Philosophical debates for Phoenatica's Intellectuals
- Thread starter Curufinwe
- Start date
Eklektikos
Eponymous
On the wider question of whether or not there is a god: On a day to day basis I tend to assume there is not. However I cannot prove this lack of existence any more than anyone else can prove the opposite. Believers can offer what they see as evidence, I can offer what I consider evidence - but at present there is no way for anyone to conclusively answer the question either way. Arguably there never will be a way to prove the non-existence of anything as vaguely defined as a god since however much we discover about the laws and history of the universe there always remains the possibility that there is more to learn, or that we've missed something along the way. In that sense I believe that there might be a god, but that I don't think that there actually is. Should one turn up and prove its existence to me, however, I wouldn't be inclined to argue about it 
Falcon02
General
Chance is not a natural law, by natural law I'm refering to chemical ones, where if you combine Hydrogen and Oxygen at a ration of roughly 2 to 1 and add energy you'd get water (essentially the result you get from burning Hydrogen I think). You seem to think that such laws wouldn't produce lots of repitition. Just look at the many Hydrocarbons out there. You consistently get repeating patterns, whether PVC or Stryofoam, the chemical pattern is repeated again and again in linked chains.
In Referance to Evolution (and I won't go into Gradual or punctual, even though that goes down a very interesting argument), I don't think Macroevolution works at all. Microevolution does. To explain better Macroevolution is in referance to evolution from one species to another species, and (at least for me) a species is defined as a group of living beings that is isolated reproductively because of a biologic difference from other such groups. This includes two species which can produce offspring, but the resulting offspring isn't reproductively viable (in other words, sterile). Microevolution on the other hand is variations within a species (ie. I have brown hair but someone else has blonde hair).
Evolution is supposed to be driven by mutations, which are essentially driven by chance. Chance encounter with something which would cause such a mutation and the chance that it would result in a positive change. Most if not all documented Mutations have a negative effect on the carrier. Cancer is a prime example. Sickled Cell disease (a mutated genetic disease) could be concidered to have a positive effect for a carrier of the recessive gene. Sickled cell disease is deadly and painful for those with the gene "ss" where "s" is the Sickled cell gene and resessive and "S" is a normal gene. However, someone with "Ss" is just a carrier but not a sufferer and carriers are immune to malaria (that or some other tropical disease). However, the fact remains that the mutation is harmful to those who inherite both of the recessive sickled cell genes and essentially negative effects for the gene poll as a whole because two "Ss" people theoretically have a 1/4 chance of any one of their children inheriting both genes.
Bactierial mutations against antibiotics are another potential exception, however a closer examination shows that such mutations tend to result in a loss of information and/or hurt the bacteria in some way because either they have lossed a certian ability, or the additional immunity creates adverse sideffects in of itself.
For evolution a mutation has to both be benificial and add information. Most or all recorded mutations have had negative effects, and the best candidates for benificial (the bacteria) lose information and/or experience negative side effects.
Sorry if I lose anyone, please ask if any specifics need to be explained.
In Referance to Evolution (and I won't go into Gradual or punctual, even though that goes down a very interesting argument), I don't think Macroevolution works at all. Microevolution does. To explain better Macroevolution is in referance to evolution from one species to another species, and (at least for me) a species is defined as a group of living beings that is isolated reproductively because of a biologic difference from other such groups. This includes two species which can produce offspring, but the resulting offspring isn't reproductively viable (in other words, sterile). Microevolution on the other hand is variations within a species (ie. I have brown hair but someone else has blonde hair).
Evolution is supposed to be driven by mutations, which are essentially driven by chance. Chance encounter with something which would cause such a mutation and the chance that it would result in a positive change. Most if not all documented Mutations have a negative effect on the carrier. Cancer is a prime example. Sickled Cell disease (a mutated genetic disease) could be concidered to have a positive effect for a carrier of the recessive gene. Sickled cell disease is deadly and painful for those with the gene "ss" where "s" is the Sickled cell gene and resessive and "S" is a normal gene. However, someone with "Ss" is just a carrier but not a sufferer and carriers are immune to malaria (that or some other tropical disease). However, the fact remains that the mutation is harmful to those who inherite both of the recessive sickled cell genes and essentially negative effects for the gene poll as a whole because two "Ss" people theoretically have a 1/4 chance of any one of their children inheriting both genes.
Bactierial mutations against antibiotics are another potential exception, however a closer examination shows that such mutations tend to result in a loss of information and/or hurt the bacteria in some way because either they have lossed a certian ability, or the additional immunity creates adverse sideffects in of itself.
For evolution a mutation has to both be benificial and add information. Most or all recorded mutations have had negative effects, and the best candidates for benificial (the bacteria) lose information and/or experience negative side effects.
Sorry if I lose anyone, please ask if any specifics need to be explained.
Falcon02
General
Eklektikos,
I agree, that the existance of God can neither be truely PROVEN nor DISPROVEN, but we can argue that the evidence tends to lean one way or the other.
This is like many Scientific theories, including Gravity. Gravity might not exist as we currently understand it. That's why the "Theory of Gravity" is still defined as a theory even though it seems to be a simple truth now. Also the argument could be made that if we are products of evolution, our reason or senses be distorted in some way to make us believe there is a force of Gravity. While I don't believe the last is true, my point remains most of what we think we "know" is only theoretical in the end.
I agree, that the existance of God can neither be truely PROVEN nor DISPROVEN, but we can argue that the evidence tends to lean one way or the other.
This is like many Scientific theories, including Gravity. Gravity might not exist as we currently understand it. That's why the "Theory of Gravity" is still defined as a theory even though it seems to be a simple truth now. Also the argument could be made that if we are products of evolution, our reason or senses be distorted in some way to make us believe there is a force of Gravity. While I don't believe the last is true, my point remains most of what we think we "know" is only theoretical in the end.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I agree we can argue that certain theories beloved of hardline atheists are in many ways doubtful, but even if it turns out that that theory is wrong it doesn't necessarily imply that the only explaination left is the existence of some form of god. In the same way that their being correct would not preclude the existence of such a being or force. We may see certain things as evidence, but given our lack of actuall knowledge about the universe we cannot be sure which way that evidence really points - if indeed it points either way at all which I rather doubt.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
to the planetary story: who tells us that we dont live in a laboratory?
maybe we only are some experimental beings invented by scientists in a much bigger universe. we maybe only have the size of an atom in their world. we would never see them because they are so big. we would think the surroundings in the laboratory are our universe.
this would explain the god creates the world in 7 days theory ;-)
also, some wonder could be explained by this, as those scientists maybe took direct influence as things didnt go the way they wanted.
maybe we only are some experimental beings invented by scientists in a much bigger universe. we maybe only have the size of an atom in their world. we would never see them because they are so big. we would think the surroundings in the laboratory are our universe.
this would explain the god creates the world in 7 days theory ;-)
also, some wonder could be explained by this, as those scientists maybe took direct influence as things didnt go the way they wanted.
Falcon02
General
Eklektikos,
Like I was saying before about scientists. They veiw such problems of chance that there must be some unknown natural mechanism that makes it possible. However, I believe that no such natural mechanism can exist, and so the remaining solution is the supernatural.
However, my feelings don't change that there may in fact be such a mechanism. This is why neither side can truely be disproved or proved. However, using the "knowlege" we do posess (or think we do) the evidence can still potentially lean one way or the other due to logic, but a definate awnser could only come in the form of an event that out right defies everything we understand about the physics of the universe.
Like I was saying before about scientists. They veiw such problems of chance that there must be some unknown natural mechanism that makes it possible. However, I believe that no such natural mechanism can exist, and so the remaining solution is the supernatural.
However, my feelings don't change that there may in fact be such a mechanism. This is why neither side can truely be disproved or proved. However, using the "knowlege" we do posess (or think we do) the evidence can still potentially lean one way or the other due to logic, but a definate awnser could only come in the form of an event that out right defies everything we understand about the physics of the universe.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I'll concur that "evidence" can appear logically to lean in a particular direction, but I can't escape the suspicion that such apparent leanings may well turn out to be red herrings. My personal view is that humanity is still too ignorant to even begin to make educated guesses on this subject. I also think that this may always be the case. If so, it's a pity, because I would give just about anything to know if there is or isn't some kind of god.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Dis: the laboratory possibility has crossed my mind on many occasions, but it always begs the question "where did the lab and its occupants come from?". All the same, it's been one of my pet "what if"s for years 
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
Maybe we were planted on earth by aliens as an experiment? Then they are our god(s)!
(*** hint: hitchhikers guide to the galaxy ***)
(*** hint: hitchhikers guide to the galaxy ***)
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Dis: I refuse to worship mice!
Exactly. We are simply an experiment in the laboratory of the One. The Greeks are another experiment, but one that failed.
Falcon02
General
Dis: In a way we are God's "experiment"
Also, Eklektikos, many possibilities to this universe have crossed my mind. From the outragiously weird, to the logical.
Also, Eklektikos, many possibilities to this universe have crossed my mind. From the outragiously weird, to the logical.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Not being an intellectual, I'm not sure if I can speak here, but I'd like to repeat the words of a man I consider wise.
He said God is a scientist who started the universe with the perfect natural process. All of the tests prior to the start of the universe had proven that if the environments were set properly and left alone, everything would pretty much take care of itself. The point being, that the scientist knew that human brain development would cause debate on our creation. This was a minor part of the plan.
Both sides of the coin are equal as far as being correct. I believe the debate might shift to the concern of whether this (our) experiment was (is) of a scientific nature or perverse humor. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter.
He said God is a scientist who started the universe with the perfect natural process. All of the tests prior to the start of the universe had proven that if the environments were set properly and left alone, everything would pretty much take care of itself. The point being, that the scientist knew that human brain development would cause debate on our creation. This was a minor part of the plan.
Both sides of the coin are equal as far as being correct. I believe the debate might shift to the concern of whether this (our) experiment was (is) of a scientific nature or perverse humor. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
That's the bliss of ignorance, we can enjoy an infinite potential for theorising
While I said I'd give almost anything to know if there was a god or not, I do think that the loss of that great uncertainty would also be a pity. I like reading different people's theories, from the seemingly crazy to the all too plausible.
While I said I'd give almost anything to know if there was a god or not, I do think that the loss of that great uncertainty would also be a pity. I like reading different people's theories, from the seemingly crazy to the all too plausible.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
and Cyc's just posted my absolute favourite "what if"
Think, if you were to have the power to make your own universe wouldn't you make it to produce life and then watch the poor little things be complete idiots. Just imagine the joy, and occasional anger at it. And Falcon, I believe you stated that dna couldn't come about and would be stuck in a bunch of repition, and what I stated had nothing to do iwth hydrocarbons, only Deoxyribonucleic Acid. As you can see it has been made on it's own (that peculiar little experiment that produced amino acids for one) and will produce more than repetion, and if the things can copy themselves (it could happen, RNA can to a limited extent, very well actually) then anything that is good at copying will copy itself. Thus repition will be avoided this way, well at least in individual molecules, overall it just makes more repition (and what you stated Falcon was that DNA would end up as a bunch of repition if worked through chance)
Falcon02
General
Amino Acids AREN'T DNA, the Amino Acids are what makes up the DNA, but you still have to put them together. Sorta like creating a bunch letters, great now you've gotta make shakespeare from that randomly.
Secondly that experiment producing the amino acids is obsolete, because the modern view of the Earths atmosphere at the time of such a creation is much less favorable to the production of amino acids. Repeats of that experiment using modern ideas of Earth's atmospher at the time haven't produced any amino acids.
My point with Hydrocarbons, is that you're working with the laws of Chemistry when forming DNA, and chemical laws when applied to long chains, result in repitition normally.
With DNA you have the Backbone and then the amino Acids fit onto the backbone, creating the ladder type form.
I'm not sure how you're trying to explain how repitition could be avoided and useful information could be produced.
Also I didn't say Chance would create repition. I was explaining that Chance is chaotic and would create a chaotic gibberish, while not repeating, it would be useless since the result would be nosence and not true information.
Secondly that experiment producing the amino acids is obsolete, because the modern view of the Earths atmosphere at the time of such a creation is much less favorable to the production of amino acids. Repeats of that experiment using modern ideas of Earth's atmospher at the time haven't produced any amino acids.
My point with Hydrocarbons, is that you're working with the laws of Chemistry when forming DNA, and chemical laws when applied to long chains, result in repitition normally.
With DNA you have the Backbone and then the amino Acids fit onto the backbone, creating the ladder type form.
I'm not sure how you're trying to explain how repitition could be avoided and useful information could be produced.
Also I didn't say Chance would create repition. I was explaining that Chance is chaotic and would create a chaotic gibberish, while not repeating, it would be useless since the result would be nosence and not true information.
Point 1: Amino Acids do not make up DNA, nitrogen nucleotides do (I believe you know that amino acids make up proteins)
Point 2: Do not use paralells between English and DNA, one has almost 100 characters (numbers, letters lowercase and capitals, and punctuation)
Point 3: Chance can create things that make sense, A friend of mine was randomly typing and wrote "lovejake"
Point 4: Define information, could not the results of flipping coins or throwing a die be information
Point 2: Do not use paralells between English and DNA, one has almost 100 characters (numbers, letters lowercase and capitals, and punctuation)
Point 3: Chance can create things that make sense, A friend of mine was randomly typing and wrote "lovejake"
Point 4: Define information, could not the results of flipping coins or throwing a die be information
