17 of 28
17
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 30 April 2013 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Lois - 30 April 2013 05:20 PM

You have provided no evidence, only belief. .

Fine with me, if you think so. Where is yours ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 04:47 PM
Lois - 30 April 2013 03:20 PM

That’s the problem.  You hold this belief without a scrap of evidence that it’s true.  And you expect others to embrace that belief without a scrap of evidence to support it. Boldly stating it as you do is completely useless. Nothing changes because you say you believe something.

Lois

I have provided already a lot of evidence here. If you are unwilling to aknowledge it,i cannot help you further.

your little cartoon of the flying rat is cute. But what everyone has been trying to tell you is that bats are not rodents and therefore your “supporting evidence” is not accurate. You see, if you are going to cite science to support your concept of god, then it is incumbent on you to maintain scientific rigor in your examples.

Are bats rodents?

Answer:
Bats are not “winged rodents” or any other kind of rodent. The bats are of the mamalian order Chiroptera, while rodents are of the mamalian order Rodentia.
A link is provided to the Wikipedia article on scientific classification. If the curious person surfed on over there, he could use the article, and particularly the links from it to other articles. And, in so doing, he could gain an overview of the “tree of life” and what it is we do when we classify a life form and assign it to a branch of the tree.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_bats_rodents

You cited bats as rats who learned to fly.  That is sloppy science, to say the least and is indicative of the sloppy science theism employs to make their case for God. Perhaps you are too accustomed to using metaphor that you believe you can present anything that kinda makes your case. After all it was an animal that jumped to get the insects that turned into a bat, Maybe so, but it was NOT a rat.
Then also, you need not instruct proponents of evolution on how evolution works. Anyone who has read Darwin and later more in depth studies lay out the evolutionary process very clearly and persuasively.

But to answer the quoted portion, you have not provided evidence for a God, other than it is possible.
Science does not say it is impossible, I am…........, because IMO, creation by an motivated supernatural intelligent entity is the absolute last of the possibilities I would consider.

It just occurred to me that The argument for Intelligent Design rests on the assumption that spontaneous universal evolution could not have produced the size and complexity we see.

But consider this, a single spark can be causal to the burning down of a thousand acres of forest. E = Mc^2 itself is an expression of enormous power contained in a very small object. It appears that a single cubic centimeter of spacetime contains as much energy as the entire known universe. Fractals teach us that exquisite geometric complexity may be achieved from simple iterations in the formation of galaxies down to Planck length. The term “butterfly effect” is a term used in science to show a phenomena that sometimes incalculable results may start as a ripple of air or as a ripple in spacetime. That is not evidence of intelligence, it is evidence of a range of potential natural outcomes from even the most miniscule and humble beginnings.

If the universe started from a singularity surrounded by nothingness, god could not have exceeded the size of that singularity.
If there is a causal agent (god), then at one time it must have been a singularity and very, very small at that. By the “butterfly effect”, it is clear that there are potentially enormous forces that can and have been released from seemingly inconsequential causalities.

Quantum = God    
Granted, I admit to visualizing the BB as a mega-quantum event. Ok, a mega-quantum event = god = chaos (from which order emerged and evolved in accordance with Universal laws and constants).  I could get behind that if you make it an impersonal function and drop this motivated intelligence junk.
But again I will give you a spiritual out with a scientifically defensible quote from the NOETIC science channel. You should have no objection to that source.

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.’ Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

I am convinced that with the term “insight intelligence” Bohm did not mean a motivated supernatural entity, but a mindless Universal Potential (a latent excellence which may become reality). He called it the Holomovement.

I have simplified it to:  Potential = God.  God requires the additional characteristic of motivated intelligence, Potential does not require this characteristic to function equally effectively. Therefore , by Ockham’s razor, Potential is the more fundamentally required attribute for becoming explicate in reality.  Potential : A latent excellence which may become reality

[ Edited: 30 April 2013 06:29 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 30 April 2013 06:10 PM

your little cartoon of the flying rat is cute. But what everyone has been trying to tell you is that bats are not rodents and therefore your “supporting evidence” is not accurate.

Well, i have actually not presented any ” supporting evidence ” at all. I just want to see how proponents of the evolution theory explain for example the echolon system of bats through gradual steps of evolution…...

You see, if you are going to cite science to support your concept of god, then it is incumbent on you to maintain scientific rigor in your examples.

Sure. where is yours in regard of bat evolution ?

After all it was an animal that jumped to get the insects that turned into a bat, Maybe so, but it was NOT a rat.

Never mind. Do you want to win the argument just arguing with me, that i was wrong in mentioning a rat ?

Anyone who has read Darwin and later more in depth studies lay out the evolutionary process very clearly and persuasively.

So how about you lay it out in regards of bats ? still waiting…..

But to answer the quoted portion, you have not provided evidence for a God, other than it is possible.

The fact that you ignore my explanations does not mean you have a case for naturalism. You have only one, if you can present positive arguments that make it highly probable that philosophical naturalism is true. So far, you have failed to do so.

Science does not say it is impossible, I am…........, because IMO, creation by an motivated supernatural intelligent entity is the absolute last of the possibilities I would consider.

I don’t know why. But anyway, what makes you believe, chance, or physical necessity have more explanatory power ?

It just occurred to me that The argument for Intelligent Design rests on the assumption that spontaneous universal evolution could not have produced the size and complexity we see.

yep.

But consider this, a single spark can be causal to the burning down of a thousand acres of forest. E = Mc^2 itself is an expression of enormous power contained in a very small object. It appears that a single cubic centimeter of spacetime contains as much energy as the entire known universe. Fractals teach us that exquisite geometric complexity may be achieved from simple iterations in the formation of galaxies down to Planck length. The term “butterfly effect” is a term used in science to show a phenomena that sometimes incalculable results may start as a ripple of air or as a ripple in spacetime. That is not evidence of intelligence, it is evidence of a range of potential natural outcomes from even the most miniscule and humble beginnings.

As long as you are unable to explain the fine tuning of the universe, and how the codified, specified, complex information was stored in the cell ” naturally “, your arguments are not convincing.

If the universe started from a singularity surrounded by nothingness, god could not have exceeded the size of that singularity.

The cause of the singularity , and the universe, was not bent to space and matter. Since it created it, the cause was above it.

If there is a causal agent (god), then at one time it must have been a singularity and very, very small at that. By the “butterfly effect”, it is clear that there are potentially enormous forces that can and have been released from seemingly inconsequential causalities.

what inconsequential causalities are that ?

Quantum = God    
Granted, I admit to visualizing the BB as a mega-quantum event. Ok, a mega-quantum event = god = chaos (from which order emerged and evolved in accordance with Universal laws and constants).  I could get behind that if you make it an impersonal function and drop this motivated intelligence junk.

why do you think it is junk ? just because you want so ? you just show how biased you are.

But again I will give you a spiritual out with a scientifically defensible quote from the NOETIC science channel. You should have no objection to that source.
The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.’ Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

Now, please translate this , and explain with YOUR words, what you understand with that.

I am convinced that with the term “insight intelligence” Bohm did not mean a motivated supernatural entity, but a mindless Universal Potential (a latent excellence which may become reality). He called it the Holomovement.

Is that from the Star Wars movie, or something like that ?

I have simplified it to:  Potential = God.  God requires the additional characteristic of motivated intelligence, Potential does not require this characteristic to function equally effectively. Therefore , by Ockham’s razor, Potential is the more fundamental attribute for becoming explicate in reality.

I have never seen a ” potential ” create codified information…...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

Never mind. Do you want to win the argument just arguing with me, that i was wrong in mentioning a rat ?

Yes.

Anyone who has read Darwin and later more in depth studies lay out the evolutionary process very clearly and persuasively.

So how about you lay it out in regards of bats ? still waiting…..

Darwin’s Origins of Species is probably the best known scientific area of research of any of the scientific disciplines where millions of hours in research and classifications have made evolutionary studies one of the greatest areas of research. But unlike the preservation of scientific information in readily accessible files, nature is not quite so efficient in preserving fossil information and the record of existence of many species has been lost I am sure. But the remaining evidence provides overwhelming evidence of evolution by a number of identified ways for speciation to occur. 

OMG, OMG, the entire Theory of Evolution rests on my ability to prove the evolutionary history of the bat!!!!  A single species???  And that is your refutal of evolution?
Give me a break.

Science does not say it is impossible, I am…........, because IMO, creation by an motivated supernatural intelligent entity is the absolute last of the possibilities I would consider.

I don’t know why. But anyway, what makes you believe, chance, or physical necessity have more explanatory power ?

Because it affords the greatest number of causal possibilities. The imposition of a god with specific attributes limits the choice from infinite number of possible causalities. Science has shown that god is not a “necessary causality” for creative dynamism.

I have never seen a ” potential ” create codified information…...

Potential IS codified information (in latent form).    E = Mc^2 is the codified information of a potential.

The rest of your answers are not worthy of response.

[ Edited: 30 April 2013 08:12 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 30 April 2013 07:18 PM

The rest of your answers are not worthy of response.

Sure. You have no responses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 05:32 PM
Lois - 30 April 2013 05:20 PM

You have provided no evidence, only belief. .

Fine with me, if you think so. Where is yours ?

What evidence do you want me to provide?

Please be specific.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 08:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 07:24 PM
Write4U - 30 April 2013 07:18 PM

The rest of your answers are not worthy of response.

Sure. You have no responses.

Read Bohm before you start differentiating Holomovement from an Eternal Alien Intelligence who built a cosmic “sandcastle” to the delight of all the other Alien Intelligences that dwell in the plenum Infinity, one of them was named Xenu, to be scientologically correct.

[ Edited: 30 April 2013 08:41 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 30 April 2013 08:28 PM

Read Bohm

I bet you are unable to explain in your own words, what you understand from what this fellow wrote….. feel free to prove me wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Lois - 30 April 2013 08:10 PM

What evidence do you want me to provide?
.

Since nobody was able to explain, how bats evolved, we can go to the next issue.

Please present me one example of codified information, that had not a mind as origin.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1922
Joined  2007-10-28
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 12:58 PM

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

Potential infinities are sets that are constantly increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never attain infinite status. A more accurate description would be to say that their members are indefinite. An actual infinite, by contrast, is a set x that contains a subset x’ that is equivalent to x. “The crucial difference between an infinite set and an indefinite collection would be that the former is conceived as a determinate whole actually possessing an infinite number of members, while the latter never actually attains infinity, although it increases perpetually. We have, then, three types of collection that we must keep conceptually distinct: finite, infinite, and indefinite.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as “unboundedness”, itself calqued from the Greek word apeiros, meaning “endless”.

In cosmology:

Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space “go on forever”? This is an open question of cosmology.

OTOH:

If, on the other hand, the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe. The Planck spacecraft launched in 2009 is expected to record the cosmic background radiation with 10 times higher precision, and will give more insight into the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

In logic:

In logic an infinite regress argument is “a distinctively philosophical kind of argument purporting to show that a thesis is defective because it generates an infinite series when either (form A) no such series exists or (form B) were it to exist, the thesis would lack the role (e.g., of justification) that it is supposed to play.”

The logical flaw of proposing that a deity exists is infinite regress.

Paradoxically, if infinity exists in the physical universe wrt space and time then the universe is unbounded and eternal with no beginning or end.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 08:49 PM
Write4U - 30 April 2013 08:28 PM

Read Bohm

I bet you are unable to explain in your own words, what you understand from what this fellow wrote….. feel free to prove me wrong.


Well, thank you for your attention. What do you think I have been doing? And as in proper debate I have included excerpts and definitions from reliable sources along with my viewpoints.

Unfortunately, your responses have no new revelations that will persuade me to drop atheism and a notion of a Probabilistic Implicate Order, for an Orderly Divine Intelligence and theism.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 252 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 01 May 2013 12:20 AM
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 08:49 PM
Write4U - 30 April 2013 08:28 PM

Read Bohm

I bet you are unable to explain in your own words, what you understand from what this fellow wrote….. feel free to prove me wrong.


Well, thank you for your attention. What do you think I have been doing? And as in proper debate I have included excerpts and definitions from reliable sources along with my viewpoints.

Unfortunately, your responses have no new revelations that will persuade me to drop atheism and a notion of a Probabilistic Implicate Order, for an Orderly Divine Intelligence and theism.

probabilisctic implicate order means simply chance.

Any unbiased and sanely thinking human being will discard this hypotheses at the first instant.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Carbon chemistry

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 03:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 253 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
kkwan - 30 April 2013 09:08 PM

The logical flaw of proposing that a deity exists is infinite regress.

that would be the case, if i’d propose a caused God.

Paradoxically, if infinity exists in the physical universe wrt space and time then the universe is unbounded and eternal with no beginning or end.

A eternal universe would already be in a state of heath death. 2 law of thermodynamics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 254 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

For the proponents of evolution :

thats a very interesting story of irreducibility:

http://creationrevolution.com/2011/07/brazil’s-menage-a-quad/

It all starts in South America, with the Brazil nut tree, Bertholletia excelsa.They produce a flower with very stiff and strong petals.  Most insects don’t have the strength to open the petals enough to reach the nectar inside the flower and thus are incapable of pollinating them.  However the large female orchid bee of the genus Euglossa, is strong enough to lift the petal hood of the flower.  She also has a very long tongue that can reach the coiled interior’s rich nectar.  In the process, the female orchid bee pollinates the Brazil nut flower.

Male orchid bees are too small to open and pollinate the Brazil nut flowers and they have absolutely no interest in the Brazil nut tree what-so-ever.  Their main interest is attracting female bees for the purpose of mating.  To accomplish this, the male bee seeks out the Coryanthes vasquezii orchid, where he wallows and covers himself with the orchid scent, kind of like how some men dowse themselves with aftershave or men’s cologne before going out on the hunt.  Once covered with the orchid’s fragrant aroma, the male orchid bee searches for a larger female bee.  If the orchid scent meets her approval, they mate and she will produce new orchid bees.  If it doesn’t meet her approval, he seeks another orchid and repeats the process.  Without the scent of this particular orchid, the female bee will not mate with the male.

Once pollinated, the Brazil nut flower grows into a cannonball sized seed pod which contains up to 20 Brazil nuts.  When the pods get ripe, they fall to the ground with a tremendous thud.  (Image having one them fall from 100+ feet up and hitting you on the head.)  The seed pods are extremely hard and do not break open on impact.  In fact, they are so hard, that virtual no animal in the South American forests can crack or chew through them.  That is except a cat-sized rodent known as an agouti.  There were several species of agoutis belonging to the genus Dasyprocta that inhabit the forests where the Brazil nuts grow.  The agouti has extremely sharp incisors and very strong jaws, giving them the ability to chew through the hard outer shell of the seed pods, allowing them to dine on the highly nutritional nuts inside.

However, most agoutis cannot eat all of the nuts at one time, so they dig a hole and bury the rest of the opened seed pod in order to save it for another day.  Once the seed pod is buried and the soil reaches the nuts inside the opened pod, they germinate and begin to grow new Brazil nut trees and the cycle begins all over again.

This is a very interesting relationship between the Brazil nut tree, the Coryanthes vasquezii orchid, the orchid bee and the agouti.  Remove the orchid from the scene and the bees won’t mate and if they don’t mate, the flowers do not get pollinated and produce seed pods.  Remove the agouti from the scene and the opened seed pods do not get buried and germinate into new trees, thus greatly reducing the number of new trees to replace the older ones.

From an evolutionary stand point, there is no good explanation for this relationship between the tree, orchid, bee and rodent.

However, it is easily explained from a biblical perspective.

That is the second example of where the evolution theory simply has no explanatory power. it simply fails. Whereas a intelligent creator made all 4 at the same time, interdependent of each other. That makes perfectly sense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 04:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 255 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 01 May 2013 03:36 AM
Write4U - 01 May 2013 12:20 AM
Adonai888 - 30 April 2013 08:49 PM
Write4U - 30 April 2013 08:28 PM

Read Bohm

I bet you are unable to explain in your own words, what you understand from what this fellow wrote….. feel free to prove me wrong.


Well, thank you for your attention. What do you think I have been doing? And as in proper debate I have included excerpts and definitions from reliable sources along with my viewpoints.

Unfortunately, your responses have no new revelations that will persuade me to drop atheism and a notion of a Probabilistic Implicate Order, for an Orderly Divine Intelligence and theism.

probabilisctic implicate order means simply chance.

Any unbiased and sanely thinking human being will discard this hypotheses at the first instant.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Carbon chemistry

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

Really?  This is a quote from:  http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t191-the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one  . Does this website have any credibility in the scientific world?

And a little search produced this:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-lee-smolin-is-immoral-double-faced.html

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 28
17