| Subject: Not so much more |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/23/02 5:41pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "And some more." on 02/15/02 9:24pm
>
>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.
With pleasure. Here is one such attempt. http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/oht/Proteins.PDF
>
>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.
Check out that aforementioned link. It addresses the idea of abiotic evolution of human life, and if this is the way it happened (and since I have never seen any attempt to throw odds on the christian God) it would also address the odds of human life happening anywhere with conditions similar to earth, which could be calculated, and so on and so on.
>
>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.”
It might, but then at its very foundations is something that is well beyond any assignment or even an attempt to assign odds to. Simply put, it's unimaginable, and even if you disagree with how the odds were calculated at that site (which I do) the fact of the matter is, at least it is somewhat fathomable, more reasonable, and can be attempted to be quantified.
>
>
>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.
I have no idea what your point here is. To me, this point is like saying that just because the odds of getting a royal flush are low in cards, it's rational to accept that the cards will morph into gerbils. The fact of the matter is, we don't have ANY ground to assign odds to intelligent design, or cards morphing into gerbils.
>
>>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).
But you know that because you have a means of comparision, namely writing on other objects from other cultures. You don't know that about life, you merely assume it.
>
>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.
That is induction.
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).
That's true, we can't, and that was also my point. You seem to rule out that nature automatically cannot have made life.
>Perhaps Rosetta Stones are like snowflakes but the
>mechanism that created it is not yet known. How would
>you tell the difference?
You've got a means of comparison.
>
>Your argument does not seem compelling to me.
I'm going to be honest here, your argument isn't exactly turning my crank either.
>
>
>
>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.
Like what? And what sort of authority do you have to say that you might even approach something as divine as your God?
>
>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.
You could but you wouldn't be a very good atheist since you don't agree with the initial premise, that being that God created anything.
As another aside, nature doesn't consistently operate in mathematical patterns. At a sub atomic level, mathematical patterns are so useless the best one can hope for is a collection of probabilities. Does God explain chaos too?
>
>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.
Yeah yeah, but we all know that you hold to Christian doctrine, and that is the framework you are applying your arguments to. Each time we begin to zero on that part of your argument, you suddenly say "ah, but I'd rather talk about atheism versus theism.", but the fact of the matter is, if your first premise is wrong, that being the Christian God exists, the rest of your arguments are fairly inconsequential. (unless you believe aliens or magical elephants created life) So let's zero in on the real issue, what is it that you believe Wade? Be specific for the sake of clarity.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 