Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Biblical Miracles

Options
1…6791112

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then I take it you believe that the magic man or aliens that designed it are evil bastards then?

    You seem very keen to anthromorphise a designer that you don't believe in.


  • Options
    #243
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mickrock wrote: »
    You seem very keen to anthromorphise a designer that you don't believe in.
    It's the only logical conclusion you can reach with the positions you pretend to hold.

    The only reasons why an intelligent designer/magic man/fairy/alien overlord would create a creature that causes blindness in children from drinking water, is because they are evil.

    If you have another explanation, please provide it.
    Otherwise, should you ignore this question, as most trolls and creationists do, you are admitting that it's stumped you.


  • Options
    #244
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well that is working under the assumption that those stories are not exaggerations of the influence of Jesus. To me it is more plausible that there was a Jesus but he wasn't nearly as famous as the early Christians liked to pretend. That to me makes more sense than there being no Jesus figure at all.

    Indeed. But when you start stripping away the exaggerations and hyperbole, pretty soon you're left with a quite unremarkable man who actually didn't say that much, and did even less. And, given the way that the gospels were written and the nature of early Christianity, and given the seemingly complete absence of any contemporary corroborating evidence, it looks to me that there may well never have been any such man, and that instead Christianity was a synthesis of existing mystical and religious beliefs.


  • Options
    #245
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You asked to narrow the subject down to the one area you are most most knowledgable in, which is a classic scientist mistake. As you get too absorbed in one area of science your worldview gets too narrow based on that particular field fo study. I specifically said I would not imply a creator in the example I gave of adaptive mutation (which has been replicated in many labs, check out Barry Hall's papers), it is not one of the big 5 questions that make up my argument.

    It's not a mistake at all. I asked you to provide reasons for examples from 2 fields that that demonstrated that there is a supernatural entity. If you felt that that was an unfair tactic, you should have said so and we could have debated that point. But you agreed and we had a discussion about specific points instead of vast generalizations. I provided answers and gave you references to papers which disputes your claims. You now want to go back and change the terms of the argument, which is moving the goalposts and is not a tactic that you should use when discussing something.

    In addition, you're throwing out 5 generalized questions but you're not stating how they show that there is a supernatural entity other than to state that we don't know everything about those things. If your argument is not a simple god of the gaps fallacy, then please explain, specifically, how the answers to those questions lead to a belief in a supernatural entity.

    If you cannot or will not do so, I will not continue to discuss this with you as you're breaking the rules of rational debate.


  • Options
    #246
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you can't even acknowledge that it has the appearance of design, then there's no hope for you.

    You didn't answer my question. You say life looks designed. I asked compared to what, what does non designed life look like that enables you to say that this life is clearly designed?

    Or are you just talking out your arse?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    mickrock wrote: »
    A certain model of car might not be as well designed as another but that doesn't mean that it came about by a blind, unguided process.

    Design inferences are not restricted to optimal designs.
    I rather think it is when it's being attributed to an omnipotent being that can apparently create a universe out of nothing but willpower. For a 'perfect' being to create something imperfect either means that they're a dick, or they're not perfect, or they didn't create it in the first place.


  • Options
    #248
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Improbable wrote: »
    It's not a mistake at all. I asked you to provide reasons for examples from 2 fields that that demonstrated that there is a supernatural entity. If you felt that that was an unfair tactic, you should have said so and we could have debated that point. But you agreed and we had a discussion about specific points instead of vast generalizations. I provided answers and gave you references to papers which disputes your claims. You now want to go back and change the terms of the argument, which is moving the goalposts and is not a tactic that you should use when discussing something.

    If you go back to your original post that started this discussion you asked for one example from Evolutionary Biology or Biochemistry. The one example I gave was how a self replicating molecule like RNA or DNA was initially made. I have repeated said that I am not using adaptive mutation as an argument for a creator. I am using that example to show how Evolutionary Biology is very much an evolving area of study. It is true that Cairns work was questioned but his initial work was in 1988 and there has been a lot of study in this area since. To me (and I am not an expert) it suggests that there are more pathways in mutation than just randomness.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/07/17/rspb.2012.0799.full.pdf

    On to RNA/DNA. The questions here fall into the "how" category, a science question and the "why" category, a philosophical question. At this point science cannot explain "how" life emerged on earth, we can only speculate on that. In terms of RNA/DNA for the first time in nature we are faced with using concepts like code and transfer of information in a way that suggests intentionality. When you consider inorganic molecules leading to living cells utilizing an information transfer mechanism like RNA/DNA it is impossible to ignore the issue of purpose, a philosophical question. Especially when the foundation of efficient cause in Evolutionary Biology (random mutation), may not be as firmly established as we thought.

    I am thinking of purpose not from an ID standpoint but from the perspective of a human being. If we humans are the products of nature and we have purpose, then why is it so crazy to think that purpose is a genuine property of nature down to the cellular or even sub-cellular level? The elimination of final cause from the minds of scientists over the past 300 years has everything to do with a Newtonian worldview, a worldview that has been thrown out the window due to Einstein's theories and QM. Every other field of science follows classical mechanics which is questionable given that classical mechanics has been shown to be incorrect when it comes to describing the fundamental nature of reality.


  • Options
    #249
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If we humans are the products of nature and we have purpose, then why is it so crazy to think that purpose is a genuine property of nature down to the cellular or even sub-cellular level?
    That's the Telelogical Fallacy:

    http://logfall.wordpress.com/teleological-fallacy/

    We don't have "purpose", at least in any sense that I understand. What definition do you use?


  • Options
    #250
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    On to RNA/DNA. The questions here fall into the "how" category, a science question and the "why" category, a philosophical question.

    And your god does not answer either of these questions...


  • Options
    #251
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    endacl wrote: »
    For an all-knowing, all-powerful creator, you must admit some of his designs are fairly crappy.

    An inference of design isn't dependent on the designer having certain attributes (eg is good, all-knowning, all-powerful, likes gardening).

    An inference of design is an inference of design, plain and simple.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    And your god does not answer either of these questions...

    Neither science nor a belief in a creator answer the "how" question.
    Philosophy can and has argued the "why" question to arrive at a proof of God, for example from a design standpoint and a first cause standpoint. You can choose to ignore, debate or refute such philosophy but you cannot say it does not exist.


  • Options
    #253
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Neither science nor a belief in a creator answer the "how" question.
    Except when you find it convenient to claim otherwise.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Philosophy can and has argued the "why" question to arrive at a proof of God, for example from a design standpoint and a first cause standpoint. You can choose to ignore, debate or refute such philosophy but you cannot say it does not exist.
    And just because it exists doesn't make it right, let alone rational or relevant or verifiable.

    What makes you assume there is a Why question in the first place?
    Cause God explains the how perhaps?


  • Options
    #254
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    mickrock wrote: »
    An inference of design isn't dependent on the designer having certain attributes (eg is good, all-knowning, all-powerful, likes gardening).

    An inference of design is an inference of design, plain and simple.

    So what attributes do you propose your designer has? And what do you base your inference of the existence of said designer on?


  • Options
    #255
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    And just because it exists doesn't make it right, let alone rational or relevant or verifiable.

    Every individual forms their own personal worldview, thats the beauty of free will.


  • Options
    #256
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Every individual forms their own personal worldview, thats the beauty of free will.
    Yes, but again, that does not imply that all of those worldviews are correct.

    And since yours is so completely contradictory and completely devoid of explanatory power and you can't defend it in a rational, supported way it's a safe bet that yours in not one of the correct ones.


  • Options
    #257
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So what attributes do you propose your designer has? And what do you base your inference of the existence of said designer on?

    I don't propose any attributes.

    All design is the result of intelligence so it's reasonable to infer that the design in life forms is no different. Occam's razor would apply.


  • Options
    #258
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    mickrock wrote: »
    All design is the result of intelligence so it's reasonable to infer that the design in life forms is no different. Occam's razor would apply.

    When reasoning from a flawed premise, you're likely to produce flawed results.


  • Options
    #259
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    That's the Telelogical Fallacy:

    http://logfall.wordpress.com/teleological-fallacy/

    We don't have "purpose", at least in any sense that I understand. What definition do you use?

    I don't believe this is a case of a teleological fallacy. In fact I would say that trying to exclude teleological cause from nature is the fallacy. Much of our current worldview of nature comes from the principle of linear cause and effect from classical mechanics. However we know this is not how reality works at all from QM. The problem with introducing QM into an area like biology or consciousness is people immediately think New Age. However, the reality is QM has to be considered in every area of science and is largely being ignored, the very large elephant in the room.

    I accept fully that any linkage of QM to evolutionary biology is speculative
    at this point, however it is being seriously proposed by scientists like John Joe McFadden. That QM is observed at the molecular level and perhaps even at the cellular level is not so speculative however as the recent work showing entanglement in diamond lattice structures demonstrates.

    "Reality may be a far stranger thing than we can even imagine"


  • Options
    #260
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    mickrock wrote: »
    All design is the result of intelligence.......

    Really? So you think the cup bra, a strapless, backless, wireless bra which stays on with adhesive was born out of intelligence?

    Cup-bras.jpg


  • Options
    #261
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    And since yours is so completely contradictory and completely devoid of explanatory power and you can't defend it in a rational, supported way it's a safe bet that yours in not one of the correct ones.

    ..and our understanding of reality is so well established that you can make such a claim? What an arrogant assumption. I happen to believe that our Newtonian classical mechanics cause and effect worldview is completely wrong. I believe our view of reality based on the limitations of our human minds and our observational capabilities is deeply flawed, time (a human invention) being one example that is likely completely wrong.

    When we can't explain something we make up a symbol for it and use the symbol to explain it away. So postulating a creator has to be wrong but inventing a symbol to describe something we cannot even rationalize (infinity) is reasonable, and not only invent the symbol but use it to come up with models of reality. We are indeed a funny lot.

    You are stuck in an old worldview that is rapidly falling to pieces. Its entirely your choice to stay stuck in the past.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    ..and our understanding of reality is so well established that you can make such a claim?
    What, that you are unable to defend you position?
    Yes absolutely.
    It's evident from your constant dodging and evading and use of logical fallacies and dishonest tactics.

    Why, if your position is valid or correct, do you need to do those things?


  • Options
    #263
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't propose any attributes.

    All design is the result of intelligence so it's reasonable to infer that the design in life forms is no different. Occam's razor would apply.

    Seriously, you need to stop inferring Occam's Razor as it is patently obvious that you haven't a bull's notion as to how it works.


  • Options
    #264
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    So, you call me lazy for not reading a book you havn't read.. but you are not willing to listen to a guy talk for 10 minutes. He has a point, its a very good one. Listen to the last few minutes at least.

    When did I call you lazy or tell you to go read a book?

    If he has a "very good" point then it should be relatively easy for you to explain it here. Sending people to other websites instead of posting a point or evidence yourself is considered bad form in this forum, right up there with saying "Just Google it" when asked to present evidence.

    What was his point and how does it support your arguments.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    As for science, love the stuff but it will not lead to truth. Nor will math using symbols we cannot understand like infinity. Truth only comes from logic and logic says it is intelligence that drives evolution not random events leading to speciation.

    Er, by definition "logic" can't say that, since logic is simply a way of ensuring a conclusion is consistent within the rules of a system (2+2=4 is logically true within the rules of the decimal mathematics system), it cannot make self supported claims about the natural world.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    All the chickens in my yard would look the same to you but because I observe them I see that theres one bird who is overly friendly and eats up a storm (she is a bit on the plump side) and is becoming very friendly with my big black rooster. He is too young to mate yet but she is going to be at the top of the line when he is does.

    And ... ? That means intelligence drives evolution how exactly?


  • Options
    #265
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mickrock wrote: »
    All design is the result of intelligence

    And (again) what evidence is there that life is "designed"? (as you are using it, constructed by an intelligent for a purpose). Just because it looks that way to you? That says more about you than life TBH

    116_Giants-Causeway.1.jpg


  • Options
    #266
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I don't believe this is a case of a teleological fallacy. In fact I would say that trying to exclude teleological cause from nature is the fallacy.

    Why would you say that, support that statement in the form that the teleological fallacy is presented.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Much of our current worldview of nature comes from the principle of linear cause and effect from classical mechanics. However we know this is not how reality works at all from QM. The problem with introducing QM into an area like biology or consciousness is people immediately think New Age. However, the reality is QM has to be considered in every area of science and is largely being ignored, the very large elephant in the room.

    I accept fully that any linkage of QM to evolutionary biology is speculative
    at this point, however it is being seriously proposed by scientists like John Joe McFadden. That QM is observed at the molecular level and perhaps even at the cellular level is not so speculative however as the recent work showing entanglement in diamond lattice structures demonstrates.

    Quantum mechanics is "observed" at all levels, it is the basis for all physical processes. All cells are made up of atoms that adhere to quantum mechanics.

    What the heck does any of that have to do with the teleological fallacy?


  • Options
    #267
    jasonmcco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭jasonmcco


    the_eman wrote: »
    Take a look, it takes about 4 minutes to get to some science.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeSJw3Qzls

    I am interested in knowing your opinions, which I respect. It is 58 minutes in total I hope some of you can make it to the end. Those who do watch it all, I am especially interested in your opinions.

    To synopsize, this video tries to prove, creation, the great flood, the shroud of turin, and other interesting miracles, with some very good evidence, really worth a watch.

    Regards.

    "Really worth a watch" you must be joking.

    We should stop engaging with the religious in arguments coz it gives weight to their opposing argument.

    If a child argued with you that the earth was flat and you proved to him it wasn't would you continue to argue with him for next twenty years about it
    or would you just ignore him.

    Leave them to their ignorant ideas safe in the knowledge that they are decreasing in numbers on a daily basis.

    Would a doctor argue with you if you said blood was solid no he would tell you once and probably show you and then ignore you.

    If god was real he would be a right asshole for creating a world like this.
    So if he is real i wont be following him,i will be asking for him to step down in the light of his performance to date.


  • Options
    #268
    jasonmcco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭jasonmcco


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeSJw3Qzls

    Worth a watch.Jesus me arse.


  • Options
    #269
    Hidalgo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,845 ✭✭✭Hidalgo


    Reading through all this
    and the conclusion

    my head hurts


  • Options
    #270
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I don't believe this is a case of a teleological fallacy. In fact I would say that trying to exclude teleological cause from nature is the fallacy.
    Uh, I'm not sure if you had time to read my previous post. You said:
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If we humans are the products of nature and we have purpose, then why is it so crazy to think that purpose is a genuine property of nature down to the cellular or even sub-cellular level?"
    In philosophy and logic, the assumption that the universe contains "purpose" is called the "teleological fallacy". Definitions of it usually include descriptions of the kinds of hopeless knots people tie themselves into when they make -- as you do -- the false assumption of "purpose".

    Redefining the fallacy as something else is a bit silly :confused:

    /shrugs


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What the heck does any of that have to do with the teleological fallacy?
    Nothing at all. I was going to ask the same question, but I couldn't get Hitchen's "white noise" comment out of my head, so I gave up trying.


Advertisement