Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Blind Atheist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Lincoln
    Here is an excerpt:

    Now what about the letters (or chemicals) that you initially arranged in any random order? In my instructions you remember that I said to put the 4 letters in whatever order that you wanted. This still is in some ways just simple chemical reactions. There is nothing miraculous about how they are put together if you think of four different people holding hands. They are joined together by their hands gripping each other. In that sense the 4 chemicals A, T, C, and G have no problem with holding hands with each other. They are not in the least bit prejudiced so they can be arranged in any order and they are still quite happy. The only question that remains really is what does the order mean to the living cell and the human being or plant that results from that seemingly random order of letters? Here is where simple chemical laws of nature break down. The reason they break down is not because chemical laws or thermodynamic laws are defied but because they cannot explain the order which as it turns out is not random at all. My analogy of the ladder was not correct in one place and that is where I told you to write the letters in any random order that you chose. In real life they appear to be random just like the ones that you did but they are in a precise order that represents a coded language.

    If only chemical laws were being considered then the DNA code would be entirely random. Of course it is not.
    It's called evolution!

    And also, this author doesn't understand math very well.

    Some people do not learn this information lesson quite so easily. They are still trying to beat the odds. I suppose it is because they have so much to lose now. Part of my system included doubling the bets when I lost. This works fine for two or three times but eventually you end up betting hundreds of dollars trying to cover a two dollar bet. I disciplined myself to stop doubling after the third and take my losses. I have an idea that there are some that have doubled their bets to the extent that now they have staked their very lives on odds that they can never overcome. I am not going to go into much complication here because I would probably lose you and myself along the way.
    Obviously, at one point in the cycle you will win. If you cut your losses before winning you will lose. This psuedoscientifical attitude is what seems to characterise the entire book: the author assumes that what instinctively seems right actually is right.
    I refute it thus!
    "Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"

    Comment


    • #62
      Okay I read your edited post so now we are on the same page.

      "As for the language, nobody understands it. But once again, Occam to the rescue! Which is more likely: there is a biochemical explanation that we do not know yet, or that there is a supernatural intelligence who decided to make DNA the way it is? There have been unknown things throughout history; now we know their cause. There has been no great mystery which has been proven unprovable."

      Yes Occam can rescue us here. He was a theist of course so I am sure he wouldn't want his razor to used to produce absurdity or a "simple solution" that ignored reality and known laws.

      It is certainly not likely that a biochemical explanation will be forthcoming as this would defy known information laws. The simpler solution is to simply apply the present known and proved laws to the problem. They prove that an intelligent mental source is necessary. Only an outlandish theory would propose otherwise. The theory must bow to the known facts and laws.

      Comment


      • #63
        "Obviously, at one point in the cycle you will win. If you cut your losses before winning you will lose. This psuedoscientifical attitude is what seems to characterise the entire book: the author assumes that what instinctively seems right actually is right."

        The analogy that I used above was supposed to show that you cannot answer the questions posed on this thread about the origin of information. You are still groping for a "biochemical solution" that you hope will be found someday in defiance of known information laws. That is not "psuedoscientifical". Those are known laws. You must leave the realms of science to assume otherwise.

        Comment


        • #64
          Aha, the Curse of Apolyton again. Nobody leaves!

          Here we go again...
          Yes Occam can rescue us here. He was a theist of course so I am sure he wouldn't want his razor to used to produce absurdity or a "simple solution" that ignored reality and known laws.

          It is certainly not likely that a biochemical explanation will be forthcoming as this would defy known information laws. The simpler solution is to simply apply the present known and proved laws to the problem. They prove that an intelligent mental source is necessary. Only an outlandish theory would propose otherwise. The theory must bow to the known facts and laws.
          Neither abiogenesis nor evolution contradict any "known facts or laws".

          As for "information": haven't we been through this enough times already? Abiogenesis requires a self-replicator small enough to form randomly: like your windswept letters spelling out "RNA". The rest is chemistry, nobody needs to "translate" it. In your analogy, let's assume that the letters have lots of little magnets in them. These tend to attract nearby letters, pulling them into a specific arrangement where they stick together. Then this arrangement can separate (because the links between letters in a word are stronger than between words). So maybe "ABC" generates "FJW" from surrounding letters, and "FJW" generates "YSQ" or whatever. "RNA" is a combination which generates "RNA". That's the only thing that makes it interesting: it is self-replicating.

          The genomes of modern organisms ARE too complex to arise by chance. But evolution (even though it incorporates randomness in mutations) isn't chance, it's very selective.

          Maybe you should turn this around. Evolution is the only process we know of that can produce intelligence. By your own argument, an intelligent deity is an "outlandish theory" which doesn't "bow to the known facts and laws".

          How could God evolve? If he didn't evolve, how can he be intelligent?

          Comment


          • #65
            Ah yes its Jack - our resident old testament prophet wannabe.
            Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

            Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Goingonit
              God doesn't mock. He is a jealous God, a merciful God, a vengeful God, but not a God renowned for a sense of humour.
              Sorry, but that's not right:

              Psalm 2:4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

              Psalm 37:13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.

              You seem to know a bit about history and other subjects as well, but I think you would benefit from more knowledge of religion/christianity.

              [Hmmm]Wonder why you left out a loving and holy God which are more dominating personality traits than those you mentioned[/Hmmm]


              And we know about evolution because of Occam's Razor, which states that with a full set of facts, the simplest theory is the correct one.
              Could you please write out this axiom? Is it an axiom?

              Point well taken. Yet it works against you too. People want to think that there is a purpose to life and that there is also a meaning to death. This belief is what underlies religion; people cling to faith because, in part, they fear the unknown: life and death are most certainly unknown.
              This is a common (mis)conception about religion. Or a stereotype if you like. They abound especially amongst ppl who do not read the Bible to find out what God really says and who God is. But for some ppl this might be true. For others not. I would seriously doubt if ppl were true christians if they found God instead of the other way around - which is the biblical standard. Religion was not on my mind when I became a christian. Like many ppl will tell you it was God seeking me, I wasn't seeking God. This is also biblical:

              Isaiah 65 1-5a I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, `Here am I, here am I.' All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations-- a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick; who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat; who say, `Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!'

              Me. Here is a good site. You may want to check its entry on creationism as well, although the autor tends to be dismissive about certain things. http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
              I will check it out when I can find the time.

              Comment


              • #67
                Wow.

                I just wanted to say that this proves MY theory. Intelligent life does exist at Apolyton, and it is right here.

                Keep up the thoughtful prose guys!
                It all makes for very intriguing reading.
                Consul.

                Back to the ROOTS of addiction. My first missed poll!

                Comment


                • #68
                  God doesn't mock. He is a jealous God, a merciful God, a vengeful God, but not a God renowned for a sense of humour.

                  Sorry, but that's not right:

                  Psalm 2:4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

                  Psalm 37:13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.
                  That's your idea of a sense of humor? Laughing at the prospect of eternal torture?

                  Does your own laughter sound something like "MUHAAAHAAAHAAAH!" by any chance?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    There are other aspects of God's sense of humor that haven't been touched upon here. Why don't you investigate it? Read the book and find out for yourself.

                    "MUHAAAHAAAHAAAH!" sounds like American or British too me.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      You've never told us what you're so annoyed with God about Jack.

                      Come on, you can tell us
                      Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                      Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Lars: I have read the book. And most of God's actions seem to involve the deaths of lots of people in a variety of ways for rather trivial reasons.

                        AH: Well, mostly he's a comic-book villain. He doesn't seem to have been designed as a character you're supposed to like. Also I'm not really into sadomasochism, I've never seen the appeal of suffering. If people get turned on by that, they can do it with other consenting adults in private. Making a religion out of it seems a little excessive.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

                          AH: Well, mostly he's a comic-book villain. He doesn't seem to have been designed as a character you're supposed to like. Also I'm not really into sadomasochism, I've never seen the appeal of suffering. If people get turned on by that, they can do it with other consenting adults in private. Making a religion out of it seems a little excessive.
                          Yep, definitely angry with God about something.
                          Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                          Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Well, what's so great about being a "lowly sinner deserving of death"?

                            I am an atheist, therefore I am without sin.

                            ...And, probably, some Christian will infer from that remark that I don't want to be "bound by the law". But, as the saying goes, "the law is for the instruction of fools and the guidance of wise men". I am genuinely unable to see why people prefer to blindly follow the myths of others, especially when those myths seem so obviously designed to compel obedience to the priesthood.

                            For instance, consider conversion after death. It seems reasonable to assume that if there's an afterlife, an atheist ought to be able to say to God "Whoops, I was wrong, sorry about the misunderstanding". And if God is basically a nice guy, he'd say "No problem, kid, come on up". But this is heresy to many Christians, who insist that I must accept Christianity while alive or face eternal banishment (or worse). At least the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is a step in the right direction, but they seem to have other hangups...

                            Of course, this is assuming "liberal" Christianity. I hope I don't need to give reasons for rejecting belief in the Genesis creation myth, or rejecting the morality of the genocidal SOB in the Old Testament.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The Bible has many verses which explain what the attitude of people towards God should be. Like this one:
                              2 Samuel 6:6-7 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
                              The Wrath of God is uncontrolled: it will kill anyone who encounters it, regardless of their motives. If you try to stop some oxen toppling the Ark of the Covenant, you will DIE. God is basically a seething bundle of hatred, as befits his origin as a god of storms and war.

                              The notion of a "benevolent" God is a MUCH later invention.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Lot of crap, this text.

                                The counter-arguments exposed in the text are as flattuous as possible : "Yes this scientific looks right but it is false because the existence of god is ignored [bla, bla, bla ...]".

                                The only valuable information is that Science and Theology mustn't interfer !
                                That means Science musn't discuss about the existence of God(s), but that means too theology MUST forget to explain how the universe works and how It was created. Theology could maybe explain why the world exist (I mean, theology try to explain ...).
                                Zobo Ze Warrior
                                --
                                Your brain is your worst enemy!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X