and to some extent governed by it. It is the the mechanism that governs the interaction and reaction of the spheres of Earth (Litho, atmo, bio etc), just like evolution does it for us organisms.

I hope I'm not assuming too much, but I assume you don't see any contradiction between systems like the ToE and ESS and your deity. If that's the case, there shouldn't be any conflict between the Universal System Science concept I proposed (let me just stress that it's a lay-wanker idea, nothing more, and certainly not a field of science), at least not that I can think of, because USS is nothing more than ESS (or evolution for that matter) extrapolated to cover the the entirety of the universe. So perhaps my AI analogy wasn't so hopeless, at least not in your case. Stuff like evolution and ESS are frequently presented by theists as "God's Autopilot", and though somewhat less lofty, AIs are the same thing; autopilots for various human needs.

Any divine aspect of the idea isn't terribly interesting from the perspective of your type of beliefs, precisely because USS would just be another level of automation for a creator deity.

On the other hand, and I'm reaching here, really bright people have at times sounded like they suspected physical reality might not be wholly mindless. And since I myself used the human brain as an example of really interesting emergent behaviour, perhaps that notion has merit. I personally doubt complexity at the intergalactic level is sufficient to give rise to even a flicker of sentience, but I'll freely admit my perspective is hopelessly fucked. I'm just one tiny bag of elements on a tiny globe of elements, zipping around a tiny amalgamation of similar tiny bodies of elements. There's no way I can grasp the enormity of physical reality.

And that's more in line with what I wanted to talk about. This thread was never meant as a New & Improved theist bash-fest. Very simply, I find the concept I presented very interesting, and want to hear your opinions of it. Could such a system, for example, be harnessed? Is there even enough information exchange going on at that level for such a system to exist? I see no conflict. Whatever this Artificial Intelligence you seek turns out to be, if it can make the entire universe operate "universally" without any inconsistency, you can speculate on how it works.

.... Now I'm off to the sadi.. Dentist. Have a nice day all of you. I'm quite certain I won't. Why, oh why does it have to be so complicated to get one's jaw fixed? Seriously... The time wasted on it alone would be enough to buy a house, and the bills! Woe is me :(Have two holes myself. He refused to fill them. He wanted $1000 each to kill them, root canal and cap. Told him I could buy a lot of toothpicks for that kind of money.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 16:26

What I've been saying isn't that they are cause but that they are universal. All of the bits of energy flying everywhere should have (if they were random) formed matter (or some other order) totally differently in different places.

This again assumes that matter CAN be formed in different ways, something you have not proved.

We know that quark matter exists. We are made of quark matter. We have no evidence that any other kind of matter exists. We have no reason to BELIEVE that any other kind of matter SHOULD exist. The fact that quark matter exists is therefore not significant to this discussion.

There would have been some sort of order in each corner of the universe, but that order should not be consistent absolutely everywhere without exception. There should be some exotic unimaginable order somewhere.

Really? Should there be? Why, pray tell?

What reason do you have for why there should be six-sided dice that can roll sevens?

Edit: It just seems like your argument hinges on the physical laws of our universe NOT being the physical laws of our universe.

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 16:59

Edit: It just seems like your argument hinges on the physical laws of our universe NOT being the physical laws of our universe.

Your argument is total randomness should produce total nonrandomness.

Intelligent Humans

28-09-2007, 17:05

Who's to say the atoms and molecules aren't the higher power?

No, it's not hard to believe in the existance of god when there isn't proof he doesn't exist

double contradiction because none will be ever proven

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 17:55

Your argument is total randomness should produce total nonrandomness.

No, my argument is that nonrandomness is not evidence for an intelligent designer.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 18:19

We're not just talking of gravity and light. We are talking of every aspect of science. Every aspect with not one exception that you can find.

The various gears in a watch are different. The various scientific aspects of every part of the universe are without exception exactly the same.

Pick one aspect of science and show how the bits of energy randomly thrown into nothingness, allowed to randomly form into anything they desired formed differently in any of the innumerable areas of the universe.

All you need is one exception. That should be easy since there are billions and billions and billions of places to look and dozens of aspects of science.

Tell you what. You give me one thing that is not intelligently-designed in the universe. One thing that involves no intelligent supernatural being with which we can determine the difference between that which is intelligently designed at that which isn't.

Order is proof of consistent forces and nothing more. If I lay out a consistent magnetic force and a series of metal shavings they would naturally order themselves as a result of consistent forces.

We cannot demonstrate that consistent forces are the result of intelligence because we ONLY see consistent forces. We don't have anyway to determine what non-intelligently-designed universe looks like.

So, in order to apply rational thinking to this problem, you MUST come up with one thing in order to determine the factor of an intelligent designer. Show me something we know that is intelligently-designed and something we know that isn't and compare them. Absent that, your taking shots in the dark because you have no reasonable evidence.

But then, Deus has already very clearly explained this to you. Unfortunately, you haven't seem to acknowledge this requirement at all. Somehow you confuse consistency with order.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 18:26

No, my argument is that nonrandomness is not evidence for an intelligent designer.

What he's not noticing is that both loaded and unloaded dice are designed to work in a certain way with an understanding of the laws of the universe. Both the kind of randomness he is looking at and the kind of non-randomness are designed by us to work that way.

However, taking something like a helicopter seedling from a tree, you'll find that "coin" always comes up tails. It's not because someone loaded the "coin", it's because the basic building blocks of the universe cause that reaction. Do archeologists take helicopter seedlings to be man-made because they are consistent? Nope.

They don't look for order. They look for commonality with elements we know share that same trait, being man-made, and a lack of commonality with what we know of things that aren't man-made. We have no means for doing the same with universe since we've got only one and we even know which it is an example of without starting with conclusion in hand.

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 20:57

Show me something we know that is intelligently-designed and something we know that isn't and compare them. Absent that, your taking shots in the dark because you have no reasonable evidence

Your problem is YOU cannot show one thing that isn't. If anyone can show one thing in any realm of science that is random you would be correct in saying everything started with a random BOOM. (I agree a BOOM but not a random BOOM) Short of that you can show no sign that anything is random. If I could give you an example of randomness I would withdraw. You're asking me to prove your point and I can't because my point has all of the proof and yours has none.

In science it is up to those questioning a theory to come up with the example that proves the theory wrong. I only ask for one randomness to come out of a random BOOM.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 21:00

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 21:03

What he's not noticing is that both loaded and unloaded dice are designed to work in a certain way with an understanding of the laws of the universe. Both the kind of randomness he is looking at and the kind of non-randomness are designed by us to work that way.

Man designed the laws of the universe? Or man discovered the laws that were always there? Laws that make the entire universe run exactly the same way everywhere without one exception that anyone here (or anyone in science since the beginning of the human animal) can find.

Are those laws "designed by us"? Or where did they come from?

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 21:06

The onus isn't on him or I to prove anything. You are the one making a positive assertion. YOU have to prove your assertion.

I'm arguing a status quo that has been for several thousand years in nearly every human civilization. The burden is on those changing the status quo.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 21:08

I'm arguing a status quo that has been for several thousand years in nearly every human civilization. The burden is on those changing the status quo.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 21:12

I'm arguing a status quo that has been for several thousand years in nearly every human civilization. The burden is on those changing the status quo.

That is not a rational argument. The status quo has nothing to do with what is or is not an actual supportable assumption. Your introducing something into theory, something unverifiable and unevidenced. In introducing such a thing into scientific theory or logical theory you MUST evidence it or discard it.
We cannot not assume it is not intelligently-designed.

We cannot assume it is.

We cannot address. Becuase it has no evidence. Until you show both a provable example of how something would work if it were intelligently-designed by a force unbound by the univers or how it would work if it were not, you CANNOT make your assertion. But I see you're basically admitting that only thing you've got as an argument is that it's an old mistake.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 21:16

Man designed the laws of the universe? Or man discovered the laws that were always there? Laws that make the entire universe run exactly the same way everywhere without one exception that anyone here (or anyone in science since the beginning of the human animal) can find.

Are those laws "designed by us"? Or where did they come from?

Um, not really into actually reading? I said "loaded and unloaded dice are designed". That your examples of randomness and non-randomness are BOTH designed by us. I'm sorry that was not understood by you.

As to where the laws came from, any speculation as to the origin of the laws of the universe is just that. We have no evidence for where they came from. And YOU have only moved that idea back a step. Where did God come from? "He always was." Where do the laws of the universe come from? "They always were."

Until you've got more evidence than what you believe neither assumption is supported.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 21:19

Your problem is YOU cannot show one thing that isn't. If anyone can show one thing in any realm of science that is random you would be correct in saying everything started with a random BOOM. (I agree a BOOM but not a random BOOM) Short of that you can show no sign that anything is random. If I could give you an example of randomness I would withdraw. You're asking me to prove your point and I can't because my point has all of the proof and yours has none.

In science it is up to those questioning a theory to come up with the example that proves the theory wrong. I only ask for one randomness to come out of a random BOOM.

A random Boom? Pardon me? Seriously if you don't have the first clue about the prevailing theories of the science you're discussing then you'd do better to just slink away now.

Meanwhile, I'm sorry that you don't know how evidence works. See you're making a positive claim about the role of a supernatural force in the development of the universe. The burden, my misguided friend, is on you. No evidence? Good. Then your assertion fails. IF I ever try to assert that no supernatural force played a part in the universe, you may happily require evidence. Until I make such a positive assertion, you've not got a leg to stand on.

EDIT - Tell you what let's design an experiment around your supposed valid hypothesis.

Here is what you've said.

Consistent laws of the universe is evidence that it is designed by an intelligent actor.
The universe has consistent laws throughout.
Therefore -
The universe is designed by an intelligent actor.

Okay, I can work with that...

So, first things first, you have to show that the first claim is true. It must be falsifiable because it is a scientific assertion or claims to be.

Now how would we test such a thing. What particular experiment could one do that would show that a universe with consistent laws has the potential to not be designed? What experiment could one do that would show that a universe that does not have consistent laws is not designed? In other words, in what way is your claim more than just a random claim that is completely and utterly unsupportable and unassailable. You might as we be claiming that gravitiy is caused by magical pixies.

Good Lifes

28-09-2007, 22:08

So, first things first, you have to show that the first claim is true. It must be falsifiable because it is a scientific assertion or claims to be.

Now how would we test such a thing. What particular experiment could one do that would show that a universe with consistent laws has the potential to not be designed? What experiment could one do that would show that a universe that does not have consistent laws is not designed? In other words, in what way is your claim more than just a random claim that is completely and utterly unsupportable and unassailable. You might as we be claiming that gravitiy is caused by magical pixies.

It is falsifiable. I have offered you that opportunity. Find one randomness in a randomly occurring universe.

I have submitted every experiment by every scientist since the beginning of the human animal.

All I have gotten in return is "you are correct, there are no inconsistencies in the universe and until you find the evidence you are wrong then you are wrong". Sorry, "catch 22" isn't a valid argument. If you can find it you are wrong, if you can't find it you are wrong. What kind of BS is that to call a valid argument. I refuse to use the term C------- R--------.

Falsify----Find the exception that destroys the theory. I dare you.

Deus Malum

28-09-2007, 22:40

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 22:55

It is falsifiable. I have offered you that opportunity. Find one randomness in a randomly occurring universe.

I have submitted every experiment by every scientist since the beginning of the human animal.

All I have gotten in return is "you are correct, there are no inconsistencies in the universe and until you find the evidence you are wrong then you are wrong". Sorry, "catch 22" isn't a valid argument. If you can find it you are wrong, if you can't find it you are wrong. What kind of BS is that to call a valid argument. I refuse to use the term C------- R--------.

Falsify----Find the exception that destroys the theory. I dare you.

Wow, just wow. That really is just plainly stupid.

That's an assertion, you see. WHY does randomness disprove an intelligent element. If something defied all known laws of the universe, was not subject to them, that would be evidence AGAINST a supernatural force?

Please show me your evidence for why a supernatural intelligence cannot be responsible for randomness?

Um, all you've gotten in return is that you've not actually evidenced that the universe as we understand it is evidence for a creator. Your theory is unfalsifiable.

I say if air exists then there is a God. Why? Cuz I said so. Falsify it. I dare you. Prove air doesn't exist. Or PERHAPS I have to use evidence to demonstrate that air's existence actually brings the conclusion I claim it does. Maybe just maybe, that's a requirement.

See, here is what is required. You have to demonstrate A) that in a universe with true randomness there can be no creator. You've not. B) that in a universe without true randomness there must be a creator. You've not.

You've not done any work here. Your theory has to be based on evidence and it has to be falisifiable. It's not falsifiable because an undefined intelligent actor by it's nature would not be predictable.

Go on. Tell me what evidence that you have that a non-ordered universe could not be created by an intelligent actor. Tell me what evidence you have that randomness cannot be created by an intelligent actor. In fact, hey, just give the first bit of evidence of this intelligent actor at all.

That problem the rather insipid little game you're playing is that a theory that doesn't include a creator ALSO relies on the laws of the universe being consistent. You're taking an accepted assumption and claiming that it demonstrates a creator. So to falsify it I don't have to disprove the accepted truth. I just have to ask you demonstrate that this assumption is evidence for a creator. Something that cannot be done. If you cannot, then your "theory" is discarded. And by fact, it may or may not be evidence for a creator. Thus, your theory is discarded.

Jocabia

28-09-2007, 22:59

Except that you really haven't.

Your argument hinges on finding something that violates the physical laws of the universe. However, anything occurring within this universe, no matter what it is, by being observable, should be explainable. And if it is explainable, it can be incorporated into a new set of physical laws of the universe to make a more complete picture.

This is what was done with Special and General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. An event was found that violated the physical laws of the universe as we understood them, and a new explanation was developed to make a more complete and accurate understanding of the universe.

The laws did not change. Our understanding of them did.

That's not even the point. The problem is that he is claiming that we have to find a particular bit of evidence against that will invalidate all of science in order to disprove his claim, but what he doesn't seem to grasp is that doing so would disrupt science but leave his claim intact.

See an intelligent actor does not have to act consistently. It is intelligent. It acts with purpose, not blindly and consistently. Natural forces act consistently. If the reason a rock is heavy is because I'm pushing on it, then I can choose at any time to stop pushing on it. That would be evidence AGAINST my role in the weight of the rock. It's evidence for it. The fact that the forces would suddenly change, would change at random, simply disproves the existence of a simple force. It does preclude intelligence. The idea is inane.

What's amusing is let's say you have have a rain drop that falls through the air and it's shaped perfectly roundly. Would you assume someone was doing something to it? No. But you take that same raindrop and make it stop in midair and suddenly just move in random directions and change shape randomly. Would you likely go, well, obviously seeing this, I know there is not interference of a creator in the universe. Clearly this proves that there is not one. Hehe. Yeah, that's surely what you'd think, no?

Similization

29-09-2007, 00:29

That's not even the point. The problem is that he is claiming that we have to find a particular bit of evidence against that will invalidate all of science in order to disprove his claim, but what he doesn't seem to grasp is that doing so would disrupt science but leave his claim intact.Not necessarily. If the Big Bang happened, for example, physics as we know them did not apply to the universe for the first few parts of the first second.

But yes, it's impossible to argue with impossible propositions and circular logic. There's no real reason to anyway. Logical fallacies never hurt anyone, on the contrary, it seems a great many people find comfort in them.

Good Lifes

29-09-2007, 00:57

But yes, it's impossible to argue with impossible propositions and circular logic.

Agreed. I just didn't want to use the "C" word because it is so misused on this forum. The currently more popular S---- M-- is also being used but I refuse to use that also.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 01:01

Not necessarily. If the Big Bang happened, for example, physics as we know them did not apply to the universe for the first few parts of the first second.

But yes, it's impossible to argue with impossible propositions and circular logic. There's no real reason to anyway. Logical fallacies never hurt anyone, on the contrary, it seems a great many people find comfort in them.

Hehe. Well, actually, the point is actually that the laws of the universe always existed, the universe upon which they act didn't. For example, you might argue that gravity was different, but under similar circumstances gravity would behave just as it did during those first moments. The laws were consistently there. The universe is what changed.

To the last bit, you made me laugh and it's of course true. I declare that if God exists he would make pink unicorns dance around the Vatican. Since he doesn't I conclude God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong. Show me the pink unicorns, buddy.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 01:08

Agreed. I just didn't want to use the "C" word because it is so misused on this forum. The currently more popular S---- M-- is also being used but I refuse to use that also.

He's talking about you. Your reasoning is circular. You're claiming to know that an intelligent actor works a certain way and that the way things work is proof that he works that way because he made things work that way and so on.

Perhaps when you don't even understand who a post is directed at, you should gracefully bow out. Or just bow out.

Good Lifes

29-09-2007, 01:33

He's talking about you. Your reasoning is circular. You're claiming to know that an intelligent actor works a certain way and that the way things work is proof that he works that way because he made things work that way and so on.

Perhaps when you don't even understand who a post is directed at, you should gracefully bow out. Or just bow out.

I knew he was talking about me. But I'm the one that has set a premise that no one has challenged and followed deductive reasoning to the conclusion. No one else has used any type of reasoning other than "show me an exception so you can lose, or if you don't show me an exception you are not reasonable so you lose". That my friend is not logic.

That's not even the point. The problem is that he is claiming that we have to find a particular bit of evidence against that will invalidate all of science in order to disprove his claim, but what he doesn't seem to grasp is that doing so would disrupt science but leave his claim intact.

Or I could have brought up this SM that Sean Hannity would be proud of. When did I ask to invalidate all science? I asked for one randomness in one area (any area) of science from a universe that is being claimed to have been created randomly. And I defy you to find something that is defined as relatively random to show 100% nonrandomness and for you to believe that it is still random even after billions and billions of observations and experiments. But there are some here that believe a single die could be rolled a billion times and never get a 1,2,3,4,or 5. They have a die that rolls only a 6 and think that is just dumb luck.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 01:56

I knew he was talking about me. But I'm the one that has set a premise that no one has challenged and followed deductive reasoning to the conclusion. No one else has used any type of reasoning other than "show me an exception so you can lose, or if you don't show me an exception you are not reasonable so you lose". That my friend is not logic.

Hehe. You're the one who started with an illogical premise and followed to an illogical conclusion. It's been demonstrated as illogical and as circular reasoning and you don't actually comprehend the explanation. That doesn't make you right. It makes you sadly incapable of following what we're talking about. You shouldn't be boasting about it.

Meanwhile, we're not asking you to show us an exception. We're telling you that without an ability to show why it would work the way you claim there is no evidence for your claim. In order to do so you have to show something comparable. You can't. That's why it is not a scientific or logical claim. I know you don't understand. I'm sorry you don't understand. But it's a fact.

Or I could have brought up this SM that Sean Hannity would be proud of. When did I ask to invalidate all science? I asked for one randomness in one area (any area) of science from a universe that is being claimed to have been created randomly. And I defy you to find something that is defined as relatively random to show 100% nonrandomness and for you to believe that it is still random even after billions and billions of observations and experiments. But there are some here that believe a single die could be rolled a billion times and never get a 1,2,3,4,or 5. They have a die that rolls only a 6 and think that is just dumb luck.

If you demonstrated randomness then the basic premise of science that requires all things to be repeatable would be deleted. Science requires cause and effect. It requires consistency in the laws. One example would be enough to make us unable to trust the laws of the universe.

Meanwhile, you keep demonstrating that you don't understand even on the most fundamental level. Seriously, there isn't a single scientist on this forum who's going to go, yep, that kid knows what he's talking aobut.

Again, I know you don't understand. The laws of the universe aren't dumb luck. That's the point. They aren't random. They're laws. It's like the helicopter seedling always landing the same way. It's not luck. It's how it functions. Your problem is that you've not demonstrated why something having a consistent function is design. See, even if a die rolls a 1,2,3,4,5 it's still designed by the same rules that a die that always rolls a six is.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 01:58

You haven't managed to challenge my pink unicorn premise. Isn't it great that I'm the first person in the history of man to prove no supernatural beings exist. Yay me!

Good Lifes

29-09-2007, 02:05

You haven't managed to challenge my pink unicorn premise. Isn't it great that I'm the first person in the history of man to prove no supernatural beings exist. Yay me!

Actually I'm a follower of the FSM. ARRRRRRRRRR!

Neo Art

29-09-2007, 02:06

I asked for one randomness in one area (any area) of science from a universe that is being claimed to have been created randomly.

What you completely fail to understand is that science, by definition, is not random. That which is random is not predictable. That which is not predictable, is not science.

The universe operates in a certain way. Things follow certain rules. if you knew all the variables, you could predict the entire universe. If things didn't follow those rules, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation.

The problem you're lacking is why does rules such as f=ma, where f always will equal m*a require a designer?

Neo Art

29-09-2007, 02:07

Thank you. Point. Set. Match!

yes, we established that laws are, in fact, laws, and thus not random.

So the fuck what? No, really, so the fuck what? How does that change a thing?

Good Lifes

29-09-2007, 02:07

The laws of the universe aren't dumb luck. That's the point. They aren't random. They're laws.

Thank you. Point. Set. Match!

Deus Malum

29-09-2007, 02:17

yes, we established that laws are, in fact, laws, and thus not random.

So the fuck what? No, really, so the fuck what? How does that change a thing?

Really.

If you dropped a rock off of a tall building and it stopped halfway down, turned into a tulip, and started doing a tango, wouldn't that actually be evidence FOR an intelligent designer?

I mean, yeah, a fucked up intelligent designer, but still an intelligent designer.

Similization

29-09-2007, 03:03

I totally agree. This is why there should be absolutely no conflict between religion and science. Those on each side that want to see a conflict don't understand both sides.I tend to side with physical reality. Not all do. That, I think, is where conflicts occur. Still, I should think it is always possible to adapt superstitions to what is known of physical reality, and if that is done, there's no basis for conflict.Of course it need not have happened. But it happened because all of the natural laws came together to make each planet, each star, each galaxy what it is. None of them follow different rules.Of course. It's all the same stuff, so the properties don't differ. IIRC your claim was that Mars and Earth had to turn out the way they have so far. My point was neither had to. Both planets could have ended up Earth-like with sprawling biospheres, for example. Or neither could. The current state of things, as per our understanding of physics, is the product of chance. That's not to say chance could have resulted in anything imaginable. The variables aren't infinite. That's what physics are about.There should be some exotic unimaginable order somewhere.But your premise is false. As grand as the universe is, it's still just this universe. The "exotic unimaginable order" may very well be that of this universe. If there's others, their properties don't have to be remotely like those of this one. In fact, if the theories like the Big Bang and Foam are accurate, there's likely a vast number of "universes", each with their own kind of physics.I see no conflict. Whatever this Artificial Intelligence you seek turns out to be, if it can make the entire universe operate "universally" without any inconsistency, you can speculate on how it works.Part of reason I started this thread was to hear some thoughts on how such a thing could exist/not exist. What I've proposed is a universal homeostatic control mechanism, basically. But such mechanisms rely on an enormous amount of feedback/information exchange to even be possible, and I honestly don't know if there's enough going on at such a high level for it to be possible, let alone probable.Have two holes myself. He refused to fill them. He wanted $1000 each to kill them, root canal and cap. Told him I could buy a lot of toothpicks for that kind of money.Crap. You have my deepest sympathy. I've had ongoing reconstruction of my jaw and 16 teeth going on for over two years now. Typically though, I've developed an infection in the jawbone now, so I didn't have anything done today. Just medication and rescheduling for Monday. Fucking sucks being me this weekend. But eh, thanks for the sympathy all of you. Didn't mean to whine, but it's hard not to bitch about it.Hehe. Well, actually, the point is actually that the laws of the universe always existed, the universe upon which they act didn't. For example, you might argue that gravity was different, but under similar circumstances gravity would behave just as it did during those first moments. The laws were consistently there. The universe is what changed.It's tricky to comment on this, but your claim isn't accurate. The laws of physics have only "always" existed in the same way that time has always existed. Without our universe, neither exists. Both are properties of our universe.

Like I said, it's tricky to comment, so I'll try an analogy: the difference between your claim and physics, is similar to the difference between a picture frame, and the border of a picture. A frame exists in its own right, and does not depend on the picture for its properties. The border of a picture, on the other hand, does not exist independently of the picture, but is part of the picture itself, and its properties changes whenever the picture changes. Hmm.. Actually, I think that analogy is pretty good. *pats self on back*

Mathematical constants are as you've outlined. Physical constants aren't. Just like you wouldn't have a Max Planck without physical reality, you wouldn't have a Planck constant without it either, because that constant relies on the content of reality to exist. Without this particular content, that particular constant doesn't exist.To the last bit, you made me laugh and it's of course true. I declare that if God exists he would make pink unicorns dance around the Vatican. Since he doesn't I conclude God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong. Show me the pink unicorns, buddy.:)
I'm actually quite fine with the impossibility of assessing the validity of such propositions. It is equally impossible to verify that I really am a free, creative sentient being, so as long as our various superstitions are free from annoying objective facts, we can all subscribe to whichever suits us better. Nice, yeh?

Anyway, what do you think of the idea I proposed in the OP, Jocabia?

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 03:37

Thank you. Point. Set. Match!

Dude, that's your problem. You don't understand that you're setting up a false dichotomy. The options aren't only dumb luck and a designer. When an apple falls from a tree it's not dumb luck. It's also not evidence that someone chose for it to fall.

You're claiming victory and I'm not sure you're even aware of the game.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 03:50

It's tricky to comment on this, but your claim isn't accurate. The laws of physics have only "always" existed in the same way that time has always existed. Without our universe, neither exists. Both are properties of our universe.

Um, no. You're making an assumption. The only evidence we have is that our universe obeys and employs these laws. You can't say they would or would not exist without THIS universe. And given that TIME is a property of this universe as well, ALWAYS is an appropriate statement. I know your thinking is limited by the fact your a creature limited by this universe, but you're plainly just assuming things you couldn't possibly have evidence for.

Like I said, it's tricky to comment, so I'll try an analogy: the difference between your claim and physics, is similar to the difference between a picture frame, and the border of a picture. A frame exists in its own right, and does not depend on the picture for its properties. The border of a picture, on the other hand, does not exist independently of the picture, but is part of the picture itself, and its properties changes whenever the picture changes. Hmm.. Actually, I think that analogy is pretty good. *pats self on back*

It's a good analogy if you were actually right. The problem being that the laws of the universe include it's creation. You don't know what existed "before" the creation and you are really just pulling out dark and smelly things when you claim to know. This makes it very unlike the border of a picture.

Mathematical constants are as you've outlined. Physical constants aren't. Just like you wouldn't have a Max Planck without physical reality, you wouldn't have a Planck constant without it either, because that constant relies on the content of reality to exist. Without this particular content, that particular constant doesn't exist.:)

Um, you seem to think that if the formulas or results change then the laws do. There are other factors that make these laws behave differently, like some laws do around black holes or other anamolies. The fact that things are constant does not mean they are not consistent. Or are you really going to claim that if I were to recreate all of the factors of the moment after the origin of the universe the effect of the laws would not be the same as they were then?

I'm actually quite fine with the impossibility of assessing the validity of such propositions. It is equally impossible to verify that I really am a free, creative sentient being, so as long as our various superstitions are free from annoying objective facts, we can all subscribe to whichever suits us better. Nice, yeh?

Anyway, what do you think of the idea I proposed in the OP, Jocabia?

Me too. I love that we cannot assess them, mostly because I have a strong faith. I guess when faith falters you have to make up "proofs" to support your sagging beliefs. (universal you)

Well, amusingly, AI is actually currently being modeled after natural systems because it was discovered that by emulating organisms that communicate in simple ways and work in concert we could create more effective AI than if we take the AI as a whole. So, yes, life is basically a giant AI, governed by it, part of it. AI today is simply a concert of simple forms. To describe the universe as such would make obvious sense.

The problem being that since the model is based on the universe it's kind of like saying it's astounding that my father ended up looking so much like me.

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 03:56

Actually I'm a follower of the FSM. ARRRRRRRRRR!

You should be. It's a farce based on the obvious logical flaws in your own claims. It's making fun of you. And it's making fun of you because you ideas as expressed here are so sadly lacking in rational thought that people thought they couldn't actually come up with anymore ludicrous and were, thus, tempted to try. They did not succeed.

The Brevious

29-09-2007, 04:13

When I see AI I think Artificial Insemination. Just the agriculture in me.

Sure it's the "agriculture" in you?
DO you want some? :p

The Brevious

29-09-2007, 04:18

\
No, it's not hard to believe in the existance of god when there isn't proof he doesn't exist

A person can live an entire life, as can many en masse, as a convincing argument that there *is* proof that whatever god people might conceive of simply doesn't exist.
Invocations are good.

The Brevious

29-09-2007, 04:20

Deus Malum

29-09-2007, 04:28

Bitch, ain't it, that sigs are limited to "8" lines?

You can always link it :)

The Brevious

29-09-2007, 04:37

You can always link it :)

There are some beauts.
Even if you put them in smallest print, and such ... :)

Similization

29-09-2007, 07:18

Your argument is total randomness should produce total nonrandomness.Even if it was, what would be wrong with that?Um, no. You're making an assumption. The only evidence we have is that our universe obeys and employs these laws. You can't say they would or would not exist without THIS universe.On the contrary, I can say just that. The reason, as I tried to explain, is that this universe haven't always been what it is. The contents of it initially had so different properties that the laws of physics didn't apply. They only became applicable shortly after the rapid expansion.And given that TIME is a property of this universe as well, ALWAYS is an appropriate statement.Yes, yes. I believe I stressed that earlier.I know your thinking is limited by the fact your a creature limited by this universe, but you're plainly just assuming things you couldn't possibly have evidence for.I'm sure that's true for all of us to some extent, but in this case, the evidence, such as it is, does not support the conclusion you're making.It's a good analogy if you were actually right. The problem being that the laws of the universe include it's creation. You don't know what existed "before" the creation and you are really just pulling out dark and smelly things when you claim to know. This makes it very unlike the border of a picture.It does not follow that because X is unknown, some possibilities can't be ruled out. In other words you're making a non sequitur. In particular, if this X had the properties you claim, physics wouldn't become meaningless at around 1^34th of a second after the rapid expansion.Um, you seem to think that if the formulas or results change then the laws do. There are other factors that make these laws behave differently, like some laws do around black holes or other anomalies. The fact that things are constant does not mean they are not consistent. Or are you really going to claim that if I were to recreate all of the factors of the moment after the origin of the universe the effect of the laws would not be the same as they were then?Might be the drugs & alcohol, but I'm not altogether sure what you're talking about here. I can answer the question though: no.

But if you were to re-create the rapid expansion itself, not the universe from shortly after the fact, there's no evidence to suggest you'd end up with anything resembling the universe. In fact, the extreme level of simplicity involved, would seem to indicate the odds of a result like the one we live in, are rather astoundingly bad.

But whatever. This is way, way off topic.Me too. I love that we cannot assess them, mostly because I have a strong faith. I guess when faith falters you have to make up "proofs" to support your sagging beliefs.:)
And building on that, it is my impression that a significant portion of us find it more readily acceptable to discard physical reality, than to re-formulate our superstitions.Well, amusingly, AI is actually currently being modeled after natural systems because it was discovered that by emulating organisms that communicate in simple ways and work in concert we could create more effective AI than if we take the AI as a whole.Heh, yes I know. I find myself working fairly closely with an information theorist these days, so out of politeness, I have to pay attention to her every so often. Hell is other people & all that :D
So, yes, life is basically a giant AI, governed by it, part of it. AI today is simply a concert of simple forms. To describe the universe as such would make obvious sense. Right. I think that's the basis for my speculation, and Vetalia's and Hotrodia's too. It makes an intuitive kind of sense, and it's elegant as hell. Alas, intuition, however compelling, is terribly unreliable.The problem being that since the model is based on the universe it's kind of like saying it's astounding that my father ended up looking so much like me.You've lost me again. I don't think the system I've proposed is based on reversed causality. You look, in part, like your father because you're the product of a very complex exchange of information, and the majority of the information stemmed from your mum & dad. During the exchange, a system kicked in to sort the most viable combination, and it just happens the appearance related bits of info of your dad's was deemed most viable. Thus you look like him. Of course, what a mindless system finds viable isn't necessarily so to an intelligent being like yourself. You might possibly have preferred looking like your mum or whatever, for your esthetical reasons or whatnot.

The system I've proposed is one I'd assume to be very similar, except that it governs other things, such as the matter/energy distribution within the universe, and perhaps even such things as spatial expansion. The difference is that I can understand the basics of how your makeup got picked. I can't understand the system I've proposed. I think some overall principle or system of that magnitude is needed to explain why the universe appears the way it does, but I'd be lying if I said I knew the complexity was sufficient for anything of the sort. Hell, I'd be lying if I said I thought the complexity was insufficient for such a system to be self-aware. I just don't know.

That's why I think it's very interesting to talk about, and why I believe it might have some rather interesting philosophical implications. In the extreme, for example, such a system could be loosely understood as a deity in it's own right, though it obviously didn't create neither universe nor itself, so even if the idea is taken to that extreme by a theist (which I'm not), it could simply be thought of as being not unlike an Asimov robot, created by the 'real' deity - as I've said, I think creator deities or the lack of them, are irrelevant to this idea. It's the idea I wanted to discuss, not who or what, if anything, set it in motion.

To anticipate a bit further, it's easy to say my idea is teleological in nature. It's equally easy to refute; homeostatic systems are plentiful and maniform. Hell, they're living inside every human being. They need not be teleological. But then again, while it is my personal opinion that is a US System exists, it isn't teleological, my opinion in this matter isn't worth very much. I'm far too ignorant of the complexity involved for it to be worth anything.

A brain, even the simplest one found on Earth, has awareness and intent of sorts. As far as the physical evidence goes, such things are a by-product of very low- to very high-level information exchanges, and nothing more. If that's all there is to it, it isn't inconceivable that another unifying system could exhibit those same traits. Again, it strikes me as implausible, but then, looking at Einstein's various rants, it's fairly clear he never could agree with himself on whether or not the universe had an agenda.

The Noosphere, or the omega point (man, you should've said that Hotrodia, then I'd known right away) Hotrodia mentioned, is a great example of a teleological system that principally seeks to explain viability, but like the extreme of my universe-scale idea, also tries to explain viability in terms of an "end", or goals, if you will. Like I said, I don't think it's so. But the idea is difficult to reject. Much more so than more traditional theistic beliefs, at least to me. Because sentient lifeforms, and lifeforms in general, even assuming they're fairly common in terms of the entire universe, are still so insignificant that the goals might not be anything critters like ourselves could recognise.

Disclaimer: I know Einstein is overused, but I'm rather severely impaired right now, and to be honest, I prefer faceless strangers to people I care about when I'm not right in the head. If nothing else, you lot aren't obliged to put up with me ;)
Whatever. I hope I've finally thrown something debate-worthy out there, rather than this constant "My creator deity is better than your lack of one". Trust me, my wife is Muslim and I'm a die-hard atheist. If I wanted that sort of debate, I wouldn't have to waste time aiming at itty bitty keys on a keyboard (and that, by the way, is something I'm finding rather difficult right now. Thank Dog for spellcheckers :D )

Jocabia

29-09-2007, 16:35

Even if it was, what would be wrong with that?On the contrary, I can say just that. The reason, as I tried to explain, is that this universe haven't always been what it is. The contents of it initially had so different properties that the laws of physics didn't apply. They only became applicable shortly after the rapid expansion.Yes, yes. I believe I stressed that earlier.I'm sure that's true for all of us to some extent, but in this case, the evidence, such as it is, does not support the conclusion you're making.It does not follow that because X is unknown, some possibilities can't be ruled out. In other words you're making a non sequitur. In particular, if this X had the properties you claim, physics wouldn't become meaningless at around 1^34th of a second after the rapid expansion.Might be the drugs & alcohol, but I'm not altogether sure what you're talking about here. I can answer the question though: no.

But if you were to re-create the rapid expansion itself, not the universe from shortly after the fact, there's no evidence to suggest you'd end up with anything resembling the universe. In fact, the extreme level of simplicity involved, would seem to indicate the odds of a result like the one we live in, are rather astoundingly bad.

But whatever. This is way, way off topic.:)
And building on that, it is my impression that a significant portion of us find it more readily acceptable to discard physical reality, than to re-formulate our superstitions.Heh, yes I know. I find myself working fairly closely with an information theorist these days, so out of politeness, I have to pay attention to her every so often. Hell is other people & all that :D
Right. I think that's the basis for my speculation, and Vetalia's and Hotrodia's too. It makes an intuitive kind of sense, and it's elegant as hell. Alas, intuition, however compelling, is terribly unreliable.You've lost me again. I don't think the system I've proposed is based on reversed causality. You look, in part, like your father because you're the product of a very complex exchange of information, and the majority of the information stemmed from your mum & dad. During the exchange, a system kicked in to sort the most viable combination, and it just happens the appearance related bits of info of your dad's was deemed most viable. Thus you look like him. Of course, what a mindless system finds viable isn't necessarily so to an intelligent being like yourself. You might possibly have preferred looking like your mum or whatever, for your esthetical reasons or whatnot.

The system I've proposed is one I'd assume to be very similar, except that it governs other things, such as the matter/energy distribution within the universe, and perhaps even such things as spatial expansion. The difference is that I can understand the basics of how your makeup got picked. I can't understand the system I've proposed. I think some overall principle or system of that magnitude is needed to explain why the universe appears the way it does, but I'd be lying if I said I knew the complexity was sufficient for anything of the sort. Hell, I'd be lying if I said I thought the complexity was insufficient for such a system to be self-aware. I just don't know.

That's why I think it's very interesting to talk about, and why I believe it might have some rather interesting philosophical implications. In the extreme, for example, such a system could be loosely understood as a deity in it's own right, though it obviously didn't create neither universe nor itself, so even if the idea is taken to that extreme by a theist (which I'm not), it could simply be thought of as being not unlike an Asimov robot, created by the 'real' deity - as I've said, I think creator deities or the lack of them, are irrelevant to this idea. It's the idea I wanted to discuss, not who or what, if anything, set it in motion.

To anticipate a bit further, it's easy to say my idea is teleological in nature. It's equally easy to refute; homeostatic systems are plentiful and maniform. Hell, they're living inside every human being. They need not be teleological. But then again, while it is my personal opinion that is a US System exists, it isn't teleological, my opinion in this matter isn't worth very much. I'm far too ignorant of the complexity involved for it to be worth anything.

A brain, even the simplest one found on Earth, has awareness and intent of sorts. As far as the physical evidence goes, such things are a by-product of very low- to very high-level information exchanges, and nothing more. If that's all there is to it, it isn't inconceivable that another unifying system could exhibit those same traits. Again, it strikes me as implausible, but then, looking at Einstein's various rants, it's fairly clear he never could agree with himself on whether or not the universe had an agenda.

The Noosphere, or the omega point (man, you should've said that Hotrodia, then I'd known right away) Hotrodia mentioned, is a great example of a teleological system that principally seeks to explain viability, but like the extreme of my universe-scale idea, also tries to explain viability in terms of an "end", or goals, if you will. Like I said, I don't think it's so. But the idea is difficult to reject. Much more so than more traditional theistic beliefs, at least to me. Because sentient lifeforms, and lifeforms in general, even assuming they're fairly common in terms of the entire universe, are still so insignificant that the goals might not be anything critters like ourselves could recognise.

Disclaimer: I know Einstein is overused, but I'm rather severely impaired right now, and to be honest, I prefer faceless strangers to people I care about when I'm not right in the head. If nothing else, you lot aren't obliged to put up with me ;)
Whatever. I hope I've finally thrown something debate-worthy out there, rather than this constant "My creator deity is better than your lack of one". Trust me, my wife is Muslim and I'm a die-hard atheist. If I wanted that sort of debate, I wouldn't have to waste time aiming at itty bitty keys on a keyboard (and that, by the way, is something I'm finding rather difficult right now. Thank Dog for spellcheckers :D )

I'm dropping the OT since you are, if that's alright.

To the last bit, ah, I see where you're going. I guess the OP wasn't clear on that bit. So you're suggesting that because intelligence works this way that it's possible there is an intelligence.

Hmmm....

Given our new understanding of the nature of intelligent properties, I'd say that's not only possible, but I'd put as probable. It makes sense. Given some of the things we already understand I'd say it's quite possible that the universe is a "brain" for lack of a better word. It puts a rather interesting spin on the concept of a creator. It would make the universe itself a natural being and having been a product of the creation, not the cause. It would also make such a creature wonderfully interesting. Hmmmm... I must consider this more.

Grats, my friend. I don't usually have such a novel and complex idea thrust on me in a field I've spent this much time. Color me impressed.

EDIT: And yes, it's been discussed to death whether the universe has an agenda, but it's true that we've discovered that even non-lifeforms exchange information in ways we'd never thought possible and that intelligence is just a series of low-level information exchanges. Given how far we've gone to make AI emulate such workings it seems almost silly to suggest that a system that we're essentially emulating wouldn't have similar properties. Very interesting.

The Cooke Islands

29-09-2007, 20:18

A person can live an entire life, as can many en masse, as a convincing argument that there *is* proof that whatever god people might conceive of simply doesn't exist.
Invocations are good.

what?

The Brevious

30-09-2007, 06:59

what?

What i was saying is that people can live their lives these days, instead of relying on superstition and "holy" bullshit to get them through the rough parts of social circumstance, in ways that are pretty much directly contradictory to the persuasions of extreme fundamentalism that used to pervade the planet, and they're none the worse off, since it makes no difference to offend gods that people have only quantified with their imagination, poetry, art, and prose.

The bottom line was to imply that if those kinds of things really existed, people should try less to cower from them, and instead confront them. Not waste any time. Invite them in.
As i'd said, if you're dealing with other peoples' imaginations, you can beg and pray and mewl for a god of any particular sort all you want and none will arrive, since they're just adolescent imaginary friends.

Jocabia

30-09-2007, 16:27

What i was saying is that people can live their lives these days, instead of relying on superstition and "holy" bullshit to get them through the rough parts of social circumstance, in ways that are pretty much directly contradictory to the persuasions of extreme fundamentalism that used to pervade the planet, and they're none the worse off, since it makes no difference to offend gods that people have only quantified with their imagination, poetry, art, and prose.

The bottom line was to imply that if those kinds of things really existed, people should try less to cower from them, and instead confront them. Not waste any time. Invite them in.
As i'd said, if you're dealing with other peoples' imaginations, you can beg and pray and mewl for a god of any particular sort all you want and none will arrive, since they're just adolescent imaginary friends.

A) What you said in your second bit of rambling does not remotely resemble your first bit. B) Bwahaha. I love when people pretend to take the intellectual route and then just mouth their own faithful beliefs.

The Brevious

01-10-2007, 07:36

A) What you said in your second bit of rambling does not remotely resemble your first bit. Whatever.
Thread too big for you now?
B) Bwahaha. I love when people pretend to take the intellectual route and then just mouth their own faithful beliefs.Sounds like the thread *is* too big for you.
I'd chop it down to a more digestible form for you, but i don't think there's enough room for it and your ego. :D

I can simplify a bit by pointing out that you don't apparently understand what i was saying when i said "bottom line", which strangely enough your post helped to exemplify, thanks. :p

I should point out that you can further exemplify my point about it being an issue of imaginary friends, since you've got copious evidence to prove me wrong about it being their/your imagination.

Jocabia

01-10-2007, 17:08

Whatever.
Thread too big for you now?
Sounds like the thread *is* too big for you.
I'd chop it down to a more digestible form for you, but i don't think there's enough room for it and your ego. :D

I can simplify a bit by pointing out that you don't apparently understand what i was saying when i said "bottom line", which strangely enough your post helped to exemplify, thanks. :p

I should point out that you can further exemplify my point about it being an issue of imaginary friends, since you've got copious evidence to prove me wrong about it being their/your imagination.

I see. So again, your rational approach to the problem leaves you with no alternatives than to attack the man. No arguments. Just attacking me. I accept your defeat.

You concluded that these beings don't exist. Not that there is no evidence for them. That they do not exist. That requires a leap of faith. Welcome to the party. I'm happy that the stuff you've made up makes you feel intellectually superior to the stuff others have made up. Me, I'll remember that faith is just that and giggle at my less rational friends.

You made the less than remotely rational claim that the fact that humans can live in a variety of different ways without the interference of god(s) as evidence for a lack of existence. The idea is so patently stupid that other people in the thread had to ask you to explain it. And, when you did, you changed your point all around because, I suspect, even you recognize that you can't actually defend something so ludicrous.

The Brevious

02-10-2007, 05:46

I see. So again, your rational approach to the problem leaves you with no alternatives than to attack the man. No arguments. Just attacking me. I accept your defeat.Heh, Colbert has better hair than you.
You attacked me first, and laughed, since your ego was inflated about it (or at least you playacted as much), therefore demonstrating your personal attack (which was so clearly bolded .... perhaps you want a Fass-like floundering over that intent?) which meant that for whatever reason, you sacrificed yourself? Weird. You used to be better than that. Maybe you're bored. *shrug*

You concluded that these beings don't exist. Actually, to be fair, i should say that there is no particular significance between them not existing whatsoever and as fancies of imagination, so long as no one takes enough personal risk to prove it.
Really, it's a person's "soul" and supposed eternal existence independent of corporeality, one would think it's kinda important. Especially if it's worth killing and damnation and all those other wonderful things.
Not that there is no evidence for them. That they do not exist. That requires a leap of faith. Welcome to the party. I'm happy that the stuff you've made upWhat is that exactly? What have i made up? Show me.
Tell me what i think.
Here.
Now.
Me, I'll remember that faith is just that and giggle at my less rational friends.Ah, yes ... understanding the difference between what you WANT and what ACTUALLY IS (wow, sounds like an invitation to talk about delusion and facts, doesn't it?) Well, as i'd pointed out, instead of leaps of faith, people shouldn't be cowardly about it, and they should provoke their "faith" .... prove it. Not just come to rationalization, an anchor of fancy.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith

You made the less than remotely rational claim that the fact that humans can live in a variety of different ways without the interference of god(s) as evidence for a lack of existence. The idea is so patently stupid that other people in the thread had to ask you to explain it. And, when you did, you changed your point all around because, I suspect, even you recognize that you can't actually defend something so ludicrous.Heh, no, i was too verbose. You're the one assigning phantoms here. Perhaps that's the task of a "faithful" ... wait, "hopeful" mind.
I have no problem with taking the stance i pointed out, i would implore the same of you, since you would attempt to use your form of reason to attack me, which unfortunately has been seriously off mark. I say stand your ground. I say if you want to make all the bullshit up to match a human, with every fallacy and weakness, you deserve the fallacies and weaknesses for what they're worth ... making creation into a man was a mistake the first and every time around. And you (the general sense, of course) should expect to be called out on it.

Bad day for you or something.

Jocabia

02-10-2007, 17:30

Heh, Colbert has better hair than you.
You attacked me first, and laughed, since your ego was inflated about it (or at least you playacted as much), therefore demonstrating your personal attack (which was so clearly bolded .... perhaps you want a Fass-like floundering over that intent?) which meant that for whatever reason, you sacrificed yourself? Weird. You used to be better than that. Maybe you're bored. *shrug*

We're talking about what you said. You demonstrated faithful beliefs. That's not a personal attack. If you don't understand the difference between "that's a personal belief" and "there's not enough room in the thread for you and your ego" then I'm afraid I should just smile and nod and back away.

Actually, to be fair, i should say that there is no particular significance between them not existing whatsoever and as fancies of imagination, so long as no one takes enough personal risk to prove it.

Um, you don't know either of them. That's the issue. That you think you know is equally a fancy of imagination. You're making a claim that you have no proof for, and can never have proof for.

Really, it's a person's "soul" and supposed eternal existence independent of corporeality, one would think it's kinda important. Especially if it's worth killing and damnation and all those other wonderful things.

And the rambling begins. What the hell does this have to do with the existence of deities? Nothing.

What is that exactly? What have i made up? Show me.
Tell me what i think.
Here.
Now.

How about I let you tell us what you think. Let's see....

A person can live an entire life, as can many en masse, as a convincing argument that there *is* proof that whatever god people might conceive of simply doesn't exist.
Invocations are good.

Now let's pretend that this is actually a well-constructed sentence and not incoherent ramblings and let's look at what it says. Ope. Now that there is what's called a positive assertion. And given what the assertion is, it's pretend comical that you're chastising others for the things they don't actually have evidence for.

Ah, yes ... understanding the difference between what you WANT and what ACTUALLY IS (wow, sounds like an invitation to talk about delusion and facts, doesn't it?) Well, as i'd pointed out, instead of leaps of faith, people shouldn't be cowardly about it, and they should provoke their "faith" .... prove it. Not just come to rationalization, an anchor of fancy.

Hmmm.... someone doesn't know what faith is. Many people of FAITH don't claim to have proof or they would be people of KNOWLEDGE and FAITH would not be required. However, you didn't just claim there was no proof for deities. You said you had proof to the contrary. Now, where is said proof? It doesn't exist. Your assertions like anyone asserting that God does exist is doing so on faith, since there is not and cannot be proof either direction.

See I understand the difference between what I believe and what actually is. I know what I believe regarding deities, but like every human on the planet I don't KNOW what actually is. However, only one of is claiming to know what actually is, and that ain't me.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith

And you linked it and still don't understand that faith is a strong BELIEF. It has nothing to do with whether or not the issue can be established with evidence.

Heh, no, i was too verbose. You're the one assigning phantoms here. Perhaps that's the task of a "faithful" ... wait, "hopeful" mind.

Hehe. I do so enjoy it when someone can't see their own flights of fancy. Again, where is this evidence that god(s) do not exist. I'm quite curious how one proves non-existence.

I have no problem with taking the stance i pointed out, i would implore the same of you, since you would attempt to use your form of reason to attack me, which unfortunately has been seriously off mark. I say stand your ground. I say if you want to make all the bullshit up to match a human, with every fallacy and weakness, you deserve the fallacies and weaknesses for what they're worth ... making creation into a man was a mistake the first and every time around. And you (the general sense, of course) should expect to be called out on it.

Bad day for you or something.

Amusing. Why you getting so angry if you're just pointing out established fact, my friend? So angry that you're rambling again. Reason states that unless you've got evidence you can't make assertions, a requirement you've so desperately attempted to place on the other side by avoid for yourself. You've made a positive assertion. It is on you to demonstrate the fact of it. You've not. You can't. You lose.

I really hope you come back and read this later when you've calmed down because this post by you wanders all over the map and only barely touches the point, as did the first and the second. It was exactly that, that inspired someone to question what you were trying to say. Calm down, take a breath, and aim for stating things clearly. Really, this is a debate thread. You can't expect posts like these to pass for arguments.

Good Lifes

02-10-2007, 20:55

Again, where is this evidence that god(s) do not exist. I'm quite curious how one proves non-existence.

It's hard to believe this thread hasn't died a merciful death.

I think it has been well established that there is simply no evidence that you will accept. When solid deductive reasoning is given it is rejected, not by other established evidence backed by reasoning, but by ramblings.

The fact is a human can't operate without some beliefs and some faith. Not necessarily in a God but then in the people around in society. How does one drive without a belief that the other driver will stop for a red light? Or faith that a bridge will hold your weight? Faith and belief as part of the human animal is undeniable.

One can also have faith and belief in science and the discoveries of man. That doesn't make them so, as we know that from time to time the "universe changes" as old ideas are found to be flawed. Someone finds the exception and a new theory is formulated to realign with the new knowledge. But until that exception the status quo stands as the "truth" as we know it.

The real conflict here is among those that become entrenched in their position and refuse to look at both sides. This has happened many times in history. People were killed in the inquisition for not believing the earth was at the center of the universe and saying it wasn't flat as described in the Bible. While science has seldom had the power to kill unbelievers in their position they have been marginalized and ridiculed. As on this thread.

The fact is for those that actually look at the evidence there is no conflict. Each side supports the other. It's just that each side feels so besieged by the other that both have taken defensive positions that denies the other.

Anyone that logically looks at the available evidence sees both coming together like Yin and Yang.

Jocabia

02-10-2007, 21:30

It's hard to believe this thread hasn't died a merciful death.

I think it has been well established that there is simply no evidence that you will accept. When solid deductive reasoning is given it is rejected, not by other established evidence backed by reasoning, but by ramblings.

The fact is a human can't operate without some beliefs and some faith. Not necessarily in a God but then in the people around in society. How does one drive without a belief that the other driver will stop for a red light? Or faith that a bridge will hold your weight? Faith and belief as part of the human animal is undeniable.

One can also have faith and belief in science and the discoveries of man. That doesn't make them so, as we know that from time to time the "universe changes" as old ideas are found to be flawed. Someone finds the exception and a new theory is formulated to realign with the new knowledge. But until that exception the status quo stands as the "truth" as we know it.

The real conflict here is among those that become entrenched in their position and refuse to look at both sides. This has happened many times in history. People were killed in the inquisition for not believing the earth was at the center of the universe and saying it wasn't flat as described in the Bible. While science has seldom had the power to kill unbelievers in their position they have been marginalized and ridiculed. As on this thread.

The fact is for those that actually look at the evidence there is no conflict. Each side supports the other. It's just that each side feels so besieged by the other that both have taken defensive positions that denies the other.

Anyone that logically looks at the available evidence sees both coming together like Yin and Yang.

Amusing. Do you even understand what I said? I said that people do operate on faith and the person I was talking to in that quote was claiming that he had proof that god(s) do not exist. I claimed that to conclude god(s0 do not exist you must do so on faith, because there simply cannot be conclusive evidence for either side. That's not my belief. That's a fact.

Now you can claim to have deductive evidence, but you'll be laughed out of ever group of people dedictate to actual science. You cannot deduce anything without comparison. Your own links proved that. It's the very basis of deduction. Without basis for comparison, you cannot do anything and you've claimed the onus is on us to create that comparison whining about the request for even a modicum of evidence.

Again, let's deduce. Where is your comparable universe that was created by a supreme being. Oh, right, you don't have one. Where is your comparable universe not created by a supreme being. Agian,you don't have one. What do we know about the capabilities of supreme beings so as to simply decide whether or not such things are possible. Oh, right, you don't have any.

You don't have anything.

Science and religion are compatible ONLY when one admits that operate under different requirements. Faith is not a good enough claim for science and that there is not enough evidence is not a good enough claim for religion. They can coexist, but when one tries to do so the irrational way you try to, you bastardize both. You bastardize your faith by not having the simple ability to accept that you cannot prove it. Hell, that's why it's faith. And you bastardize science through your complete and utter lack of understanding of its very basis. On both counts, you fail.

No on claimed science and religion are at odds. At least, no one you're arguing with. We're simply saying that you cannot reach the conclusion you're trying to reach. If you don't actually recognize that we're not discussing whether or not science and religion are at odds maybe this is the part where you simply admit you're in over your head.

Good Lifes

02-10-2007, 22:09

Without basis for comparison, you cannot do anything

So you demand at least two areas to study before you will claim it to be science.

Let's see:

That eliminates--

The Earth Sciences as there is only one earth NO COMPARISON

* Biogeography
* Cartography
* Climatology
* Coastal geography
* Geodesy
* Geography
* Geology
* Geomorphology
* Geostatistics
* Geophysics
* Glaciology
* Hydrology
* Hydrogeology
* Mineralogy
* Meteorology
* Oceanography
* Paleoclimatology
* Paleontology
* Petrology
* Limnology
* Seismology
* Soil science
* Topography
* Volcanology

Environmental Sciences as we only have one environment to study NO COMPARISON

* Environmental science
* Environmental chemistry
* Environmental geology
* Environmental soil science

The Life sciences as all the life we have came from one blip in an ancient pond somewhere and is therefore only one life source NO COMPARISON

* Anatomy
* Astrobiology
* Biochemistry
* Bioinformatics
* Biology
* Biophysics
* Biotechnology
* Botany
* Cell biology
* Cladistics
* Cytology
* Developmental biology
* Ecology
* Embryology
* Entomology
* Epidemiology
* Ethology
* Evolution (Evolutionary biology)
* Evolutionary developmental biology
* Freshwater Biology
* Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics)
* Histology
* Immunology
* Marine biology
* Microbiology
* Molecular Biology
* Morphology
* Neuroscience
* Ontogeny
* Phycology (Algology)
* Phylogeny
* Physical anthropology
* Physical therapy
* Physiology
* Population dynamics
* Structural biology
* Taxonomy
* Toxicology
* Virology
* Zoology

Anthropology since all human animals came from one source NO COMPARISON

* Applied anthropology
* Anthropology of religion
* Archaeology
* Cultural anthropology
* Ethnobiology
* Ethnography
* Ethnology
* Ethnopoetics
* Evolutionary anthropology
* Experimental archaeology
* Historical archaeology
* Linguistic anthropology
* Medical anthropology
* Physical anthropology
* Psychological anthropology
* Zooarchaeology

Psychology since again there is only one human species to study NO COMPARISON

* Behavior analysis
* Biopsychology
* Cognitive psychology
* Clinical psychology
* Cultural psychology
* Developmental psychology
* Educational psychology
* Experimental psychology
* Forensic psychology
* Health psychology
* Humanistic psychology
* Industrial and organizational psychology
* Neuropsychology
* Personality psychology
* Psychometrics
* Psychology of religion
* Psychophysics
* Physical psychology
* Sensation and perception psychology
* Social psychology

Linguistics since there is only one species that talks NO COMPARISON

* Historical linguistics
* Morphology
* Phonetics
* Phonology
* Semantics
* Semiotics
* Syntax
* Etymology

Political Science, Sociology, Cognitive Science, Health Sciences Again only one species to look at NO COMPARISON

I guess if you insist on a separate universe you also have to insist on a separate world and separate humans.

Obviously you are pulling the insistence on two universes out of the one human digestive tract. (By the way we don't have any other nonearth life to compare I guess you also can't study Proctology)

Jocabia

02-10-2007, 22:23

So you demand at least two areas to study before you will claim it to be science.

Again, you fail to understand and blame me. I'm talking about deductive reasoning requiring some basis for comparison. I said universes but you can just show me an egg made by deities and that would be something to work with. Unfortunately we nothing that we have evidence was created by deities or evidence that wasn't, and due to this FACT, we cannot deduce that other things were or were not made by deities.

Meanwhile, you've shown a ridiculous lack of understanding of almost every science you've listed here. What you quoted me saying was in response to the claim of what you deduced. See your deduction has to be based on observation. For example, all order requires an intelligent actor. The entire universe is ordered. Therefore, the universe requires intelligent actor. The problem with your claim that this is a deduction is that you start with the acknowledge that everything in the universe is ordered, so in order to get your first assumption, you'd have to accept your conclusion. It's circular logic.

Again, if the entire universe is ordered, how do you get the conclusion that order requires and intelligent actor without first assuming that the universe has an intelligent actor? You can't. The only way you can get there is by observing other universes OR already knowing this universe was created by an intelligent actor. These are the only options.

So far, you've demonstrated, you don't understand faith, science AND deduction. Anything else you want to prove you're not actually understanding or would you like to quit while you're behind.

Let's see:

That eliminates--

The Earth Sciences as there is only one earth NO COMPARISON

* Biogeography
* Cartography
* Climatology
* Coastal geography
* Geodesy
* Geography
* Geology
* Geomorphology
* Geostatistics
* Geophysics
* Glaciology
* Hydrology
* Hydrogeology
* Mineralogy
* Meteorology
* Oceanography
* Paleoclimatology
* Paleontology
* Petrology
* Limnology
* Seismology
* Soil science
* Topography
* Volcanology

Environmental Sciences as we only have one environment to study NO COMPARISON

* Environmental science
* Environmental chemistry
* Environmental geology
* Environmental soil science

The Life sciences as all the life we have came from one blip in an ancient pond somewhere and is therefore only one life source NO COMPARISON

* Anatomy
* Astrobiology
* Biochemistry
* Bioinformatics
* Biology
* Biophysics
* Biotechnology
* Botany
* Cell biology
* Cladistics
* Cytology
* Developmental biology
* Ecology
* Embryology
* Entomology
* Epidemiology
* Ethology
* Evolution (Evolutionary biology)
* Evolutionary developmental biology
* Freshwater Biology
* Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics)
* Histology
* Immunology
* Marine biology
* Microbiology
* Molecular Biology
* Morphology
* Neuroscience
* Ontogeny
* Phycology (Algology)
* Phylogeny
* Physical anthropology
* Physical therapy
* Physiology
* Population dynamics
* Structural biology
* Taxonomy
* Toxicology
* Virology
* Zoology

Anthropology since all human animals came from one source NO COMPARISON

* Applied anthropology
* Anthropology of religion
* Archaeology
* Cultural anthropology
* Ethnobiology
* Ethnography
* Ethnology
* Ethnopoetics
* Evolutionary anthropology
* Experimental archaeology
* Historical archaeology
* Linguistic anthropology
* Medical anthropology
* Physical anthropology
* Psychological anthropology
* Zooarchaeology

Psychology since again there is only one human species to study NO COMPARISON

* Behavior analysis
* Biopsychology
* Cognitive psychology
* Clinical psychology
* Cultural psychology
* Developmental psychology
* Educational psychology
* Experimental psychology
* Forensic psychology
* Health psychology
* Humanistic psychology
* Industrial and organizational psychology
* Neuropsychology
* Personality psychology
* Psychometrics
* Psychology of religion
* Psychophysics
* Physical psychology
* Sensation and perception psychology
* Social psychology

Linguistics since there is only one species that talks NO COMPARISON

* Historical linguistics
* Morphology
* Phonetics
* Phonology
* Semantics
* Semiotics
* Syntax
* Etymology

Political Science, Sociology, Cognitive Science, Health Sciences Again only one species to look at NO COMPARISON

I guess if you insist on a separate universe you also have to insist on a separate world and separate humans.

Obviously you are pulling the insistence on two universes out of the one human digestive tract. (By the way we don't have any other nonearth life to compare I guess you also can't study Proctology)

I could not ask for better proof of your failure to understand.

These sciences use hard evidence. They use observation of the things they study and repeated testing to prove those observations are valid. When you invent a way to observe God and to continually test that theory let me know. And, no, the idiotic request to prove randomness is not a test. Randomness does not disprove God, it disproves science.

Meanwhile, you are trying to broaden things out when there is no need to do so. For example, political science is not a study of the entire species. It's a study of political structures and events, and thus we can use other political structures and events in analysis. Environmental science using small groups to make predictions on larger groups.

But, since you don't really understand. I'll make it more concise.

Show me something you know was made by deities and something you know wasn't that we might compare it. See in every one of those sciences the things we deduce are based on things we actually know, things we have observed occuring with no really stretching of our knowledge based on wild speculation. I recognize you don't actually see the difference, but that's a reason for you to just stop, not a reason for me to concede the point.

Good Lifes

02-10-2007, 23:40

Show me something you know was made by deities and something you know wasn't that we might compare it. See in every one of those sciences the things we deduce are based on things we actually know, things we have observed occuring with no really stretching of our knowledge based on wild speculation. I recognize you don't actually see the difference, but that's a reason for you to just stop, not a reason for me to concede the point.

Thank you for conceding that you don't need two earths and therefore I don't need two universes. A little progress.

Now we look at nor "science or" but "science and".

Science is not just experiments it is also observation. We observe fossils and begin to see patterns. We ask "What could cause these patterns?" Someone comes up with a theory and presents it saying "I cannot find one exception to my theory, can you?" Or "Can you find another theory that will also fit this pattern of facts." So everyone runs out does their best to find an exception. If they find the exception, the theory gets thrown out. If they can not find the exception then the theory stands because every observation by all of these scientists adds to the evidence in favor of the theory. I merely ask for the exception that invalidates the theory.

We can say that we observe nothing that is supposed to be random has ever become totally organized. There can be patterns develop, but never complete without exception order. I challenge you to disprove that fact. In fact when those things (as the dice or cards mentioned) suddenly become totally organized we question how that could possibly be and conclude that the order, if it is continually repeated, comes from loading the dice or stacking the deck. In other words, where there is absolute order in that which should be random an intelligence aided that order. I challenge you to find a case where this is not true.

We can also say when we find an object that has the elements organized that we use that as evidence that humans (intelligence) refined the object beyond the organization of nature. It is the orderliness of the iron not the shape of the ball that makes it natural. If the iron would have been ordered the assumption would be that it was made by humans (intelligence). The assumption both pro and con is based on orderliness.

Science is finding a theory that explains why something is that shouldn't be.

See in every one of those sciences the things we deduce are based on things we actually know, We know the universe is totally organized. We know that when something should be random and isn't random that we do not find that to be normal. In fact we know when we see total order in something that starts out random we infer someone loaded the dice. We know that observation is as much science as comparison---especially when we have one earth or one human species.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 01:21

Thank you for conceding that you don't need two earths and therefore I don't need two universes. A little progress.

Ha. Amusing. It's not progress because you're about to prove AGAIN that you don't get the point. Here is the flaw. You say that without the interference of an intelligent actor a certain level of order would happen. You make this claim while also claiming the the entire universe has this level of order. Amusingly, in claiming you've got a falsification test, you've claimed that you can say conclusively that this particular intelligent actor is incapable of making things appear entirely random. Interesting conclusion, but completely baseless.

Where you're falling down is that you don't have to eliminate the intelligent actor or reach your conclusion, it's not either/or. You have to demonstrate that without an intelligent actor, this level of order would not exist. And because that's what is required with your theory, it's what we would have to find to disprove your theory. Neither one of us can do that.

Meanwhile, unless an intelligent actor is incapable of randomness, then discovering randomness would only invalidate your claims about order, it would say nothing about the intelligent actor.

Now we look at nor "science or" but "science and".

Hehe. This, alone, proves what you don't understand. We are always talking about science here. Not science and..., not science or... just science. Either you can make these deductions using what we understand of science or you cannot. The fact that you think we're going outside of science is proof that this is not the result of observation or deduction.

Science is not just experiments it is also observation. We observe fossils and begin to see patterns. We ask "What could cause these patterns?" Someone comes up with a theory and presents it saying "I cannot find one exception to my theory, can you?" Or "Can you find another theory that will also fit this pattern of facts." So everyone runs out does their best to find an exception. If they find the exception, the theory gets thrown out. If they can not find the exception then the theory stands because every observation by all of these scientists adds to the evidence in favor of the theory. I merely ask for the exception that invalidates the theory.

Nope. They don't say "you can't find an exception, can you?" They show what their theory is, they propose ways to test it and then they test it. Then others test it. And so on.

Now some theories they cannot find an exception to and yet they don't stand. Why? Because an exception that would actually falsify the theory is impossible. "Invisible fairies are the force behind gravity." What's the problem with that theory? Well, there is no way to ever prove that they aren't.

You don't ask for an exception that invalidates your theory. I know, I really do, that you don't see this, but, seriously, your request is ridiculous. Not just ridiculous but it's a complete suspension of rational thought. The exception you ask for doesn't disprove anything. Because your theory doesn't state that an intelligent actor would only be capable of order. It's backwards. You've claimed that order is only possible with an intelligent actor. As such we don't have to demonstrate disorder with an intillgent actor or disorder to disprove an intellgent actor. We have to demonstrate order without an intelligent actor in order to invalidate the theory.

We can say that we observe nothing that is supposed to be random has ever become totally organized. There can be patterns develop, but never complete without exception order. I challenge you to disprove that fact. In fact when those things (as the dice or cards mentioned) suddenly become totally organized we question how that could possibly be and conclude that the order, if it is continually repeated, comes from loading the dice or stacking the deck. In other words, where there is absolute order in that which should be random an intelligence aided that order. I challenge you to find a case where this is not true.

Amusing. You're talking about things that have an amount of order, according to you. So apparently, we don't conclude that when this level of order is repeated we don't conclude there is an intelligent actor. That's what you're not seeing. You, yourself are seeing the order that draws us to an intelligent actor is MUCH more particular than just the natural order. The reason is already given by you. Because we've never observed such particular order without an intelligent actor. However, that's because we've actually been able to examine the things with such a particular order and discover the purposeful acts of an intelligent actor. However, we've observed lots and lots of types of order, some expressed by you, that we have no basis for comparison to conclude on the involvement of an intelligent actor.

You've claimed that the entire universe displays at least this much order. As such how could I ever observe what happens when no intelligent actor is involved. Your excluding a lack of intelligent actor based on what you know about a lack of an intelligent actor, but you claim an intelligent actor is always involved. If this is true, then we don't know nything about what happens without the involvement of an intelligent actor.

Meanwhile, your entire theory rests on the idea that things SHOULD BE random. On what do you base such a claim?

We can also say when we find an object that has the elements organized that we use that as evidence that humans (intelligence) refined the object beyond the organization of nature. It is the orderliness of the iron not the shape of the ball that makes it natural. If the iron would have been ordered the assumption would be that it was made by humans (intelligence). The assumption both pro and con is based on orderliness.

Again, based on our knowledge of other things humans have done. That's deduction. Again, you've got no demonstration of either side, things a supernatural actor has done, and things it hasn't, in order to make a comparison of what is and isn't the result.

Now, let's address the lack of order. If you go outside and see a set of rocks in the shape of a word, you'll assume that a human did it. Rightfully so. We've see humans do that before, and we've never seen it happen without the involvement of humans. However, if you see the rocks in a random configuration, can you conclude that humans were not involved? Nope. You can't. Why? Because humans can also make the rocks look as if they weren't involved. Now compare that to your experiment. The ordered rocks, our current understanding of the universe, you claim proves an intelligent actor. Except we've never seen an intelligent actor make such a configuration, so we don't have that. We don't know that such a configuration hasn't happened without an intelligent actor, so we don't have that. And even if the rocks are not ordered, compared to your request to find true randomness, it doesn't disprove the intelligent actor.

See how your experiment fails on every level? No deduction. No observation. No possibility to falsify. No anything.

Science is finding a theory that explains why something is that shouldn't be.

See in every one of those sciences the things we deduce are based on things we actually know, We know the universe is totally organized. We know that when something should be random and isn't random that we do not find that to be normal. In fact we know when we see total order in something that starts out random we infer someone loaded the dice. We know that observation is as much science as comparison---especially when we have one earth or one human species.

So here's what it comes down to. Did you or did you not claim that the kind of order observe in the universe is only possible with the influence of an intelligent actor? If so, the only logical way to prove you wrong to prove such order is possible without an intelligent actor. So, again, how do you propose we test what you're actually claiming.

See, since you're using other purposeful creatures to support your theory. We already know that such creatures can join a system and not produce more order. We can intentionally act to reduce order, to make things appear to be more random, to break the "rules". So you cannot deduce that a deity creating the universe would not be capable of such things. With such knowledge, explain how we could come to the conclusion that if we found disorder it would disprove the involvement of an intelligent actor?

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 02:38

Again, based on our knowledge of other things humans have done. That's deduction.

Thank you! It always amazes me that in the middle of ranting is a concession of the point. Theories are developed through deductive and inductive reasoning.

And don't use the term "circular reasoning" until you read your last post.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 03:07

Thank you! It always amazes me that in the middle of ranting is a concession of the point. Theories are developed through deductive and inductive reasoning.

And don't use the term "circular reasoning" until you read your last post.

So humans created the universe? You clearly don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

You're claiming you've got evidence for a theory that says an intelligent actor created the universe. How do I remove the intelligent actor's responsibility? You claim by finding randomness.

So again you must answer two questions, what evidence do you have that an intelligent actor is incapable of said randomness? According to your own reasoning, the intelligent actor can NEVER be disproven. At best, you could disprove your reasoning, but you could never actually address the theory itself which is what the falsification requirement is.

The second is much simpler. If, according to you, everything in the universe exhibits a certain order, then how would we know that this level of order cannot occur without an intelligent actor? You've claimed we know that order denotes intelligence, but then you at the same time claim EVERYTHING is ordered. As such, you've got to show something that would inidicate to us that a universe lacking a creator would be completely random and without laws. Show something. YOu're claiming that forces are the result of an intelligence, forces you're calling order. You're claiming consistency is a sign of intelligence, but then you claim that all things are consistent. You don't recognize the problem here?

By the by, you do realize that you don't get to claim logical fallacies without demonstrating them? No, of course you don't. You have the same problem there you have in your entire argument. You think YOU get to make claims and it's for us to disprove them. You have the burdern here, friend. And, thus far, for two years, you fail, over and over. Same arguments, no sign of understanding the flaws in your arguments, no end to the circle. I've shown the exact circle in your reasoning. You've NEVER done anything to address. All you do is wait till you're nailed, slip away, and return some to other thread with the same weak arguments and the same failed ideas on how science works.

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 04:07

Similization

03-10-2007, 04:18

It's hard to believe this thread hasn't died a merciful death.I agree. Apart from one or two posts, the only debate there's been has been strictly off topic, and on a subject I've explicitly & repeatedly said I didn't care to have haunting this thread.

But OK. Let's discuss those fucking creator deities of yours then.

Do you have any evidence of a creator deity, GL? Oh, you do. In the form of "order". I see. And why is this evidence of a creator deity? Oh, because "order" cannot exist without a creator deity... Right.

GL I can, using your own reasoning, prove there is no such thing a divinity. No, not even a pesky little non-creator deity like Loki. No divinity. At all. The proof? Here it is mate. Better hold on now: divinity does not exist, because divinity cannot coexist with the universe. The universe exists, ergo divinity doesn't.

That's it. And it's based just as solidly on the gibbering insane side of circular induction as your "deductive reasoning" .... Sometimes NSG makes me wanna howl for medication.

HotRodia

03-10-2007, 04:22

.... Sometimes NSG makes me wanna howl for medication.

Only sometimes?

Personally, I enjoy watching all the sheep dressed up in wolf's clothing and growling ferociously at each other.

Similization

03-10-2007, 04:38

Only sometimes?

Personally, I enjoy watching all the sheep dressed up in wolf's clothing and growling ferociously at each other.You should keep in mind I'm already on medication. Just had surgery yesterday. As it is, I can't actually howl for anything. I can sort of whistle now, but that's about it. But at least I don't have to work :)

HotRodia

03-10-2007, 04:43

You should keep in mind I'm already on medication. Just had surgery yesterday. As it is, I can't actually howl for anything. I can sort of whistle now, but that's about it. But at least I don't have to work :)

Good luck with that. Medication probably does make this thread more bearable.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 04:54

Did you ever consider that it just might be fun to pull your chain?

You don't have a clue how logic or reasoned argument works, so you just rant and rave. You let the emotions get involved. Anytime that a person does this, all a person that's been trained in rhetoric has to do is sit back and wait for one of the rantings to confirm the argument then say "Thank You" and walk away leaving you to chew your tongue.

If your going to use terms like "circular reasoning" you should have an idea what it is. You should also know that one can have perfect reasoning and come to a result that can be debated. It happens all the time. That's why their called "theories" and not facts.

I hope you've had as many laughs as I have.

See you next time.

Thank goodness. I've seen you do this for two years. Your slinking away is always a sign that you've actually began to recognize you're getting shredded. It gives me faith that you've managed to recognize it so early this time.

Yanking my chain? So you really don't believe your inane argument has any validity? How does making an argument the average person can see is circular helping you in any way?

I'm not upset. I'm not emotional. I'm not even particularly entertained. I'm just right. I know I'm right. Similization knows I'm right. Deus knows I'm right. As are they. That's because we all recognize that the only evidence for your claim is your claim.

You think you've gotten concessions because you don't understand what we're saying. It's been pointed out to you by both Deus and I that we use observation of humans and their capabilities to decide whether something was done by a human. That's deductive reasoning. It's been said the whole time. Me, repeating it, isn't concession. Unfortunately, after you read it and clearly comprehended what I said, you still fail to notice that it demonstrates the requirement that you have observations of something and its capabilities before you can decide that it is responsible for something.

Amusingly, you've done exactly what I predicted. What you've been doing for two years. Spout crap. Get called on it. When you get nailed, you slink away and you'll be spouting the same crap in some new thread in a bit. Deus nailed you. I nailed you. Now Similization is nailing you.

They are called theories because there is a specific way of forming them. Theory is a type of jargon. Facts, are often just theories that have a lot of evidence. They are still just theories. You've proven again that you don't actually know anything about science, logic or related disciplines. Your "theory" doesn't qualify because it has no solid deductive or inductive reasoning, nor any evidence. Now, you can keep claiming that the onus is on us to disprove it, but that's just your misunderstanding.

All we have is rambling nonsense about what you THINK people are saying. No evidence. No actually way to challenge the existence of a creator, and thus no falsification. No way to prove a creator. Nothing. And then we get a rather hilarious declaration of victory based on a point no one ever denied. I wish I was making this up. Hey, Sim, you got some extra medication? Apparently, even mind-numbing medication doesn't make it look like GL has a good argument, but perhaps it'll dull the sharpness of the inanity.

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 05:19

You've proven again that you don't actually know anything about science, logic or related disciplines. Your "theory" doesn't qualify because it has no solid deductive or inductive reasoning, nor any evidence. Now, you can keep claiming that the onus is on us to disprove it, but that's just your misunderstanding.

First there's nothing circular about the reasoning. It is a perfectly constructed deduction. However, I can keep going because no one who has challenged me understands logic or reasoning and just rants and raves. All you can do is demand something to support your point of view. You and none of the others at any time made a logical thought out argument. Not one so far has used any reasoning whatsoever. On a purely debate level you lose at every point. You have never destroyed the argument or even nicked it. All you do is spout your beliefs over and over. Beliefs for which you are unable to make a logical deductive or inductive argument. You believe it because you believe it. You are equal to "Christian Fundamentalist" only you are "Science Fundamentalist". Neither of which can make a logical argument because they don't have an understanding of the opposition.

By the way, I have my MS in Speech Communications with an emphasis in Rhetoric, Logic and Persuasion. I have judged debate at all educational levels. I have taught logic and rhetoric at all educational levels. Before you use the terms "circular reasoning" or "strawman" understand what they mean. They don't mean any argument you disagree with or don't understand.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 05:57

First there's nothing circular about the reasoning. It is a perfectly constructed deduction.

Well, if you say so it must be true. I guess all the people besides me who are noticing it's circular are all crazy, huh?

However, I can keep going because no one who has challenged me understands logic or reasoning and just rants and raves. All you can do is demand something to support your point of view. You and none of the others at any time made a logical thought out argument. Not one so far has used any reasoning whatsoever. On a purely debate level you lose at every point. You have never destroyed the argument or even nicked it. All you do is spout your beliefs over and over. Beliefs for which you are unable to make a logical deductive or inductive argument. You believe it because you believe it. You are equal to "Christian Fundamentalist" only you are "Science Fundamentalist". Neither of which can make a logical argument because they don't have an understanding of the opposition.

By the way, I have my MS in Speech Communications with an emphasis in Rhetoric, Logic and Persuasion. I have judged debate at all educational levels. I have taught logic and rhetoric at all educational levels. Before you use the terms "circular reasoning" or "strawman" understand what they mean. They don't mean any argument you disagree with or don't understand.

Amusing. I believe that God created the universe. I'm just not idiotic enough to claim I can prove it.

My problem isn't with your faith in the creation. It's with your lack of understanding of how science works.

Again, I'll ask patiently, on what do you base the claim that randomness would disprove God's involvement of the creation? A point you've never addressed because you have no reply.

Again, I'll ask patiently, what evidence do you have that a consistent universe is inconsistent with a lack of a creator? Again, you cannot address this. You make claims about humans, but since the order you are talking about is everywhere we look, we can't claim that such order is only created by intelligence without assuming that intelligence is responsible for it. This is why it's ciricular.

We're not asking you to support our point of view. We asking you to provide evidence since that is how making a positive assertion works. Simply making claims and then more claims to support the original claim is not enough. You must actually provide something in the way of proof.

But, hey, if you say your reasoning is perfect, that's just like making an argument. Oh, wait, that's not how debate works at all. As such, I'm calling bullshit on that last bit. Yes, yes, I know... and you've got eight PhD's and you're the King of Russia and you've set the world land speed record. Dude, here, claims, even claims about your expertise must be proven. The fact that you think you're remotely touching what would qualify as rational debate proves, you've no idea how it works.

In debate, you can't just call something circular or a strawman. You have to show how it's circular or a strawman. When Deus said he showed where you were using circular reasoing. I did that. Similization did that. But when you do it, you just claim it, repeatedly with no explanation. That's not debate. That's a copout.

Now, you're comparing me to a fundamentalist with so little understanding of my beliefs. Amusing, but still not an argument. Your points have been completely deconstructed. You've not actually connected your points to any actual ground. Deductive reasoning requires not just that one point follow another but that the basis have foundation. And when challenged on the basis, you refuse to reply. Why? Becuase you've got no reply. Instead you drop arguments and keep spouting that same circular argument.

Similization

03-10-2007, 06:04

First there's nothing circular about the reasoning.Did any of us misconstrue or misrepresent your argument? Is your argument not that a creator deity exists, because something you call order exists, and that this order exists because a creator deity exists?
If it is not, you'll simply have to clarify. If it is, then it is indeed circular logic, (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) and I'm more than willing to present you with a handful of sources (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enDK216DK218&q=begging+the+question&btnG=Search&meta=) confirming it.By the way, I have my MS in Speech Communications with an emphasis in Rhetoric, Logic and Persuasion. I have judged debate at all educational levels. I have taught logic and rhetoric at all educational levels. Before you use the terms "circular reasoning" or "strawman" understand what they mean. They don't mean any argument you disagree with or don't understand.In a funny twist, this is another fallacy, frequently called "appeal to authority". (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) Again, I'm more than willing to back that up with a handful of sources. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enDK216DK218&q=appeal+to+authority&btnG=Search&meta=)

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 06:30

We're talking about what you said. You demonstrated faithful beliefs. That's not a personal attack. If you don't understand the difference between "that's a personal belief" and "there's not enough room in the thread for you and your ego" then I'm afraid I should just smile and nod and back away.
If it suits you, but i only worked with what you gave me. Unless you're backing away from your own statement about "what you love", which you should be able to admit started the discourse 'twixt us.

Um, you don't know either of them. That's the issue. That you think you know is equally a fancy of imagination. You're making a claim that you have no proof for, and can never have proof for.Not quite. It seems easier for you to come to rash decisions about what i say, which again appears to be what started the discourse 'twixt us.

How about I let you tell us what you think. Let's see....Ah, funny, you say something like this:

See I understand the difference between what I believe and what actually is.
Consider in context and get back to me.

Now let's pretend that this is actually a well-constructed sentence and not incoherent ramblings and let's look at what it says. Ope. Now that there is what's called a positive assertion. And given what the assertion is, it's pretend comical that you're chastising others for the things they don't actually have evidence for.I'll take my chances. One hand full of wishes, one full of shit ... which one fills up ... I've got all life "and afterlife" :rolleyes:

Hmmm.... someone doesn't know what faith is.AMAZINGLY ENOUGH why i provided a link so that people like yourself wouldn't attempt to reassign meanings to words to make them match some kind of delusion. Saw it coming, like the "Truth" crowd.

Many people of FAITH don't claim to have proof or they would be people of KNOWLEDGE and FAITH would not be required.Could be because of how often they are also called out on their beliefs, so it sounds like sanctuary of people without enough conviction.
However, you didn't just claim there was no proof for deities. You said you had proof to the contrary. Did i now? Show me again?
Could be you, again, misunderstand.

See I understand the difference between what I believe and what actually is. I know what I believe regarding deities, but like every human on the planet I don't KNOW what actually is.On as much, i could not possibly ask more of you. I respect that, and truly, that is the "crux" of the problem.
However, only one of is claiming to know what actually is, and that ain't me.I simply and plainly stake every bit of my experience and sensibility on the extreme probability of something an overarching deity would *not* be. If i'm wrong, it's sure taking a long, long time to prove it, and allowing much evidence to contradict its existence.

And you linked it and still don't understand that faith is a strong BELIEF. It has nothing to do with whether or not the issue can be established with evidence.I understand it fine. It needed to be presented in case of your earlier statement, which i predicted.

Hehe. I do so enjoy it when someone can't see their own flights of fancy. A life of mirth for you, then? You still haven't addressed your own hubris, which kicked off our little conversation in the first place.

I really hope you come back and read this later when you've calmed down because this post by you wanders all over the map and only barely touches the point, as did the first and the second. It was exactly that, that inspired someone to question what you were trying to say.Quite arrogant of you to assume what a different poster implies by the simple query, "What?"
Wow.
You should consider your own assertions carefully.
Calm down, take a breath, and aim for stating things clearly. Really, this is a debate thread. You can't expect posts like these to pass for arguments.I'll remember that next time i review your name on the Mod Forum for your own transgressions ... perhaps we should punch your name up? Don't talk down, you're not up.

Since i've already forgotten what it was you were rambling about, i'll review and get back on anything worth mention.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 06:44

*snip*

Amusing. It seems the crux of your argument is based on the fact that your upset because I noticed the faith it takes to make the claims you do. I do LOVE that you attack faith while espousing. Excusing me for enjoying the delicious irony.

Meanwhile, I notice you claim you actually meant something other than I said, but managed not to state what you were actually saying. Hmmm... I think I can guess why. Meanwhile, I quoted you stating categorically that you had proof of a lack of deities. That proof is based on faith that what you think a deity SHOULD be is what a deity WOULD be. It's no different than my faith except that I recognize the limits of faith, where you can do little more than link to the definition while proving you don't actually accept the meaning you've linked to.

Now, if you'd actually like to make arguments I'm happy to have a debate. However, it seems all you'd like to do is enter the thread to attack the idea of faith, while espousing your own, and when challenged get pissed and make personal attacks. Feel free to try a different tact, because thus far, it seems attacks is all you've got. What you'll find in those mod threads is that I've never been punished, because my comments are part of the debate.

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 06:49

Okay, now i know what some of your off-point remarks were about, and i can see where your problems were.

Um, you don't know either of them. That's the issue. That you think you know is equally a fancy of imagination. You're making a claim that you have no proof for, and can never have proof for.
to this statement:
there is no particular significance between them not existing whatsoever and as fancies of imagination, so long as no one takes enough personal risk to prove it.
I can see now where you got lost.

and

Now let's pretend that this is actually a well-constructed sentence and not incoherent ramblings and let's look at what it says. Ope. Now that there is what's called a positive assertion. And given what the assertion is, it's pretend comical that you're chastising others for the things they don't actually have evidence for.
*emphasis mine ... do you think you can figure out why?
to this statement:

A person can live an entire life, as can many en masse, as a convincing argument that there *is* proof that whatever god people might conceive of simply doesn't exist.Do i need to chop this down so you stop misunderstanding it, or are you going to think about it for a minute?

And the rambling begins. What the hell does this have to do with the existence of deities? Nothing.This, lamentably, is you completely not keeping up. No apologies to you there. You need to try harder.

Why you getting so angry if you're just pointing out established fact, my friend? So angry that you're rambling again.Terms of vulgarity are contextual and not necessarily reflective of emotional state. I'll say it a little differently so you might understand it.
Bullshit is as bullshit does.
Did that sound angry? Is my lip twitching? Am i clenching my teeth and knocking back the bourbon between each sentence? :p
You can give up that sophomoric pseudo-analysis bullshit any time, and the sooner, probably, the better.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 06:57

Okay, now i know what some of your off-point remarks were about, and i can see where your problems were.

to this statement:

I can see now where you got lost.

and

*emphasis mine ... do you think you can figure out why?
to this statement:

Do i need to chop this down so you stop misunderstanding it, or are you going to think about it for a minute?

This, lamentably, is you completely not keeping up. No apologies to you there. You need to try harder.

Terms of vulgarity are contextual and not necessarily reflective of emotional state. I'll say it a little differently so you might understand it.
Bullshit is as bullshit does.
Did that sound angry? Is my lip twitching? Am i clenching my teeth and knocking back the bourbon between each sentence? :p
You can give up that sophomoric pseudo-analysis bullshit any time, and the sooner, probably, the better.

Amusing. You still don't get it. You've repeatedly called them imaginary and you've claimed an ILLOGICAL argument would actually be "a convincing argument" to support this. Sorry for taking your statements in context. I admitted they were rambling and hard to follow. I admitted it took an effort to pretend they were coherent. I guess I should have just left you to arguing with the person who said, huh and commented, as I did, on the fact that it was rambling and incoherent. Instead, I made an attempt to pretend you were actually trying to make a remotely consistent point. Would you prefer I just treat them as incoherent ramblings in the future?

Hey, why don't you backpedal some more. That won't be laughable.

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 06:58

Amusing. It seems the crux of your argument is based on the fact that your upset because I noticed the faith it takes to make the claims you do. I do LOVE that you attack faith while espousing. Excusing me for enjoying the delicious irony. Ah, you like your own conversation better due its amusement value. One way. That would explain most of this. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, I notice you claim you actually meant something other than I said, but managed not to state what you were actually saying. Hmmm... I think I can guess why. Meanwhile, I quoted you stating categorically that you had proof of a lack of deities. Again, you misunderstand the statement. That proof is based on faith that what you think a deity SHOULD be is what a deity WOULD be. It's no different than my faith except that I recognize the limits of faith, where you can do little more than link to the definition while proving you don't actually accept the meaning you've linked to.There were, ahem, several meanings presented, all of which i don't bother to reassign meaning to, since they do well enough on their own, and i accept them just fine as such.
So, for elucidation:
(complete confidence in a person or plan etc)
(a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny)
(complete confidence in a person or plan etc)
None of which diminish the point that it is simply an attitude that attempts to condition the emic of any future circumstance, which is ...
delusion:
(the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas)
Now since this is a debate thread, debate that. Seems like i understand what i'm talking about. Perhaps you should do as you said ...
I'm afraid I should just smile and nod and back away.
...or accept that you're not in any particular "upper hand" position. It's getting old.

Now, if you'd actually like to make arguments I'm happy to have a debate.Good, then deal with the above setting of provided definition :p
However, it seems all you'd like to do is enter the thread to attack the idea of faith, while espousing your own, and when challenged get pissed and make personal attacks.You attacked first. Deal with it. Perhaps it's you stuck on what you think personal attacks are, perhaps due a faithful relationship to the topic.

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 07:05

Amusing. You still don't get it.Oh, that's not the problem. Sorry for taking your statements in context.You didn't, and persistence enough shows a peculiar ... how do i say, fundamentalism? in your approach. What fundamental would that be? Here's a clue:
If it suits you, but i only worked with what you gave me. Unless you're backing away from your own statement about "what you love", which you should be able to admit started the discourse 'twixt us.

I admitted they were rambling and hard to follow. I admitted it took an effort to pretend they were coherent. I guess I should have just left you to arguing with the person who said, huh and commented, as I did, on the fact that it was rambling and incoherent.That would be you inserting your ego and, yes, lack of comprehension, and arrogantly attributing that whole mental scenario to one interrogative, which i admitted was verbose on my part.
Instead, I made an attempt to pretend you were actually trying to make a remotely consistent point. Would you prefer I just treat them as incoherent ramblings in the future?For whatever difference it makes, you could try thinking harder about them and perhaps prevent your ego from obscuring other peoples' points.
That's been pointed out to you enough times now.

You've got plenty of fuel to keep this thread off track, so maybe Good Lifes will come back and keep you going until RL isn't such an issue for me.

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 07:07

Hey, why don't you backpedal some more. That won't be laughable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13101249&postcount=112
Laughable like that? :p

You know, as tepid as this is, someone who has some concern about this is likely to get fed up with it at some point. So when you're done dining on your own interpretation of "irony" and the like, enjoy the rest of the thread.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 07:14

Ah, you like your own conversation better due its amusement value. One way. That would explain most of this. :rolleyes:
Again, you misunderstand the statement. There were, ahem, several meanings presented, all of which i don't bother to reassign meaning to, since they do well enough on their own, and i accept them just fine as such.
So, for elucidation:
(complete confidence in a person or plan etc)
(a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny)
(complete confidence in a person or plan etc)
None of which diminish the point that it is simply an attitude that attempts to condition the emic of any future circumstance, which is ...
delusion:
(the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas)
Now since this is a debate thread, debate that. Seems like i understand what i'm talking about. Perhaps you should do as you said ...

...or accept that you're not in any particular "upper hand" position. It's getting old.

Good, then deal with the above sentence :p
You attacked first. Deal with it. Perhaps it's you stuck on what you think personal attacks are, perhaps due a faithful relationship to the topic.

Again, you don't seem to notice the difference between recognizing that your acting on faith when you claim there is any convincing argument for deities not existing and further claiming that they are, in fact, imaginary and talking about my ego and the various other petty attempts to avoid rational thought.

But, hey, you're not angry, right?

Meanwhile, you are acting on faith.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

You're acting on faith. I know it offends you, because you wish to pretend you're better than that, but being sullen and bitter doesn't an argument make. You were discussing the fact that their beliefs had no evidence, i.e. the reason that faith is used in doctrines of Christianity, because of the recognition that the word does not require proof. It actually denies it.

Granted that word has been molested by dark age thinkers, but it's being equally molested by people like yourself who are so afraid that we might be right that you have to convince yourself you can prove something that cannot be proven or even evidenced. The idea itself is ludicrous.

Keep being surly though. It will likely make people think you're deep and thoughtful. Or, you know, you could try taking a moment and making your arguments clear and thought out so people don't have to ask you what the hell your talking about. You're doing much better now, however. Maybe you just have to get angry enough to care about what you're typing. Or maybe you made those posts late at night when you were under the influence of something, hmmm? Honestly, why pretend like even you think they were well-written. Don't get angry. Admit your error and move on. Seriously, this is just sad.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 07:17

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13101249&postcount=112
Laughable like that? :p

You know, as tepid as this is, someone who has some concern about this is likely to get fed up with it at some point. So when you're done dining on your own interpretation of "irony" and the like, enjoy the rest of the thread.

You crack me up. And I replied to him, he hasn't said anything since and he's engaged the jack, so that kind of falls on him.

I'm happy you're starting to make arguments, sort of. At least they've been consistent posts. Go back and look at what you started with. Are you honestly going to claim those are something you're proud of writing? Come on, Straughn, we've known each other for a long time. Is that what you'd call one of your reasonable efforts?

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 07:37

Again, you don't seem to notice the difference between recognizing that your acting on faith when you claim there is any convincing argument for deities not existing and further claiming that they are, in fact, imaginary and talking about my ego and the various other petty attempts to avoid rational thought.I don't think you[ve got an argument there, about how to understand what rational thought is if you're taking it on your own faith that you even understand what is being discussed or how. You really should reconsider your approach there, as i've pointed out, it's unbecoming.

But, hey, you're not angry, right?Is this a good topic to get angry about? Hmmm ... do you remember this reaction on your part?
What the hell does this have to do with the existence of deities? Nothing.Now consider it in context.

Meanwhile, you are acting on faith.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof Oh wow, i was only the first person posting the definition for it and everything :rolleyes:
And, as i'd pointed out, i'd used it context and rational discourse ... and even with a POINT. Now you're rambling.

Granted that word has been molested by dark age thinkers,Perhaps. Point taken and appreciated.
but it's being equally molested by people like yourself who are so afraid that we might be right that you have to convince yourself you can prove something that cannot be proven or even evidenced. Ah. There it is, unabashed, unmitigated ego. That's *exactly* the faith that is deluding you, and i would venture to say it's the source of your vitriolic and misguided attempts to malign my statements.
Okay.
Now the point.
PROVE it.
What? Oh, that's right. *sighs*
*waits*
*sighs again*
*moves on*

The idea itself is ludicrous.Fuck yeah it is.

Keep being surly though.Keep assigning emotional responses that are merely reflections of your own titillation, as you'd pointed out several times. :)
It will likely make people think you're deep and thoughtful.Oh really? For true?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif
Oh lawdy, i'm having a Fass moment :p
Or, you know, you could try taking a moment and making your arguments clear and thought out so people don't have to ask you what the hell your talking about.Fair. I admit that i often come across as verbose and it's not helpful at times, this one one of the more obvious. Perhaps it's the failed poet in me. Perhaps it's medication i sorely need. Perhaps it's due to a lack of faith in prose. :p
You're doing much better now, however. Maybe you just have to get angry enough to care about what you're typing. Truth is, actually, i went to a different thread, while i'm watching the news segment on our new local installation of F-22's, and my significant other is telling me what sperm do to eggs.
Or maybe you made those posts late at night when you were under the influence of something, hmmm? Honestly, why pretend like even you think they were well-written.If i have to compete with religious texts, i think i'm safe. :p
Don't get angry. What is this, Groundhog Day? :p
http://www.sethbarnes.com/blogphotos/sethbarnes/www/groundhog_day.jpg
Admit your error and move on.None to admit at this point.
Seriously, this is just sad.Agreed.
Whoa!

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 07:39

Well, if you say so it must be true. I guess all the people besides me who are noticing it's circular are all crazy, huh?

Amusing. I believe that God created the universe. I'm just not idiotic enough to claim I can prove it.

My problem isn't with your faith in the creation. It's with your lack of understanding of how science works.

Again, I'll ask patiently, on what do you base the claim that randomness would disprove God's involvement of the creation? A point you've never addressed because you have no reply.

Again, I'll ask patiently, what evidence do you have that a consistent universe is inconsistent with a lack of a creator? Again, you cannot address this. You make claims about humans, but since the order you are talking about is everywhere we look, we can't claim that such order is only created by intelligence without assuming that intelligence is responsible for it. This is why it's ciricular.

We're not asking you to support our point of view. We asking you to provide evidence since that is how making a positive assertion works. Simply making claims and then more claims to support the original claim is not enough. You must actually provide something in the way of proof.

But, hey, if you say your reasoning is perfect, that's just like making an argument. Oh, wait, that's not how debate works at all. As such, I'm calling bullshit on that last bit. Yes, yes, I know... and you've got eight PhD's and you're the King of Russia and you've set the world land speed record. Dude, here, claims, even claims about your expertise must be proven. The fact that you think you're remotely touching what would qualify as rational debate proves, you've no idea how it works.

In debate, you can't just call something circular or a strawman. You have to show how it's circular or a strawman. When Deus said he showed where you were using circular reasoing. I did that. Similization did that. But when you do it, you just claim it, repeatedly with no explanation. That's not debate. That's a copout.

Now, you're comparing me to a fundamentalist with so little understanding of my beliefs. Amusing, but still not an argument. Your points have been completely deconstructed. You've not actually connected your points to any actual ground. Deductive reasoning requires not just that one point follow another but that the basis have foundation. And when challenged on the basis, you refuse to reply. Why? Becuase you've got no reply. Instead you drop arguments and keep spouting that same circular argument.

It's hard to believe you really want to continue this.

Accepted fact: BOOM bits of energy randomly blow in every direction.

Accepted fact: There is no known natural way that bits of energy can communicate over massive space.

Accepted fact: The bits of energy were many light years apart before they began to form into what we call matter.

Fact that you have found no refute: Random acts can form areas of perceived order but do not form absolute order. A single example would refute this.

Fact: Every scientific observation has shown only order.

Fact: Whenever something perceived as random fails to show randomness the assumption is that something beyond nature has tampered with the randomness. If you really feel that dice will roll 7 a billion times in a row without exception without being tampered with you better avoid Vegas.

Based on these observations.

The universe started with a random BANG that sent bits of energy mindlessly in every direction.
The bits of energy formed exactly the same way and follows exactly the same rules even though it was randomly expelled into the universe with no chance that there would be any communication between those bits.
Not only did the bits form order as would be expected through chaos with some bits forming one type of order and others forming another type of order, they formed exactly the same everywhere without exception.
In every observation of something that should be random that no longer shows randomness the randomness is because someone loaded the dice.
Conclusion: Something caused a totally random action to become totally organized. What could possibly do this over such a vast area? In all observations of this happening it was an intelligence that formed the order. (Take anything that is accepted as random and show a way other than intelligence that the dice [or other randomness] lost it's randomness totally[that would falsify the claim])

So the logic moves from several observations to the only known way of eliminating randomness totally. If you have another way to show communication between the bits of energy that would cause the total order offer it. It must be able to tell the bits of energy at 180 degrees in opposite directions how to form exactly without exception. Other known forces such as gravity don't operate over long distances. Light doesn't have enough force to effect so much material. So what caused this perfection. Give an alternate theory that will solve that problem and be consistent with all observation.

It moves from the given observed facts to the logical conclusion. This is exactly what Darwin did. These bones are a fact. These bones seem to move from one species to another with slight changes from one step to the next. There is order where there should not be order. We have observed that humans can breed pidgins to form slightly different from one generation to the next. If humans can make changes from one generation to the next, perhaps nature could do the same thing. I will submit this theory along with the observations to others and see if they can find a flaw in the theory. They will either find a flaw and the theory will die or every observation they make will confirm the theory. Or they can do as you and simply say it is wrong and you don't have the evidence that I will accept because I have my mind made up and you won't change it. So show me a pigeon turning into a chicken or I will call it circular reasoning.

Circular would be:

God caused the Bang.
The universe is ordered by intelligence.
God intelligently caused the Bang.

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 07:44

You crack me up. And I replied to him, he hasn't said anything since and he's engaged the jack, so that kind of falls on him.
True. The two of you seem to have a startlingly different approach to your discourse than the two (?) of us. :p

I'm happy you're starting to make arguments, sort of. At least they've been consistent posts. Go back and look at what you started with. Are you honestly going to claim those are something you're proud of writing? Well, part of what i meant when i'd stated that i'd forgotten what the rambling was about, i didn't even remember what it was that got this going in the first place, thus causing the revisit, so i can't seriously have been *that* proud of it! :p
Come on, Straughn, we've known each other for a long time. Is that what you'd call one of your reasonable efforts?As well, you often do very, very well in your consistencies of argument (as i'd pointed out a few times when i(?) was actually Straughn.

You know, i haven't really argued anyone in a long time about this kind of topic since i started, or at least, i remember very little of doing so. It doesn't make that much of a difference anyway. As i'd intimated, as much amusement as this place provides (as HotRodia so astutely pointed out), i really don't get too much singular focus time here, so there's always a few things going on.
I'd like to say it was porn, but F-22's are close enough.
Oh yeah, and the sperm, i guess that might seem pornographic in a way :p

If nothing else, it's fun getting gritty with you. I haven't done that in a while. :p

Good travels to you. *bows*

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 08:00

It's hard to believe you really want to continue this.

Accepted fact: BOOM bits of energy randomly blow in every direction.

Accepted fact: There is no known natural way that bits of energy can communicate over massive space.

Accepted fact: The bits of energy were many light years apart before they began to form into what we call matter.

First, no. These are not accepted fact. What you're saying is similar to the prevailing theory about the origin of the universe. However, "randomly" has nothing to do with it, and your explanation of it resembles that of someone who has only read, well, a paragraph abou tit.

Fact that you have found no refute: Random acts can form areas of perceived order but do not form absolute order. A single example would refute this.

Define absolute order. Define random. Because the refutation is in the FACT that you don't actually understand the physics of what you're trying ot argue.

Meanwhile, you are giving examples. You are pointing out an example that if God did not have a hand in it disproves you theory and that if God did proves your theory. No, I don't have an examples that are similar to what the big bang claims. I'm not required to. However, since your theory requires deduction, not measurement, not clear experimentation, but deduction, YOU ARE required to show a similar scenario. As of yet, you haven't. What measurements would you expect to see as a result of your theory? What would disprove it? What evidence is there for it? You think you've answered these things, but you're not even close. You don't know enough about physics or science or really any part of what you're discussing to even understand how far away you are.

Fact: Every scientific observation has shown only order.

Order in the way you describe. Well, yes, almost. We have found areas of space that violated our current understanding of the laws. The laws are not as consistent as you claim. But we found new laws that made sense of these finds as science tends to do.

Meanwhile, since every scientific observation shows "only order" on what basis can you claim that we attribute all order to intelligence?

Fact: Whenever something perceived as random fails to show randomness the assumption is that something beyond nature has tampered with the randomness. If you really feel that dice will roll 7 a billion times in a row without exception without being tampered with you better avoid Vegas.

There is no such thing as randomness. There are only things we don't have the means to predict.

And, still, no. If something is designed to be pseudo-random, like a die, then we know it's been tampered with if it does not perform as designed. It's far more likely that damage to the die would cause a predictable outcome than loading. Damage to the die is not design. And the reason the die stops working pseudo-randomly is because the intelligent being that designed it to behave that way, was to flawed to make fool-proof. Dice are exactly why you can't claim that finding randomness would disprove your theory, because intelligent beings have attempted to make things random as well.

Based on these MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

Fixed to make it accurate.

The universe started with a random BANG that sent bits of energy mindlessly in every direction.
The bits of energy formed exactly the same way and follows exactly the same rules even though it was randomly expelled into the universe with no chance that there would be any communication between those bits.
Not only did the bits form order as would be expected through chaos with some bits forming one type of order and others forming another type of order, they formed exactly the same everywhere without exception.
In every observation of something that should be random that no longer shows randomness the randomness is because someone loaded the dice.
Conclusion: Something caused a totally random action to become totally organized. What could possibly do this over such a vast area? In all observations of this happening it was an intelligence that formed the order. (Take anything that is accepted as random and show a way other than intelligence that the dice [or other randomness] lost it's randomness totally[that would falsify the claim])

So the logic moves from several observations to the only known way of eliminating randomness totally. If you have another way to show communication between the bits of energy that would cause the total order offer it. It must be able to tell the bits of energy at 180 degrees in opposite directions how to form exactly without exception. Other known forces such as gravity don't operate over long distances. Light doesn't have enough force to effect so much material. So what caused this perfection. Give an alternate theory that will solve that problem and be consistent with all observation.

It moves from the given observed facts to the logical conclusion. This is exactly what Darwin did. These bones are a fact. These bones seem to move from one species to another with slight changes from one step to the next. There is order where there should not be order. We have observed that humans can breed pidgins to form slightly different from one generation to the next. If humans can make changes from one generation to the next, perhaps nature could do the same thing. I will submit this theory along with the observations to others and see if they can find a flaw in the theory. They will either find a flaw and the theory will die or every observation they make will confirm the theory. Or they can do as you and simply say it is wrong and you don't have the evidence that I will accept because I have my mind made up and you won't change it. So show me a pigeon turning into a chicken or I will call it circular reasoning.

Circular would be:

God caused the Bang.
The universe is ordered by intelligence.
God intelligently caused the Bang.

Wow, just wow. Seriously, you should have quit while you're behind. If Deus's connection ever comes back up he's about to give you a physics lesson.

Meanwhile, that something could simply being the laws of physics (technically we'd have to call it something else) that applied to the pre- and early universe. We already know those laws were different. The fact you aren't aware of these laws doesn't make them not exist. People study physics their whole life and don't understand the Big Bang very well. You needn't be embarrassed that you don't have a handle on it. However, stop pretending that you do. It's making you look silly.

A pre-universe subject to whatever laws existed at that time would be equally likely to form this universe as one directed by the force you're claiming, an intelligent actor. Only the intelligent actor isn't predictable and the forces are. As such, we don't bother speculating about intelligent actors we cannot measure any more than we speculate about fairies being behind gravity. It's possible, but since we could never prove or disprove it, it's really just wild speculation. Meanwhile, we can actually gather evidence on pre-universe forces since we can make predictions on them and perform tests on those predictions, thus gathering evidence.

See, this is why your "theory" fails to qualify as logic, science or rational thought.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 08:02

True. The two of you seem to have a startlingly different approach to your discourse than the two (?) of us. :p
Well, part of what i meant when i'd stated that i'd forgotten what the rambling was about, i didn't even remember what it was that got this going in the first place, thus causing the revisit, so i can't seriously have been *that* proud of it! :p
As well, you often do very, very well in your consistencies of argument (as i'd pointed out a few times when i(?) was actually Straughn.

You know, i haven't really argued anyone in a long time about this kind of topic since i started, or at least, i remember very little of doing so. It doesn't make that much of a difference anyway. As i'd intimated, as much amusement as this place provides (as HotRodia so astutely pointed out), i really don't get too much singular focus time here, so there's always a few things going on.
I'd like to say it was porn, but F-22's are close enough.
Oh yeah, and the sperm, i guess that might seem pornographic in a way :p

If nothing else, it's fun getting gritty with you. I haven't done that in a while. :p

Good travels to you. *bows*

And to you, friend.

(So how weird do you think that discourse looks to everyone else?)

The Brevious

03-10-2007, 08:16

And to you, friend.

(So how weird do you think that discourse looks to everyone else?)

Weirdly enough, only a couple of people really take it home with them, which is kind of unfortunate. I have a lot of real friends who have no problem defending their beliefs and ideas at blueface volume, since it's actually fun to argue about some things that way. I've had many long, long walks doing just that kind of thing. Perhaps cathartic, perhaps therapeutic, perhaps a bit masochistic :p

There was a guy named The Guitar or something like that a really, really long while back, who unfortunately made the assumption that i honestly knew him/her personally, and was arguing from a point of having been stung that way.
Probably over a political issue. :p

Well, Colbert's over, and now Caddyshack's on (the candy bar part)
...but i'm still listening to birth control techniques, and i won't get to finish the flick anyway, since i need to go sleep or something like it.

Btw - you've been on more sparsely yourself, or is it just kept to certain topics?

Geniasis

03-10-2007, 09:10

You know, I think I missed something in the Jocabia/Brevious debate.

I mean, from:

"Sorry, but you're using an illogical argument"
"Hah! Looks like you *still* don't understand the definition I linked to"

then suddenly:

"Well I had a rather jolly time. Do take care of yourself old chum."
"Yes yes, you as well. I rather enjoyed our little mud-slinging discourse."

Similization

03-10-2007, 12:20

You know, I think I missed something in the Jocabia/Brevious debate.Funny, I've noticed rather a lot of people on here tend to assume bloodyminded debates are an expression of ill will. Of course, I can't speak for Jocabia & Brev (Damnit man! I never realized it was you Straughn. I missed you :p), but at least as far as I'm concerned, it is very rarely the case. It's probably something to do with where you're from. Not everyone's a timid little softspoken git, who wouldn't to say boo to a goose.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 17:26

Weirdly enough, only a couple of people really take it home with them, which is kind of unfortunate. I have a lot of real friends who have no problem defending their beliefs and ideas at blueface volume, since it's actually fun to argue about some things that way. I've had many long, long walks doing just that kind of thing. Perhaps cathartic, perhaps therapeutic, perhaps a bit masochistic :p

There was a guy named The Guitar or something like that a really, really long while back, who unfortunately made the assumption that i honestly knew him/her personally, and was arguing from a point of having been stung that way.
Probably over a political issue. :p

Well, Colbert's over, and now Caddyshack's on (the candy bar part)
...but i'm still listening to birth control techniques, and i won't get to finish the flick anyway, since i need to go sleep or something like it.

Btw - you've been on more sparsely yourself, or is it just kept to certain topics?

Very sparsely. And most of the blue-facedness was that your initial posts were very un-Straughn-like and I was trying to extract some meaning.

As to our rather curious interactions and the reactions of others, I hold my beliefs close to my vest, and I don't blame you for doing the same. Most times while I'm on here, I'm smiling and rather enjoying myself, or at least, I used to be. I've been chased away by, after way to long putting up with it, by what I view as the death of good debate on NSG. This thread was no exception, and I wouldn't be here if Deus hadn't pointed it out and been rather frustrated with the absurd lack of understanding of science demonstrated by our friend's claims about the big bang and what he claims is deductive reasoning.

Fortunately, in place of good debate, we do get some of the amusing little tidbits like someone committing almost every fallacy in the book claiming to be an expert on debate and rhetoric. Amusingly, rhetoric intentionally employs fallacies when they'll be convincing. Clearly, here, they weren't. I'd rather have good debate, but I'll settle for other forms of entertainment when I get them.

If you see a resurgence of good debate or just a thread you think I might like, feel free to contact me. I miss it. I really do. Perhaps we need to get closer to the election or something, but right now it just feels like a lot of bad rhetoric and no debate. And, after a while, it seems like we've all fallen into just responding in kind. Personally, I found that a good time to, more or less, take my leave.

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 17:32

However, since your theory requires deduction, not measurement, not clear experimentation, but deduction, YOU ARE required to show a similar scenario.
The only experimentation that Darwin did was develop different pidgins. That of course was something that pidgin raisers had done for years. He then had aides boil them down and he examined the different shapes of bones. Evolution was in the beginning nothing more than deduction based on observation.

Meanwhile, since every scientific observation shows "only order" on what basis can you claim that we attribute all order to intelligence?

There is no such thing as randomness. There are only things we don't have the means to predict. Agreed Thank you for making my point.

because intelligent beings have attempted to make things random as well.

Agreed. So if there was randomness we could say that we didn't know one way or the other.

Meanwhile, that something could simply being the laws of physics (technically we'd have to call it something else) that applied to the pre- and early universe. We already know those laws were different. The fact you aren't aware of these laws doesn't make them not exist.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 18:42

The only experimentation that Darwin did was develop different pidgins. That of course was something that pidgin raisers had done for years. He then had aides boil them down and he examined the different shapes of bones. Evolution was in the beginning nothing more than deduction based on observation.

Yes, and more observation, and more observation, and more observation. First, he observed what appeared to be evolution and tried to explore it's nature.

Yours is not based on observation. You started with an assumption that God exists and set out to find an lame excuse for your beliefs. You're, in fact, ignoring observations. You say EVERYTHING has a certain amount of order, but order, at that level, cannot exist without an intelligent actor, therefore an intelligent actor must exist. But, hey, nothing circular about that.

What's amusing is that you claim order must be the result of intelligence, and YET, you claim that if we find randomness suddenly order mustn't be the result of intelligence. It's a bit like claiming you know my house was built by men, unless you find a pile of sticks, because that proves that men haven't made every pile of sticks into a house so therefore we don't know if they did the first one. It's absurdly stupid.

Agreed Thank you for making my point.
Agreed. So if there was randomness we could say that we didn't know one way or the other.

Which doesn't disprove. You have to actually be able to disprove. That's the part you don't understand. Your theory has to be falsifiable, not just made to be undecided. Your own admission shows why it is not scientific. In science you don't get to set things up so you can only win.

And, again, if order cannot exist without the influence of intelligence, then how does areas of the universe that are not ordered say anything about the requirement for intelligence in order? It doesn't. It's actually rather laughable.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

You ignored the point. You don't recognize that consistent forces at the time of the origin of the universe would be far more testable than an intelligent entity. An intelligent entity is untestable because you have to have firm expectations that either support or disprove a theory. You have flacid expectations that if you find no randomness, doesn't prove anything, or if you find randomness, doesn't prove anything. As far as we know, God could cause randomness or things that are subject to consistent laws could not have an intelligent actor involved. That makes your "theory" completely untestable despite your misunderstanding of science.

Now if you posit forces that caused the existence of the universe (whether those forces are the result of an intelligence is irrelevant) then you have the ability to test for the nature of said forces (except intelligence). You can only expect them to consistent which gives no sign of intelligence whatsoever.

See, you've only moved the problem further back, it's no different than science, except in your movement, you've ended the process, as people who invoke God in science have always done. God did it is not a scientific claim, it offers no conclusion, nor tests. It has nothing to do with science.

And, yeah, I know you didn't say God, but a rose by any other name and all that.

Jocabia

03-10-2007, 18:46

Agreed Thank you for making my point.

You keep taking victory in things no one has ever denied. I guess when you're unable to support your points you have to take your "victories" where you can get them, no?

Science assumes that laws exist that make things predictable. It's a core assumption in science. No one has ever denied it. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the underpinnings of that, and thus keep acting like it's ever been disputed.

Good Lifes

03-10-2007, 23:44

Yes, and more observation, and more observation, and more observation. First, he observed what appeared to be evolution and tried to explore it's nature.

Yours is not based on observation. You started with an assumption that God exists and set out to find an lame excuse for your beliefs. You're, in fact, ignoring observations. You say EVERYTHING has a certain amount of order, but order, at that level, cannot exist without an intelligent actor, therefore an intelligent actor must exist. But, hey, nothing circular about that. Exactly and I have continually submitted not only the observations of the universe but all scientific observations. How many more observations than that can you ask for? Where in any post did I start out with God? In fact, where did I end with God? I started with the scientific observations in not only the origin but any area and ended that those observations showed a consistency.

You keep assuming rather than reading.

What's amusing is that you claim order must be the result of intelligence, and YET, you claim that if we find randomness suddenly order mustn't be the result of intelligence. It's a bit like claiming you know my house was built by men, unless you find a pile of sticks, because that proves that men haven't made every pile of sticks into a house so therefore we don't know if they did the first one. It's absurdly stupid.

Finding the randomness would falsify the claim because it would no longer follow deductive reasoning. So the theory would be moot.

Which doesn't disprove. You have to actually be able to disprove. That's the part you don't understand. Your theory has to be falsifiable, not just made to be undecided. Your own admission shows why it is not scientific. In science you don't get to set things up so you can only win. Go back and read. I'm the one that has been continually asked to argue both sides so you could deny either side you wanted.

You ignored the point. You don't recognize that consistent forces at the time of the origin of the universe would be far more testable than an intelligent entity. An intelligent entity is untestable because you have to have firm expectations that either support or disprove a theory. You have flacid expectations that if you find no randomness, doesn't prove anything, or if you find randomness, doesn't prove anything. As far as we know, God could cause randomness or things that are subject to consistent laws could not have an intelligent actor involved. That makes your "theory" completely untestable despite your misunderstanding of science. Which forces can send messages so every bit of energy knows to do the same thing? There are things like quantum entanglements that seem to do this over short distances (as in whatever that blob of super condensed energy was) but not over the distances needed. As soon as BOOM those relationships no longer existed. At this point there are no naturally known forces that would do this over the distances needed.

Jocabia

04-10-2007, 01:18

Exactly and I have continually submitted not only the observations of the universe but all scientific observations. How many more observations than that can you ask for? Where in any post did I start out with God? In fact, where did I end with God? I started with the scientific observations in not only the origin but any area and ended that those observations showed a consistency.

You keep assuming rather than reading.

No, you haven't. You have submitted your misunderstandings. No one has ever observed that the kind of order you're talking about is the result of a creator. EVER. Not once.

You are right they show a consistency. Consistency is not a sign of intelligence. It's a sign of a force. That's the scientific conclusion. All things are consistent in the way you're suggesting, even by your own admission. Such consistency has always been the result of forces. It MAY also be the result of intelligence, but that possibility is not a theory unless there is some way to explore it. There isn't. We cannot analyze that intelligence. We cannot make predictions based on it, by your own admission (we could find randomness and the intelligence could still be responsible, or not, still responsble). We frankly cannot do anything scientifically useful with the ASSUMPTION of an intelligence being responsible for consistent forces in the universe.

I'm reading. Your premise just requires my brain to fall out in order to accept it. As far as your nonsense about how you're not talking about God, how does lying help your cause. We all know what you're talking about and it's equally stupid whether or not you use the word "God" so let's not be silly about it.

Finding the randomness would falsify the claim because it would no longer follow deductive reasoning. So the theory would be moot.

Seriously, this is just the most idiotic thing. It really is like saying if I found a pile of sticks that it would mean that I would have to dismiss the conclusion that a town was built by people. It's ludicrous. If you really have the evidence you claim, finding true randomness would simply mean that some parts of the universe aren't the result of the same type of force. It would disprove that the order that YOU claim REQUIRES an intelligent actor suddenly doesn't.

How does randomness suddenly make order not require an actor. Regardless of whether pockets of randomness exist, the fact is that a large part of the observable universe exhibits the order you claim requires an intelligent actor. The fact that you claim randomness suddenly proves that an intelligent actor is no longer required for order just shows how ridiculously far you are from actually being capable of deduction.

Go back and read. I'm the one that has been continually asked to argue both sides so you could deny either side you wanted.

Heh. Uh-huh. Seriously, I'm terribly impressed.

Okay, let's try an experiment. You arrive on a planet never having seen houses. The planet is coated in them. You examine them and don't see how they can randomly occur in nature so you assign an intelligence to them. Of course, none of this is deductive or scientific because you've never seen a house before and as far as you know they are occurring in nature, but let's move on.

So then you're walking down the street and you finally for the first time find sticks just randomly strewn about with no order whatsoever. Dear God, your world is turned upside down. You've found randomness and this disproves your theory that the houses are the results of an intelligence, right? No. The very idiea is stupid. The pile of sticks would just go to prove that randomness can occur without something to order it and that it's not naturally resolving. It would support your theory. The longer you could stare at that pile of sticks and they don't form a house, the more evidence you have that a pile of sticks doesn't naturally become a house and requires and intelligent actor.

Instead you've gone backwards, claiming that an unacted upon pile of sticks somehow invalidates the theory that more organized areas are not acted upon by a force not found in nature. Seriously, if you're laughing at this realization, you're not paying attention.

Which forces can send messages so every bit of energy knows to do the same thing? There are things like quantum entanglements that seem to do this over short distances (as in whatever that blob of super condensed energy was) but not over the distances needed. As soon as BOOM those relationships no longer existed. At this point there are no naturally known forces that would do this over the distances needed.[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes, the god of the gaps theory. I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it. Yay!! At least you're finally admitting that you're theory is about what you don't know, not about what you know.

A consistent force would cause the various energy to behave very similarly. This is your flaw. You're assuming that since YOU don't understand how it happened that assigning it to a supreme being makes sense. It doesn't. People have done this for centuries. Stones that were dropped by giants till we understood glaciers. And lightning thrown by gods till we learned about charges and electricity. Disease caused by evil spirits till we learned about bacteria and viruses. God of the gaps is an argument from ignorance and being that you're an expert on debate, aren't you, you must recognize how silly that is.

Good Lifes

04-10-2007, 02:22

Okay, let's try an experiment. You arrive on a planet never having seen houses. The planet is coated in them. You examine them and don't see how they can randomly occur in nature so you assign an intelligence to them. Of course, none of this is deductive or scientific because you've never seen a house before and as far as you know they are occurring in nature, but let's move on.

So then you're walking down the street and you finally for the first time find sticks just randomly strewn about with no order whatsoever. Dear God, your world is turned upside down. You've found randomness and this disproves your theory that the houses are the results of an intelligence, right? No. The very idiea is stupid. The pile of sticks would just go to prove that randomness can occur without something to order it and that it's not naturally resolving. It would support your theory. The longer you could stare at that pile of sticks and they don't form a house, the more evidence you have that a pile of sticks doesn't naturally become a house and requires and intelligent actor.

This is how a classic strawman actually works.

Look, it's obvious that you have no desire to advance this discussion.

I will never get through the cognitive dissonance that you have displayed.

No use continuing to toy with each other. It's getting real boring.

Jocabia

04-10-2007, 04:29

This is how a classic strawman actually works.

Look, it's obvious that you have no desire to advance this discussion.

I will never get through the cognitive dissonance that you have displayed.

No use continuing to toy with each other. It's getting real boring.

Ha. Everytime you'd have an opportunity to nail me if you were actually telling the truth, you whine and claim you're leaving. This is good stuff.

No, Mr. Self-proclaimed expert debater, since it's my example and my argument about why your claim that a discovery of randomness would prove your theory wrong, how can it be a strawman? I'm certainly suggesting things you didn't but those are MY arguments. Go ahead, tuck tail and accept defeat, but don't try and pretend like you have the first clue how to refute such an argument.

Fact: You claimed that a single instance of randomness would disprove your "theory".
Fact: Your "theory" is claimed to be based on the deduction that order requires an intelligent actor as the cause.

Everything but those two facts is my own design and I admit that. It's no strawman. Meanwhile, as you always do, you reference a logical fallacy like it disproves my argument without actualy explaining how said logical fallacy fits, clearly the sign of expert debate.

Admit it. If you found order everywhere you looked and that order resembled what you'd expect from an intelligent source finding a sudden area of disorder wouldn't do the first thing toward dissuading you. Or continue to lie and pretend you've got an argument. I care not which. I think it's patently obvious which of us got handed their behind.

I look forward to your book on expert debating techniques. It's bound to be a bestseller. Based on this thread it's clear your claims of expertise are excellent substitutions for the arguments you've refused to present.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Life in the AI