Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

AtomicHorror

If it were possible to make a living from derailing threads Jakkass would be minted.

sink wrote: »

I'm not a physicist so bear in mind that I don't fully understand what I'm about to say.

It violates the second law of thermodynamics because in order for living tissue to be reanimated it would have to reverse to a previous state which would require entropy to be reversed. The laws of thermodynamics are some of the most fundamental laws in physics, if they don't hold up in all situations our understanding of reality has to be thrown completely out and what is more because the laws of thermodynamics underpin 'cause and effect' and 'cause and effect' is the basis for all our understanding we will never be able to truly understand anything.

Now theoretically there are way's to get around this by replacing the body Jesus with a clone including the same memory and personality but somehow I don't think that is going to fly in religious circles (probably wrong on this) and is actually more of an argument against the existence of god.

Doesn't violate the second law unless you do it without input of energy afaik.

Dades

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If it were possible to make a living from derailing threads Jakkass would be minted.

It was a 'zombie' thread anyway, so somehow fitting it went off in this new direction.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

You argue that the Resurrection is ridiculous, however, you really haven't explained why. I've explained how it is not ridiculous in my signature. Many other Christians have also argued this in several writings. If you don't have a blind objection due to stubbornness, you should raise your objections to a Resurrection caused by the supernatural (N.B supernatural, not natural before we have to deal with this again).

There's no logical flaw in the argument that with a supernatural being, capable of doing the impossible, that the impossible can be done.

The only question is why invoke the supernatural? There are plenty of natural explanations (as have already been suggested) that don't need this element.

Off the top of my head, and to add to the list of other natural explanations, I'd add tetrodotoxin poisoning. It can produce a physiological state of suspended animation indistinguisable from death (even to modern doctors, let alone 2000 years ago). This would explain the resurrection story, and why all the "eye-witnesses" thought it was a genuine case of a dead person "coming back to life". I think it more likely people just made sh1t up, but hey, if you want a more classy natural explanation, there you go.

From here:

Tetrodotoxin binds to the sodium channels on the nerve cell membrane, blocking transmission of the nervous impulse. Symptoms of tetrodotoxin poisoning include malaise, paraesthesias, cyanosis of the lips, digestive disorders, pulmonary edema, hypothermia, respiratory difficulties, hypotension, aphonia, and complete paralysis.

Despite (or perhaps because of) its potential lethality, the flesh of the puffer fish is prized as a delicacy in Japan, where it is called fugu. Most of the poison in the puffer fish is found in the viscera (especially the reproductive organs). When these are removed, the fish can be eaten safely, giving diners no more than an agreeable prickling sensation of the tongue and a slight feeling of euphoria.

Most of the time, that is. Sometimes diners get too much tetrodotoxin, and they lapse into a state of complete paralysis. Heartbeat and ventilation fall to imperceptible levels. Some of these individuals have revived after they had been pronounced dead, and in one case even after his coffin was nailed shut! Afterwards, most of these victims reported that they had been fully aware of what had been going on around them, even as they were unable to move or speak.

Naz_st

Dades wrote: »

It was a 'zombie' thread anyway, so somehow fitting it went off in this new direction.

Just saw this after my last post went up. From the wikipedia article on tetrodotoxin:

"It is for this reason that tetrodotoxin has been alleged to be an ingredient in Haitian voodooism and the closest actual manifestation to zombieism in the physical world"

Awesome timing!

MrMiyagi

Naz_st wrote: »

I think it more likely people just made sh1t up

Fair enough. But if some people didnt have religion there would be trouble. There are people out there that would react in a dangerous way if it was proven that god definately dosent exist.

There is no point in atheism. It is obvious to anyone with any common sense that there is no heaven.

People like Dawkins and Bill Maher are just turning a profit on something 95% of people already know.

Genghiz Cohen

Naz_st wrote: »

Awesome timing!

Pfft, I got there ages ago.

MrMiyagi wrote: »

Fair enough. But if some people didnt have religion there would be trouble. There are people out there that would react in a dangerous way if it was proven that god definately dosent exist.

There is no point in atheism. It is obvious to anyone with any common sense that there is no heaven.

People like Dawkins and Bill Maher are just turning a profit on something 95% of people already know.

Go into the Christianity forum, say that and enjoy a weeks holidays.

Naz_st

MrMiyagi wrote: »

There are people out there that would react in a dangerous way if it was proven that god definately dosent exist.

There are people out there that react in a dangerous way because they believe that God definitely does exist.

People like Dawkins and Bill Maher are just turning a profit on something 95% of people already know.

Not according to the statistics.

Naz_st

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Pfft, I got there ages ago.

Right you are, my bad!

philologos

Naz st: That's interesting, but it really doesn't explain claims that a man was raised from the dead, spoke to others, and lived for 40 days afterwards.

RHRN

Am I the only one who's only getting audio for the Dawkins video on RTE?

DeVore

Jak, Lets simplify things a little.

Just for arguments sake I'll ask you to accept that planets can form out of space dust which clumps together. If you like I'll return to that with the maths of gravity and explain how but right now lets accept that they can.

Part of your incredulity is that Earth is precisely a cozy distance from the Sun. Seems far far too lucky. Lets examine JUST THAT BIT of the chain.

So, my question to you is, since it definitely DID happen (we're both sitting on it) it cant be *impossible*. There for it has a finite, if small, chance of happening.

I'd like you to tell me what you think that finite but small chance is.

1 in a trillion? 1 in 10 trillion? Pick a number. Go nuts.

DeV.
edit: PS: I'm not asking you to be accurate, I'm not going to debate the accuracy of your number, just pick a number you feel comfortably represents your incredulity.

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Before I begin, I don't believe for one second that these haven't been explained to you countless times before. Yet you continue to stand there with your fingers in you ears.

1) We don't know (I assume you mean 'began'). A far more humble and truthful statement.

2) 14 billion years should be enough time for it to occur.

3) Only the earth? There are approx one billion trillion trillion stars and planets in the universe. Are you suggesting that earth is the only ball of rock which orbits in a habitable zone around a star? :rolleyes:

4) A quick synopsis? A gas cloud in space became denser due to gravity, as heat increased towards the centre it created a reaction, leading to the birth of a star. The early star erupted violently, like a giant nuclear reactor, spewing new elements out into space. Once this reaction has calmed down, and the star has cooled, the elements orbiting the star also cool and begin to join together because of gravitaional forces. This leads to planets being formed. Christ on a bike, have you ever watched the Discovery channel?

5) We don't know. Although huge progress has been made on this front over the last 50 years. A far more humble and truthful statement.

6) Once a carbon molecule began self-replicating, and the copying process was faulty.

Any part of this you are having trouble with Jakky?

philologos

DeVore wrote: »

Just for arguments sake I'll ask you to accept that planets can form out of space dust which clumps together. If you like I'll return to that with the maths of gravity and explain how but right now lets accept that they can.

Yes of course they can.

DeVore wrote: »

Part of your incredulity is that Earth is precisely a cozy distance from the Sun. Seems far far too lucky. Lets examine JUST THAT BIT of the chain.

Well, it doesn't just seem lucky to me. It is incredibly lucky.

DeVore wrote: »

So, my question to you is, since it definitely DID happen (we're both sitting on it) it cant be *impossible*. There for it has a finite, if small, chance of happening.

It's extremely unlikely to have happened of it's own accord. Try chucking this into your calculator:
10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

It would cause me to question that if the universe having come into existence of it's own accord is so improbable, why aren't we considering other avenues of enquiry in science?

DeVore wrote: »

I'd like you to tell me what you think that finite but small chance is.

1 in a trillion? 1 in 10 trillion? Pick a number. Go nuts.

I've given you the current estimate.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes of course they can.



Well, it doesn't just seem lucky to me. It is incredibly lucky.



It's extremely unlikely to have happened of it's own accord. Try chucking this into your calculator:
10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

It would cause me to question that if the universe having come into existence of it's own accord is so improbable, why aren't we considering other avenues of enquiry in science?



I've given you the current estimate.

Jak, you like powers. There are 10^22 to 10^24 estimated planets in the whole universe. So, the Earth is the only one that orbits in a habitable zone?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone

kiffer

How wide is the habitable zone for the sun? A main sequence G type star? If we assume that every G type star(of roughly the same mass as ours) has one rocky planet in its system, and that this single planet can fall at any distance from Mercury's orbit to say Jovian distances... What are the odds of it falling in the HZ?

Jakkass do the math and show your work...

sink

Playing devils advocate here, but a far better argument can be made for the tilt of the Earth and the ratio of the mass of the moon to the earth being so critical for our steady and relatively sedate climate. The odds of both instances occurring on another planet are pretty astronomical.

DeVore

Jak, you cant be ridiculous. It must orbit somewhere around the sun. The habitable zone (shown above) is actually relatively wide. Why do you think its 10 ^123 chance of hittng that zone?

It looks more like about 1 in 20 to me.

DeV.

Flamed Diving

Look how tightly packed Venus, Earth and Mars are in that region. Both Venus and Mars are almost skirting it. Where is the impossibility?

Flamed Diving

sink wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here, but a far better argument can be made for the tilt of the Earth and the ratio of the mass of the moon to the earth being so critical for our steady and relatively sedate climate. The odds of both instances occurring on another planet are pretty astronomical.

Fallacy the first:

You are assumimg life to be defined as large mammals. The minimum criteria would be a single-celled organism. The Earths climate was neither steady nor sedate when these guys first emerged.

Fallacy the second:

What are the odds of more than one planet (even two?) amongst 10^22 exhibiting the characteristics above? It seems fairly certain to happen. All combinations are likely, given these numbers.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Naz st: That's interesting, but it really doesn't explain claims that a man was raised from the dead, spoke to others, and lived for 40 days afterwards.

It could do, how about this:

At some point before the day of the crucifixion, Jesus purchases some ground up powder made from a dead pufferfish from a market in Jerusalem (traded there from Africa and sold because of it's euphoric effects if taken in the right dose). Then, on the day of the crucifixion, he takes the correct dose to induce a sufficiently severe (but not fatal) case of tetrodotoxin poisoning. This causes gradual numbness of the body, starting at the extremities (helping him not to feel the pain of all the torture) as well as a serious reduction of heart rate and blood pressure (helping him not to bleed to death from all the wounds), eventually resulting in a state of complete paralysis, coupled with no visible signs of breathing or pulse, along with cyanosis of the lips. Since such a condition would easily fool most modern doctors in the absence of very sensitive modern medical equipment, it would be more than sufficient for anyone at the time witnessing him to be sure he was dead. He's laid to rest in a tomb and a few days later the toxin is flushed from his system and voila, he is risen from the dead!

After another 40 days, he's confident that his legend will live on forever and decides to head off into the sunset.

How is that a less plausible explanation than your "supernatural, all-powerful, not subject to the rules of the universe, God did it" one?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

10^10^123 is a well-known figure that was produced by Roger Penrose, an otherwise admirable English mathematician unacquainted with matters biological or physical. The figure is popular amongst creationist because it's easy to remember, it's inconceivably large and it has no basis in reality.

The splendid Turkish islamic creationist Harun Yahya -- most famous in the west for producing a book rubbishing evolution which contained photographic "evidence" for creation which turned out to be fishing tackle -- is a big fan of the 10^10^123 figure and has an entire page devoted to Penrose's sublime silliness.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a bit of confusion going on.

A universe is probable.

This universe is infinitely improbable.

Think of it this way. You are on top of a very tall building and you throw a beach ball out of the window. It slowly falls to the ground, being tossed up and down by the wind, back and forth until eventually it lands in a specific spot on the ground 20 stories below.

What are the odds that the beach ball would land in that specific spot? Given the number of variables involved, from the wind currents at all levels of its flight to the strength and direction you threw it out of the window, to the air pressure in the beach ball itself, the odds are ridiculous. Trillions to one.

So, given that, why are all the people watching not fainting and collapsing with awe that the beach ball fell on that spot? Because that spot has no significance. The beach ball had to fall some where, where specifically it fell has no great value. If it fell 2 meters to the left or right no one would have cared either way. The odds of it falling in that spot are still trillions to one, but that doesn't mean anything to anyone.

Now, repeat but this time place a small target on the ground. You throw the ball out the window and it floats down and down until it lands exactly on that target.

Now the crowd are all standing there with wide open mouths amazed at what they just saw. The ball actually hit the target. Instantly the first thought in everyone's head is that this was fixed. There is no way the ball would hit the target unless someone was fiddling with something.

See the change that takes place when you introduce a desired outcome. The odds stay the same. The odds that the ball would fit that spot are the same, or roughly the same, as that it would hit any other spot. Without the target no one cares what spot it hits. Introduce the target and that instantly turns the situational into a hit or miss affair. If it hits the target it is a hit and if it doesn't, no matter where it lands, it is a miss.

This is how religious and spiritual people tend to view our universe. They introduce a target, this universe or often more specific than that, carbon based life in this universe, and then start looking at the odds this would happen.

The odds that this specific universe would form are ridiculous. Every second the odds that this specific universe would exist increase. It is hard to imagine that you would ever get this exact universe if you did it again, just like it is hard to imagine the beach ball hitting the same spot twice.

The question though is why the introduction of the target.

Remember before the introduction of the target no one gave a monkey's where the beach ball landed. It was all the same, despite the fact that the odds that it would land at any specific point were trillions to one. Introduce a target thought and people get really interested in the odds.

What people do with our universe is this in reverse. The beach ball is thrown out the window, it lands somewhere, and someone comes along, marks the point where it landed with a target and starts being amazed at the odds that the ball would land in that specific spot.

The first response to this thinking is not trying to explain the odds in some other way, or saying that it was in fact likely that the ball would land there. It wasn't likely at all, it is ridiculously unlikely that the ball would land there. The person is right, the odds of that specific spot are ridiculous.

But that isn't the point. The first question we should ask is why is that spot significant? If the ball had landed 2 meters to the left or 4 meters to the right would that matter?

So when thinking about the universe what is the rational for thinking that this universe is a target? Would it matter if we didn't have this universe?

Because it is only after you establish that is there any point in looking at the odds of this specific universe and wondering how that could happen naturally.

The odds that this universe would form are ridiculously unlikely. But the question is why does that matter?

A friend of mine had this to say in response. I've argued some points back with him but I'd like to see your response...

Really though I do disagree with the argument put forward... I am not going to take sides on the God debate, but I am going to point out flaws in the argument put forward in the forum.

He states "A universe is probable", what is he basing this on? He backs up his most of his other arguments, but conveniently forgets to justify the central assumption he is making. I would not claim to be an expert or anything but I would argue that a (any) universe is ridiculously improbable if my understanding of the big bang is correct: a super massive atom spontaenously exploding out a vacuum creating all the matter and energy in the universe and creating it in space and time that was previously non existent. How is that event ever probable??


So I don't think his beach ball analogy suffices...we are not just talking about a certain event occuring (like it will rain for exactly 57 second at 10:01 am or a beach ball falling on a certain target) we are talking about an essentially un-understandable process ocurring for some (presently) unknown reason.



And even if it can be mathematically shown to be probable (which I doubt) I don't think there would be more than 100 people in the world who could verify the proof, so I would not go taking the word of some randomer on a forum.


And then he concludes:
"The odds that this universe would form are ridiculously unlikely. But the
question is why does that matter?"


Think about this for a second, even if we accept the first part of his argument (which we shouldn't because of what I said above) he then undermines his entire point by asking us if any of it is important. Now perhaps that was deliberate, because he did not want to get involved in the "God debate" but note he does not say it is or is not important, he asks us if it is important. So he is really not stating either way if God exists, just asking us to ask ourselves. Well surely he is avoiding the big question here. does existence matter, what is the meaning of life etc, he is shrewdly avoiding these questions. I think you must agree that it is an amazing fact that the universe (by design or accident) would create a speicies that was capable of understanding the universe?? How the **** is that possible? And how could that not be viewed as a "target for the beach ball" as he says.

DeVore

Or they might have just made it up. Or copied it from any one of the other (not to mention *older* and therefore even worthier of belief, apparently) resurrection parables.

Do you have so much as one scientifically provable jot of evidence? the Turin shroud was shown to be a fake, then suddenly carbon dating was apparently "inaccurate". Dinosaur bones are apparently God's way of testing our faith if you believe fundamentalist Christians.

I stand by my assertion that like those Christians *nothing* will convince you , hence this discussion is utterly pointless, except that I want to demonstrate that to any wavering individuals, as noted by several people above I make solid points and you deflect or ignore.

Keep your faith, enjoy it, revel in it if you so desire... there are many faiths out there and they do some good when they moderate mans worst instincts but keep them out of our science classes and dont claim a scientific basis for them. Thats simply dishonest.

We don't need to disprove God any more then I need to disprove that pixies deliver my post in the morning. You are the one invoking a deity, you prove that its needed.


DeV.

philologos

DeVore, it's very possible that you could convince me if it is reasonable. I've yet to see something reasonable enough for me to depart my faith. You now have come back claiming, that it isn't you who is to do anything, even though, if I remember correctly you were the one who asked me what would I need to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I explained to you, that you would need to completely rule out the supernatural, and to explain the intentions of the disciples. No atheist has done this yet. I still wait in expectation.

Your points on infinity were good, yes I will concede that. However they do not lead me any closer to ruling out the supernatural.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I explained to you, that you would need to completely rule out the supernatural, and to explain the intentions of the disciples. No atheist has done this yet. I still wait in expectation.

It's impossible to 'rule out' something that doesn't exist. But we can conclude to a high degree of probability that something doesn't exist, where any reasonable person will agree on the resolution.

What if I said I was lying in bed last night and I heard a pen drop onto the floor next to me. Sure, the window was open so it's highly probable that there's a rational explanation, but I believe it was my deceased cousin in the room next to me. A supernatural event. Now prove to me it wasn't my dead cousin. Can you?

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

He states "A universe is probable", what is he basing this on?

My limited understanding of Higgs inflation fields and M-theory.

liamw wrote: »

I would not claim to be an expert or anything but I would argue that a (any) universe is ridiculously improbable if my understanding of the big bang is correct: a super massive atom spontaenously exploding out a vacuum creating all the matter and energy in the universe and creating it in space and time that was previously non existent.

Needless to say his understanding of the Big Bang is not correct. Even if that was what the Big Bang was (a super massive "atom" exploding) I'm not sure why he says that such an event is improbable.

liamw wrote: »

So I don't think his beach ball analogy suffices...we are not just talking about a certain event occuring (like it will rain for exactly 57 second at 10:01 am or a beach ball falling on a certain target) we are talking about an essentially un-understandable process ocurring for some (presently) unknown reason.

We are talking about some certain event, the Big Bang. But the point wasn't to discuss the odds of the universe forming, merely to point out the fallacy of people arbitrarily assigning significance to this particular universe without justification.

Saying the odds of this universe forming are X to one doesn't mean anything in the argument for a fine tuned or designed universe unless you first establish that this universe is significant in some way. Which no one has done yet.

liamw wrote: »

And even if it can be mathematically shown to be probable (which I doubt) I don't think there would be more than 100 people in the world who could verify the proof, so I would not go taking the word of some randomer on a forum.

Even if the a universe, any universe, forming was a vastly improbable event that doesn't effect my point. To use this as justification for the fine tuned argument one would still have to demonstrate that a universe forming is a significant event.

liamw wrote: »

Think about this for a second, even if we accept the first part of his argument (which we shouldn't because of what I said above) he then undermines his entire point by asking us if any of it is important.

I'm not sure what your friend thinks my point was if he thinks that question undermines it. That question is my entire point. What is the significance of this particular universe. What is the justification for saying that this universe is some form of target that is more significant than any other type of universe.

liamw wrote: »

I think you must agree that it is an amazing fact that the universe (by design or accident) would create a speicies that was capable of understanding the universe?? How the **** is that possible?

Instead of asking is it possible he should be asking is it significant. Does it demonstrate anything? If the universe hadn't have done that would that mean something.

liamw wrote: »

And how could that not be viewed as a "target for the beach ball" as he says.

No, the onus is on him to explain why it should be viewed as a target that the universe was aiming for. That is my point.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

DeVore, it's very possible that you could convince me if it is reasonable. I've yet to see something reasonable enough for me to depart my faith.

Your definition of reasonable might be a little different to most around these parts. How is "God raised him from the dead" more reasonable than "They imagined it"?

Jakkass wrote: »

I explained to you, that you would need to completely rule out the supernatural, and to explain the intentions of the disciples. No atheist has done this yet. I still wait in expectation.

Plenty of people have explained the possible intentions of the disciples using examples from other cults and basic human behaviour. Why did 25 Heaven's Gate people commit suicide for their religion? You don't have to look very far for plenty of examples of people genuinely believing some really wacky ideas that they are prepared to do some very drastic things based on these beliefs.

You guys largely reject these explanations as being implausible or unrealistic, and then embrace an explanation that involves a god raising someone from the dead! So again your standards of what is reasonable or plausible would appear to be a little skewed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your points on infinity were good, yes I will concede that. However they do not lead me any closer to ruling out the supernatural.

Can you explain how one rules out the supernatural? Surely by definition that is impossible?

Even the most accurate model of some natural phenomena cannot rule out the supernatural since it is impossible to falsify supernatural claims.

andy1249

The Turin shroud was shown to be a fake, then suddenly carbon dating was apparently "inaccurate".

Actually no , it hasnt been shown to be a fake yet , there was an excellent program on anytime last week about this , The sample taken for carbon dating has been proven to be from a section used to repair the shroud , its true , even the main instigator of the original carbon test looked at the evidence and agreed.
He went on record to say so just before he died , video was shown of him saying so.

So , another test is called for , and it has to be from one of the burnt areas of the shroud , where no repairs have taken place ,because its burnt in these areas apparently the amount of Carbon 14 here would be fixed and cannot have altered since the fire , and the fire can be dated so this is the best place for a sample.

Also because the whole thing was treated with some kind of insecticide since the original carbon dating , now its questionable whether it can ever be reliably dated.

The Burnt and scorched parts are apparently the only reliable parts left to use.

deereidy

Religous people will always find some little thing that cannot be proved or disproved to justify their belief. It doesn't bother me anymore, they obviously need it to be happy, as long as they don't shove it down my throat

andy1249

Its here , for anyone who is interested.

http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

The key findings are as follows:

The radiocarbon sample that was used to date the Shroud has a very different composition and structure than the rest of the cloth and was not valid for dating the Shroud.

The sample used for carbon dating had been dyed with Madder root dye and applied to the surface in a plant-gum medium. This was to hide the repair (probably done in 1534). This dye and gum mixture does not exist anywhere else on the cloth.
The flax portion of the carbon sample had been bleached by a different method than the Shroud showing that the threads were manufactured at different times and not part of the original cloth.
The carbon dating sample also contained a significant amount of cotton. The cotton was woven in with the flax in the repaired area to help the dye adhere better. There is no cotton in the main body of the Shroud.
Linen (flax) contains a natural polymer called vanillin. Vanillin decays over time. Most medieval linen still contains a portion of the original vanillin whereas the vanillin content of the Dead Sea Scroll wrappings is completely depleted. The area cut for carbon dating still contains 37% of its original vanillin whereas 0% remains in samples taken from the main body of the Shroud.
All combined, it indicates that the carbon labs dated a rewoven area of the cloth. It also shows that the Shroud is significantly older than 700 years. Dr. Ray Rogers can only offer a date range of 1,300 to 3,000 years old because the rate of vanillin decay depends on storage temperature, something that is not known. But now, the Shroud being 2,000 years old doesn’t seem out of the question anymore.
Teddy Hall who was head of the Oxford carbon lab in 1988 said, “One would have to be a member of the Flat Earth Society” to believe the Shroud was authentic. I’ve just updated my membership.