Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillsides

I think you are equating arguments against as automatic wins or as Gordon would put it "indistinguishable from a win."

There is an opportunity for you to, uninterrupted, debate with a theist.
Would you be prepared to do this?Or does your strategy depend on calling out from the gallery?

Finally I'm finding the simultaneous retired from board but still posting schtick fairly entertaining.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

Thank you for posting. I think I shall be adding Sword of the Spirit's name to those that I scroll past! The air of somewhat smug triumphalism is, I think, almost worse than Vlad's dafter responses. In Vlad's case there was, though, one mitigating factor  during the pre-referendum threads, where he was, in my opinion, on the right track!:)

 :You are still young of course, so probably don't have time to post on other forums, but I find it interesting that the other three I go to are sort of similar but have different styles.

In fact, I had written what I thought was quite a  smart response to one of Sword's posts yesterday, but when I tried to post, the IE came up with one of those 'IE cannot display the page' notices. I went back a page, highlighted and copied, but then did a re-start without remembering to save it somewhere! Ah, well!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Musical notes aren't manufactured or designed by humans though: they occur naturally. That humans manufacture devices to make sounds of certain pitches (A=440 etc) and then organise them into arrangements we call music is just one example of emergent properties - as is the symbolic representations that we use to convey meaning and sound.

Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?

You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc

(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)

So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G  for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How does one identify "something happens that goes against the way the natural world works".  Suppose you are at the cutting edge of what is known, a scientist working at CERN say, and you see a collision debris pattern you have not seen before, do you call it supernatural because it appears to defy previously known experimental data ?

No. If it defies previously known experimental data, it could be an undiscovered natural phenomenon. However, if it contradicted what was known, one would have to see where the investigations lead.

An example: I drop a 1 kg weight out of a window. Instead of falling to the ground, it moves up. Would I assume a supernatural cause. Not at this stage. But, from what is known of gravity and the conservation of mechanical energy, I would know that a force would have to act on the weight for it to move up, rather than down. So I'd be investigating the nature of the force and see where that leads.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

This sounds like a regurgitated Intelligent Design argument from about 15 years ago.  Biologists have no such problems as you describe.  Why should it be a problem for you if it is not for those working in the field ?

Because in the former case, only natural causes are assumed.

Given that there are natural explanations for X, what is the best explanations

I have the option of considering natural, or non-natural causes.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I thought that a mutation by definition adds information; but this is only part of the process, since mutations can be selected for, as the environment also introduces new information.   Thus, recent studies on Darwin's finches (Galapagos), have shown that beak size (which affects which kinds of seeds can be eaten), is affected by climate.   Periods of drought or el Nino conditions favour finches with different size beaks, and the others tend to die out.   But beak size is continually oscillating via genetic variation, and is heritable. 

 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/965.full

No problem with this wigginhall. However beaks remain beaks, so what is happening is that what is already present is being adapted, in this case the beaks.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The text you seem to be alluding to is from St Paul, who had a very different view of the Resurrection from the gospel accounts.

In what way?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just because you - and , yes, large numbers of others, believe that there **must have been** a creator of some sort does not make it true.

Agreed, but I have chosen to believe it by faith for reasons I'm given on this thread, previous threads and I'm sure the Christians who have been posting here over the years have given reasons from their perspective.[/quote]

Why should non-believers take on your faith in this belief

They don't have to take on my faith in this belief. They can study for themselves and reach their own conclusion. What I don't get is that if you are so opposed to religious belief, why do you and others here devote so much of your time talking about it?

[torridon]

No. If it defies previously known experimental data, it could be an undiscovered natural phenomenon. However, if it contradicted what was known, one would have to see where the investigations lead.

An example: I drop a 1 kg weight out of a window. Instead of falling to the ground, it moves up. Would I assume a supernatural cause. Not at this stage. But, from what is known of gravity and the conservation of mechanical energy, I would know that a force would have to act on the weight for it to move up, rather than down. So I'd be investigating the nature of the force and see where that leads.

You are on the right lines then, in principle; you just need to follow that thinking through, there is never any benefit from classifying an apparently perplexing phenomenon as supernatural.  Doing so closes the door to enquiry; 'supernatural' is an attitude problem not a genuine insight.  Findings coming out of quantum theory are baffling, particles being in two places at once, particles communicating instantaneously across space and so forth, these do not fit our intuitions nor classical physics; yet we do not call them supernatural, rather we keep on trying to understand. By calling something supernatural, we are saying that it can never been understood; how can we be so bold as to say never ?

[torridon]

Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?

You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc

(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)

So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G  for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

If that is your claim then it begs the question of what is the intended purpose, and you would need to be able to justify that in order for your claim to be taken seriously.

What is wrong with the simpler explanation that we are adapted to profit from the information patterns in sound wavelengths ?

[Gordon]

Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?

You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc

(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)

So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G  for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

This is everything to do with your religious belief, into which you are desperately trying to shoehorn everything else in a vain attempt to make it 'fit' your preferred conclusion of 'creation'.

The above is just as plain silly as any of the other 'intelligent design' creationist twaddle we've encountered and is just an expression of you being utterly overwhelmed by your own personal incredulity, from which a feast of fallacies freely flow.

Either that or you are wumming.

[Andy]

Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?

You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc

(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)

So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G  for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

This "argument" is as old as toast. It's special pleading to argue for design for something specific like DNA, while simultaneously believing everything else is designed too. You have removed all contrast - you have no background to stand this "design" up against. The concept has become meaningless.

[jeremyp]

Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.

Well he didn't. So that just about wraps it up for God.

[wigginhall]

No problem with this wigginhall. However beaks remain beaks, so what is happening is that what is already present is being adapted, in this case the beaks.

Your posts remind me of the old joke: 'there must be a God, because I don't know how things work'. 

[SusanDoris]

Sword of the Spirit

One of the reasons I come hereis to help to counter faith beliefs which are entirely without evidence so that those who browse or lurk realise that a large number of posters here are well, not ill, informed about reality and truth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

, from which a feast of fallacies freely flow.

Are those fallacies Gordon or things which are indistinguishable from fallacies?...................HeHeHe.

[Gordon]

Are those fallacies Gordon or things which are indistinguishable from fallacies?...................HeHeHe.

They're fallacies, Vlad - Sword is adept at them, and you're not so bad at them yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They're fallacies, Vlad - Sword is adept at them, and you're not so bad at them yourself.

Feel free to make good that claim Gordon......................... HoHoHo

[SweetPea]

...... I think I shall be adding Sword of the Spirit's name to those that I scroll past! The air of somewhat smug triumphalism.....

What??.... smh

I see no "air of somewhat smug triumphalism"..... rather, only someone that is expressing a different point of view to your point of view....


....... maybe SwordOfTheSpirit could scroll past your posts, Susan.   

[Gordon]

Feel free to make good that claim Gordon......................... HoHoHo

Certainly will: you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.

I take it the chuckles mean you are a very happy Vlad at present: be careful it doesn't wear off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certainly will: you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.

That's just another claim Gordon.......care to make it good?

[Gordon]

That's just another claim Gordon.......care to make it good?

I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.

When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.

[Dicky Underpants]

In what way?

The gospel accounts speak of witnesses to a physical being* (albeit not immediately recognisable as Jesus, as in the Road to Emmaus episode). St Paul (depending on which account you read) seems to have experienced a being of blinding light - which apparently did blind him - and hearing a voice (which those around may or may not have heard, again according to which account you read).

If there's any truth in all of this, it reads more like a psychotic episode, which may have resolved some of the conflicts in the deeply disturbed younger Saul, who was so distressed at being unable to keep the Jewish Law in its entirety.

Returning to your earlier assertion that Christianity contains its own falsification test, I would suggest that such an assertion is utter bollocks until you can establish what exactly it is that the NT is saying about the 'Resurrection' in the first place. The hard atheists are in a sense complicit with you in this, since they accept that what you seem to be saying is that there was a revivifying of a corpse (and we know that dead bodies stay dead). Of course, the said revivified corpse was then supposed to have vanished at a later date into thin air. And the point at which this is supposed to have happened is given two different dates by the same author, if you believe Luke wrote Acts as well as the gospel attributed to him. Until you can actually, unequivocally, state exactly what you mean, you'd best not start playing around with philosophical concepts such as inductive or deductive methods.
You say you have faith - faith in just what out of this farrago of contradictory and fantastical word-spinning?

*Of course, Mark doesn't mention any such witnesses at all, in the earliest available manuscripts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.

When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.

A couple? That's hardly going to demonstrate this hyperbole

''you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.'' remember typing that Gordon?..............you aren't terribly good at this are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.

When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.

Will those be examples or indistinguishable from examples?