How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the mean time why don't you and Boris tell us what law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical smbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

The Blind Atheist

So in other words, you're not convinced the design of DNA could have come about by chance, therefore there is unequivolcal proof that the Christian God exists. There is no chance whatsoever that your concept of the higher power that may exist is anything but the God of the Bible. There is no flaw in this argument, simply because it seems unlikely to you that current DNA could have evolved by chance.

I get it now......

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So? Wouldn't it still be a failure of some intelligent design that this need be the case? The bottom line is that we're far from perfect machines.

Actually, I wasn't arguing intelligent design at all; I was just answering the question. The standard explanation of flaws in creation is as an aftereffect of the fall. There are theological explanations for most of these things you guys bring up, you know. Being an atheist does not make you so frightfully clever as to think up all these wonderful notions that never occurred to anyone before! I personally don't care how we got here; I'm a Christian but I concentrate more on the spiritual perfection aspects than on the mechanics. Religion covers a dimension of reality outside the comprehension of scientific discovery. Just my opinion, of course.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Elok
Religion covers a dimension of reality outside the comprehension of scientific discovery.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Correction: some religions claim to cover a dimension of reality outside the comprehension of scientific discovery.

Many of the J/C Bible's claims cover phenomena which are well within the purview of science and logic, and are clearly false.

Other, more esoteric religions (including some forms of "liberal" Christianity) are inherently unfalsifiable, but there is no good reason to believe that they cover any "dimension of reality" other than a dimension of the human imagination.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

But you already have! There is this mass of mainly young, intelligent, well-educated people out there who believe passionately in the infallability of science and the scientific method. Despite being well educated they do not understand the subtleties of physics, so they believe anything the scientists ("priests" if you like) tell them to. Doesn't this look very much like the religions of old?

I believe in the infallability of science, but not in the infallability of man to understand it, that's the difference. I will not believe any theory they though in my face just because they say it is science. You don't need a PhD in physics to understand and believe certain things you can observe in everyday life. If science says gravity pulls at 9.8 meters per second, I'm sure you will not disagree as you have seen things drop at a similar speed. You can look at evolution and say, well, these animals to look similar, have similar traits so it seems logical that there was an evolutionary path between them. On the other hand, I have trouble believing other theories like the Big Bang.

I think you are categorizing these people into an extreme, who believe blindly anything in science. I'm sure most of these "young intelligent" people don't believe in science so blindly but simply accept that fact that it has helped understand the world much MUCH better than religion. Look at the atom, our fathers were taught a different model than the one taught to us. Do we blindly accept this new model? Nope, but we simply consider it a step closer to what the real thing probably looks like.

Well, of course, as a Christian, I believe that the Christian God provides the non-predictivity. My sequence of letters was just meant as an easily acceptable counter-example of the infallibility of the scientific method. It was meant to point out that atheism requires 'faith'.

Not "faith" as you people have. Faith in a spiritual deity is much different than other types of faith for one simple reason: your faith towards a foreign object (god) is expected somehow to return as a benefit to you. I can have "faith" in the Yankees or the 49ers but I don't expect them to cause a major impact in my life. Same with science, I may have "faith" that it works but do I kneel and pray for science to get me out of the doldrums? Nope. On the other hand I only consider one true "faith" which serves this effect: faith in yourself. And believe it or not, faith in a deity is exactly the same only it gets back at you indirectly since you are channeling it towards a god first. Psychologically however, all this proves to me is that people are apparenlty afraid or unable to believe that they themselves are to blame for their problems, and to be praised for their successes. Why attribute these things to a spiritual god when it is ourselves that dictate our lives? Everything we can't control isn't destiny or faith it is simple statistical probability. How hard can that be in the year 2003 to understand?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the mean time why don't you and Boris tell us what law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical smbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

The Blind Atheist

Oh so I guess an invisible godly hand does it right? Please, do you honestly think that we're naive enough to assign everything science (and by the way, those are not questions of physics but rather of chemistry) can't explain to work of spirits? I'd like you to re-read your post if science ever does explain (and I'm sure it will) why this happens.

What you have said is no better than what your ancestors in 4000 BC did. "Gee, I don't understand lightning, it must be the work of the Gods". Fast forward 6000 years, "Gee, I don't understand how DNA code splits, it must be the work of the Gods."

[DAVOUT]

It has been said that science is a methodology; it is an experimental method describing how an experiment must be conducted for its results to be accepted by the scientific community. This aims exclusively to eliminate all bias, errors and treacheries from the experiments in order to reach a righteous description of what the experiment was trying to demonstrate or produce. It is necessary because experiments are made by human beings. In that respect, we can consider that if research were conducted by more perfect beings, less prone to failure than men, although experiments would still be made, the formalism of the experimental method would not be required. Therefore, science cannot be an object of faith; it is just an efficient and reliable practice for men engaged in research.

It is wrong to expect that an efficient method will not find any limitations; science, in this meaning of methodology, will have the same limitations as the men (with all apparatus they have build to increase their capacities) have; it is perfectly possible that several chapter, or even volumes, of the knowledge included in our universe will never be discovered. It is even possible that this point being reached and another method developed, that another limit will be found leaving unknown immense areas not discoverable.

In the discussion, there is sometimes a confusion between laws of physics discovered by science, and theories such as the big bang; the former are to be credited to the experimental method, but the second are hypothesis; their respective role in a debate on god are not identical. As far as theories are concerned, theorists are becoming more and more audacious, and multiple universes are now a subject of discussion, not of controversy; this could introduce more complexity on the existence of god: one god per universe, one god for the multiverse, or a hierarchy of gods …

[Boris Godunov]

The DNA argument, besides being flawed, is just another "God in the Cracks" argument. Tell us, Lincoln, why should we assume that something for which we currently do not have a scientific explanation must be the work of a god? It's just as likely that powerful aliens with amazing technology started life on Earth as it is some invisible being you call "god." Neither, however, are very satisfying explanations as far as science goes, and there are some pretty convincing theoretical arguments for abiogenisis (which Creationists simply ignore, either to lack of understanding or lack of will to believe).

Abiogenesis is certainly more scientifically explainable than an omnipotent, omniscient god is.

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The DNA argument, besides being flawed, is just another "God in the Cracks" argument. Tell us, Lincoln, why should we assume that something for which we currently do not have a scientific explanation must be the work of a god? It's just as likely that powerful aliens with amazing technology started life on Earth as it is some invisible being you call "god." Neither, however, are very satisfying explanations as far as science goes, and there are some pretty convincing theoretical arguments for abiogenisis (which Creationists simply ignore, either to lack of understanding or lack of will to believe).

Abiogenesis is certainly more scientifically explainable than an omnipotent, omniscient god is.

With this kind of reasoning I'm surprised you believe anything exists...I believe that the opposite is true that the existance of a god, higher being, higher intellegence or whatever is a given and we are surrounded by its proof. To me the burden of proof falls on those who believe there is no god to show how the Universe came into being and how life began without divine intervention.

As I said earlier I do not believe in organized religion that attempt to define god...I think god and his nature is unknowable. This also encompasses his motivation for creating the universe or us.

No the intellegent design by our standards is not perfect but we have no way of knowing how excatly we fit within this design either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Wtiberon


With this kind of reasoning I'm surprised you believe anything exists...I believe that the opposite is true that the existance of a god, higher being, higher intellegence or whatever is a given and we are surrounded by its proof. To me the burden of proof falls on those who believe there is no god to show how the Universe came into being and how life began without divine intervention.

As I said earlier I do not believe in organized religion that attempt to define god...I think god and his nature is unknowable. This also encompasses his motivation for creating the universe or us.

No the intellegent design by our standards is not perfect but we have no way of knowing how excatly we fit within this design either.

See my earlier post about the "presumption of atheism." The only rationale I've see as to why we have to assume God exists in the absence of evidence is because, heck, that's the tradition. That, frankly, is bull****. Let's say you'd been born in a world where no one ever mentioned God, where there was just nature, and no one had ever had the concept of God. Now someone tries to tell you, hey, some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being whom we've never seen nor talked with is actually responsible for all this.

By your reasoning, you should believe everything exists. How is God any more rationale a believe than ghosts, or leprechauns, or fairies? If I told you a giant pink unicorn was responsible for some as-yet inexplicable phenomenon, would you accept it without any evidence? If not, how is that any different from accepting that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is out there somewhere calling the shots?

What makes God more rational than the Tooth Fairy?

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


See my earlier post about the "presumption of atheism." The only rationale I've see as to why we have to assume God exists in the absence of evidence is because, heck, that's the tradition. That, frankly, is bull****. Let's say you'd been born in a world where no one ever mentioned God, where there was just nature, and no one had ever had the concept of God. Now someone tries to tell you, hey, some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being whom we've never seen nor talked with is actually responsible for all this.

By your reasoning, you should believe everything exists. How is God any more rationale a believe than ghosts, or leprechauns, or fairies? If I told you a giant pink unicorn was responsible for some as-yet inexplicable phenomenon, would you accept it without any evidence? If not, how is that any different from accepting that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is out there somewhere calling the shots?

What makes God more rational than the Tooth Fairy?

But the thing is that EVERY civilization believes in some kind of higher power...secularization only comes with advancement (which is good or bad I'm not sure). To go by your methods if we were to sit someone by himself without giving them any information what system of beliefs would they create first?...that of a scienctific world of atoms and molecules or a spiritual one that is run by a higher being? I think that humans possess a kind of "sense" that god does exist, I have felt it and others have as well.

When I was in basic training the only personal item we were allowed to possess was a bible or other religious book. I witnessed a bunch of very secular people begin to turn to religion as life became hard and desperate. Bible meetings and religious discussion became the norm. It seemed almost a kneejerk reaction that people turn to god when life does become difficult...people start praying who mabye haven't prayed in years. Why is this you think? To me it shows that when it comes down to it we WANT to believe that we are not alone and that someone or something is looking over us.

Now you can sit indignant and say Where is the proof? God is like a purple unicorn. However we do not fully understand the Universe and have only scratched the surface. So once again I think it is up to YOU to provide evidence of how the Universe 'accidently' expanded...how life 'accidently' sequenced DNA...how evolution 'accidently' created humans. The odds against such things are astronomical and doesn't lend itself to the same kind of reason that you are expressing to explain how god doesn't exist.

[Elok]

Wtiberon, I don't know if I agree with your words, but I must say that the Kierkegaard quote in your sig kicks some serious butt. Yeah.
Anyway, the reason I said religion is outside the sphere of science is because science is in no way, shape or form a moral discipline. The last time it tried, it told us we all want to have sex with our mothers. That worked wonderfully-now, in addition to our preexisting spiritual problems, we get wierded out every time we talk to our parents.
Seriously though, psychiatry is good for understanding the human mind, it just isn't a substitute for true spiritual discipline, which is the real, and IMO necessary, purpose of any religion. Focusing on the traditions and legends of a faith rather than its teachings is like obsessing over how a car engine works instead of learning how to drive the car itself. I'm sure it's very interesting, but functionally the whole discussion is useless.

[Ramo]

You don't need a PhD in physics to understand and believe certain things you can observe in everyday life. If science says gravity pulls at 9.8 meters per second, I'm sure you will not disagree as you have seen things drop at a similar speed.

Actually, gravity (or any other force) produces an acceleration, not a velocity. At the surface of the earth, it's about 9.8 meters per second per second in the direction of the earth.

You're odd. You belief that probablity holds sway in the objective reality but you can't tell if you are in touch of it. Something is missing there somewhere.

I think using previous experience to construct generalizations about the physical world is perfectly fine insofar as it's been my experience that previous experience can be generalized. In other words, my "belief" in the application of generalizations from previous experience is just the result of another probability distribution I've constructed from my previous experience.

But the thing is that EVERY civilization believes in some kind of higher power

Almost every individual fears mortality. Almost every individual cannot explain how the world works to any significant degree, particularly before the rise of the scientific revolution. It's only natural that belief in supernatural beings and worlds arise. It's a method to explain the unexplainable and quiet fears.

So once again I think it is up to YOU to provide evidence of how the Universe 'accidently' expanded...how life 'accidently' sequenced DNA...how evolution 'accidently' created humans. The odds against such things are astronomical

Why do you say the odds against such things are astronomical?
1. Seeing as how we don't know why the Big Bang occured in the first place as current physics don't model singularities very well, I don't see how you can possibly say that the odds against the Big Bang is astronomical.
2. In the laborotory environment, very complex molecules have been produced. And we've only had the capability to do this for a few decades. The earth had billions of years and a huge amount of space in which to produce the first RNA/proteins (which lead to DNA). Besides, there very well could be other methods of forming life which we are not familiar with. Again, you're just pulling this "astronomical" business out of your ass.
3. I think evolutionary biology has explained how humans developed decently. The enivironment, as primates moved to the savannah, selected certain features, notably a more powerful brain, the capability of speech, the ability to use tools, etc. Again, where do you get this "astronomical" business?

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by Ramo

Almost every individual fears mortality. Almost every individual cannot explain how the world works to any significant degree, particularly before the rise of the scientific revolution. It's only natural that belief in supernatural beings and worlds arise. It's a method to explain the unexplainable and quiet fears.

I don't buy this explanation...There are plenty of other ways to quiet fears but the constant amoung all these peoples is a belief in a higher power. If perhaps only half of all people believed in this I would accept your explanation but in fact ALL societies express a higher power in some form or another.

Why do you say the odds against such things are astronomical?
1. Seeing as how we don't know why the Big Bang occured in the first place as current physics don't model singularities very well, I don't see how you can possibly say that the odds against the Big Bang is astronomical.

I didn't say the odds against the Big Bang was astronomical...I'm not a bible beater or creationist I very much believe in our science and its quest to explain "how" our universe works but it can never explain "why" it works. I was saying the events that caused the big bang (or whatever caused our universe to be created) were not accidental nor the events that created the first forms of life, and complex life. If you subscribe to the theory of "every action produces an equal and opposite reaction" then what was the action that caused the chain of events leading to our creation?

2. In the laborotory environment, very complex molecules have been produced. And we've only had the capability to do this for a few decades. The earth had billions of years and a huge amount of space in which to produce the first RNA/proteins (which lead to DNA). Besides, there very well could be other methods of forming life which we are not familiar with. Again, you're just pulling this "astronomical" business out of your ass.

First I'll need a link. Second if what you said is true than we only know how to create an RNA/protiens or DNA because we have a model from which to copy but we could never have done it without this model....its kind of like asking a man whose been blind his whole life to paint a copy of a David Cicero painting (an abstract artist). Also you failed to explain how this could be done accidently...and saying that the earth had a billion years is not sufficient. Think of it in these terms how long would it take for the universe to create an ice cream cone on accident. We can do it in about half an hour. So saying that just because WE can do something quickly doesn't mean that the universe without intellegent design can create something. Astronomical is a relative term to describe my feeling that this could never happen.

3. I think evolutionary biology has explained how humans developed decently. The enivironment, as primates moved to the savannah, selected certain features, notably a more powerful brain, the capability of speech, the ability to use tools, etc. Again, where do you get this "astronomical" business?

It has explained the hows...yes. Science is very important I agree but do not rely so heavily on it. It has shown itself to be full of faults in the past and scientist have had to redefine "laws" in the past.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lincoln, we DID go over all of this before. We explained how evolution inevitably creates "information" from randomness, we explained that scientists believe the first self-replicating system was small enough to form randomly (and research is ongoing into molecules with the necessary properties) and so on. You were left with no argument other than the faith that intelligence was involved: you failed to demonstrate any requirement for intelligent design.

Assuming the first is from a viable organism and the second is not: natural selection.

Research into the origin of the genetic code is ongoing. However, there is no reason to assume that a system of triplets was initially present, or necessary for life.

You have it backwards. The letters G, A, T and C are symbols assigned by scientists to molecules which are of four different shapes. These shapes determine the shapes of the molecules that can be built from them, and the molecules that can interact with those: and, hence, the shapes of the proteins that can be formed.

In organic chemistry, the shapes of molecules are all-important. That's why prion diseases such as BSE and CJD happen: one misshapen prion molecule has the ability to attach to a normal one and bend it into the same distorted shape, which can then bend another into that shape, and so on. A self-replicating molecule has the ability to cause free nucleotides (or proteins) to assemble themselves into a copy of the original.

In DNA, there is a system (itself refined by millions of years of evolution, and inevitably far removed from the original replication mechanism), in which combinations of four standard "building blocks" can be arranged in groups of three to make other useful shapes which fit this pattern: presumably this modular approach is more efficient. There's no reason in principle why a code involving five bases arranged in quadruplets didn't evolve instead: in fact, scientists have succeeded in incorporating an extra "letter" (another nucleotide) into the code.

Given a self-replicator simple enough to form by chance, there is no reason to assume that the later evolution of a more modular system, and hence a "genetic code", requires intelligent input.

Well I have read a lot of flames and accusations but only Jack here actually attempted to answer the questions. For that he is to be commended.

Jack,

I will ignore your first paragraph because it simply is not true. You did not prove that information comes from randomness and neither can you. If I am wrong then please demonstrate how that it is done.

Next, you "assume" life is already in existence. The question is the origin of life and the information that must be contained in it from the begining. You cannot reason in a circle.

quote:

"Research into the origin of the genetic code is ongoing. However, there is no reason to assume that a system of triplets was initially present, or necessary for life."

Then you must know that there is absolutely no evidence that the code originated by way of evolution or natural selection or by any random process whatsoever. There is however overwhelming evidence that similar codes arise by an intelligent being in all known cases without even one exception. So you begin with a "materalism in the gaps" argument. Why would you assume materalism here when intelligent design is indicated by the available evidence?

Your next paragraph is irrelevant. The chemicals represent coded building blocks for information. Diverting us to the "shapes" is misleading because you evade the issue. Yes they are uniquely shaped but that has nothing to do with the origin of information.

Next, you tell us about "copies of the original" which is interesting and true but still irrelevant because we are not talking about making copies but the origin of the information that may or may not be copied. Let's stick to the point.

quote:

"In DNA, there is a system (itself refined by millions of years of evolution, and inevitably far removed from the original replication mechanism), in which combinations of four standard "building blocks" can be arranged in groups of three to make other useful shapes which fit this pattern: presumably this modular approach is more efficient. There's no reason in principle why a code involving five bases arranged in quadruplets didn't evolve instead: in fact, scientists have succeeded in incorporating an extra "letter" (another nucleotide) into the code."

You asume a great deal here. I this not pure speculation on your part? The simplest life form available for study confirms that life contains information and a code. There is no evidenc that a code "evolved" How can it? Please explain. how do you get from a four letter code to three. And how did you get the initial four, or two or whatever? And how does that simplify the problem here? That is like counting the legs of a cow and dividing by four to find out how many cows there are.

Finally, can anyone answer the questions without resorting to a belief system? I am neither assuming the existence of God or denying a materialistic explanation. If someone has one then let's run with it. In the mean time the evidence points to intelligent design. Why do people avoid this conclusion -- does it run contrary to your faith in materalism?