[Guest]

This was always going to be a difficult topic to introduce. Here's my second attempt! Through the magic of spoilers I can at least give the illusion of brevity...

In discussions with theists in the "religious discussion" topic, a theme which often occurs is that many theists feel that God is the best or only explanation for certain phenomena. I refute this, but agree that there are many apparently unlikely aspects of the world for which it is reasonable to seek explanation.

In principle it could work, provided that we allow for this possibility to be tested and the rationality behind it to be examined. Typically, this is where the theist plays the "supernatural" card and says that rationality does not apply in this area (unless it is convenient for supporting theist argument).

Spoiler for So what's wrong with that?:

This way of thinking only embraces ignorance. That which we consider to be "natural" is only that for which there is evidence, the sum total of things which can potentially be understood. If God exists then God is real, a part of nature. We could study God and understand God better. But the word "supernatural" is used as an excuse for not doing that, and centuries of living under the influence of religion have conditioned humankind not to question that excuse.

If you believe in God then God may seem like a likely explanation for all sorts of things, and your use of God as an explanation may then seem like evidence of God's existence. This is circular reasoning (an all too common fallacy).

Spoiler for What if there was something which could have no natural explanation?:

.getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '') { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = ''; this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Hide'; } else { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none'; this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Show'; }">

This is another way of saying "what if impossible things happen?". Impossible things do not happen by definition. If there were something which could have no other explanation than "God did it", then that is still a natural explanation. But since the God explanation is intrinsically unlikely, we would have to reliably exclude all other explanations. You may not know that another explanation is correct, but the possibility that it might be (or that some other, as yet unknown explanation might be) is enough to negate something as evidence for God.

The desire for explanation is only human. We may not have all the answers, but in my opinion there are few questions for which we do not have at least potential answers. I (and I suspect, other atheists) have avoided discussing such potential answers in the "religious debate" topic as it would muddy the waters and encourage the misconception that such explanations form part of an "atheist belief" and underpin atheism in some way. Just for the avoidance of doubt,

THE TITLE OF THIS TOPIC IS A JOKE

intended to act as a reminder of what this topic is not.

Spoiler for So what do atheists believe?]Atheism is (typically) not a belief, but a lack of one. Neither does it imply beliefs. Recognising the irrationality of positing God as an explanation for anything does not imply that one is convinced by any other explanation.

For example, various theories exist concerning the origin of the universe. Atheism does not demand that you "believe" any of them, though obviously a knowledge that plausible natural explanations exist can help us to satisfy our desire for explanation, so we don't feel the need to invoke the supernatural (not that we should anyway).

Natural selection is a more established principle. So does atheism require a "belief" in this? Not really, though many atheists do consider natural selection to be a good theory. Still, a theory is only ever as good as the evidence that supports it, and there, in my opinion, it differs from a belief (though that depends on precisely how you define a belief). Natural selection happens to be supported by a mountain of evidence, hence its popularity. Nevertheless, an atheist position does not directly imply acceptance of any theory about anything, other than the fact that you can find no good reason to believe in God. You might simply say "I don't know about anything else" and leave it at that.

Human beings like to have explanations for things, but when we don't know it is far better to accept that we don't know than to say "it's supernatural!" and act as if that were an answer. Fortunately science has explained so much that there are now few gaps in our knowledge for God to fill. 200 years ago there were far more things which science could not explain. Consequently religion was more ubiquitous. The rationale behind it was no more sound then than it is now, but it was more convincing and thus more popular. But believing in God just because you don't understand something was never a good idea.

What this topic is, is a chance for theists to put forward what they consider to be unexplainable by any means other than "God did it", and for atheists and anyone else who fancies it to propose possible other explanations. This is not within the "religious debate" topic because belief or disbelief in God should not hinge on these things, for reasons already explained.

Please excuse my blathering on at length, but I feel it necessary to put the topic in context. Even if we have no explanation for anything, invoking the supernatural is irrational and flawed thinking. Ignorance is better than irrationality. It is important to stress that disbelief in God does not depend on having definitive explanations for all things.

Where to begin? Origins of the universe? Universal fine tuning? Origins of life? Aspects of human consciousness? I'd like a theist to kick things off but if no suggestions are forthcoming I'll go with the first of those...

[Guest]

I love how we can look at exactly the same information and draw completely different conclusions. Just goes to show the power of "prior probability" based on preexisting worldviews.

It would be, except for one minor detail; It isn't my conclusion but that of the astrophysicists studying the phenomena, and they until recently thought the same as you; that planetary systems were quite possibly rather rare. It was the Evidence that changed their minds. That's right; they examined the new emerging evidence and realised that they might be mistaken, so they altered their "worldview" accordingly! You should try it sometime, it is quite a humbling yet at the same time amazing and uplifting experience.

I haven't seen anything show up since last year, but there is at least one found planet with similar size and temperature to Earth, although it's 13 times closer to its "Sun," but it's a much wimpier star (a humble red dwarf).

As I said; much closer and larger - well this one is estimated at 1.5 times the size, but 5 times the mass. It is the mass (not diameter or whatever) that is important; that along with its proximity is what allows us to spot them. Yes our capabilities are improving day by day - it's all very exciting.

Reminds me of the Human genome project. It was said on it's conclusion that they should have started the project 2 years later, as the technology and skills had improved so much by then that it could have been completed much sooner That's funny because it was the experience gained from that project that brought us those new skills and the resulting speed.

By the way; new planets discovered this year? Here's one (first hit on Google search): New rocky planet found in constellation Leo

Of note: "has a mass five times that of our planet but is the smallest found to date. One full day on the new planet would be equivalent to three weeks on Earth." Read the article, there are a number of other points of interest as well. Note that it is the first to be discovered to the perturbations of another (previously discovered) planet (of the same star) - all others have been "seen" by the perturbations of the star (hence the need for significant mass and/or proximity). And that it offers new insights in how to discover more. Also how many planets have been discovered to date. There's a lot of great info in that short article!

I did misspeak about the sizes, that was how it was not too long ago. Gotta love when the science improves at great speed like that The sad thing is that I knew about a few of the newer smaller cases already, my mistake. Temperature however is irrelevant - It seems that you are implying that I am saying Earth-like planets are impossible to find, on the contrary; I am looking forward to the time when we get even closer. It was I, remember, who suggested that planetary systems might be common! No reason to presume that there aren't many similar in many respects to our own humble Pale Blue Dot (Gratuitous Carl Sagan reference )

In any case, I was merely responding to the argument that an infinite number of planets would make the origin of life likely, which doesn't resonate with me at all, since it trivializes the probability associated with life arising unguided from a naturally occurring combination of components that just happen to coalesce from cosmic shrapnel and get snagged in the gravitational field of a star, with an orbital path and planetary rotation that maintains hospitable temperatures, with an atmosphere that sufficiently reduces the harmful effects of solar radiation, and so on. That scientists get excited about the possibility of finding life on one of a few hundred planets they've discovered so far says a lot about the lack of perspective and wishful thinking that can develop within the community.

Well I never suggested "Infinite" did I? I hope not. It trivialises nothing - What this new and still emerging evidence is giving us is evidence of a decrease in the presumed/imagined difficulties and probabilities of life arising. The truth of the matter is, other factors are quite beyond us at present. The case of abiogenisis for example; at most we have one, and only one,example of this to go on. from a sample size of one we simply have no clue how probable it might be. But as the recent discovery of planets (which some theists throughout history have insisted that none exist but our own) show us, we should not assume that it is improbable,or assume anything at all on the matter.

The excitement of the scientists (often misquoted and sensationalised by the media it should be pointed out) is warranted, this is an exciting time in their chosen field.

However, regarding my statement that planets are "curiously uncommon," I was trying to counter the notion that planets similar in nature to Earth are to be found anywhere you look, but it wasn't a good choice of words since yes, given what we can presently observe, I would say it's likely that there are indeed a great number of planets, just not infinite; unless, that is, somebody can provide some pretty solid evidence why an expanding universe would be infinite. I'm not ruling it out, but it seems a rather extraordinary claim to me. It's a little too easy to trot out the word infinite as an explanation for things we can't explain.

Oh, I see see that the "infinite card" was not mine. It should be noted that he (octopuppy) did stipulate "as far as we know". The point being, I imagine, that we simply have no idea just how many there might be. Actually infinite, in this universe, I doubt it. The current scientific models suggest the universe is finite. But possibly "infinite" in the sense of "Far more that we could possibly ever imagine - Kind of a child's definition of infinite, but a worthwhile one as it implies a number on an unimaginable scale. People actually use "infinite" in that way all the time. What the planet discoveries hint at that there might well be (or have and will be over the lifetime of the universe) numerous planets that meet, the as yet not fully known, conditions required to produce life, and of them who knows how many have, do and will actually produce it? The possibilities are endless and exciting indeed! And it is also exciting to recognise that as the science has progressed the probabilities in favour of extraterrestrial and extrasolar seem to be always improving (never decreasing!) discovery by discovery!

Since we are on the subject, this seems the perfect time to introdue the famous -

Drake Equation

Check it out and play with it yourself on the linked page

[Guest]

Since we are on the subject, this seems the perfect time to introdue the famous -

Drake Equation

Check it out and play with it yourself on the linked page

That's pretty fun. According to my well-founded and reliable estimates, there are 264 civilizations attempting to communicate within our galaxy at this moment! Sweet.

Incidentally, I intended to respond to the flagellum topic tonight, but ended up doing about 2 hours of reading on it instead. I'll have to let it congeal and try again in a couple days.

[Guest]

That's pretty fun. According to my well-founded and reliable estimates, there are 264 civilizations attempting to communicate within our galaxy at this moment! Sweet.

It is a cool equation.

I don't know how you can say your estimates are well-founded - a few of them can be little more than a guess. We simply have no real idea. But no matter, the equation is the thing, as it says on that page; it's about the structure and the variables not the numbers, they will change as new evidence appears. The ones given as default are probably the best current guess - not a personal one, but based on the science and the people who specialise in it. Either way, by your own estimates over 250 communicating civilisations in this galaxy alone! (not "at the moment" that is not a part of the equation, and would be an extra variable, most likely resulting in far lower number) The interesting thing is seeing (and imagining) how the "best" guess result changes as our understanding of the universe slowly increases.

What would be really fascinating would be if the greatest minds in the relevant fields would jointly (as a team or by averaging their results) come up with their best guess on an annual (or whatever) basis. It would be of great interest to see how it shifted over time, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

I don't know how you can say your estimates are well-founded - a few of them can be little more than a guess.

Right. I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious.

[Guest]

Right. I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious.

Not really, but then my reply wasn't intended to be quite as serious as it read either I mainly said that though; Just in case, I wasn't sure how serious you were being (and you wouldn't believe how many ridiculous things I have heard out of the mouths (keyboards?) of deadly serious people (mainly cdesign proponentsists) I have come across in my time on the RicardDawkins.net forum

"Tone of voice" is such a tricky thing to pull of in text conversation isn't it, even with the aid of smilies.

[Guest]

Hi! I've been away for a bit, so I'm going back a bit in my response...

That's the logic for which the monkeys-typing-shakespeare response was born. If there's a finite chance of something, then given enough time, it's bound to happen? Simply not true. If I take a box full of parts for a radio, and shake it for a hundred years, is it likely that at some point I'll have a working radio? What about a thousand, million, trillion years? Of course that's an overly simplistic example, but it shows that the theory behind the "lottery" explanation is lacking.

How exactly does it show that? When dealing with extremely large and small quantities, and particularly with probabilities, it's easy to be misled by intuition. It's a much better idea to do the maths. Consider, what is the actual probability of a radio forming spontaneously from shaken parts within any given day? Let's give it a number P(D), quite a small number obviously.

The probability of it not happening in a day is P(D'), where P(D')=1-P(D).

The probability of forming the radio in a year is 1-(P(D')^365), and the probability of forming it in a century is 1-(P(D')^36500).

If P(D)>0, then P(D')<1, so (P(D')^365)<P(D') and (P(D')^36500)<(P(D')^365). In other words the probability of not forming the radio decreases as time goes on. In fact it decreases exponentially, approaching zero.

For example, say P=0.000001 (0.0001%). The probability of forming it in a year is about 0.000365 (0.0365%). In a century, 0.0358 (3.6%). In a thousand years, 0.306 (30.6%). In ten thousand, 0.974 (97.4%).

As the time increases the probability approaches 100%. Obviously the smaller the initial (one day) probability, the more time you need to make it likely, but no matter how small it is, if it is non-zero, all it takes is time to make it inevitable.

The only other case is that the probability is exactly zero, so the formation of the radio is impossible. Perhaps there is some impediment which prevents it from happening, or the shaking process itself cannot do the job.

Compare this to the formation of intelligent life. If we consider it to be an unlikely but possible event, then it has a probability which is non-zero, which increases with available time, and with the number of available planets which provide opportunities for it to happen.

You could use the "everything will eventually happen" explanation for anything you might want to explain. Isn't it possible that, given an infinite amount of time, a powerful intelligent being will be formed by cosmic forces?

What I'm saying is that if a thing is possible, and there are infinitely many chances for it to happen, then it is sure to happen. Not sure what you meant by that "intelligent being" example, but same principles apply. In an infinite universe all possible things can and will happen, even something as bizarre as the spontaneous creation of a lifeform by matter simply coming together by sheer chance, if that is possible. BUT if life can form by more probable means (such as evolution) the vast majority of instances of life will occur this way. So any given self-aware life form is likely to see improbable sets of events leading upto their existence, only insofar as those events are necessary for the existence of self-aware life. As far as I know, this is exactly what we see on earth.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what the basis is for presuming an infinite number of planets. Of course we don't have a solid answer to the "size of the universe" question, but the fact that it's expanding and started doing so 14.5 billion years ago would suggest that it's not realistic to assume an infinite number.

Whether the number of planets in the universe is infinite or just stupendously large is not a question I have the answer to. I have taken the possibility of infinite planets as a simple model to illustrate a point, though I acknowledge there are other possibilities. As to how realistic this is, the time taken for the universe to expand is not really the issue. You seem to have trouble with the notion of an infinite expanding universe, so let me have a stab at explaining. Imagine an infinite universe containing infinitely many galaxies spread out over space. Now imagine that at some time in the past it was half as big, so halve the distance between all the galaxies. How big was it then? Still infinite of course. You could pull everything in the universe as close together as you like and it would still be infinite until the distance between things became exactly zero (a singularity). Does that help?

Other possibilities:

Infinite space but only a finite region which contains matter? From what I know of physics there is every reason to think that this would not be so, and observations do not support it either. It is a simpler and more consistent model to propose that on a large scale (beyond our Hubble volume), space is filled with the same sort of stuff we see here.

Is space itself finite? It depends on the large scale geometry of space-time, and as far as I know, the jury's still out on that one. If so, then there would be finitely many planets, but we can still at least be reasonably confident that their number is mind-bogglingly huge.

The point I am making is this: If extremely unlikely events are required in order for the formation of intelligent life, then the occurrence of such extremely unlikely events in this instance (meaning life on earth) is not at all surprising given the huge number of planets on which this could have happened. Even the tiniest probabilities become virtual certainties when given a sufficient number of chances to happen. The Drake Equation allows you to sample the way in which a single galaxy provides more than ample opportunities for extremely unlikely convergences of events. In order to require divine intervention, life needs to be more than just unlikely. It needs to be impossible.

[Guest]

What I'm saying is that if a thing is possible, and there are infinitely many chances for it to happen, then it is sure to happen.

I guess that's the core of our differing opinions, isn't it? What differentiates highly improbable from impossible? We discussed the topic a bit in your Heart of Gold post a while back, but we weren't dealing directly with the application of the principle, so the banter stayed mostly in the hypothetical realm. Now we can see how one's interpretation of the applied math might relate to the level of acceptability he attaches to different worldviews. However, I think your oversimplification has led you astray.

You assert that our intuition is not a reliable guide when it comes to evaluating large numbers, and I basically agree with that, but I would also suggest that it's unreasonable to ignore your intuition when trying to build a mathematical model describing the probability of an event. For example, our intuition tells us that no matter how long we shake the box with radio parts, we're not going to have a working radio. But you think that there must be a finite number associated with the probability of all of the components ending up in just the right spots necessary to allow the radio to work. In other words, you believe the suggested outcome must be possible. But why should that be?

If you really think about the parts of a radio, the forces required to put them together simply cannot be generated by shaking them in a box. How do screws get screwed in? How do you attach solder joints for electrical connections? And when you consider the specific sequences necessary (part A joined to part B to make part C, then part C attached to part D, etc.), it becomes even more absurd. We have a word for that: impossible. Of course, if that's not convincing, we can always take the illustration further. What if you grind up all the components into a powder, and then shake them in the box. How long before you have a working radio? You suggest that we can attach a finite probability to every event necessary to arrive at a working radio, and perhaps that's true, but there has to be a point where you recognize that the probability is sooo small that we call it impossible, and conclude that no amount of time, not even an infinite amount of time, is going to produce the outcome in question. What else could we possibly mean by the word impossible?

In order to require divine intervention, life needs to be more than just unlikely. It needs to be impossible.

Yes, by arguing that it's highly improbable, at every step of the way, I'm essentially arguing that it's impossible. If it weren't true that extreme improbability could be equated with impossibility, then nothing would be impossible, but we intuitively know that stance has little practical value (it reminds me of Zeno's Paradox), and I see no reason to believe otherwise. You seem to be ok with the idea that no matter how improbable intelligent life is, it must be inevitable, because there's a finite probability associated with it happening. I don't believe that, so I'm afraid you'll have to prove it to me.

[Guest]

We discussed the topic a bit in your Heart of Gold post a while back, but we weren't dealing directly with the application of the principle, so the banter stayed mostly in the hypothetical realm.

Um, after I actually reviewed the thread, that's not where the discussion I was thinking about occurred, but that is where you raised the same questions. The ever-so-slightly related topic was Destiny vs Free Will. After a quick review, I realize there's still more to be probed on that one; it's just hard to make time. I hope Martini doesn't suddenly decide to lock the thread for some inexplicable reason, accompanied by a smug remark. Not that he'd do such a thing. <_<

[unreality]

hey guys! I haven't taken part in any of these deep metaphysicalalityavalaboriciousness discussions in a while, so I'd thought I'd pitch in when i saw Duh Puck's last post

1) as I predicted (not sure if I actually posted said prediction), this topic swiftly became another religious debate ;D which is fine if the OP and all involved are fine with it

2) responding to Duh Puck:

I think you misunderstood octopuppy's post a little. He never said the radio thing was possible. Clearly it's impossible, due to how a radio would need to be fit together and what a shaking motion can do. Obviously you can't shake a walnut in a box and get a shiny green telephone when you open it again. etc. He never said "everything is possible".

As the time increases the probability approaches 100%. Obviously the smaller the initial (one day) probability, the more time you need to make it likely, but no matter how small it is, if it is non-zero, all it takes is time to make it inevitable.

this is a generalization

The only other case is that the probability is exactly zero, so the formation of the radio is impossible. Perhaps there is some impediment which prevents it from happening, or the shaking process itself cannot do the job.

this is referring specifically to the radio

Compare this to the formation of intelligent life. If we consider it to be an unlikely but possible event, then it has a probability which is non-zero, which increases with available time, and with the number of available planets which provide opportunities for it to happen.

so it comes down to one question: Is the formation of intelligent life POSSIBLE without divine intervention? If we come to the consented conclusion that it's impossible, then we can agree that divine intervention must have occured. But then that leads on other metaphorical questions, ie, "God is intelligent life, and if we have determined that intelligent life is only possible with divine intervention, another being, higher than God, created God" etc. Anyway, if we decided that the formation of life is indeed possible without divine intervention, then we can assume (a) there is no god, it happened that way, or (b) there is a god, but it still happened that way, by chance, or © there is a god, and it COULD'VE happened that as it's POSSIBLE to happen that way, but the "easier path" was for the god to create it before it could happen

So either way, nothing is proved, unless we can prove that life cannot arise without divine intervention- in which case we arrive at an infinite ladder of gods, which then must be accepted by the believer, or the believer must disassociate "god" with "intelligent life" to arrive at a separate type of creation for a god.

And so either case can work both ways:

(1) divine intervention required for existence of life = divine intervention required for existence of god

(2) life can arise on its own = god can arise on its own

so why are we even discussing this? lol

and Duh Puck has already alluded to this, I think:

I guess that's the core of our differing opinions, isn't it? What differentiates highly improbable from impossible?

anyway, this isn't an arguement against Duh Puck, or octopuppy, or what they are saying. I'm just pointing out the fluidity of either answer ;D

[Guest]

1) as I predicted (not sure if I actually posted said prediction), this topic swiftly became another religious debate ;D which is fine if the OP and all involved are fine with it

Of course he's fine with it; he's an active participant.

I think you misunderstood octopuppy's post a little. He never said the radio thing was possible. Clearly it's impossible, due to how a radio would need to be fit together and what a shaking motion can do.

You are quite right that I didn't fully absorb his response, somehow skipping over the line where he noted that the probability could in fact be zero. I suppose my brain was in adversarial mode because his preceding argument seemed to be saying the exact opposite, that we could attach a finite probability to the radio's construction and therefore, voila!, it is certain to happen given enough time. I reacted too quickly because I think that this is the type of reasoning that underlies many theories attempting to explain the origin of life, and I feel it's important to understand the danger of over-generalizing the inevitability of something simply because you think you can attach a finite probability to its occurrence. It's far too easy to say "it's conceivable that event X could happen, and therefore, given enough time, it will." That's just bad logic, because your conception of how it might happen will not necessarily take into account all the relevant factors (like screws and solder joints), some of which could render the event impossible.

If we come to the consented conclusion that it's impossible, then we can agree that divine intervention must have occurred. But then that leads on other metaphorical questions, ie, "God is intelligent life, and if we have determined that intelligent life is only possible with divine intervention, another being, higher than God, created God" etc.

This always seems to be the "ace in the hole" for atheists, doesn't it? If we actually concluded that it is truly impossible for life to arise without guidance, does it then make sense to also conclude: "Well, there must not be any explanation at all, because we've also just proven that there can't be an intelligent designer"? That's just a logical box that you created for yourself; of course there would still have to be an explanation. I've pointed out before that the "designer-needs-a-designer" reasoning does not hold if there is in fact a First Cause, as suggested by the cosmological argument. The point is that if there is a First Cause, then there is an exception to the rule of contingent entities (i.e., those which have a cause), and this postulated entity would therefore not require a designer, since it didn't have a cause. Any reasoning leading to the conclusion that the unguided generation of life is impossible would obviously apply only to contingent entities, and thus the argument that "the complexity of life requires an intelligent designer" would not also require that the designer be designed; how could this entity be designed if it didn't have a beginning?

The inevitable response is that 1) there's no evidence whatsoever to accept the cosmological argument, 2) the very notion of non-contingent beings has no scientific basis at all, and 3) even if there was a First Cause, there's no reason to believe it to be an intelligent being, a "God". All true. I agree that on its own, the argument for First Cause does not suffice as evidence or proof of the existence of God. However, it serves as an important part of a larger explanation for why things are the way they are. The skeptic tries to take each part of the creationist's argument and show that it doesn't stand on its own, and in this he generally succeeds, but I believe it's a more rational approach to look at all the evidence together and see which combination of explanations makes the most sense. The side effect of considering everything together is that it makes the selected position harder to falsify, but when the atheist claims to have no position other than a lack of belief, he makes his stance equally unassailable. We've already established that neither side is going to prove their position, but one of my goals to this point has been to show merely that the theist has a rational basis for his belief.

Quite simply, in my opinion, all the information taken as a whole (and that includes far more than just the scientific evidence we're discussing) is better explained by an intelligent first cause than it is by blind forces. If I attempt to present reasons for this belief, the skeptic requires that any individual arguments are airtight and irrefutable before they can be considered as evidence for the "extraordinary claim" of an intelligent designer, and no single piece of information or line of reasoning seems to fit that bill, and thus the skeptic is contented not having any belief. That's fine, but I reject the viewpoint that there's no rational basis for the conclusions I've drawn. I admit that it gets under my skin a bit when those with the opposing view imply that I'm gullible or weak-minded to accept a belief which they like to compare to unicorns, fairies, and spaghetti monsters. If you can't yet see the difference, if you can't grasp that there's legitimate reason to consider an intelligent first cause as an explanation for the beginning of the universe, the apparent "design" in natural things, the marvel of the human mind, etc., etc., then I really am wasting my breath. I don't expect others to be convinced, but I do expect them to realize that their position is not the sole logical view of the universe.

Sorry for the rant. I wanted to package these thoughts a little better and raise them only after following up on the bacterial flagellum and AD's post arguing against First Cause, but it's late, and I guess I've grown steadily more tired of the debate. I suppose Unreality's comments hit a nerve, since he brings up the same old frustrating argument yet again, which tells me that my pages and pages of discussion have had little impact. Cest la vie. In any case, I guess I needed to vent a bit, but I'm not ditching the discussion. I did an awful lot of reading on the flagellum, and I'd still like to explain why I find the prevailing scientific opinion to be unsatisfactory. AD has his suspicions. We'll see if he's right. In the meantime, please feel free to pick my rant apart. Maybe I'm missing something really huge.

[Guest]

Of course we're in religious territory here, but the whole point of this topic is to allow us to get past that whole First Cause discussion and get into something more interesting (without detracting from the very valid discussions on that topic in "religious debate"). If anybody wants to thrash that out any more, here is not the place. Personally I think it's been done to death anyway.

Alas I have nothing to offer on the subject of the bacterial flagellum, but DP's comments on probability call for an answer:

I guess that's the core of our differing opinions, isn't it? What differentiates highly improbable from impossible? We discussed the topic a bit in your Heart of Gold post a while back, but we weren't dealing directly with the application of the principle, so the banter stayed mostly in the hypothetical realm...

...You seem to be ok with the idea that no matter how improbable intelligent life is, it must be inevitable, because there's a finite probability associated with it happening. I don't believe that, so I'm afraid you'll have to prove it to me.

I appreciate that unreality has partly answered this in that he pointed out that I had also considered the "impossible" case. The "Heart of Gold" topic was intended as a discussion of the boundary between the improbable and impossible, the curious area of the "infinitely improbable" (though it turned out to be a conversational dead-end). DP is right that it does crop up here, though incidentally. If there are an infinite number of chances for a possible (probability>0) event to occur, it is possible that it would never occur, though infinitely improbable (like rolling a die infinitely many times and never rolling a 6). I haven't pointed that out, for the sake of clarity and it doesn't really change much, but that's why I used the slightly vague term "sure to happen". However, if it could be demonstrated that the formation of life was infinitely improbable this would be a stronger argument for theism, since it reduces the probability of life forming by chance in an infinite universe from a virtual certainty to merely indeterminate (but see below for problem with that). However, "highly improbable" is not an equivalent state. The whole point of my previous post is to show that even the smallest non-zero probabilities grow into certainties given enough chances to happen. In an infinite universe (infinite planets) you have but 3 cases to consider:

1) Life on any given planet is POSSIBLE (probability > 0, but as small as you like). Life in the universe is CERTAIN (probability=1).

2) Life on any given planet is INFINITELY IMPROBABLE. Probability of life in the universe is INDETERMINATE.

3) Life on any given planet is IMPOSSIBLE. GOD did it!

The second case is there for completeness though I'm pretty sure the Heisenberg uncertainty principle renders it meaningless.

So let's consider the first and last cases...

You suggest that we can attach a finite probability to every event necessary to arrive at a working radio, and perhaps that's true, but there has to be a point where you recognize that the probability is sooo small that we call it impossible, and conclude that no amount of time, not even an infinite amount of time, is going to produce the outcome in question. What else could we possibly mean by the word impossible?

What you're implying is that a large series of possibilities when combined, become impossible, or to put it another way, that a series of non-zero values could be multiplied together to equal zero. Not true. In order for the formation of the radio to be impossible, there needs to be one (just one!) impossible event required for its construction. In the absence of that, it remains possible. Which is why we keep getting back to specifics in this discussion. To look at the "bigger picture" and say "there are no specific impossibilities involved in the formation of life but the whole thing just seems like too much of a coincidence to be possible" is to make the same error. You are confusing large, but finite, improbability with impossibility. And the distinction matters a lot here.

[unreality]

(snip)

I suppose Unreality's comments hit a nerve, since he brings up the same old frustrating argument yet again, which tells me that my pages and pages of discussion have had little impact.

(snip)

Maybe I'm missing something really huge.

You are. Read my post again... I was supporting both sides, and un-supporting both sides, showing how the arguement works both ways in either case. I wasn't picking a side in that post, even though you know I'm an atheist and stuff, that specific post was unbiased

[Guest]

On consideration I have a little more to add to my previous remarks. I suspect DP may find my position a little frustrating since the anthropic principle seems like a catch-all which leaves a theist having to prove self-aware life to be impossible in order to have a valid argument. However, there are other lines of attack, in theory at least. The anthropic principle explains apparently unlikely convergences of events, but only insofar as they are necessary for self-aware life to exist.

For example, what if the process of evolution was impossible, and the only scientific explanation of species is that they just happen to be there independently of each other, by some extremely unlikely chance? If self-aware life had no other mechanism by which it could exist, then the anthropic principle might be invoked to explain how something so incredibly unlikely could come about. BUT it would not explain the abundance of other species which also existed against all the odds, since these would not all be necessary in order for us to exist, and so it would be a fundamentally flawed explanation. It would be possible for self-aware life to exist in simpler and more likely scenarios, so the unlikeliness of our situation would still require explanation.

Of course that particular line of attack doesn't work because the existence of other species is part of the process that brought about humankind. But it illustrates that the anthropic principle isnt a get-out-of-jail-free card for any situation.

[Guest]

So, what I'm wondering and honestly requesting the knowledge of knowing is what do you believe in? Evolution, or just that we are here because we're here? Also another troubling question... Do you have a fear of death? Can you imagine life being over? The inability to breath, think, create, illaborate?

Faith in God is very wise because you never lose sight of the world. Pain hurts for all of humanity... Do you ever wonder why? Do you ever think that it would be the most likely thing for God to be here.

I actually found the "Thank God I'm an atheist comment to be honestly amusing.

It's backwards and twisted and I liked it.

Anyway, faith is a part of every human body as well, and how can you not believe in spirituality when that very spirit is the one causing you to protest? Tell me.

[Guest]

You are. Read my post again... I was supporting both sides, and un-supporting both sides, showing how the arguement works both ways in either case. I wasn't picking a side in that post, even though you know I'm an atheist and stuff, that specific post was unbiased

My battery's about to die so I'll try to get this out quick ...

Sorry for overreacting. I know you were trying to be even-handed and unbiased in your post, but your argument "un-supporting" the theist side (the ladder of gods) just doesn't work for me, but that wasn't sufficient reason to vent. In any case, I'll return to the spirit of the thread's first post and deal with the details in question rather than the belaboring the impossible/improbable topic here. Lately I've just been too busy and too tired to give my posts the time and energy needed to be worthwhile. I'll get back in form soon enough, hopefully.

[Guest]

So, what I'm wondering and honestly requesting the knowledge of knowing is what do you believe in? Evolution, or just that we are here because we're here? Also another troubling question... Do you have a fear of death? Can you imagine life being over? The inability to breath, think, create, illaborate?

Faith in God is very wise because you never lose sight of the world. Pain hurts for all of humanity... Do you ever wonder why? Do you ever think that it would be the most likely thing for God to be here.

I actually found the "Thank God I'm an atheist comment to be honestly amusing.

It's backwards and twisted and I liked it.

Anyway, faith is a part of every human body as well, and how can you not believe in spirituality when that very spirit is the one causing you to protest? Tell me.

Thanks for your interest! I used "what if evolution was impossible" as a hypothetical case to illustrate that the anthropic principle could not be used to explain absolutely anything. I suspect DP thinks it's too much of a trump card to be worthy of debate, though I feel there could be more to discuss (still, if it's not his area of interest I can't force the matter). Personally I think that evolution is an elegant theory, and well supported by huge amounts of evidence, and there is no reason I know of to doubt it. Notice I shy away from saying "I believe in evolution". I wouldn't want anyone to think it was a matter of faith.

As for the rest of what you've asked, it goes better in the religious debate topic (and is a good excuse to boost it up the list again - there's too much good stuff there to let it vanish into obscurity just yet ). Good questions BTW, I enjoyed answering them: Here you go

[Guest]

"1) If "I" am not physical, what am I? Supernatural? Spiritual? These terms are used as firewalls to keep rational thinking out. If spirits exist, they exist. Whatever "realm" they exist in is clearly connected to our own (or else it would be irrelevant to us), and we can therefore interact with it. If we can interact, we can study, test, understand. Behaviour of things in the spirit world must follow some general laws or principles, otherwise it would be completely random and without structure. We may find that the spirit world does not obey the laws of physics as we know them, so we may have to expand our understanding of physics to include the spiritual. So why has this important work not been undertaken? It's not for lack of trying, it's just that we cannot find any shred of evidence that the spirit world exists, other than our tendency to believe it does. Terms like "supernatural" and "spiritual" only refer to that which we may believe, but have no evidence for. If evidence existed, we could use it to expand our knowledge and expand our concept of the "natural", or "physical" to include these other things.

2) I'd be basing my belief on a feeling, which may be deceptive. The way we perceive the world is necessarily simplified. We cannot perceive all things exactly as they are, and have to use mental short-cuts to categorise things and process information more efficiently. This is functional in everyday situations, but sometimes it can lead us to incorrect conclusions. If a person was entirely physical, they would still require a sense of self in order to function and think as we do. It is useful to consider a "person" as a non-physical entity, with many attributes that you would not normally ascribe to physical objects, such as intent, personality, opinions, feelings, rights, and so on. We perceive ourselves and others in different ways from how we perceive objects, so we have an inbuilt tendency to feel that we do not belong in the same class of things. Hence, we feel that we are "beyond" the physical world."

Oh, no. Lol. You shouldn't base belief on feeling. That's never good. Feelings are human. The thing is, God existing would not make him supernatural at all. We being there already created by him... we're actually pretty dumb, any way you look at it really. We have no comprehention of forever and either way you put your beliefs, forever happens. Memories, history, and things that harness beginnings are on going for later generations. Things go on in a chain to us, and the issue that we have is we don't open our minds to possibilities of what really is or what could be. Believe in God is not the same as a religion. People sometimes pray to the God they believe doesn't exist. They don't know why, it just gives them hope.

I can tell that on the internet, no one is going to convince anyone of anything...

The fact is in this world there are more atheists than anyone in other religions. What happens is that people actually look at it that way. People are all of the same species, and everything on this earth has the same senses. Don't you ever wonder why that is? Comprehending this solves nothing, because we both understand the theory way of life. You come up with a theory that avoids mentioning God existing at all... there always seems to be ways around it.

[Guest]

When quoting another poster, use quote tags so everyone is aware that the words aren't your own and whose words they are.

[Guest]

The fact is in this world there are more atheists than anyone in other religions. What happens is that people actually look at it that way. People are all of the same species, and everything on this earth has the same senses. Don't you ever wonder why that is? Comprehending this solves nothing, because we both understand the theory way of life. You come up with a theory that avoids mentioning God existing at all... there always seems to be ways around it.

Not sure what you're really asking here. We are a product of evolution, we are a species. What's the mystery?

I can tell that on the internet, no one is going to convince anyone of anything...

You're dead right about that, especially where beliefs are at stake. However, the process of debating has other uses. It helps you to organise your own ideas, plus I keep picking up little gems of information along the way. I post this stuff about religion because you never know if you might influence someone to question the logic of faith-based belief or help them to understand the mechanisms by which religion keeps a grip on the mind. But I rarely expect to influence the person I'm addressing.

[Guest]

You're dead right about that, especially where beliefs are at stake. However, the process of debating has other uses. It helps you to organise your own ideas, plus I keep picking up little gems of information along the way. I post this stuff about religion because you never know if you might influence someone to question the logic of faith-based belief or help them to understand the mechanisms by which religion keeps a grip on the mind. But I rarely expect to influence the person I'm addressing.

Good speech octopuppy!

Question yourself, put it out there for debate, let others ponder on your thoughts and let them bounce around, you can walk away from the well of wisdom with a bucket full, a drop or nothing - but at least have a go at quenching your thirst.

Actually better than the shopping basket theory, take what you want from the shelf of the store of knowledge/philosophy, or take what you need, but to come out empty handed has been a waste of time.