The Atheist's Riddle

[touchingcloth]

natural selection isn't some learned being that is sifting and sorting individual phenotypes, it's just the plain (and observed and necessary) fact that some individuals and their associated genes survive more than others. It's about as intelligent as a sieve, but has the same ability to sort.

Yeah, but who engineered the Natural Selection Sieve?

FL

No one? Individuals aren't being selected by some individual, they are surviving better because their genes mean that their phenotype works better in their environment.

[robyn hill]

But why would a non intelligent process,in it's earliest stages, survive? Why not die instead? Wouldn't that be just as likely?

[DannyM]

If you're not crying proof or saying that the inference is set in stone, then that points to the fact that your position isn't based purely on logic. If you said that all codes we know are made by intelligence, therefore all codes we encounter must also be, then I'd agree if you said this was a reasonable, or a likely assumption. The fact that we don't ultimately know the origins of organic codes, coupled with the fact that they are only really related to human codes via analogy, is why I'm deeply sceptical of you presenting this as a purely a logical position.

I wouldn't say I'm agnostic as to the origin of DNA/RNA, but that all depends on your definition of agnosticism (and that's a whole different topic!). However I am totally non-committal as to laying my chips on what its origins are.

Well it seems to me you are in agreement with me, TC. I am becoming a little bewildered at your constant objections to the logical inference based on all known information/codes, and perhaps we are speaking a different tongue; although I have to say that my tongue is of the post-Norman variety. However, we must discuss this and clear up the confusion as, aside from this, we could almost be on the same page.

Your agnosticism is defined by your not leaping to any solid position based on the information available. This is highly rational and I for one am applauding your stance, not knocking it. I would add, though, that one cannot remain an agnostic his whole life; you might just miss the boat...

[DannyM]

But why would a non intelligent process,in it's earliest stages, survive? Why not die instead? Wouldn't that be just as likely?

Indeed, Robyn: why? I hope you don't expect too much by way of explanation to this very good question. I guess the best the sceptic will offer you is that we are, umm, very lucky. All these blind, arbitrary, seemingly designed but of course (by impression) only pseudo-designed processes have led to the remarkable state of affairs we find ourselves in.

[touchingcloth]

If you're not crying proof or saying that the inference is set in stone, then that points to the fact that your position isn't based purely on logic. If you said that all codes we know are made by intelligence, therefore all codes we encounter must also be, then I'd agree if you said this was a reasonable, or a likely assumption. The fact that we don't ultimately know the origins of organic codes, coupled with the fact that they are only really related to human codes via analogy, is why I'm deeply sceptical of you presenting this as a purely a logical position.

I wouldn't say I'm agnostic as to the origin of DNA/RNA, but that all depends on your definition of agnosticism (and that's a whole different topic!). However I am totally non-committal as to laying my chips on what its origins are.

Well it seems to me you are in agreement with me, TC. I am becoming a little bewildered at your constant objections to the logical inference based on all known information/codes, and perhaps we are speaking a different tongue; although I have to say that my tongue is of the post-Norman variety. However, we must discuss this and clear up the confusion as, aside from this, we could almost be on the same page.

Your agnosticism is defined by your not leaping to any solid position based on the information available. This is highly rational and I for one am applauding your stance, not knocking it. I would add, though, that one cannot remain an agnostic his whole life; you might just miss the boat...

I think the source of confusion is that I was taking your use of terms like inference to mean the same as they do in formal logic...

[DannyM]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

Gödel's Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century.

[hatsoff]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

Gödel's Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century.

As a mathematician myself, I can assure you that the above blog is absolute nonsense.

[Canuckster1127]

It's always a tenuous thing to attempt to take principles from one field like mathematics and then apply them in another field. Attempting to take something from mathematics, a hard science, and then applying it to philisophy or sociologym which are soft sciences, is not really any more valid than what we as creationists and believers complain about (rightly so in my opinion) with regard to how some in the scientific community take the science of evolution and extrapolate it out into philsophy, sociology etc.

Analogies are helpful things. I looked at the article offered with regard to Godel's incompleteness theorem and I didn't find it convincing internally although I am sympathetic to the aim it had.

I've seen similar things done with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I'm not saying that analogies like this have no value. However, attempting to extrapolate from one field to another in this manner and then attempting to draw absolutes that are unproven or unprovable in another, in the long run to my way of seeing things, does more harm than good.

[DannyM]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

Gödel's Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century.

As a mathematician myself, I can assure you that the above blog is absolute nonsense.

Go and tell Perrty Marshall precisely that. He'd love to talk to you. It's funny, you know, because there are mathematicians on the blog who completely agree with Marshall. Let me know your username on the blog so I can follow your progress, Hatsoff - will you do that? If you do, be preparted for Marshall, as he has seen off countless opponents. Good luck.

[hatsoff]

there are mathematicians on the blog who completely agree with Marshall.

Agree in what way? That God exists? Well, sure. But no responsible mathematician would agree that, for instance, Euclid's five postulates are "necessary," or that Godel's incompleteness theorem states that "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle---something you have to assume but cannot prove."

Go and tell Perrty Marshall precisely that.

Let me know your username on the blog so I can follow your progress, Hatsoff - will you do that?

Maybe. If I do, I'll let you know.

[DannyM]

there are mathematicians on the blog who completely agree with Marshall.

Agree in what way? That God exists? Well, sure. But no responsible mathematician would agree that, for instance, Euclid's five postulates are "necessary," or that Godel's incompleteness theorem states that "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle---something you have to assume but cannot prove."

Go and tell Perrty Marshall precisely that.

Let me know your username on the blog so I can follow your progress, Hatsoff - will you do that?

Maybe. If I do, I'll let you know.

You are probably have a skewed understanding of what constitutes a proof. Like I said, go to Marshall's blog, register and talk to him. If you can show him wrong, then I, being open to all enquiry, would love to be educated even further.

[hatsoff]

You are probably have a skewed understanding of what constitutes a proof. Like I said, go to Marshall's blog, register and talk to him. If you can show him wrong, then I, being open to all enquiry, would love to be educated even further.

Why do you need his approval, especially in a field in which I am trained and he is apparently not? I can only assure you that I have a very exact understanding of what constitutes a proof in math.

You claim that other mathematicians side with him. I asked you before, in what respect? Who are these people, anyway? Just bloggers who like myself are professed mathematicians? If so, then can you please link me up, and I will gladly read their comments?

[DannyM]

You are probably have a skewed understanding of what constitutes a proof. Like I said, go to Marshall's blog, register and talk to him. If you can show him wrong, then I, being open to all enquiry, would love to be educated even further.

Why do you need his approval, especially in a field in which I am trained and he is apparently not? I can only assure you that I have a very exact understanding of what constitutes a proof in math.

You claim that other mathematicians side with him. I asked you before, in what respect? Who are these people, anyway? Just bloggers who like myself are professed mathematicians? If so, then can you please link me up, and I will gladly read their comments?

Like I said, go to the blog, sign up and go to all the threads and digest what Marshall is saying, and then use your wonderful skill to show him how he is wrong. He puts forward a number of challenging points and is particularly the old DNA/CODE thing. There are a number of self-confessed mathematicians over there and most agree with Marshall's position. The universe was caused. It requires a causer. It also requires this causer to be the uncaused first cause. Marshall here is essentially arguing just this. What's all this about me "linking you up" with these debaters? Do you mean you want me to arrange a little meet? Get yourself over there and give it to Marshall, he's much better at this stuff than me. Or if you want to talk about the multi-verse theory then fire away. Just fire away with whatever you want. I've been giving links to Marshall, starting with his "Atheist's Riddle." All I can gather from your offerings thus far is that you are a mathematician, you believe in an infinite stroke multi-universes, and that's about it. I'm kind of waiting to feel something from you, but am a little lost so far. But I'm an eternal optomist...

[hatsoff]

Like I said, go to the blog, sign up and go to all the threads and digest what Marshall is saying, and then use your wonderful skill to show him how he is wrong.

I'm not the least bit interested in doing that. I'm not out to demonstrate my "wonderful skill" to anyone. I'm trying to have fun on a message board, and that's all.

Really, I don't understand why you've placed such great importance on Mr. Marshall's blog. Don't you want to discuss these things yourself? I mean, I can understand if you doubt my own qualifications. After all, I'm just some guy on a message board. I could claim to be anything. But what makes Mr. Marshall qualified? Why do you care so much about his opinion?

There are a number of self-confessed mathematicians over there and most agree with Marshall's position.

I get the impression that you don't really read my posts, because I have repeatedly asked without success for clarification on this point. Who are the mathematicians? What did they say? Etc.

What's all this about me "linking you up" with these debaters? Do you mean you want me to arrange a little meet?

No, I mean an html link. A url. In other words, please support your claim that mathematicians agree with Mr. Marshall.

All I can gather from your offerings thus far is that you are a mathematician,

Correct so far...

you believe in an infinite stroke multi-universes,

..but that's not true at all. I do not know whether or not there are other universes besides this one.

and that's about it. I'm kind of waiting to feel something from you, but am a little lost so far. But I'm an eternal optomist...

I'm just here to have a good time discussing the supposed evidence for the existence of God, which I invariably find lacking, and yet which impress terribly apologists.

[DannyM]

Like I said, go to the blog, sign up and go to all the threads and digest what Marshall is saying, and then use your wonderful skill to show him how he is wrong.

I'm not the least bit interested in doing that. I'm not out to demonstrate my "wonderful skill" to anyone. I'm trying to have fun on a message board, and that's all.

Really, I don't understand why you've placed such great importance on Mr. Marshall's blog. Don't you want to discuss these things yourself? I mean, I can understand if you doubt my own qualifications. After all, I'm just some guy on a message board. I could claim to be anything. But what makes Mr. Marshall qualified? Why do you care so much about his opinion?

There are a number of self-confessed mathematicians over there and most agree with Marshall's position.

I get the impression that you don't really read my posts, because I have repeatedly asked without success for clarification on this point. Who are the mathematicians? What did they say? Etc.

What's all this about me "linking you up" with these debaters? Do you mean you want me to arrange a little meet?

No, I mean an html link. A url. In other words, please support your claim that mathematicians agree with Mr. Marshall.

All I can gather from your offerings thus far is that you are a mathematician,

Correct so far...

you believe in an infinite stroke multi-universes,

..but that's not true at all. I do not know whether or not there are other universes besides this one.

and that's about it. I'm kind of waiting to feel something from you, but am a little lost so far. But I'm an eternal optomist...

I'm just here to have a good time discussing the supposed evidence for the existence of God, which I invariably find lacking, and yet which impress terribly apologists.

Look, I mean no offence but I find you a little boring. This thread is a nod to Perry Marshall's work, that's all. If you do not like it then great! You have said so. Yet you're a bit empty on presenting an argument. I still haven't had an explanation from you for your assertion that it was "highly unlikely" that God exists. On what basis, what empirical tests were conducted etc. I asked if is this was just based on your own philosophy...? Now, personally speaking, unless you can become interesting to me and give me some thing, just a bone to chew at least, then I guess I'll have to just carry on having fun exchanging nonsense to each other.