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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Artificial Life Created

1…1011131516…23

Comments

  • #362
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Jakkass : You cannot calculate the probability of an event occurring if you don't know the actual conditions needed for that event to occurr. So you cannot know that probability of life existing is grossly improbable or probable. Please stop thinking that life is improbable because you wish it to be so, it may be the case, but you have no mathematical grounds to stake your claim upon.

    P.S Good luck with the exams.:)


    Malty, in fairness, is probability not the very way we function? We take a set of known parameters and 'reason' our way through...

    ...this is not a Christian only application when discussing our origins!...and probability is a perfectly 'reasonable' tool, given our current knowledge, until our knowledge expands of course ( and that hasn't happened )

    It doesn't help that our knowledge is somewhat limited, but we have set some reasonable parameters to work with so far, and we apply them to arrive at a conclusion, whatever we're pondering or examining...

    If you want to talk about 'God', well in the 'Creator' sense, given our current knowledge 'God' is a reasonable conclusion.....whatever name people have subscribed throughout the centuries....

    The rest is subjective I guess, I 'chose' God and moved on from there...


  • #363
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think atheists get their back up when people start distorting reality to fit a religious agenda.

    I could go into all the things that are wrong with Jakkass' post but as Sam has already pointed out these were explained and he simply ignored them and continued to post inaccurate statements about cosmology on the basis that it is reasonable to him.



    I certainly would not tag everyone with that, but man alive it is hard to not see that as a general theme on this forum.



    Both religion and science make proclamations about the natural world, both come from a human desire to understand. The argument that religion and science are distinct is flawed because they both attempt to answer questions in a similar domain.

    The issue someone like myself takes is that people more often than not use religion to fill in the blanks of current scientific understanding.

    This is a bad idea because the blanks exist in science for a reason. It is a recognition of what we don't yet know or can't know. To simply ignore this because we would rather have an answer and start providing religious answers is to utterly misunderstand the point of science in the first place, the point of why these things are as yet unknown.

    If we could simply turn to religion for the answer when science can't tell us then religion would be science.

    Wicknight, I can see that it could be annoying to 'insert' God into various arguements....and I would tend to not commit myself to reducing God firstly by doing so, or by undermining Science at the same time...... I don't subscribe to ID in it's entirety nor Creationists in the common sense of the word...

    However, I'm not making a Scientific 'statement' out of my faith, it's two aspects of what makes up 'me' and I like both and they work well together imo :)...I see no reason to interfer with Science and it's 'methods' - cause they 'work' just fine the way they are...I think most people, including Jackass? are similar?


  • #364
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    However, I'm not making a Scientific 'statement' out of my faith, it's two aspects of what makes up 'me' and I like both and they work well together imo :)...I see no reason to interfer with Science and it's 'methods' - cause they 'work' just fine the way they are...I think most people, including Jackass? are similar?

    Do you appreciate though what science is and why it has its methods?

    If you do the question is on what basis is your faith?

    That is what I think people don't get. There is a reason for science, there is a reason why science says "don't know". People seem to either ignore this or be ignorant of it.

    Or to put it another way, do do you think science says "don't know" when asked what caused the Big Bang? And why do you think religion says the opposite? Do you appreciate the reason why science does this?

    If it is possible to know the answer to this question why does science say it doesn't know it?


  • #365
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    We've already established that. He does it with a Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy. He doesn't seem to contest this but goes on making the argument anyway

    Actually, if you read my post rather than commenting on what you want my post to say, you'll understand that I find the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to be problematic.

    I also noted, if you read my post, that there has to be someone to throw the darts to begin with. So even if we regard creation to be blind, there still has to be a cause for the attempts to begin with.

    There might well be darts thrown, and nobody guiding the darts being thrown, but there has to be a thrower.

    I do contest this. That's the point.


  • #366
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I appreciate the scientific 'method'...It's not a code I live by now, I like that it doesn't present itself as such either, and nor should it!

    The basis I have subjectively considered as regards my faith and philosophy of life is Christian in origin, it's based on the testimony of Jesus Christ and his apostles...I have made a faith choice to believe those testimonies....


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I appreciate the scientific 'method'

    Do you appreciate the reason behind the scientific method?

    Why it exists, what its purpose is, why scientists consider it to be necessary?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    The basis I have subjectively considered as regards my faith and philosophy of life is Christian in origin, it's based on the testimony of Jesus Christ and his apostles...I have made a faith choice to believe those testimonies....

    How accurate do you think that faith is?


  • #368
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    [QUOTE=Jakkass;66037620]Actually, if you read my post rather than commenting on what you want my post to say, you'll understand that I find the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to be problematic.

    I also noted, if you read my post, that there has to be someone to throw the darts to begin with. So even if we regard creation to be blind, there still has to be a cause for the attempts to begin with.

    There might well be darts thrown, and nobody guiding the darts being thrown, but there has to be a thrower.

    I do contest this. That's the point.[/QUOTE]

    The part in bold shows that you don't understand the point being made. The point is that the probability of something happening vastly increases as the number of "attempts" increases, ie one throw of a dart hitting the bullseye is unlikely but a hundred billion is almost a certainty. The specific analogy I used involved someone throwing a dart but any number of analogies that don't require intelligent input could be given.

    For example, the chances of an asteroid or comet hitting the earth are minuscule because the universe is billions of light years wide and the earth is a tiny speck in comparison. The chances of it happening are orders of magnitude less likely than just hitting a bullseye a few feet away and yet it happens quite regularly because there are a hell of a lot of asteroids and comets all flying around the place. Thankfully we haven't been hit by any big ones since humans came on the scene but it could easily happen. If there was only one asteroid in the universe we could be almost certain that it would never happen but there is not only one asteroid and speaking as if there is and drawing conclusions from this error is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy

    The point is that there is not one planet, there are trillions upon trillions all at varying distances from their suns and and all with all manner of chemical reactions happening all the time. These planets fill every niche from rocky ice planet to gas giant to earth like planet and everything in between. You are speaking as if the universe only had one shot at forming a planet which would make it unlikely that it would form at "just the right distance" when in fact there are trillions of planets, trillions of "attempts" which makes it really quite likely and this is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.


  • #369
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually, if you read my post rather than commenting on what you want my post to say, you'll understand that I find the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to be problematic.

    I also noted, if you read my post, that there has to be someone to throw the darts to begin with. So even if we regard creation to be blind, there still has to be a cause for the attempts to begin with.

    There might well be darts thrown, and nobody guiding the darts being thrown, but there has to be a thrower.

    I do contest this. That's the point.

    Do you concede that the "thrower" may be a non-intelligent natural process?


  • #370
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you appreciate the reason behind the scientific method?

    Why it exists, what its purpose is, why scientists consider it to be necessary?



    How accurate do you think that faith is?

    LOL Wicknight, yes I already said more or less that if one is working within the scientific community, it's best to be objective in approach...However, I don't believe it is an impossibility to function as a completely normal person and have 'faith' also, and it's far from something I am ashamed of, or even feel I should, actually I'm totally proud of the ability to do so.......Science hasn't got that far yet to undermine faith. Science isn't an 'aspect' of me; it simply 'informs' me...My faith is an aspect of 'me'.

    Ahhh, as to the second question? It's like me asking you why you believe one historian over another and to assign or discuss the accuracy level to that choice? ...That's another thread, actually theres tons of em on the Christianity forum ;)


  • #371
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    LOL Wicknight, yes I already said more or less that if one is working within the scientific community, it's best to be objective in approach

    Why is this best?

    And why is it not best to be objective when not working in the scientific community?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    However, I don't believe it is an impossibility to function as a completely normal person and have 'faith' also, and it's far from something I am ashamed of, or even feel I should, actually I'm totally proud of the ability to do so

    Great, but that isn't that relevant to what I asked you.

    I'm curious as to why you think it is necessary in the "scientific community", but not important in other areas.

    Why can't science be subjective and have a faith about stuff?


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why is this best?

    And why is it not best to be objective when not working in the scientific community?



    Great, but that isn't that relevant to what I asked you.

    I'm curious as to why you think it is necessary in the "scientific community", but not important in other areas.

    Why can't science be subjective and have a faith about stuff?

    I didn't say that it's not best to be objective outside of the Science community??? ...I simply agreed that it 'is' best to be objective when working within the Scientific community. I'm pretty sure most people can use both subjectivity and objectivity outside of Science, and I see no problem with either application so long as we're not limiting others by doing so....

    'Why can't Science be subjective and have a faith about stuff'

    .....to be honest I would hate if Science was overly influenced subjectively by anybody, including myself.....However, in my experience I believe that people of various inclinations both of faith or none have assigned it with a 'persona' or faith of sorts; or the faith ( for lack of a better word ) to deny others faith...

    I don't like the idea at all that Science should be seen as anything more than a tool that informs us and is of great benefit to us....Common sense tells us that good Science has a 'method' not a 'creed'.


  • #373
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I simply agreed that it 'is' best to be objective when working within the Scientific community.

    Yes but the question is why? And why is this not necessary when not in the scientific community?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    .....to be honest I would hate if Science was overly influenced subjectively by anybody, including myself....

    Why? What happens?


  • #374
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but the question is why? And why is this not necessary when not in the scientific community?



    Why? What happens?

    Do you think it's necessary and subjectivity is unnecessary? Are you ever subjective?

    I never said it's 'not necessary' either. I said within Science it's best to be objective. Science is a disciplin a tool, nothing more... Well, to me anyway...


  • #375
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Do you think it's necessary and subjectivity is unnecessary? Are you ever subjective?

    I never said it's 'not necessary' either. I said within Science it's best to be objective. Science is a disciplin a tool, nothing more... Well, to me anyway...

    But why is it necessary for science to try and be objective? What happens if it doesn't?


  • #376
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight, am I your 'specimen' ? and there I was studying you too...lol...

    I have to go, but I'll be back later...this is an interesting topic. Ironically, my little fella wants me to watch, 'You can't handle the Tooth'...with him :)


  • #377
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But why is it necessary for science to try and be objective? What happens if it doesn't?

    Science should try to be objective because it deals with 'knowledge' - that's why it's called science.

    Then you get areas such as the 'social sciences' where total objectivity is impossible and deciding what is true and what is false becomes a bit more fuzzy. History often falls into this category, where we make subjective judgement calls on the evidence.

    Other areas of life often deal with subjects where objective knowledge is impossible, or where opinions are actually more relevant (eg loving someone, appreciating art,music, literature etc.)

    It would be silly to try to use the criteria of science to judge whether a painting is beautiful or not. It would be equally silly to accept or reject a scientific thesis because it makes us feel good or not.


  • #378
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Wicknight, am I your 'specimen' ? and there I was studying you too...lol...

    Well it is a simple question. You say you understand science, I'm not quite sure you, so I'm trying to see if you understand why science is the way it is.

    If you don't want to answer that is fine.


  • #379
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Then you get areas such as the 'social sciences' where total objectivity is impossible and deciding what is true and what is false becomes a bit more fuzzy. History often falls into this category, where we make subjective judgement calls on the evidence.

    And if this still works then why doesn't science do this?


  • #380
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Are there many atheists who are not pro-science?

    Yes there are.Some people dont believe in god because of terrible events in their lives, history etc. Anf then theres atheists who dont believe in god because theyve sat down and thought abit about it.But anyhoo


    Whether science has reduced this or is continuing to reduce this, is immaterial as science does not have at its heart the goal of debunking the supernatural.

    Ah but this is the crux of the issue, absolutly material. Scientific advances have shown that things from thunderbolts to the earth forming occur without any need for supernatural intervention. God has gone from being a bricklayer to a foreman never actually seen at the site , but people claim hes out there somewhere.
    I understand where some can suggest religious thought can inhibit certain forms of thinking but anyone calling themselves a scientist knows what is presentable and what is not, depending on when they are trying to present it and and what, and maybe even why, unless we are in an Islamic country which we are not. However we have moved beyond that now so I would ask why you moved so swiftly from the infinitive present to the past tense in your narrative.


    Without wanting to stray of topic or open more cans of worms, Religious though today wont allow its members to use condoms for instance to save lives because its against its core values. Organised religion is by its very nature dogmatic (and not just Christianity), the elders have decided this this and this. Science cant do that, despite many claims it can. It would be great to just hold a conference and decide the speed of light is a nice round 100mph, but theres all that pesky evidence.

    If I was reading your arguments correctly, you were saying religion guided and helped scientific discoveries and I would say the exact opposite,


  • #381
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    God has gone from being a bricklayer to a foreman never actually seen at the site , but people claim hes out there somewhere.

    Nicely put.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And if this still works then why doesn't science do this?

    Obviously it doesn't always work. There are theories in psychology or history that turn out to be stunningly wrong (which still sometimes happens in science, admittedly).

    If we have enough information, and if the subject matter is suitable for objective analysis, then an objective approach is to be preferred to a subjective one.

    Even in areas where complete objectivity is impossible due to our lack of knowledge, we should still try to be objective as possible,

    Where things often get screwed up is when scientists (and others) lose their objectivity and start working to an agenda - Lysenko would be a good example of this.

    So, if you start off by dogmatically asserting an unprovable premise (eg that God definitely exists, or that the supernatural is, by definition, impossible) then your conclusions will not be objective and IMHO will certainly not be scientific.


  • #383
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    So, if you start off by dogmatically asserting an unprovable premise (eg that God definitely exists, or that the supernatural is, by definition, impossible) then your conclusions will not be objective and IMHO will certainly not be scientific.

    I think that you may have missed my point when I said the part in bold. The supernatural is by definition impossible, if the supernatural was possible it would be called the natural and the resurrection would be nothing more than a magic trick that any of us could do if we knew how it was done. That's not to say that there is no such thing as a supernatural being that can do the impossible but the fact that there may be a being to whom the laws of nature do not apply and who can do the impossible does not mean that the impossible is possible. It means that there is a being that can do the impossible.

    And my point was that faced with two theories, one of which posits an infinitely complex being that can do the impossible and the other of which is defined as being merely unlikely (even though we are not actually privy to the information that would allow us to make such an assertion), the latter explanation is preferable. I have already clarified this in this thread but you may have missed it


  • #384
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    Yes there are.Some people dont believe in god because of terrible events in their lives, history etc. Anf then theres atheists who dont believe in god because theyve sat down and thought abit about it.But anyhoo

    Is that what I asked?

    Let's try again. Are there many atheists who are not pro-science?

    or put it another way, are there any anti-science atheists?



    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    Ah but this is the crux of the issue, absolutly material. Scientific advances have shown that things from thunderbolts to the earth forming occur without any need for supernatural intervention. God has gone from being a bricklayer to a foreman never actually seen at the site , but people claim hes out there somewhere.

    ah, the insults begin to fly as the true colours are unfurled....


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    Without wanting to stray of topic or open more cans of worms, Religious though today wont allow its members to use condoms for instance to save lives because its against its core values. Organised religion is by its very nature dogmatic (and not just Christianity), the elders have decided this this and this. Science cant do that, despite many claims it can. It would be great to just hold a conference and decide the speed of light is a nice round 100mph, but theres all that pesky evidence.

    ...and run up the flagpole

    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    If I was reading your arguments correctly, you were saying religion guided and helped scientific discoveries and I would say the exact opposite,

    Given your response to my first question I doubt that.

    If you actually read any of my arguments you would find that I actually say the exact opposite as I am of the opinion that the practitioners of atheism and those that call themselves atheists and anti-theists (Buddhists and other religions with no deity excepted) and in particular the active atheists and new age atheists are sciences greatest hindrance.


  • #385
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    or put it another way, are there any anti-science atheists?

    Depends on the science. Atheists can be as open to bias as any religious person when they have a belief that's contradicted by some research or other.


  • #386
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    ISAW wrote: »
    Good point but I suggest you look up "God of the Gaps" and "xeno's paradox"
    Think of a mathematical series where every step you take is half the last one. So you go 1->1.5 -> 1.75 and so on. Assuming "proof of no God" > 2 you will never reach 2, well :) you will at infinity maybe so that why I put >2 ... but I think you might get the point.


    im not 100% following you, but ive heard of that paradox before. can you elabaorate a bit?





    Really? So you think geneticists can decide for themselves what they should clone or whether abortion should be allowed on demand and religious people and the rest of society should just butt out?

    This is morality your talking about, a tin of worms I didnt want to open.My point is Religious though does not help scientific thought

    Science and theology are steeped in rationalism the "logos" of the Greeks.

    Science is logic, theology is no way logical and i dont think anyone can say it is.It not supposed to be
    AHA! So Chinese and African and other countries didnt have "science" ? It is only the Western Greek rationality based science that is really science? The SAME rationality that the Church absorbed?

    Your misqouting me there. People were arguing that many great scientists were Christian. I was pointing out that throughout history everybody had to be religious or you were prosecuted as a heretic.
    That is a preposterous Claim! "Only people who ventured outside Christianity advanced science" Nonsense!

    If these scientists had been content to behave as christians and accept christian doctrine on faith alone they would not have questioned the world around them and made their discoveries


  • #387
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Depends on the science. Atheists can be as open to bias as any religious person when they have a belief that's contradicted by some research or other.

    So atheists are religious people, they have beliefs, some of which are contradicted by science.

    :cool:


  • #388
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Obviously it doesn't always work.

    Ok but if it worked a little bit why doesn't science do it?

    Why does science say "We don't know" when history might say "Umm, we think it might be this"


  • #389
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think that you may have missed my point when I said the part in bold. The supernatural is by definition impossible, if the supernatural was possible it would be called the natural and the resurrection would be nothing more than a magic trick that any of us could do if we knew how it was done. That's not to say that there is no such thing as a supernatural being that can do the impossible but the fact that there may be a being to whom the laws of nature do not apply and who can do the impossible does not mean that the impossible is possible. It means that there is a being that can do the impossible.

    And my point was that faced with two theories, one of which posits an infinitely complex being that can do the impossible and the other of which is defined as being merely unlikely (even though we are not actually privy to the information that would allow us to make such an assertion), the latter explanation is preferable. I have already clarified this in this thread but you may have missed it

    Unfortunately atrocious logic doesn't get any better how many times you state it.

    If a being can do something (even a supernatural being), then that something is not, by definition, impossible.


  • #390
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    So atheists are religious people, they have beliefs, some of which are contradicted by science.

    :cool:

    The only similarity that atheists have is that they all lack belief in a god or gods. They can have any other conceivable belief and some of those beliefs may well be contradicted by science. That does not mean, as you suggest, that "atheists are religious people", it means that being an atheist does not automatically mean that they have no beliefs of any kind, it means only that they do not have a belief in a god. Some religions don't have gods so an atheist can be a religious person but not necessarily


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok but if it worked a little bit why doesn't science do it?

    Why does science say "We don't know" when history might say "Umm, we think it might be this"

    Science does do it, and it works a bit. Science does say, "Umm, we think it might be this." In fact that would pretty well sum up a lot of what science has said in the past about ether, a steady state universe, or a cosmological constant, and what science is currently saying about string theory with little strings that have ten dimensions.


Advertisement