Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/15/02 9:24pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Some more" on 02/ 6/02 1:14pm
>>As for drawing a royal flush in poker when five cards
>>are randomly dealt out, you would be correct in
>>applying my reasoning in thinking that the cards would
>>probably not be a royal flush. Let me explain why.
>>The odds of getting a royal flush when five cards are
>>randomly chosen is 650,000 to one. So there’s not a
>>whole lot of a priori reason to expect to get a royal
>>flush, whereas there is good reason to suspect that
>>the five cards will not come up to a royal flush. But
>>suppose it happens anyway. Was my reasoning
>>incorrect? Not quite. I had rational reason to
>>suspect that the person would not get a royal flush,
>>but just because a theory is rational doesn’t
>>necessarily means it is actually right. The rational
>>theory may intuitively seem more probable, but we
>>still don’t have absolute certainty and thus it is
>>fallible, but this sort of method is the best we can
>>do when choosing explanatory theories.
>
>Okay, I can go for that. So let's up the ante a bit.
>(pardon the pun) You claim that the most rational
>theory in poker is that you probably won't get a royal
>flush based on the odds of drawing a royal flush are
>not favorable. With this I agree, it wouldn't be
>rational to play cards with the expectation of drawing
>a royal flush.
>
>However, let's apply this reasoning to God and
>Evolution. What are the odds of abiotic macroevolution
>happening? Probably an immensely high probability.
I disagree. I don’t think there’s any way to assign probability to this hypothesis. I believe it is incalculable due to the nature of the explanation of the hypothesis itself. Again, I admit my fallibility. So perhaps you can provide the calculations that assign a probability to this idea.
If you do have a way of assigning odds as to the evolution of life from non-life, by all means, post it here so that I may see it.
>What about the probability that the Christian God
>exists? There is no way to assign probability to this
>hypothesis. It is incalculable due to the nature of
>the explanation of the hypothesis itself.
I agree, but I only wish to discuss theism in a general sense, not a specific Deity.
>Let me make
>a comparision to make my point more perspicous.
Okay.
>What is the probability that there exists in the
>universe some sort of human life? Well, given that we
>know the basic criteria that must be present to
>support human life, and the relative amount of these
>elements in space, we could assign some number that
>would be astronomically high to this event.
The probability that there exists in the universe some sort of human life is astronomically high because we observe it every day, not because of the elements in space etc.
>Back to the human life scenario, we do know the basic
>odds of the occurence happening
Really? If it is the sort of reasoning you talked about earlier (elements of space etc.) I’d like to hear more. If you do have a way of assigning odds as to the human life scenario, by all means, post it here so that I may see it.
>, and that at least has
>some explanatory power, as opposed to assuming that
>the hypothesis of our goat's belly is "just the way it
>is".
Theism has some explanatory power of why the universe consistently operates in mathematical patterns, why the physical constants etc. are set up to support human life as opposed to assuming the hypothesis of atheism saying that it’s “just the way it is.”
>Though something may be improbable, that doesn't mean
>it can't happen just as with our royal flush. When
>something is beyond the means of assigning
>probability, there is no way of determining how
>rational of an assumption it is or not, and clearly,
>Intelligent Design is far beyond the means of
>assigning any probability of the event in question.
Not at all! (If what you said earlier was correct.) If we could assign probabilities of the currents of nature producing a given object (as you implied when you talked about humans) then we can infer intelligent design. If the probability of evolving something via nature is low enough, we can rationally accept intelligent design.
>>As far as the snowflake, you are simply wrong. I
>>don’t deny the formation of snowflakes. The
>>properties of molecules direct ordering processes,
>>though there is some randomness in choosing what the
>>precise pattern will be (hence, it is rare that two
>>snowflakes get the same crystalline pattern). Thus,
>>we do have sufficient a priori reason to expect
>>snowflakes to appear in reality.
>
>Okay, I can go with that, though I'm not certain how
>one would expect to see snow flakes as an a priori
>reasoning.
One would with the knowledge of chemistry and the molecular structure of water.
>>I wasn’t discussing the origins of life at all, but
>>since you brought it up…
>>
>>The problem with pointing out snowflakes to counter
>>intelligent design is that the basis of the theory is
>>the kind of order, not order per se.
>>There are some kinds of order that the currents of
>>nature are not reasonably capable of producing, such
>>as computers. Similarly, some scientists argue that
>>life has the kind of order that nature is not
>>reasonably capable of evolving from non-life.
>
>To assume that there are things that nature cannot
>produce assumes that one has intimate knowledge of
>what nature is capable of. Do you have such knowledge?
To some extent yes. I think I’m knowledgeable enough to think that nature is not reasonably capable of producing the Rosetta Stone, for example (and so do archaeologists).
>Also, the problem with arguing for intelligent design
>is that it isn't the organization of life itself,
>rather its the KIND. We've never seen anything else
>with the organization of life other than life, and as
>such we have no means of comparison to say
>whole-heartedly that we know it was designed.
This mistakes the way ID scientists operate. They do not argue from induction (in the normal sense of the term) but by the inference to the best explanation. I could easily turn the tables and point out that we’ve never seen anything else with the organization of life other than life, and claim that thus we can’t know that life has the kind of order nature is capable of producing (from non-life).
>Perhaps
>humans are like snowflakes, but the mechanism that
>determined their order is not yet known. How would you
>know the difference?
Perhaps Rosetta Stones are like snowflakes but the mechanism that created it is not yet known. How would you tell the difference?
Your argument does not seem compelling to me.
>>Under the current theistic philosophy I’m referring
>>to, I think the answer is yes. If I were a rationally
>>orderly God creating the universe, I would indeed
>>create a universe that consistently operates in
>>mathematical patterns for my inhabitants to
>>satisfactorily participate in it, just as in creating
>>any sophisticated computer program with dynamic
>>variables I would use quite a bit of math.
>
>Yes, but this is effectually anthropomorphisizing God
>into what you would do
Not necessarily. I’m simply deriving a prediction from the known information, which the best that even science can do. Just because I might do the same thing God would in this situation does not change that fact. For your information, there are many of things about God that I do not anthropomorphize.
>>I’m sorry if you don’t see the reasoning
>>here, but it seems rather straightforward to me.
>>Relative to atheism (as I explained before) theism
>>seems to be a better, more rational, more
>>straightforward explanation for this data. But like I
>>explained before, you can use the underdetermination
>>of theories to your advantage and believe whatever you
>>want to believe. (Even if it’s not the most rational
>>approach.)
>
>It seems straight forward to you because you are
>building off premises that are tenous at best; such as
>that the existance of God is more probable than
>evolution,
I didn’t actually claim that.
>that intelligent design explains the unique
>organization of human life
I did not build off that premise when I derived the prediction.
>,that nature is only
>capable of producing x or y.
Again, I did not build off that premise when I derived the prediction.
>I don't believe these presumptions are pithy enough to
>found an entire belief, pushing aside the fact that
>before most of these conclusions must follow, one
>almost must neccessairly believe the christian God
>exists,
I don’t see how that logically follows. I could just as easily be a deist, for example. In fact, I could even be an atheist and still acknowledge that theism explains this set of data (nature consistently operating in mathematical patterns) better than atheism.
>which again, is based on the Bible which
>assumes his own existance.
As I said before, I do not hold the circular claims you talked about. You almost seem to be attacking a straw man, given that many premises you talked about I didn’t use to derive the prediction, that I didn’t claim that existence of God is more probable than evolution etc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 