Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeIntelligence, by its very nature, is complex.
In other words, you can't prove it. You can only keep repeating it and
hope that I agree with you.
I deny that Intelligence is automatically complex. That is a false
naturalistic assumption, that I deny.
And apparently, you cannot prove otherwise.
And guess what? Just repeating over and over that intelligence is
automatically complex, is not a very convincing way to prove your
point.
"Intelligence - the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's
environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria".
Human intelligence, for instance, requires a very complex brain, one that
interacts with the other parts of the body, particularly the sense organs,
to collect data, interpret that data, and then use it to manipulate the
environment. This is a very complex physiological function involving a
complex reaction of brain chemicals and other hormones. Now if you can
demonstrate that an amoeba can perform calculus, or that someone with a
severely damaged cerebrum can perform delicate brain surgery, then I'll
concede to whatever point you are trying to make, above. If not, then you
must concede that intelligence is a complex function.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgePerhaps I don't understand Greek. I do understand the "Middle English,
from
Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin simplus" type of *simple*. Do you
understand the meaning of the term "obfuscation"?
I eschew obfuscation. (little bumper sticker joke there, that I once
saw).
Post by GeorgeBut a single atoms is composed of at least a dozen or more sub-atomic
particles, so no matter how small or large you want to look, things
aren't
as simple as your simple mind would have us believe.
Nevertheless, God is simple, or was so considered by Greek
philosophy.
Yes, well, the Greeks also (wrongly) believed in epicycles as an
explanation for planetary orbits. Next.
Post by b***@juno.comThus, Dawkins' assumption that intelligence is automatically complex,
is in need of proof, and cannot be baldly asserted, with no proof to
back it up.
See above.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeEinstein's ideas about God has been misinterpreted and misrepresented by
the religious establishment since at least 1939. He spoke at length
about
this very fact on several occasions. Perhaps you should google that and
find out what he actually said (in context).
I don't need to google it. I am well aware that Einstein did not
believe in a personal God. Nevertheless, he believed in God. And he
wanted to "know God's thoughts, the rest are details," quoth he.
So what?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeGot anything else? If you
don't believe that science has to set aside bias, then you don't know
anything about science.
Of course science has to set aside bias. That is something that you,
on the other hand, don't seem capable of doing. You are heavily biased
against theism.
This is true, and not without good reason.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeI know of no atheists who make this claim. Same difference. Lying for
Jesus isn't helping your argument.
First of all, calling me a liar is an ad hominem fallacy. You are
attacking my character, rather than just attacking my argument.
I call them like I see them, Bimm. And you are certainly not the one to
complain about ad hominem, since you've been whining and making false
statements about atheists throughout this rant of a thread.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgePost by b***@juno.comAccording to atheists, the universe is nothing but a giant thing, that
just happened to appear, by sheer luck, for no reason, out of nothing.
This is an ignorant statement on so many levels, I just find it quite
sad
that you even bothered to try to use it.
I notice that you failed to even TRY to disprove it.
Because you can't, of course.
What's to disprove? Do I need to disprove it when someone says that the
tooth fairy exists? Or do I simply assume that they have the mental
capacity of a four year old? The fact is that science does not make the
claim that YOU are claiming that it makes, above. In fact, the only ones I
know making such statements are cretinists and fools such as yourself who
are lying for Jesus.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgePost by b***@juno.comAnd if you claim that "science" is the reason for the universe, then
you have not avoided the problem. Because then you just believe that
"science" just happened to appear, by sheer luck, for no reason, out
of nothing.
What the hell are you babbling on about? If/then arguments are logical
fallacies, and this one is sheer stupidity.
What is the origin of scientific laws, then, oh wise one?
How did scientific laws "just happen to be there" prior to the big
bang?
Did they just happen to appear, by sheer luck, for no reason, out of
nothing?
If not, please inform me how they got there with all speed.
You made the statement that "you claim that "science" is the reason for the
universe". I made no such claim. Secondly, you expanded the lie by
claiming that I believe that "science just happened to appear, by sheer
luck, for no reason, out of nothing", another lie which I did not claim.
and when you examine these lies further, it becomes rather clear that you
are a babbling, incoherent ass. Science is knowledge or a system of
knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. It doesn't
"just happen", and since it is a human invention, one certainly cannot
argue that science "just happened to appear there (or anywhere) prior to
the big bang". When you figure out what the hell, exactly, you are trying
to say, do come back and let the rest of us know.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeSome may argue that reason has yet to arrive on the scene. Ladies and
Germs
I give you the American people, who, for some damn reason, voted for
George
Bush, not once, but twice.
Irrelevant red herring fallacy.
Post by GeorgeNatural science is based on emperical evidence. Religion is based on
dogma, which is mostly based on lies. Next.
Is this your idea of a valid "argument?"
What, you just "assert" something, and that makes it true?
What part of that statement did you have a problem with? Science is
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
scientific method". That method uses emperical evidence gained through
observation, experimentation, and repeated testing by multiple
investigators often working independantly. Science can also make testable
predictions and modify its theories based on results of emperical testing.
Does religion do this? No. It makes unsubstantiated claims that its
followers are expected to believe dogmatically and without question. And
since a lie is something that misleads or deceives, that is what religion
does. It misleads and/or deceives. It cannot be tested, nor falsified.
It requires belief in something for which there is no proof. It requires
belief in a delusion. Next.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeNon-sequitur. You can be proven to exist. Someone can invade your
home,
arrest you, confiscate your computer, and review your outlook express
"sent" box, and find that you did, indeed, post the above. If that
doesn't
work, we can get Bush's goons to beat a confession out of you.
Go watch the movie "The Matrix" again. Then get back to telling me
just how much can be "proven."
Hint: zilch.
Hahahaha. Proving once again that the definition of "neocon" is someone
who believes that the Matrix is real.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by Georgedo that for your god, nor any other alleged omnipotent being. There is
simply no evidence that your god exists,
Yes there is. Its called biochemical complexity, and it recently
converted Antony Flew to become Deist.
Anthony Flew? Bhwhahahahahahaha!!! Wow, he converted to deism, so that
means that God exists. Amazing. I'm convinced! NOT!!!
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_25_2.html
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeFact? What fact? You haven't proven that your god exists, much less
that
it has done anything. You are using circular reasoning again.
I know that God exists because of biochemical complexity. QED.
Why don't you try learning a bit about biochem, and get back to me?
God exists because of biological complexity? But you said earlier that God
was a simple intelligence. How can a simple intelligence devise something
that is biologically complex? Are you suggesting that God is an idiot
savant? Do you ever think these things out before you push the "send"
button?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeStating that God exists or that God happened to do this or that is not
stating facts. You are making unsupported claims.
No, I'm not. I am making the claim that biochemistry proves that God
exists.
As a quick example: There is no way that dead atoms could randomly
form themselves into the first DNA strand. Look into it. You will
discover how clueless you truly are.
Define "dead atoms". Who says that atoms randomly form themselves into
DNA? DNA is a complex molecule that exists because of complex biochemical
reactions. These reactions are not random, and no scientists are saying
that they are. If they were random, no one would ever be able to decipher
them. Since we can decipher DNA quite readily, I can only assume that you
are lying for Jesus yet again. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent
the facts?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by Georgefaith. And faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof.
But
claims require evidence to back them up. Got any scientific evidence to
back up your claims
Yes, I do. See above.
Yes? And? (twittles thumbs). I'm waiting.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeWhether you are an old Earth Creationist or a Young Earth Creationist is
irrelevant to me. Creationism is not science. It is a religious
belief,
and is not based on scientific fact, or very many other facts, for that
matter. You don't get extra credit simply because you recognize that
the
Earth is very old. Why stop there?
Creationism is off limits on this newsgroup, otherwise I would
demonstrate otherwise.
Really? Says who? If you can demonstrate otherwise, by all means. Go for
it. It's a free country (at least the one I live in.)
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeYou say that the bible supports an old Earth. Others say that it
supports
a young Earth. Interestingly, these two camps cite mostly the same long
refuted evidence to make their case.
No they don't. You are clueless on this topic as on so many others.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by Georgeage of the Earth because it was written by people who didn't have the
benefits of access to modern scientific insight, methods,
instrumentation,
and 2,000-4,000 years of discovery.
If the Bible was written with help from God, your statement above is
not relevant.
Christian: God exists.
Agnostic: How do you know?
Christian: Because it says so in the Bible.
Agnostic: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian: Because it is the inspired word of God.
In other words, Christians argue that God exists because God exists.
Circular reasoning. This is not evidence of anything other than the fact
that some Christians argue using logical fallacies. Next.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgePost by b***@juno.comI never said science was "mind-boggling." I said the origin of either
God, or the universe, was "mind-boggling."
Science cannot address that question.
Says who?
Science cannot explain the origin of scientific laws themselves. That
would be a question-begging fallacy. Science cannot explain its own
existence. Simply not possible.
Umm, I suggest you read a book on the history and philosophy of science.
Actually, you should read more than one. I would start with "Greek Science
After Aristotle" and then work your way to modern science. Perhaps then
you would be able to grasp how the laws of science were discovered and
described. Oh wait, you don't actually want to know how scientists
discovered the laws and what they actually mean, you want to make the claim
that science cannot explain the ultimate origin of these laws? Well, Binn,
or whoever, where is it written, exactly, that science can never discover
how the natural laws came about? Do you think it is true because you say
it is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law#Origin_of_laws_of_nature
Some extremely important laws are simply definitions. For example, the
central law of mechanics F = dp/dt (Newton's second "law" of mechanics) is
often treated as a mathematical definition of force. Although the concept
of force predates Newton's law [1], there was no mathematical definition of
force before Newton. The principle of least action (or principle of
stationary action), Schroedinger equation, Heisenberg uncertainty
principle, causality and a few other laws also fall into this category (of
mathematical definitions).
Most of the other fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences
of various mathematical symmetries. Specifically, Noether's theorem
connects the fundamental conservation laws to symmetries. For example,
conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no
moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum
is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space
is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all
particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in
the Dirac and Bose statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion
principle for fermions and in Bose-Einstein condensation for bosons. The
partial symmetry between time and space coordinate axes results in Lorentz
transformations which in turn results in special relativity theory.
Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general
relativity, and so on.
The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the
mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.
So to large extent laws of nature are not laws of nature per se, but
mathematical expressions of certain simplicities (symmetries) of space,
time, etc. In other words, there are quantities (e.g. the origin of the
coordinates for time and space, the identity of a specific electron) upon
which nothing depends. Currently the search for the most fundamental law(s)
and most fundamental object(s) of nature is synonymous with the search for
the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the
fundamental interactions.
The application of these laws to our needs has resulted in spectacular
efficacy of science - its power to solve otherwise intractable problems,
and made increasingly accurate predictions. This in turn resulted in design
and implementation of variety of reliable transportation and communication
means, in building more quality and affordable shelters, in creating
variety of drugs, in finding new energy sources, in developing variety of
entertainments, etc.
And finally, I find it quite disingenuous that cretinists feel such a
strong need to spend so much time and effort discrediting what they clearly
do not understand, and yet pose no viable alternative, one that explains
the facts at least as well if not better than current theories do. I also
find it interesting that in order to refute one theory, they have to refute
other theories, and ultimately reject the natural laws on which all
theories are based. Expanding Earth (the bastard step-son of old Earth
creationism), for example, has to refute the laws of thermodynamics and
every other law of physics in order to make it work). Sad. So sad.
George