Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

reply to post by sirnex


I know, but even if carbon-based life was the only type of life in the universe, we'd still have an abundance of protolife everywhere. If you factored in hypothetical alien kinds of biology then that abundance increases.

^_^


Lot's of life.

I love artist representations.


[edit on 25-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard



The links discussion that I quoted was not a discussion of God...

My point is the lop-sided-ness towards earth, makes one to think...

As we discovered more SPACE we'll know more...


Gotta run and catch a flight, see ya!

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

My point is the lop-sided-ness towards earth, makes one to think...

But there is no rationale behind saying that it's lopsided towards earth. Life doesn't signify lopsidedness, because life doesn't change the amount of energy in a given space - it's just a different form - therefore the distribution principle can say nothing of it. And beyond life, the earth itself is a regular, unremarkable planet.

Your argument crumbles.

If we were created , I do not understand why it has to be by an entity of greater intelligence/capabilities than ourselves. All they need is the required knowledge , dna cloning/ dna engineering etc . Would it be more likely they were less 'developed' than we are . Similar to what we would do if we ever created a species. We would improve on our own dna.
So, then , if it works that way , then the 'newer' species with the advanced dna would take a shorter time to achieve the state where it would be in a position to create the next.
So, if you extrapolate back , if we were created by some other species , they would not be as complicated as us physically , and took a longer time to get to the point of creating homo sapiens . If you go far far back, you'd end up with intelligence but rudimentary form and before that, just intelligence . Can intelligence exist without form ? Can you create the next stage without form ? Maybe it works on a kind of telekinesis effect and it's a trade off with greater complication of form. I do not know , confused myself now .

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Drexl]

We dont know how much life there is in the universe.

Complex life could be in most of star systems, or there could be no life except earth.

This very interesting question may be partialy answered by advanced planet-finding probes in near future.
But noone knows anything yet so this argument is pointless.

OT:

Why did all the things happen around our planet, and not others?

Of course, you know only too well, that we do not know the extent of 'life' and 'living' on other planets. Although I could regale you with facinating stats regarding the probability of there being other life forms extant elsewhere in the vastness of the 'known' universe, alas they can be nothing more than the wishful thoughts of sentient beings hoping to one day reach out and make contact with other equally sentient beings elsewhere. Factually and locally, we know of no other intelligent life forms but those of ourselves, and perhaps it is this galactic loneliness that drives the dis-ease at the heart of our societies? Contact with a benign but more advanced race of beings elsewhere in the universe, may be the nudge we need to make the next step in our evolution? Not necessarily physical, but more psychological and essentially more spiritual (note: my use of the word spiritual is used in such a manner of understanding and meaning that it is devoid of any connotation with religious spirituality).

I appreciate that you yourself may make no such distinction, but my curiosity is with the contextual sense of your statement...'Why did all the things...' pray tell, to what 'things' are you referring?

JM:

Points to Complexity in design =ID = Divinity

Is it true that the layered nature of complex biological structures point to an authorial designership, and therefore provide factual support to the 'ID' hypothesis? If we were to agree that it did, are we still then entitled to claim a 'divinity' to such authorship? I think these questions serve well the moot points of the argument, and clearly set out the tone and scope of the debate. Surely, the current position of the debate is not about what is factual, but about what can be agreed upon? Are we not obliged to establish fundamental agreements before we can progress the debate further? I think we are.

If evidences we use in each of our side of the debate are or have become, established facts in themselves, then both sides of the debate must respect them as so...we must recognize and respect that established facts are not open to debate, but are the bridges by which opposing arguments are brought together in agreement, they serve as rostrums upon which both sides can deliver their argument.

Thus: I can agree that complexity in biological structures - from the microbial to the Blue Whale - 'point' to a seeming intelligent design attributable to the foundation of their existing, but all this means is that there is a 'inference' of intelligent design, not a factual one, and at our current level of understanding we are not entitled to treat the inference as fact or truth.

Equally, and more important, if we were to accept between us that 'ID' has a factual foundation, are we entitled to claim a divine authorship to it? The simple response to this basic question is (if we are to be honest and respectful to the debate) a resounding 'NO'...we are not entitled to claim a divine authorship. We could equally claim that a more advanced and intelligent race to be the authors, and not have to draw upon any supposed supernatural intervention (SI).

I suppose a claim could then be made that 'SI' is what created the advanced beings, but then the response would be...what 'SI' created the first 'SI', ad infintum, ad nauseum? One can always ask what was the first Creator, and what created that? At such a point, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Points to Complexity in design =ID = Divinity

Complexity (design) does NOT imply intelligent design or designer.

www.talkorigins.org...

In a system with the proper configuration, complexity (negative entropy, "design") can spontaneously increase at the expense of the environment negentropy (of course if the system is not thermodynamically isolated).
There is no physical law that premits this.

Also, this is interesting, and shows that evolution can be very effectively used to "design" and solve complex problems, for example in engineering:

en.wikipedia.org... - Evolutionary computation

In computer science, evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population. This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end. Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search technique used in computing to find exact or approximate solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms are categorized as global search heuristics. Genetic algorithms are a particular class of evolutionary algorithms (EA) that use techniques inspired by evolutionary biology such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

Evolving circuits:
In many cases conventional design methods (formulas, etc.) can be used to design a circuit. But in other cases the design specification doesn't provide sufficient information to permit using conventional design methods. For example, the specification may only state desired behavior of the target hardware.

In its most fundamental form an Evolutionary Algorithm manipulates a population of individuals where each individual describes how to construct a candidate circuit. Each circuit is assigned a fitness, which indicates how well a candidate circuit satisfies the design specification. The evolutionary algorithm uses stochastic (random) operators to evolve new circuit configurations from existing ones. Done properly, over time the evolutionary algorithm will evolve a circuit configuration that exhibits desirable behavior.

The concept was pioneered by Adrian Thompson at the University of Sussex, England, who in 1996 evolved a tone discriminator using fewer than 40 programmable logic gates and no clock signal in a FPGA. This is a remarkably small design for such a device and relied on exploiting peculiarities of the hardware that engineers normally avoid. For example, one group of gates has no logical connection to the rest of the circuit, yet is crucial to its function.

The last paragraph I found particularly interesting, and it is a nice proof of the evolution designing power.

Maslo:

The last paragraph I found particularly interesting, and it is a nice proof of the evolution designing power.

Couple of interesting links there, Maslo, and I agree with your statement to some degree, but the problem with it is that the evolving circuits had a designer, and although Adrian Thompson is not with divine power, the similarity of the situation can be used for argumentative counterpoints by the creationists. In fact it is fuel to their fire.

reply to post by elysiumfire


You've got a point, but we're overlooking one major thing here.

The self evolving circuitry is following a set of "laws" that allow for that form of evolution to take place. There is no process that allows for computers to evolve in nature by themselves.

Whereas, biological and chemical processes do follow laws of nature that allow them to occur naturally without design. Really we're left wondering if the laws of nature were purposefully designed and left to it's own device.

I can definitely see how someone could twist this around in their favor though, but they would have to show that the laws of the universe were created and not just assume they were or pout and argue because they say so.

Originally posted by elysiumfire

Thus: I can agree that complexity in biological structures - from the microbial to the Blue Whale - 'point' to a seeming intelligent design attributable to the foundation of their existing, but all this means is that there is a 'inference' of intelligent design, not a factual one, and at our current level of understanding we are not entitled to treat the inference as fact or truth.

You are quite confused. You admit that on observation nature presents a compelling argument that there is indeed a design but then relegate it to an inferred one. I don't think there is any inference at all behind intelligent design based on the observed biological complxity, I believe it is a fact that the complexity observed is indeed based on intelligence. There is no pointlessness that I observe in nature, so therefor I can see the intelligence behind these aspects of nature observed. Nature seems to have a plan and a strategy that overcomes obstacles which, from its onset(that we cannot account for) has ensured it's survival whilst increasing its diversity. I would call that pretty intelligent. And after all, it hasn't gone backwards in design has it, as a process. I would call that pretty intelligent too.
I believe the problem some people have, is that there are those that have put a "face" on that intelligence, or claim to know it and what has ensued is religion.
But there are others that have relegated this intelligence and complexity in nature to a mere probability or chance happening.
Both are inferences based on the complexity observed in nature coupled with an ignorance of complete knowledge.

Equally, and more important, if we were to accept between us that 'ID' has a factual foundation, are we entitled to claim a divine authorship to it? The simple response to this basic question is (if we are to be honest and respectful to the debate) a resounding 'NO'...we are not entitled to claim a divine authorship.

Entitlements! When were they yours to hand out. People are entitled to their own opinions, if that includes arriving at an opinion where a divine authorship is claimed, so be it. If you were being honest and respectful to the debate you would indeed know that the arguments against ID have entitled themselves to answers of one without a divine authorship based on the same "factual foundations" of complexity in nature by way of evolution without being able to explain it's genesis and ruling out that divine entity. So your point appears only to chastise one side for having an answer while the other side is left to arrive at one because it dose not fall into the spectrum that is deemed supernatural, making it an entitled response. Why, if you are being honest and respectful to the debate, have you not included this?

We could equally claim that a more advanced and intelligent race to be the authors, and not have to draw upon any supposed supernatural intervention (SI).

People already do this and it is interesting to note that it emerges in conjunction with certain cultural influences. To date these beliefs in more advanced and intelligent races are just as abstract and unknowable as SI. So your claim that they are as equally valid is correct, in that they are both religious in nature. The difference is that within our contemporary culture which is heavily influenced by science and technology, an advanced and intelligent race is considered acceptable in being possible and so it appears to be credible. This has distanced it from the religious and supernatural end of the belief spectrum, but the last time I checked, the very same science and technology could not show that SI was impossible. Interesting points to consider when you are throwing claims around equally.

I suppose a claim could then be made that 'SI' is what created the advanced beings, but then the response would be...what 'SI' created the first 'SI', ad infintum, ad nauseum? One can always ask what was the first Creator, and what created that? At such a point, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

You could but you would hear an argument that also includes that SI is outside of what we know as time and space etc, us being finite, SI being Infinite and eternal and without a need of a cause/creator as we know it. But hey, that can of annelids is just as sweetly paradoxical as your egg/chicken aliens, SI scenario above. This paradox does not mean that SI is impossible, just that we cannot know or answer it.
As for meaning and its relevance, well if it is meaningless to you and irrelevant then so be it, others have taken lessons and relevance from these and it has inspired philosophies.
Which we are all entitled to do, of course.

Atlasastro:

You are quite confused.

I quite agree...the rest of your post is most bewildering, nonsensical, trite, pithy, and extraordinarily warped. Here...take two doses of comprehension every 4 hours...starting with classical literature and poetry; within a decade, I'm sure you'll be able to come back and understand the entire context of my post. I thank you for your input.

[edit on 26/9/09 by elysiumfire]

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Atlasastro:

You are quite confused.

I quite agree...the rest of your post is most bewildering, nonsensical, trite, pithy, and extraordinarily warped. Here...take two doses of comprehension every 4 hours...starting with classical literature and poetry; within a decade, I'm sure you'll be able to come back and understand the entire context of my post. I thank you for your input.

Please point out where I fail to comprehend you. Rather than infer it. On the face of it, you post appears to be full of the complexity of one that does indeed fill themselves with poetry and literature, but I can see the inherent design of one that is more intent on filling themselves with an exaggerated sense of that self. It appears that this will be a lifetime pursuit for you. Good luck with that.


Personal attacks, the resort of true poets and literary masters.

Surely such a wealth of knowledge from poetry and literature, inferred of course from the design of your post, would have given you the confidence of a more thorough answer than that which I suffered. Which by the way was, how can I say this as poetically as possible:

bewildering, nonsensical, trite, pithy, and extraordinarily warped.

Well, I can see the use of poetry and literature now, I admit.

Thank you Master of the entitlements in opinions Divine.

Atlasastro:You are quite confused.

Elysiumfire:I quite agree...

Atlasastro:

Please point out where I fail to comprehend you.

Sure...happy to oblige...

Is it true that the layered nature of complex biological structures point to an authorial designership, and therefore provide factual support to the 'ID' hypothesis? If we were to agree that it did, are we still then entitled to claim a 'divinity' to such authorship? I think these questions serve well the moot points of the argument, and clearly set out the tone and scope of the debate. Surely, the current position of the debate is not about what is factual, but about what can be agreed upon? Are we not obliged to establish fundamental agreements before we can progress the debate further? I think we are.

If evidences we use in each of our side of the debate are or have become, established facts in themselves, then both sides of the debate must respect them as so...we must recognize and respect that established facts are not open to debate, but are the bridges by which opposing arguments are brought together in agreement, they serve as rostrums upon which both sides can deliver their argument.

Thus: I can agree that complexity in biological structures - from the microbial to the Blue Whale - 'point' to a seeming intelligent design attributable to the foundation of their existing, but all this means is that there is a 'inference' of intelligent design, not a factual one, and at our current level of understanding we are not entitled to treat the inference as fact or truth.

Equally, and more important, if we were to accept between us that 'ID' has a factual foundation, are we entitled to claim a divine authorship to it? The simple response to this basic question is (if we are to be honest and respectful to the debate) a resounding 'NO'...we are not entitled to claim a divine authorship. We could equally claim that a more advanced and intelligent race to be the authors, and not have to draw upon any supposed supernatural intervention (SI).

I suppose a claim could then be made that 'SI' is what created the advanced beings, but then the response would be...what 'SI' created the first 'SI', ad infintum, ad nauseum? One can always ask what was the first Creator, and what created that? At such a point, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

...if you need further assistance, just ask.

[edit on 26/9/09 by elysiumfire]

reply to post by atlasastro

I don't think there is any inference at all behind intelligent design based on the observed biological complxity, I believe it is a fact that the complexity observed is indeed based on intelligence.

This is an act of disregarding the natural processes taking place.

So your point appears only to chastise one side for having an answer while the other side is left to arrive at one because it dose not fall into the spectrum that is deemed supernatural, making it an entitled response.

More like chastise the other side for arriving at a conclusion first and then trying to find evidence to make it fit.

To date these beliefs in more advanced and intelligent races are just as abstract and unknowable as SI.

It could be argued that there is no SI and that any SI conceptualized by the ancient peoples of earth were nothing more than misunderstanding of advanced alien technology. So many religions claim the gods came from the heavens, perhaps they were right! Any technology sufficiently advanced would seem like magic, even our technology would seem like magic to someone in ancient times.

You could but you would hear an argument that also includes that SI is outside of what we know as time and space etc, us being finite, SI being Infinite and eternal and without a need of a cause/creator as we know it.

Empty claim without any proof or evidence. Lack of knowing how certain processes work or came about is not proof of SI or a designer.

That the computer and actual genetic algorithm had to be designed by man could be considered an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution.

Some very interesting examples of genetic algorithms:

www.talkorigins.org...

Sato et al. 2002 used genetic algorithms to design a concert hall with optimal acoustic properties, maximizing the sound quality for the audience, for the conductor, and for the musicians on stage. This task involves the simultaneous optimization of multiple variables. Beginning with a shoebox-shaped hall, the authors' GA produced two non-dominated solutions, both of which were described as "leaf-shaped" (p.526). The authors state that these solutions have proportions similar to Vienna's Grosser Musikvereinsaal, which is widely agreed to be one of the best - if not the best - concert hall in the world in terms of acoustic properties.

The challenge is to arrange the satellites' orbits to minimize this downtime. This is a multi-objective problem, involving the minimization of both the average blackout time for all locations and the maximum blackout time for any one location; in practice, these goals turn out to be mutually exclusive.
When the GA was applied to this problem, the evolved results for three, four and five-satellite constellations were unusual, highly asymmetric orbit configurations, with the satellites spaced by alternating large and small gaps rather than equal-sized gaps as conventional techniques would produce. However, this solution significantly reduced both average and maximum revisit times, in some cases by up to 90 minutes. In a news article about the results, Dr. William Crossley noted that "engineers with years of aerospace experience were surprised by the higher performance offered by the unconventional design".

Keane and Brown 1996 used a GA to evolve a new design for a load-bearing truss or boom that could be assembled in orbit and used for satellites, space stations and other aerospace construction projects. The result, a twisted, organic-looking structure that has been compared to a human leg bone, uses no more material than the standard truss design but is lightweight, strong and far superior at damping out damaging vibrations, as was confirmed by real-world tests of the final product. And yet "No intelligence made the designs. They just evolved" (Petit 1998).

Finally, as reported in Gibbs 1996, Lockheed Martin has used a genetic algorithm to evolve a series of maneuvers to shift a spacecraft from one orientation to another within 2% of the theoretical minimum time for such maneuvers. The evolved solution was 10% faster than a solution hand-crafted by an expert for the same problem.

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).

and many more...

This clearly shows that evolution is capable of producing all the variety and irreducible complexity of life.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by atlasastro

 

This is an act of disregarding the natural processes taking place.

How is it an act of disregarding the natural process when I express a belief that those natural process have an intelligence behind them? Here read it again:

There is no pointlessness that I observe in nature, so therefor I can see the intelligence behind these aspects of nature observed. Nature seems to have a plan and a strategy that overcomes obstacles which, from its onset(that we cannot account for) has ensured it's survival whilst increasing its diversity. I would call that pretty intelligent. And after all, it hasn't gone backwards in design has it? As a process. I would call that pretty intelligent too.

post by atlasastro
As was suggested to me, get some poetry and literature from the master of self entitlements, elysiumfire. Apparently 10 years of it helps improve your own opinion of yourself.

More like chastise the other side for arriving at a conclusion first and then trying to find evidence to make it fit.

Isn't that exactly what evolution debaters that argue against a divine authority in ID do as well. I accept evolution as being obvious. But how does one arrive at a conclusion at there being NO divine authority from merely explaining a complex aspect of nature that seems, to the observer, to have a design component in it? Where is the chastisement there? Which was my point, after all elysiumfire went to the pains of claiming
elysiumfire-

Surely, the current position of the debate is not about what is factual, but about what can be agreed upon? Are we not obliged to establish fundamental agreements before we can progress the debate further? I think we are.

Elysiumfire is in fact asking people to agree to having no entitlement to believe that a divine authorship maybe involved. Yet leaves the opposing side with the entitlement to claim there is in fact NO divine authorship. Which is why I raise the "chastisement" of one side. I simply disagree with elysiumfire on what he would have us agree on is an entitled opinion. Fair and honest. Unfortunately it seems that if you do this, disagree with elysiumfire, you are pithy, warped, trite and unfamiliar with poetry and literature. It appears now though that elysiumfire has you to argue his poor case. Any improvement? None so far.

-elysiumfire

If evidences we use in each of our side of the debate are or have become, established facts in themselves, then both sides of the debate must respect them as so

That respect does not then include the acceptance of established fact as a support to feel entitled to believe in a divine authority as being responsible for the agreed fact that there is design via complexity pointing to authorship. It appears by omission that the other side is respected and entitled by their own facts to rule that divine authority out? Where is that chastisement? Tsk tsk. This debate is only about ruling out divine authorship under the guise of a fair middle ground when the very crux of one sides argument is indeed that a divine authority exists.
Yes I can see how fair that really is, well for one side. After all elysiumfire is trying set an agreeable middle ground for debate, but only wants to curb one side of the discussion by way of discriminating against what facts inspire what entitled opinion.

It could be argued that there is no SI and that any SI conceptualized by the ancient peoples of earth were nothing more than misunderstanding of advanced alien technology.

It could be argued yes, like it is argued that it was God that did it. Same story. Which was my point? It is a new and different cultural influence that allows this ET argument to exist, not evidence. This is Exactly the same as SI. You are totally entitled to do it.

So many religions claim the gods came from the heavens, perhaps they were right! Any technology sufficiently advanced would seem like magic, even our technology would seem like magic to someone in ancient times.

So what you are saying actually shows my point. In terms of our own scientific and technological influence within culture we update older traditional stories or religions with a "plausible explanations" within that scientific and technological framework. I have actually been studying this as I think this is a transition that is taking place right now within our western society. We are replacing older and more traditional gods with a "more possible" middle man(so to speak), that being ET's. We are now seeing organized religions based around Extraterrestrial beliefs, we are seeing a whole range of spiritual and supernatural beliefs including and integrating ET influences- channelers, psychics, re-incarnated spirits of ET's etc. Traditionally an experience that would have been interpreted as a religious or spiritual possession is now as likely to be considered an alien abduction experiences due to this new cultural dominance of science and technology. We are seeing it appear in new translations and alternative explanations of art, ancient texts, archeology and history. Is this a kind of Evolution as a process in belief? Perhaps. Of course people are entitled to arrive at their own beliefs, because the debate is open and not restricted by "entitlement" to "believe".
But to me it is still a religious belief only supported by the cultural influence of a science and technology that says that Alien life is possible and nothing more. How is this as an argument any different to SI being responsible for the design of life? To me it isn't, yet both Elysiumfire and you have injected it, whilst complaining about entitled opinions, lack of evidence etc.

This science and technology does not emphatically say SI is impossible. So my question is, how is your ET hypothesis any more entitled then a belief in SI. To me it is a reliance on a framework of belief inspired by science and technology. Is science and technology entitled to claim that it knows it all? As sure as it is acceptable to claim something as an argument based on possibilities goes, SI stand as an entitled opinion alongside one where a superior and intelligent alien race exists, for Science and Technology cannot say it is impossible for either to exist by looking at complexity in nature.

Empty claim without any proof or evidence. Lack of knowing how certain processes work or came about is not proof of SI or a designer.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, The absence of proof is not an argument either to support a claim that SI does not exist or is not the designer, which leads me to repeat my belief that it is quite acceptable to have an opinion that one exists and that people are entitled to hold this from observing nature and the apparent design within its processes, like evolution for example.
To be specific to your reply though, my words are not empty claims. I claim that people will use these arguments and People do actually use these arguments the same way others inject these arguments:

It could be argued that there is no SI and that any SI conceptualized by the ancient peoples of earth were nothing more than misunderstanding of advanced alien technology.

Empty counter claims as an argument? It works for you, why not those that side with SI?
If you had of actually read the whole of my post I actually point out that even though the arguments may seem pointless and meaningless to elysiumfire, people actually derive meaning and understanding from these, which they are ENTITLED to do.

When you say this though:

Empty claim without any proof or evidence. Lack of knowing how certain processes work or came about is not proof of SI or a designer.

So you know how life started? And it was without the divine. You have evidence of this then? You can explain and fully understand the process that have achieved this which lead you to conclude that no divine authorship is involved?

Elysiumfire said this, and I was replying to him.
-elysiumfire

Is it true that the layered nature of complex biological structures point to an authorial designership, and therefore provide factual support to the 'ID' hypothesis? If we were to agree that it did, are we still then entitled to claim a 'divinity' to such authorship?

So if we agree that complexity is to be used as factual support for ID, and I disagree with elysiumfire that I am entitled to accept a divine authorship, then when elysiumfire agues this:

I suppose a claim could then be made that 'SI'....... and what created that? At such a point, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

I argue that the factual acceptance of the complexity that points to authorship can inspire an entitled belief in it being divine and when further arguments about this divine entity, its existence and genesis are raise, these valid arguments can follow:

You could but you would hear an argument that also includes that SI is outside of what we .................... just that we cannot know or answer it. As for meaning.......

post by atlasastro. I believe these have meaning and a point, it is just that because others do not see them, they are deemed meaningless and pointless by one side of the debate. Just as I can deem that your ET hypothesis is pointless and meaningless, yet it is obvious you mean it as a valid argument, and to point out your questions concerning a divine authorship, yet your claim is as empty as a claim that a divine being is outside of what we know, without proof or evidence!





[edit on 27/9/09 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Atlasastro:

Please point out where I fail to comprehend you.

Sure...happy to oblige...

Is it ...........t, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

...if you need further assistance, just ask.

[edit on 26/9/09 by elysiumfire]

Anyway, as you appear confused, yet again. I said this:

Please point out where I fail to comprehend you.

Your reply:

Sure...happy to oblige...

Is it ...........t, the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

[edit on 26/9/09 by elysiumfire]

I asked you to show me were I went wrong, not where you went wrong.
Were you went wrong=

Is it ..........., the debate becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

How is the poetry going. Still writing love sonnets to yourself?

[edit on 27/9/09 by atlasastro]

Atlasastro:

How is the poetry going. Still writing love sonnets to yourself?

How embarrassingly self-belittling you are. Hoping to use ridicule to defeat and derail other's posts is the sign and mark of a most desperate and impoverished mind. Others, who would support your belief cannot do so, for you taint it with unreasonable and illogical tirades of twisted nonsense...they see this, and conscientiously remain silent...it is to their benefit and my admiration of them that they do so.

However, because of the twisted manner in which you have warped the context of my posts, I shall here clarify the points you have sucked from their authenticity.

AA:

You admit that on observation nature presents a compelling argument that there is indeed a design but then relegate it to an inferred one.

I admit of no 'relegation' at all. I use the clause 'points to', and although there have been many instances where observation has presented (compelling) aspects of nature by which it has been misunderstood, science later clearly demonstrated that the observations were simply that of illusions...acceptances that the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe are some such instances. Oft' times, observations only 'point to' (ie, infer) seeming truths, but which science later demonstrates to be flaws in the understanding of our own mis-perceivings. God, SI, ID, are in my humble opinion, further examples of such illusions arising from mis-perception.

My acknowledgement that I too can see the misperception of ID in nature, does not (and did not) necessarily mean that I accept it, because I don't...it is simply a layer of nature we have to get through in order to arrive at her reality.

AA:

I don't think there is any inference at all behind intelligent design based on the observed biological complxity, I believe it is a fact that the complexity observed is indeed based on intelligence.

Unfortunately, belief without hard empirical evidence does not cut it, although you are rightly entitled to your belief. I myself will not jump to error-filled conclusions simply because they may support my vindication in a (as yet) unsupportable belief.

AA:

There is no pointlessness that I observe in nature, so therefor I can see the intelligence behind these aspects of nature observed. Nature seems to have a plan and a strategy that overcomes obstacles which, from its onset(that we cannot account for) has ensured it's survival whilst increasing its diversity.

Of course, you do realise that your statement is nothing more than mere personal opinion, and as interesting a claim it may be, it does not move the debate forward in any way.

AA:

I would call that pretty intelligent.

Fair enough, as opinions go, but I would call it change and adaptation and thus...evolutionary.

AA:

I believe the problem some people have, is that there are those that have put a "face" on that intelligence, or claim to know it and what has ensued is religion.
But there are others that have relegated this intelligence and complexity in nature to a mere probability or chance happening.

More opinion...

AA:

Both are inferences based on the complexity observed in nature coupled with an ignorance of complete knowledge.

Agreed. I'm pleased that you see it my way, but that is both your's and mine opinion only.

AA:

Entitlements! When were they yours to hand out.

Misconstruance of meaning and context. My use of the word 'entitlement' in no way allowed the assumption that I myself was in charge of entitlements, that is merely a misapplied idiosyncratic way of thinking on your part. I stated '...are we entitled...', by which clarification of its comprehension asks...are we entitled to claim anything being a truth when there is no factual basis to support such claim? I don't believe we are, and ought not to, lest we allow illusions into our perceptions, and misunderstandings into our knowledge.

AA:

So your point appears only to chastise one side

Absolutely not! We must apply the same yardstick to both sides, and I do. An illusion in poorly misunderstood science is as equally damaging as an illusion in faith.

The rest of your post is mere hubris, and requires no response except its dismissal as irrelevant to the debate.

AA:

As was suggested to me, get some poetry and literature from the master of self entitlements, elysiumfire. Apparently 10 years of it helps improve your own opinion of yourself.

More hubris and ad hominem. It really doesn't help your stance. Actually, your misconstruance of what I stated (or is it a deliberate warping of it?) borders on false accusation to score cheap shots.

Here's what I actually stated...

Here...take two doses of comprehension every 4 hours...starting with classical literature and poetry; within a decade, I'm sure you'll be able to come back and understand the entire context of my post.

...now tell me, how on earth do you equate what I stated with it '...improving your own opinion of yourself...'? It doesn't intelligently add up. My hope in my irreverance was that a long time spent reading the classics and poetry would train your mind in both discernment and comprehension of other poster's prose. Narcissism (ie, one's perception/opinion of one's self) is not something I am too concerned with, particularly that of your opinion of yourself. Remember, credibility is determined by the statements in one's posts.

AA:

You are quite confused.

That is how you began responding to the posts I made. You adopted a superior attitude and belittled my own comprehension right from the start. When I respond in kind, you don't like it, and cry foul like a spoilt brat, but still proceed to belittle anyway. If you don't like being on the receiving end, don't dish it out.

AA:

...after all Elysiumfire went to the pains of claiming...

Nothing more than his own observations...

AA:

Elysiumfire is in fact asking people to agree to having no entitlement to believe that a divine authorship maybe involved.

False representation and misconstruance...I am asking nothing of the sort, whatever ideas people want to believe is entirely up to them. I am asking people to respect both facts and the debate itself. I am asking that people state their belief so that we can agree our positions, and proceed from there. What is the point of believing in a pre-Copernican idea of the universe when it has been clearly established to be false and illusory? Hence, respect the facts, and common agreements can therefore be reached.

AA:

That respect does not then include the acceptance of established fact as a support to feel entitled to believe in a divine authority as being responsible for the agreed fact that there is design via complexity pointing to authorship.

Facts are facts, and they demolish non-facts. If I am in error in my thinking and I am proven to be in error, then I have to respect that, regardless of the position it puts in me in. It is what it is. Established facts support only themselves, they do not support premises of non-facts. Only non-reasonable minds would continue to accept non-facts that have been demolished, and debating with such minds would be a futile exercise. It is the facts that determine the positions, not wishful thinking.

AA:

It appears by omission that the other side is respected and entitled by their own facts to rule that divine authority out? Where is that chastisement?

Chastisement? Don't you mean penalised? We penalise ourselves by the error in our own thinking. When ignorance is proved to be ignorance, it can be a most rude awakening.

AA:

After all elysiumfire is trying set an agreeable middle ground for debate, but only wants to curb one side of the discussion by way of discriminating against what facts inspire what entitled opinion.

More false representation. It is not I that discriminates, but that facts do. Is it I who discriminates against a pre-Copernican concept of the universe, or is it the established fact that the pre-Copernican concept is false that discriminates? It answers its own question...discrimination arises in one's own choosing...I cannot be blamed for the choices others make. On my part, there is no intent to curb anyone of their opinion, only that they respect the facts. I do not think it unreasonable for both sides to accept this as common ground upon which to debate. Of course, it need not be accepted, and at that point it becomes a case of agreeing to disagree, and thus to debate further would be futile...the impasse would be unresolvable.

AA:

I argue that the factual acceptance of the complexity that points to authorship can inspire an entitled belief in it being divine and when further arguments about this divine entity...

Yet, one is not entitled to state that it is fact, not without empirical evidence to back it up. This is the point and contextual meaning of my phrase...

...are we still then entitled to claim a 'divinity' to such authorship?

...one is freely entitled to believe it does, but the lack of empirical evidence itself denies one to claim that as fact. Also, it is the lack of empirical evidence that discriminates against the believer. There is no conspiracy to discriminate against the factless, they discriminate against themselves by their own choosing.