Atheism - The Final Frontier

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Hell, you're not even trying to bolster creartionism here, so much as trying ot attack science... which really does seem to be about all folks like you are capable of doing.

Still trying to take science hostage? I dedicated a whole segment of my post on that, how Atheists try hard to take science hostage, but it never seems to amaze me, that they keep coming back with the same determined mind. Show me where I attacked science.

I actually get my feelings of superiority through actually being superior. See, I actually know more about this stuff than you do. This makes you my lesser, at least in this regard. Actually seeking an education for the subjects at hand would give you a chance to improve yourself, though.

You presented no evidence. You cited a fact (the lack of randomness) and then used to to make one assumption - that the lack of randomness is proof of determinism - and then used that assumption to launch another assumption, that determinism is proof of a creator.

Not an assumption, rather something proven through science and the conclusion derived from scientific elaboration of creation.

So let's start with determinism. I suppose in a broad sense of the word, one could make the argument; cause and effect is a form of determinism, after all. But I have a sneaking suspicion you're talking more about "god sits back and decides what happens before it does" sort of determinism, especially given your next part.

Nope, your sneaky suspicion isn't true. The Universe has order, just like a computer, leave the computer on for 20 minutes, it has deterministic behavior, therefore will do as it is determined to do through its programming. But you can intervene.

The two problems you have are, one, that you are assuming determinism (broad or philosophical) is the reason for the lack of randomness.

Actually everything science has elaborated on beyond doubt shows the lack of randomness. This is scientific fact. Just like the weather, we thought it was random, then after learning about the variables we didn't know previously, we can make better predictions now.

In fact it's the other way around; the lack of randomness is the cause, cause and effect is (interestingly) the effect.

Randomness is the cause, cause and effect is the effect. How is randomness the cause, and how is the effect the "cause and effect". Elaboration required, because I know the giant leap you took there, the same leaps you accuse me of lol

Two, you admit later that your creator can "change the rules" - that not only is he unbound by determinism, but neither is anything within his scope.

Let me make this simple. Have you ever created a slide show which is deterministic? Well here's a news flash, leave the slide show without any interference and it will keep moving along as determined, in order. But you can change that, what does that mean? That means although the slide show is deterministic, you still want to have the capability to intervene. It isn't that hard to comprehend, you just need to look at some examples of conscious creations, and compare. By the way, just incase you didn't get, we are conscious creators.

So which brings us to the next point, determinism as proof of a creator. You never actually explain how determinism points to a creator. You require your reader to make that assumptive leap with you, instead.

I did, re-read my previous post please.

It could just as easily point towards the utter lack of a creator. Determinism is, as I said, actually a proof of non-randomness Unfortunately as I've also pointed out, this creator would itself be random. He'd have to be able to operate "outside the rules." Which would make the creator an element of randomness that could not exist within a non-random universe. Of course, how would a random thing create a non-random universe, and then make a conscious decision to leave it non-random? Determinism does a pretty good job of tearing hte feet out from under a creator here.

I have already posted a huge picture explaining for kinder garden students what random means.Random means the lack of consciousness behind the events. That means since the Universe is not random, then consciousness is behind the order and the Universal deterministic behavior. Does that mean GOD is random? No, that means GOD is conscious, intelligence, the designer.

Or it could point to something like an animistic universe; where it has always "just been" and each force, object, and particle is controlled by an individual guiding spirit. not themselves creators, just guides for matter, energy, and phenominon.

LOL that would make a good movie.

Of course it boils down to our lack of any determinable evidence for a "creator." No corroborating evidence, unless you want to make that old argument "existence is proof of a creator." if that's the case then certainly the creator is so utterly dilute and manifold that it would be completely unrecognizable anyway.

The elaboration of the creation is the evidence of the creator, not existence. The more we learn, the more we understand and acknowledge the lack of randomness. This isn't surprising, and the lack of randomness is clear evidence of a creator, you can't dodge it because it simply means the Universe was created to be what it is, designed. If you restart the Universe 100 times, still the same result, why? Because it was designed to be what it is. I don't think you can deny that, but I can see you are trying to dodge.

The lack of randomness, but Atheists thought a lot of things were random once upon a time, therefore explaining the lack of consciousness behind the creation.

Now, if you want to worship gravity or atomic bonds, I'm not going to be the one to stop you. I just want you to realize that that's essentially what you end up with, here.

I wouldn't praise rundll32.exe as much as I wouldn't praise gravity, because that isn't the creator, that is created.

You are again indulging in circular argument; "the creator created stuff, because stuff exists, so stuff proves a creator."

Nice try, I never made such a claim, care to elaborate.

It's okay to say "I don't know." In fact knowing when you don't know something is a mark of knowledge. Now the question is; is it unknowable? I don't think it is (but... I don't know!) And the fact is, neither do you. You can't tell me a single thing about the central pillar of your hypothesis, other than that it's the central pillar of your hypothesis.

There is no hypothesis, there is elaboration of the creation, that elaboration is evident to the conscious creator. I have already explained how and why previously. re-read

Oh yes, we've created laws. Such as the law against murder, which, thankfully, made murder impossible long, long ago. Anyone who tries to violate the law against homicide finds that htey are simply unable to do so.

Heard of the OSI protocol?

You want an instance of deterministic behavior without consciousness? Okay.

The universe.

"A Monkey asks for evidence to prove that ancient ruins are man made. Humans tell them that it is, "man made methods were used to create them". The Monkeys reply, "but nature can also produce such structures, we don't need a creator to explain their existence". Humans reply, "well show us one example where natural methods have produced such structure", the monkeys reply, "the ancient ruins"."

By the way, how do you know the Universe has deterministic behavior without consciousness? Isn't that a giant leap?

If this being can change the rules on a whim, then it is injecting randomness into an otherwise orderly universe.

False, that's not random, that's your ignorance of the new variable injected, if you know of that new variable, you can predict the outcome, hence determined.

I have one fish... and now boom, I have enough fish to feed a party. That's random.

That's not random, once again, that is ignorant of the new variables injected.

The value of pi today is going to be three, flat. More randomness. Each particular instance indulges a particular system of order. but as a whole it becomes an injection of randomness; "the universe works a new and different way right now, and now it works a different way from that!"

Yes, you can change your ATS skin, that isn't random, that is injection of a new variable. If someone else changed your skin and you had no idea of the variables used to make the change, then you would think it is a random event.


Really? So... atheists know more about truth than Hindus, Christians know more than Muslims, and everyone's smarter than Jews?

No, the common denominator is a creator.

Originally posted by Tearman
says you. Another definition of random is that there are no hidden mechanisms producing it, whether or not that mechanism is an intelligent design. Why does non randomness imply intelligent design as opposed to some other non intelligent mechanism?

As I said before, lack of randomness means consciousness was behind it, as without consciousness it would be random, there is a reason why random is defined as what it is.

No matter how many non-intelligent mechanism you name, it is all deterministic, non-random, it is all unconscious. These are just like the laws and rules we conscious creators have created. Take a look at your computer, the deterministic behavior, the order, the laws, all of these are products of consciousness.

We have no instance of such order, and such deterministic behavior coming to existence without a intelligence or consciousness.

actually there are logical reasons to believe there are no hidden variables. As I understand it, the matter is not fully closed, but they don't just believe that it is random for no reason. I don't think I can discuss this matter any further without a lot of reading, or maybe a Ph.D or 2.

Are you suggesting we know all the variables?

I don't think this matters because the mechanism of natural selection is not dependent on true randomness. It can work with pseudo randomness even without any intelligent involvement.

Yes, but definitely not random. Pseudo random needs its lovely formula, if you know all the variables you are fully capable of seeing the next result.

Without intelligence, that's another story, something we are currently discussing.

why is consciousness the only mechanism that could account for non randomness?

Because every time you restart the Universe, the same results will be produce, it proves that it was designed to be what it is, rather than evolved randomly, or another million back to back mechanisms being behind it. Those mechanism have to be intelligently created themselves in order to produce the deterministic behavior.

I think that you are saying that a computer has the appearance of design and therefore it is designed.

Nope, I'm saying a computer is designed by a conscious being, IE humans.

The reason we say it has the appearance of design is because we know it is designed. If we knew of natural processes which could form a windows computer, we would not say that it has the appearance of design.

I don't disagree, but the Universal order and determinism resembles the products of Humans (hence Conscious, Intelligence).

Okay, so your argument is basically that the universe is not random and therefore it requires an intelligent designer. Let's assume that this is true and that the universe is not in any sense random. Okay, there is a god and it is in some way capable of "design". Is god random? If it is not, then it meets the definition of things that require a creator and then we have the problem of requiring an infinite number of creators to explain the universe.

As an Atheist I advise you to stick within the boundaries of this universe, let's not talk about GOD's attributes.

The truth is that we have no clue how anything ultimately exists. There is no point in blaming it on something we label god as opposed to anything else. We don't know. It may be that it is not possible for anyone to know, no matter what level of intelligence they possess. On the other hand, we can't rule out the possibility that someone will discover a totally self explanatory explanation. It may very well be that there is an intelligence that is in some way responsible for the existence of this universe, but that would explain nothing: we would be no closer to understanding how that scenario came to be, even if we KNEW that it was true.

On the other hand we have a brain which allows us to reflect, compare, contrast, and see the bigger picture.

I think that we actually have something in common. We both think the universe is in need of explanation. The difference between us is that you think that god is a meaningful explanation, and I do not.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

...

Originally posted by confreak

It could just as easily point towards the utter lack of a creator. Determinism is, as I said, actually a proof of non-randomness Unfortunately as I've also pointed out, this creator would itself be random. He'd have to be able to operate "outside the rules." Which would make the creator an element of randomness that could not exist within a non-random universe. Of course, how would a random thing create a non-random universe, and then make a conscious decision to leave it non-random? Determinism does a pretty good job of tearing hte feet out from under a creator here.

I have already posted a huge picture explaining for kinder garden students what random means.Random means the lack of consciousness behind the events. That means since the Universe is not random, then consciousness is behind the order and the Universal deterministic behavior. Does that mean GOD is random? No, that means GOD is conscious, intelligence, the designer.

You just said that GOD is not random. Therefore it fits your definition of something that requires design. You are saying that the universe is non random because it is designed. And it is designed because it is non random. But the same circular logic does not apply to god for some unknown reason, and no where is it explained why non randomness implies design in the first place.

reply to post by Tearman

You just said that GOD is not random. Therefore it fits your definition of something that requires design. You are saying that the universe is non random because it is designed. And it is designed because it is non random. But the same circular logic does not apply to god for some unknown reason, and no where is it explained why non randomness implies design in the first place.

Now you are entering the realm of creationist beliefs away from your comfort zone, are you sure you don't want to stick with science and evidence within this Universe which supports the creator? Or do you want to indulge yourself deeper where you have to leave your Atheist beliefs behind before you can enter.

Humans are conscious, but humans are created, but that consciousness doesn't revolve around our brain, or our neural system etc, that consciousness is derived, where is it derived from? Just like me speaking to you though this computer, am I the computer, or am I me, who am I?

Now, when we say GOD created Humans, did that come with consciousness? Is consciousness part of this creation? Or is there only one consciousness, and this is just a vessel which we use to experience what is created.

Tell us this, is consciousness random or not? That's where you have entered the realm of unknown, what is consciousness, where is it derived from, what is this human body, is it just us, is it just a vessel, if it is a vessel where is the real you, me, everyone, or is everyone just one, one consciousness, hence there is only one GOD blablabla

Are you sure you want to go in that road, or stick to something we do know, like the fact that the Universe isn't conscious, but deterministic, isn't random, but our consciousness can cause change, causing change from within, just like programmers having the ability to change the computer from within, through code, which can in effect even control the hardware...

reply to post by confreak


What does any of this have to do with the connection between non randomness and design? I feel like we are not having the same conversation. Can you do me a favor, and take it one step at a time so we can see where we aren't seeing eye to eye? Let's start with an explanation for why non randomness implies an underlying design, consciousness, intelligence, or anything else.

Also, if you are allowed to say that God is consciousness, then I am allowed to say that god's attributes require an explanation. It makes no sense for only one of us to be able to make assertions about god's properties. But wait, never mind that, I think we should work on first thing's firsts. Non-randomness = consciousness was your opening assertion... okay, explain why that is.

reply to post by Tearman


You were talking about the creator and claiming that I said he is not random therefore he must be created also. If you want to talk about the creator, you have to leave your Atheists beliefs behind and enter the realm of relatively unknown. But the evidence of a creator is all around you.

How does the lack of randomness prove the involvement of a creator?

Because

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7095332cc14b.jpg[/atsimg]

I have repeated this 10 times now.

Let's see eye to eye, if the Universe is determined to be what it is (hence non-random), then it will always produce the same results, just like you computer. That means an intelligent creator intended the Universe to be what it is, other wise it wouldn't be what it is, other wise it would be random, without any of us knowing what the hell is going to happy next, or any of us even existing. The order, the determinism and the lack of randomness is the trait of a conscious creator.

Get it?

reply to post by confreak
So non random is defined as that which occurs by design. Oh okay, I see the problem now. First of all that is not the definition of non random. Secondly, and this is very important, if it were the definition of non random, then the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY you could know something was non random, is if you knew in the first place that it was designed. BUT, you are using the fact that it is non random as evidence that it is designed. This is circular logic. It has no entry point.


How do you know something is non random? Because it is designed. How do you know something is designed? Because it is non random? how do you know something is non random.... etc, etc, etc....



Sorry: I just noticed that your definition and the definition shown in that picture differ slightly. The picture defines random as lacking method OR design. You describe random as only lacking design. It is your definition that I am specifically attacking, as you are not making room for methods other than design as an explanation for non randomness. With the definition in the picture, in order to prove non randomness, you would have to show that something was caused by EITHER method or design.

Originally posted by Tearman
reply to post by confreak

 

Oh okay, I see the problem now. First of all that is not the definition of non random.

Yeah, sure it is not.

Secondly, and this is very important, if it were the definition of non random, then the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY you could know something was non random, is if you knew in the first place that it was designed.

Not true, how do you know? You know by examining the cause and effect. Random means it happens without any cause, there is no formula, there is no set of rules, it just happens..

How do you know something is non random? Because it is designed.

No, you know by elaborating on that thing, and seeing whether it is random or not.

How do you know something is designed? Because it is non random?

Yes, because it is determined, no randomness involved, intelligence, and consciousness is involved. Some Atheists believe these random forces just randomly exist, they randomly have the ability to interact with particles, and particles randomly behave the way they do. In reality this isn't true.

as you are not making room for methods other than design as an explanation for non randomness. With the definition in the picture, in order to prove non randomness, you would have to show that something was caused by EITHER method or design.

It is the same, method is designed, you don't get methods randomly. And the Universe is not random which leads to one conclusion.

Originally posted by confreak

Secondly, and this is very important, if it were the definition of non random, then the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY you could know something was non random, is if you knew in the first place that it was designed.

Not true, how do you know? You know by examining the cause and effect. Random means it happens without any cause, there is no formula, there is no set of rules, it just happens..

Okay so you examine something to see if it is non random. How do we know it is non random? Well because it is designed of course, that is the definition of non random, is it not? Well how can we be sure it is designed though? Because it is non random. Well how do we know it is non random? ... ...

How do we examine something for non randomness if our only definition of non randomness is that it is designed, and at the same time we are trying to prove that something is designed by saying that it is non random?


Another similar argument: A is that which is not B. How do we know that something is A? Because it is not B. Well how do we know it is not B? Well because we know it is A. Ah, but how could we have known it is A if the only definition of A is that it is not B?

Originally posted by Tearman
Okay so you examine something to see if it is non random? Well how do we know it is non random? Well because it is designed of course, that is the definition of non random, is it not?

I said this just in the previous post, I will repeat it one more time.

You know when something isn't random when it is not deterministic, you can't determine what will happen next, and you can't see the past either, you can't see how it came to what it is now. For example we can predict heads or tails on a coin flip, here is a picture:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7cb6541d8173.jpg[/atsimg]

Well how can we be sure it is designed though? Because it is non random? Well how do we know it is non random? ... ...

You need to get the first statement right then jump to the second statement.

How can we be sure it is designed? Because it has deterministic behavior, you can determine what will happen, meaning it was designed to be what it is, rather than coming to what it is through randomness.

1. Random or not is a false dichotomy. Our universe can have both objectively random (such as in quantum mechanics) and non-random elements (it is not totaly random).

2. I fail to see how the universe being random or not is a proof of conscious creator. Consciousness or lack of it it independent of randomness/determinism. If anything, consciousness requires some deterministic laws to exist first, not the other way around.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by confreak

How can we be sure it is designed? Because it has deterministic behavior, you can determine what will happen, meaning it was designed to be what it is, rather than coming to what it is through randomness.

There is no basis for this conclusion. Universe can just as well be completely deterministic, and not created by any supernatural intelligence.

Just to add, there are very different kinds of creationism. The notion that basic physical laws of this reality were somehow established by an intelligence may be accepted even by some atheists that do not believe in deities. For all we know, we may be a computer simulation in some alien laboratory. Science is agnostic on this matter, for now.

It is the young-Earth crazy creationism that is the issue, and this view is often in minority even among theists.

Originally posted by confreak

Originally posted by Tearman
Okay so you examine something to see if it is non random? Well how do we know it is non random? Well because it is designed of course, that is the definition of non random, is it not?

I said this just in the previous post, I will repeat it one more time.

You know when something isn't [is] random when it is not deterministic, you can't determine what will happen next, and you can't see the past either, you can't see how it came to what it is now. For example we can predict heads or tails on a coin flip, here is a picture:

so you are saying any time that we cannot predict behavior there are no underlying mechanisms at work, and that it really is the result of random behavior.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7cb6541d8173.jpg[/atsimg]

Well how can we be sure it is designed though? Because it is non random? Well how do we know it is non random? ... ...

You need to get the first statement right then jump to the second statement.

How can we be sure it is designed? Because it has deterministic behavior, you can determine what will happen, meaning it was designed to be what it is, rather than coming to what it is through randomness.

Oh okay, so something is designed only when its behavior can be predicted? But what about things that cannot be predicted, such as quantum motion? These things are not designed then? If everything is designed then nothing should be unpredictable.

The current belief is that on a fundamental level the universe is not predictable. We can make predictions about the averages of a sum of random events, but no predictions about the individual events themselves. Therefore it fails the test for design, therefore it fails to meet the definition of non random. You could say that in fact on a basic level the world is deterministic, but how can you know that if you cannot measure that determinism? Well you say it is because it is designed. And how do you know that it is designed? Because it is non random. How can you tell it is non random? Our experiments don't show that it is non random.

Why should predictability imply design in the first place? How do we know predictability implies design? You say it does. Well how do you know that it actually does?


I wish I had formal logic training. I strongly suspect there is a more direct way to make my argument.

Originally posted by confreak
Still trying to take science hostage? I dedicated a whole segment of my post on that, how Atheists try hard to take science hostage, but it never seems to amaze me, that they keep coming back with the same determined mind. Show me where I attacked science.

I want one billion dollars and a helicopter, or science gets it!

Your entire post, in fact.
1) You urge "believers" to ignore all evidence that doesn't support what you want it to support.
2) Your basis of argument is circular reasoning
3) Anyone who doesn't accept your creator is of course derided as ignorant and "arrogant"
4) You claim science, but provide absolutely no data; you try to pass your original circular argument off as data.
5) You offer no actual support for your own hypothesis; all you can do is attack the proven science we have (in particular, evolutionary biology and astrophysics) - not by presenting contrary evidence, but simply by throwing your own grotesque ineptitude at the fields
6) Your further attempts at logic are just damn poor.
7) You close off with an argument that amounts to "There are more proclaimed religious people than atheists, so we must be right!" - You even screw up your theology here, since you fail to note that our of all those faiths, only three have any real agreement on that score.

You jumble all this crap - and that's exactly what it is, crap, garbage, equine fecal matter - into a big smelly pile and then pretend you're doing science.

Excellent rebuttal. Alternately you could go to a library. Maybe read a book. It's left to right, top to bottom, just like webpages.

Not an assumption, rather something proven through science and the conclusion derived from scientific elaboration of creation.

Okay. Show me your data.

Nope, your sneaky suspicion isn't true. The Universe has order, just like a computer, leave the computer on for 20 minutes, it has deterministic behavior, therefore will do as it is determined to do through its programming. But you can intervene.

I think you're lying about that not being your position; after all, you DID basically defend your position with nothing more than "religious people outnumber atheists!" and your entire post is nothing but a typical blather about how stupid atheists re for not believing in your wizard.

But all right. Against all evidence present in this thread, through all of your posts, let's take it that you simply meant that the universe follows a determinable cause-and-effect pattern.

Actually everything science has elaborated on beyond doubt shows the lack of randomness. This is scientific fact. Just like the weather, we thought it was random, then after learning about the variables we didn't know previously, we can make better predictions now.

Yep. Predictable, observable, determinable variables.

Not the whim of a wizard.

Randomness is the cause, cause and effect is the effect. How is randomness the cause, and how is the effect the "cause and effect". Elaboration required, because I know the giant leap you took there, the same leaps you accuse me of lol

Read again, chuckles. LACK of randomness is the cause. I understand that you're not too good at this, but you don't have to outright lie, kay?

Let me make this simple. Have you ever created a slide show which is deterministic? Well here's a news flash, leave the slide show without any interference and it will keep moving along as determined, in order. But you can change that, what does that mean? That means although the slide show is deterministic, you still want to have the capability to intervene. It isn't that hard to comprehend, you just need to look at some examples of conscious creations, and compare. By the way, just incase you didn't get, we are conscious creators.

Of course, if I leave the slide show untouched for all eternity, then what difference do I make to that slide show? Nothing. Should hte slides, in their little celluloid minds, even bother worrying about me? If I am a total non-factor in their existence, then I am as good as non-existent anyway.

If however I am constantly changing and altering the contents of the slide machine, well, then I am injecting randomness into that slide show. My interference with the status quo should be very detectable, and I imagine the slides would very much like to know what, exactly, the hell is going on to mess up their nice orderly universe.

Your argument seems to be that because we are conscious creators, that everything must be the result of conscious creation. This is poor logic. Broccoli is a flower, and broccoli is green, ergo all flowers are green.

I did, re-read my previous post please.

I read it a few times. No, you never actually lay it out. you say "it does" and then your evidence is basically 'trust me." Sorry, i'm not going to tryst some dink on the internet who claims I believe evolution is random.

I have already posted a huge picture explaining for kinder garden students what random means.Random means the lack of consciousness behind the events. That means since the Universe is not random, then consciousness is behind the order and the Universal deterministic behavior. Does that mean GOD is random? No, that means GOD is conscious, intelligence, the designer.

Sigh.
No. Your logic is broccoli again. First off, you are relying on some picture you found on the internet that you think ultimately defined "random." There are a few definitions, in fact. Yours uses the one from the Oxford dictionary. To be more accurate, yours is a portion from the Oxford, one of four possible definitions;

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

See those semicolons? (They're the ones that look like commas, with a dot above, if you were wondering) They separate the definitions recognized for the word "randomness"

You, of course, latch onto the third one there, because you think the word "conscious" gives you a loophole to exploit. In specific, you proclaim that because randomness implies the lack of consciousness, the lack of randomness must therefore indicate consciousness. This is simply not the case. This is saying that because 3+3=6, then 6 can only be derived by adding three to three.

God would add randomness. Perhaps his actions would not be random to him, but to us, stars suddenly appearing out of nowhere, then fish suddenly appearing out of nowhere, women turning into sodium chloride, that sort of thing? That's random to us. We could follow the trail to make sense of this seemingly random event and, hey, maybe find God.

of course, these things don't actually happen. The rules are constant - as far as we can tell, they are constant EVERYWHERE. There is no more "divine input," if there ever was in the first place. Your creator is not creating, obviously; we would have noticed. he's not doing much of anything, if he's present at all. Which brings us to two possible conclusions, if we wish to ignore the lack of evidence and "believe" anyway.
1) He's there but not doing anything creator-like. He is thus irrelevant.
2) He created stuff, but has moved on to other projects and isn't doing anything with us. Not only is he not contributing, but he's not even present, so not only is he irrelevant, but there's no point to worshipping him; he won't notice.

Of course, this is all just taking hte creator at face value. There;'s always the infinite paradox problem the creator presents.

LOL that would make a good movie.

Don't laugh, it's no stranger than your own position. In fact given my own religious upbringing, I find it infinitely more likely than your own sky-wizard.

The elaboration of the creation is the evidence of the creator, not existence.

Later on you say you never said this. I think this is becuase you realized that it's a really stupid argument.

The more we learn, the more we understand and acknowledge the lack of randomness. This isn't surprising, and the lack of randomness is clear evidence of a creator, you can't dodge it because it simply means the Universe was created to be what it is, designed. If you restart the Universe 100 times, still the same result, why? Because it was designed to be what it is. I don't think you can deny that, but I can see you are trying to dodge.

No, I'm pointing out that lack of something is not actually proof of something else. There are no hippopotamuses in my yard; they are clearly hiding under my house!

See, you are presupposing the existence of a creator, and then trying to alter your observations to bend around that, just as I am presupposing the presence of hippopotamuses in my immediate area and trying to bend what I observe around the notion that there simply MUST be aquatic pachyderms here.

Lack of randomness is evidence of a lack of randomness. It certainly is no proof of a creator, any more than it is proof of my hippopotamuses. Especially since as I keep pointing out, a creator would add an element of randomness - detectable randomness at that (maybe he can give mea hippo; I have some watermelons I need to get rid of)

The lack of randomness, but Atheists thought a lot of things were random once upon a time, therefore explaining the lack of consciousness behind the creation.

And creationists still think there's a magical wizard who not only created everything, but still controls everything, but we can't actually tell, because he's "unknowable" or "exists outside the universe" or what have you.

we got over the randomness thing by observational science. you guys are trying to get over observational science with this "creationism" thing. Big difference.

I wouldn't praise rundll32.exe as much as I wouldn't praise gravity, because that isn't the creator, that is created.

So do you praise the programmer? How about his parents? All the way back to single-celled organisms? Minerals? Gaseous elemental emissions? A hydrogen clump? Gravity? Oh, God? Okay. So, it has to come up. The infinite paradox.

Who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator?

Tell me, I'm dying o know.

Nice try, I never made such a claim, care to elaborate.

See above; I told you it was a stupid argument.

There is no hypothesis, there is elaboration of the creation, that elaboration is evident to the conscious creator. I have already explained how and why previously. re-read

Do you know what the word "hypotehsis" means? Or are you like that other doofus who threw out htte word "logic" because he thought it would give him street cred?

Heard of the OSI protocol?

I hadn't. So I googled!

Nowadays, this protocol/model is only a history. The theory may look good, but failed in the implementation. Both its model and the protocols are actually flawed

Source
Tee hee!

"A Monkey asks for evidence to prove that ancient ruins are man made. Humans tell them that it is, "man made methods were used to create them". The Monkeys reply, "but nature can also produce such structures, we don't need a creator to explain their existence". Humans reply, "well show us one example where natural methods have produced such structure", the monkeys reply, "the ancient ruins"."

A moron sees a big hill in Bosnia, and grabs a nearby peasant. "Peasant," he exclaims, "tell me who built that magnificent pyramid!" The peasant, rattled, replies, "That's just a big hill, sir." The moron scoffs and releases the peasant. "Nonsense! No natural force could have stacked dirt that high! I refuse to believe it!" The peasant shrugs and hurries away from the man he thinks must be a raving crazy person. After pounding around for cash for several years, the moron can finally start a dig on the hillshide. He first digs through thick, rich topsoil. "Clearly the builders of this wonder of the world had wonderful farmland!" he thinks, and jolts it down into his notebook. Deeper into the dig, he uncovers many stones, worn smooth, distributed seemingly at random throug hthe soil. "Aha! These people built retaining walls and cobbled streets!" this too goes into his notes. Further away a grad student discovers the jawbone of a deer. "Amazing!" the moron says, stroking his beard. "These pyramid-builders domesticated deer, too!" While sifting through the excavated dirt for bits that may have been missed, another student finds an earring, obviously of modern make. "Eureka!" hollers the moron, "This advanced pyramid-building civilization had not only mastered agriculture and masonry thousands of years before anywhere else, but they also TRAVELED THROUGH TIME and bought earrings from us!"

When he published his findings, he couldn't understand why his colleagues laughed so damned hard.

By the way, how do you know the Universe has deterministic behavior without consciousness? Isn't that a giant leap?

I don't. However there is no actual evidence of a conscious being driving creation, any more than there is of those supposed guiding spirits driving it all instead. Could the universe be driven by a consciousness? Sure. Are the odds for it good? No. In fact they're so low that they're not even "bad." They're "might as well be impossible"

This is something you're failing to understand; absolutism doesn't really work in the physical sciences. There's really no 100%. You, of course ignore this because you are 100% convinced your pyramid is real, and no evidence that you're digging in a pile of dirt will ever sway you from this.

False, that's not random, that's your ignorance of the new variable injected, if you know of that new variable, you can predict the outcome, hence determined.

Yes, but we don't know the new variable, because it just appeared in the mind of this god-being and was enacted.

If I grab a handful of beans and throw them on the floor, then I have "consciously" decided to throw the beans. Their pattern is decided by kinetic energy versus friction and angle, with other factors such as moisture, bounciness of the beans and the floor, and whether my cat decides to help. The entire handful of beans has a determinable pattern, for anyone who wants to sit back, calculate every single variability for each bean and put them together into one equation.

I don't know the variables. You don't know the variables. The pattern of beans on the floor is this effectively random to us (and for that matter, to the beans and the floor and the cat). If we later find the variables we can go back and check the figures to see if the handful of beans actually fits the pattern determined by the variable. Eventually we reach a point where we conclude that the beans could ONLY have gotten there if they were tossed by hand, as opposed to spilling from a bag, or knocked over by the cat, or scattered by the bean plant I inexplicably have growing in my house. With a little work we can even conclude it must have been MY hand and not yours, for whatever infinitesimal reasons.

Of course if I never throw the beans in the first place, then there's no beans on my floor, the cat stays bored, we have no reason to study variables, and nobody cares, so my passing thought to toss beans doesn't matter at all.

That's not random, once again, that is ignorant of the new variables injected.

Fish from nowhere is effectively random. See, it breaks the rules of the universe - it's spontaneous generation of matter. matter does not spontaneously appear, it's against the very laws that you say prove the existence of god.

Yes, you can change your ATS skin, that isn't random, that is injection of a new variable. If someone else changed your skin and you had no idea of the variables used to make the change, then you would think it is a random event.

And what if it were impossible to change the ATS skin, period, but it happened anyway?

See, now you're just trying to have it both ways. You can't say that hte existence of universal constants proves god, and then allow for god to break those universal constants.

No, the common denominator is a creator.

Think so? 'Cause it could be a tendency towards gullibility.

Originally posted by Maslo
Just to add, there are very different kinds of creationism. The notion that basic physical laws of this reality were somehow established by an intelligence may be accepted even by some atheists that do not believe in deities. For all we know, we may be a computer simulation in some alien laboratory. Science is agnostic on this matter, for now.

It is the young-Earth crazy creationism that is the issue, and this view is often in minority even among theists.

I totally agree, some kind of intelligence may be responsible for the origin or continued existence of the universe. I don't think there is any way to know that it is true though,. Whatever it is, we cannot say for sure that it has any definite properties. I wont assign a word, such as god, to a totally undefined idea. Something may or may not be involved in the existence of the universe, other than the universe itself, and if it is, we have no idea how it is involved.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Aside from a paranoid islamophobic putz with no grasp of how demographics work yet who feels the need to screech about the stuff he's obviously ignorant of, I have no idea what you are. And can't say I care too much.

Jewish, christian, Raeliean, Founding Father of the First Temple of Prolapse Porn, whatever; your post was still dumber than both Hilton sisters put together.

Well, for my part, I'm sorry if I was a bit rude in this thread. It stinks that it is so hard for people to understand each other and that emotions get a little out of control. I still think that your arguments do not follow logically. I'm going to sleep now. Perhaps later I can return with an improved ability to communicate my objections, or else an understanding of what your position really is.

I don't believe in god and that is because I think it is unknowable and wouldn't answer any questions.
I definitely don't believe any of the world's religions. To give just one reason...

We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a real god and something that is not a god but is capable of tricking us into believing that is one.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Atheism is Islam's weakest opponent.

The more atheists in a country, the more muslims they let in - just look at yurop and Britan.

You meant pseudohumanists (which is in fact, the OPPOSITE of true humanism, only masquerading as humanism). Yes, I am sad some of the fellow atheists see the the dangers of extremist christianity, but dont see the greater dangers of extremist Islam and unlimited immigration. This is kind of double standard, since they have the same goals - to abolish secularism and freedoms, and both are against atheism.
But dont confuse pseudohumanism or political correctness with atheism - they are not the same thing, being an atheist does not mean you have to be ignorant of the dangers of the european islamic invasion (just like being a theist does not mean you have to be a creationist). I am an atheist, and I am strongly against PC, any extremist religions (including extremist Islam), and unlimited immigration.
In fact, most of the anti-immigration nationalists I know here are also atheists, or deistic pagans sympathisers at best, since Christianity is not our original Slavic religion, but "jewish import" lol.

But we must not ignore evil (maybe lesser than islam, but still evil - see Jesus Camp, extremist christians fighting against secularism, abortions, stem cell research, contraceptions, gay rights, evolution.. -they are not different from islamic extremists in this, so you can say christianity is islams greatest ally, by fighting for the same things) in the form of extremist christianity, just because greater evil exists. One wrong does not make other wrong right. The correct stance is to fight against BOTH evils. Or all three (all abrahamic religion extremists).

But this has nothing to do with factual correctness of creationism or theism.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

You jumble all this crap - and that's exactly what it is, crap, garbage, equine fecal matter - into a big smelly pile and then pretend you're doing science.

LOL, so where did I attack science? That is what I asked you, you said I attacked science, this is a natural response from Atheists who think they can hold science hostage. Determinism is a scientific elaboration of the processes around us. This is science, I never attacked science, but I'm still waiting for you to tell us when I attacked science.

Excellent rebuttal. Alternately you could go to a library. Maybe read a book. It's left to right, top to bottom, just like webpages.

I was rolling my eyes when you said you are superior, because you like coming to Creationist threads and mocking them to make yourself fell superior.

Okay. Show me your data.

My data? Me and you already agree about cause and effect, that is science just so you know.

I think you're lying about that not being your position; after all, you DID basically defend your position with nothing more than "religious people outnumber atheists!" and your entire post is nothing but a typical blather about how stupid atheists re for not believing in your wizard.

Really? I'm glad I made you work.

Read again, chuckles. LACK of randomness is the cause. I understand that you're not too good at this, but you don't have to outright lie, kay?

Where is your evidence that randomness is the cause? Based on what did you come to that conclusion?

Of course, if I leave the slide show untouched for all eternity, then what difference do I make to that slide show? Nothing. Should hte slides, in their little celluloid minds, even bother worrying about me? If I am a total non-factor in their existence, then I am as good as non-existent anyway.

Really? For eternity?

If however I am constantly changing and altering the contents of the slide machine, well, then I am injecting randomness into that slide show. My interference with the status quo should be very detectable, and I imagine the slides would very much like to know what, exactly, the hell is going on to mess up their nice orderly universe.

Actually that's not true, if the creator intervene it will happen through the system. For example the creator of the slideshows clicks and the slide changes, but it was gonna change anyways, every slide changes in different time frame, so how will the slide figure out whether outside intervention took place or not? They will still be able to predict when the slide changes, if they get enough data.

Your argument seems to be that because we are conscious creators, that everything must be the result of conscious creation. This is poor logic. Broccoli is a flower, and broccoli is green, ergo all flowers are green.

Actually that's a very common statement for an Atheist to make, not because it is true, but rather they use it when they have nothing else to say.

Sigh.
No. Your logic is broccoli again. First off, you are relying on some picture you found on the internet that you think ultimately defined "random." There are a few definitions, in fact. Yours uses the one from the Oxford dictionary. To be more accurate, yours is a portion from the Oxford, one of four possible definitions;

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

See those semicolons? (They're the ones that look like commas, with a dot above, if you were wondering) They separate the definitions recognized for the word "randomness"

The definition still support my point Einstein.

You, of course, latch onto the third one there, because you think the word "conscious" gives you a loophole to exploit. In specific, you proclaim that because randomness implies the lack of consciousness, the lack of randomness must therefore indicate consciousness. This is simply not the case. This is saying that because 3+3=6, then 6 can only be derived by adding three to three.

How did you convert that statement to 3+3=6 therefore 6 can only be derived from adding three plus three? I would like to know because it seems you are going all over the place.

God would add randomness. Perhaps his actions would not be random to him, but to us, stars suddenly appearing out of nowhere, then fish suddenly appearing out of nowhere, women turning into sodium chloride, that sort of thing? That's random to us. We could follow the trail to make sense of this seemingly random event and, hey, maybe find God.

That is not true, that is like opening a program within your Windows operating system, that wouldn't be random, because you see the cause and effect, you see the mouse move over the program, you see the double code initiate over the program icon, which initiates the program, then from there the program loads etc etc..

of course, these things don't actually happen. The rules are constant - as far as we can tell, they are constant EVERYWHERE. There is no more "divine input," if there ever was in the first place. Your creator is not creating, obviously; we would have noticed. he's not doing much of anything, if he's present at all. Which brings us to two possible conclusions, if we wish to ignore the lack of evidence and "believe" anyway.
1) He's there but not doing anything creator-like. He is thus irrelevant.
2) He created stuff, but has moved on to other projects and isn't doing anything with us. Not only is he not contributing, but he's not even present, so not only is he irrelevant, but there's no point to worshipping him; he won't notice.

Aren't you speaking from the point of view of ignorance?

No, I'm pointing out that lack of something is not actually proof of something else. There are no hippopotamuses in my yard; they are clearly hiding under my house!

See, you are presupposing the existence of a creator, and then trying to alter your observations to bend around that, just as I am presupposing the presence of hippopotamuses in my immediate area and trying to bend what I observe around the notion that there simply MUST be aquatic pachyderms here.

Alter my observation? If you haven't noticed this is not about Observation.

Lack of randomness is evidence of a lack of randomness. It certainly is no proof of a creator, any more than it is proof of my hippopotamuses. Especially since as I keep pointing out, a creator would add an element of randomness - detectable randomness at that (maybe he can give mea hippo; I have some watermelons I need to get rid of)

Lack of randomness is evidence of conscious creator, we have 0 example of deterministic systems coming to existence without intelligence or consciousness. Unless ofcourse you are gonna make a giant leap and claim the Universe came to existence out of randomness, and became deterministic. That would be a hard one to sell. This Universe from the start was deterministic, that's why we can go back all the way to the big bang. Regarding your hippopotamuses, you're just confusing yourself.

And creationists still think there's a magical wizard who not only created everything, but still controls everything, but we can't actually tell, because he's "unknowable" or "exists outside the universe" or what have you.

Keep believing everything is random including evolution and it may come true.

we got over the randomness thing by observational science. you guys are trying to get over observational science with this "creationism" thing. Big difference.

Actually a lot of Atheists still believe the Universe is random.

So do you praise the programmer? How about his parents? All the way back to single-celled organisms? Minerals? Gaseous elemental emissions? A hydrogen clump? Gravity? Oh, God? Okay. So, it has to come up. The infinite paradox.

Making too many assumptions there.

Who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator who created the creator's creator that created the creator's creator that created the creator of the creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator's creator best known for creating the creator that created the creator's creating creator that created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator's creator by creating the creator of the creator who created the creator that created the creator that was created by the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator who was created by the creator's creator of the creator who created the creator?

Tell me, I'm dying o know.

You know what I'm gonna say, there is only one conscious creator?

Do you know what the word "hypotehsis" means? Or are you like that other doofus who threw out htte word "logic" because he thought it would give him street cred?

I wish I didn't.

I hadn't. So I googled!

Nowadays, this protocol/model is only a history. The theory may look good, but failed in the implementation. Both its model and the protocols are actually flawed

Source
Tee hee!

After Googling it and finding out what it was, you still don't get why I posted the protocol? Why do you think I posted the protocol?

A moron sees a big hill in Bosnia, and grabs a nearby peasant. "Peasant," he exclaims, "tell me who built that magnificent pyramid!" The peasant, rattled, replies, "That's just a big hill, sir." The moron scoffs and releases the peasant. "Nonsense! No natural force could have stacked dirt that high! I refuse to believe it!" The peasant shrugs and hurries away from the man he thinks must be a raving crazy person. After pounding around for cash for several years, the moron can finally start a dig on the hillshide. He first digs through thick, rich topsoil. "Clearly the builders of this wonder of the world had wonderful farmland!" he thinks, and jolts it down into his notebook. Deeper into the dig, he uncovers many stones, worn smooth, distributed seemingly at random throug hthe soil. "Aha! These people built retaining walls and cobbled streets!" this too goes into his notes. Further away a grad student discovers the jawbone of a deer. "Amazing!" the moron says, stroking his beard. "These pyramid-builders domesticated deer, too!" While sifting through the excavated dirt for bits that may have been missed, another student finds an earring, obviously of modern make. "Eureka!" hollers the moron, "This advanced pyramid-building civilization had not only mastered agriculture and masonry thousands of years before anywhere else, but they also TRAVELED THROUGH TIME and bought earrings from us!"

Great story, but too long.

I don't. However there is no actual evidence of a conscious being driving creation, any more than there is of those supposed guiding spirits driving it all instead. Could the universe be driven by a consciousness? Sure. Are the odds for it good? No. In fact they're so low that they're not even "bad." They're "might as well be impossible"

The difference, the guiding spirits you are talking about is within the Universe, everything within the Universe is bound by the Universal laws, that's what you still don't get.

This is something you're failing to understand; absolutism doesn't really work in the physical sciences. There's really no 100%. You, of course ignore this because you are 100% convinced your pyramid is real, and no evidence that you're digging in a pile of dirt will ever sway you from this.

Really, doesn't look like I'm digging anything, because scientists are there doing the digging for me, I take their elaboration of the Universe as testamony.

Yes, but we don't know the new variable, because it just appeared in the mind of this god-being and was enacted.

Depends on what you mean by a new variable, a complete system doesn't need a new variable, a complete system already has all its variables in it.

If I grab a handful of beans and throw them on the floor, then I have "consciously" decided to throw the beans. Their pattern is decided by kinetic energy versus friction and angle, with other factors such as moisture, bounciness of the beans and the floor, and whether my cat decides to help. The entire handful of beans has a determinable pattern, for anyone who wants to sit back, calculate every single variability for each bean and put them together into one equation.

I don't know the variables. You don't know the variables. The pattern of beans on the floor is this effectively random to us (and for that matter, to the beans and the floor and the cat). If we later find the variables we can go back and check the figures to see if the handful of beans actually fits the pattern determined by the variable. Eventually we reach a point where we conclude that the beans could ONLY have gotten there if they were tossed by hand, as opposed to spilling from a bag, or knocked over by the cat, or scattered by the bean plant I inexplicably have growing in my house. With a little work we can even conclude it must have been MY hand and not yours, for whatever infinitesimal reasons.

Of course if I never throw the beans in the first place, then there's no beans on my floor, the cat stays bored, we have no reason to study variables, and nobody cares, so my passing thought to toss beans doesn't matter at all.

So your ultimate point after the above 3 paragraph is that GOD doesn't matter?

Fish from nowhere is effectively random. See, it breaks the rules of the universe - it's spontaneous generation of matter. matter does not spontaneously appear, it's against the very laws that you say prove the existence of god.

New variables change the rules of the Universe, but a complete system already has all the variables in it. Why would a new variable need to be added if all the variables already exist?

And what if it were impossible to change the ATS skin, period, but it happened anyway?

Who are you to say what is impossible? You have to add the skin first before you can initialize it, if the skin is not there then it can't be initialized.

See, now you're just trying to have it both ways. You can't say that hte existence of universal constants proves god, and then allow for god to break those universal constants.

Keep picking and choosing.

Think so? 'Cause it could be a tendency towards gullibility.

Sure, what ever makes you feel superior