Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

Ok? But that essentially isn't guessing about the unknown and never really having anything to back it up. Using this metaphysics sounds like a 2 way street.
But oh well i guess it is good mental exercise.

Hope you see the point.

no no i do see.

saying otherwise would contradict what he means. Saying he doesn't act abitrary implies that there is something objective that acts independant of god.He wants us to choose yet he has no sense of choice of his own?

I think the error you are making here is trying to ascribe human qualities to an eternal, transcendent being. For example, choice. And that is to not say God does not chose, just not in the ways in which we are limited or constrained. But you have yet to show how that is arbitrary. Saying it is arbitrary does not make it so. Can you back up this claim?

More so it is personification of cells exchanged dna(information) and giving instructions on how to make cells.

Giving instructions? Let's think about that for a moment. This whole line of thought presumes what it attempts to deny. This is the fallacy of reification.

2.That can't be adressed either because i don't know if it was intetionally caused or happend naturally.

Just be honest and look at the evidence. How many observable evidences do we have of it happening naturally? None.
How many observable evidences by a mind? Potentially millions. We KNOW how information is generated. By a mind. People write computer programs all the time. In this you attempt to dumb down what we DO KNOW about DNA.

I think the error you are making here is trying to ascribe human qualities to an eternal, transcendent being.

And religion doesn't do that too?

just not in the ways in which we are limited or constrained

What does that mean? Prove it.

But you have yet to show how that is arbitrary

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

If he has free will he falls under this. If he doesn't fall under this than he is just a cosmological robot.

How many observable evidences by a mind?

Observable evidence of minds creating universes? none

We KNOW how information is generated. By a mind.

I already told you being information is not synonymous to being created by a mind. It is just the exchange of know-how.
As one pretty little lady put it "information is something used to increase knowledge".
As i said, even if it were all over the dictionary that information can only come from a mind, that definition would be baseless.

This whole line of thought presumes what it attempts to deny.

What? What iam denying is that information is only the product of a mind. There isn't an presuming of that.

People write computer programs all the time

Yes.... and? People don't write programs for how to create reality.

How many observable evidences do we have of it happening naturally?

If i were to use something on par with that example you had then it would go something like this
"We see natural events happen all the time"

And religion doesn't do that too?

"A" Religion. Of course religions do. Are you addressing religion in general or the specifics of Judeo/Christian monotheism?

There is a difference between anthropomorphism and ascribing as in you are doing.

What does that mean? Prove it.

The Judeo Christian God is not constrained by lacking anything. Why would I have to prove something as obvious as saying God isn't arbitrary. Oh wait, you are using a different definition of arbitrary.

If you are using that definition of arbitrary, then I don't really have a problem. The more common usage on this board would fall under this definition
Arbitrary: 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle:

Observable evidence of minds creating universes?

Let's not move the goal post. That isn't the question. The question is the source of information. Stick to the question. I would assume you consider yourself a reasonable person.

I already told you being information is not synonymous to being created by a mind. It is just the exchange of know-how.

Huh? Give me an example?

What iam denying is that information is only the product of a mind.

Can you give an example of information that was initially generated without a mind?

"We see natural events happen all the time"

We see natural events of minds generating information.

There is a difference between anthropomorphism and ascribing as in you are doing.

which is?
c'mon don't leave me hangin'

If you are using that definition of arbitrary, then I don't really have a problem.

Let's not move the goal post.

I changed goals posts as you say because you did give an answer to the question. But you used an erroneous example to demonstrate it.

Huh? Give me an example?

Nature. And by that i mean, a dude walking out and learning about... plants or something. The plants have something to teach him.

But information is usually a man made concept, such as the examples you gave earlier. That is man made information.

There is a difference between anthropomorphism and ascribing as in you are doing.

which is?
c'mon don't leave me hangin'

If you are using that definition of arbitrary, then I don't really have a problem.

Let's not move the goal post.

I changed goals posts as you say because you did give an answer to the question. But you used an erroneous example to demonstrate it.

Huh? Give me an example?

Nature. And by that i mean, a dude walking out and learning about... plants or something. The plants have something to teach him.

But information is usually a man made concept, such as the examples you gave earlier. That is man made information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag-7ApmBo1E

Don't mean to be lazy

Essentially it is a code HUMANS created to better understand genes. A code among scientists/biologists.

sailornaruto39 wrote:Essentially it is a code HUMANS created to better understand genes. A code among scientists/biologists.

Oh Man

DannyM wrote:

sailornaruto39 wrote:Essentially it is a code HUMANS created to better understand genes. A code among scientists/biologists.

Oh Man

if iam wrong just let me know, smilies tell me nothing.

Sailor,

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ad&id=3241

Stephen Meyer

A Scientific History – and Philosophical Defense – of the Theory of Intelligent Design

Scroll down to:

Problems with the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis

Then:

Inference to the Best Explanation

Here we get a nice outline of the Acceptable Affirmation of The Consequent

Then:

DNA by Design: Developing the Argument from Information

Then:

What is Information?

This is all important.

Sorry danny, iam lost like a child at the mall without his/her parents
like a blonde person taking a math test
like a dog at the rodeo.

sailornaruto39 wrote:Sorry danny, iam lost like a child at the mall without his/her parents
like a blonde person taking a math test
like a dog at the rodeo.

Then it's time to let go of mummy and daddy's hand and use the reading ability you've been taught to get reading. I've highlighted the areas you need to concentrate on; they are further down the page, and will not take you long. And it isn't rocket science. Honest.

DannyM wrote:

sailornaruto39 wrote:Sorry danny, iam lost like a child at the mall without his/her parents
like a blonde person taking a math test
like a dog at the rodeo.

Then it's time to let go of mummy and daddy's hand and use the reading ability you've been taught to get reading. I've highlighted the areas you need to concentrate on; they are further down the page, and will not take you long. And it isn't rocket science. Honest.

Iam going to assume since you suggested it to me, you have a good understandig of biology. Do you mind explaning it because iam still not seeing the connection.

It is here where iam going to have to declare an impass on my part. This may be proof but in all honesty iam too ignorant to be able to fully scrutinize or accept any of it.

Note, i'd do this with a secular/atheist article that tries to prove evolution.

Iam not well diversed in it so i abstain from arguing about it. The only proper way is to approach biology and it's siblings in a general sense with only the intent to know it for the hell of it, not through the biased lens of winning a religous debate.

Sorry.

DNA has four bases - shorthand is A,T,G,C. Think of these 4 bases as an alphabet

They are grouped together in threes, codons. ATG, GCA, GTC......and so own. Think of these as words.

There are 64 possible codons. Most attract different amino acids, some don't attract any amino acids and effectively act as a stop signal.

Amino acids make proteins, which are the building blocks of bodies.

In short some people think that as dna bears a resemblance to human language, or computer code, then it follows that it must have emerged from a source which resembles humans, God, E.T, that sort of thing.

If you're not too familiar with dna and genetics I would recommend a high school textbook before reading something like Meyers. It's like trying to get a handle on politics by reading the Communist Manifesto.

Proinsias wrote:DNA has four bases - shorthand is A,T,G,C. Think of these 4 bases as an alphabet

They are grouped together in threes, codons. ATG, GCA, GTC......and so own. Think of these as words.

There are 64 possible codons. Most attract different amino acids, some don't attract any amino acids and effectively act as a stop signal.

Amino acids make proteins, which are the building blocks of bodies.

In short some people think that as dna bears a resemblance to human language, or computer code, then it follows that it must have emerged from a source which resembles humans, God, E.T, that sort of thing.

If you're not too familiar with dna and genetics I would recommend a high school textbook before reading something like Meyers. It's like trying to get a handle on politics by reading the Communist Manifesto.

How about reading The Language of God by Francis Collins, former head of the genome project. I would say he qualifies as an expert on the subject, don't you agree?

sailornaruto39 wrote:Iam going to assume since you suggested it to me, you have a good understandig of biology. Do you mind explaning it because iam still not seeing the connection.

Explain why you assume this. What understanding of biology must I have here, and why?

It is here where iam going to have to declare an impass on my part. This may be proof but in all honesty iam too ignorant to be able to fully scrutinize or accept any of it.

Meyer is adept at communicating the intricacies of information theory and the implications of the information-rich cell.

Note, i'd do this with a secular/atheist article that tries to prove evolution.

Do what? Just ignore reading material? You're not coming off very sincere here, Sailor!

Iam not well diversed in it so i abstain from arguing about it. The only proper way is to approach biology and it's siblings in a general sense with only the intent to know it for the hell of it, not through the biased lens of winning a religous debate.

Do me a favour! Your entire ramblings on this thread have shown the biased lens through which you peek.

Brazen I tells ya!