|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2003 : 19:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Then why do you insist on making statements about something your tiny little finite mind could never fathom? Give it up, you just ruined your own argument. Next!
@tomic
How have I ruined my argument? I'm disagreeing with your statement that there are 'no absolutes'. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 19:26:41 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
A human being, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statements.
You just did, and that's how you ruined your own argument.
But going back a few posts, perhaps "an authority" being "not likely" isn't quite the right descriptive. There are two conditions which are necessary for a hypothetical "authority" to have an impact on my life:
1) it has to demonstrably exist, and
2) doing things for it, to it, or because of it can demonstrably make my life better or worse.
Until those two conditions are satisfied by some "authority," it simply isn't worth my time wondering about what that authority is, which parts of the universe were directly created by that authority (and which came about indirectly), etc., etc.. If the authority exists, but doesn't affect my life at all, it would still be a waste of my time to wonder about it.
So "an authority" is either "a waste of my time," or "not likely," pick whichever you prefer. In relation to how I live my life, they're equivalent.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 19:53:08 [Permalink]
|
All I can say is, you have to be damn careful when you go and haul your absolute out in public then try to say someone is incapable of comprehending it's opposite. If I may quote Bug's Bunny: What a maroon!
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 20:13:02 [Permalink]
|
Crud, I forgot something.
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
Ok, but some may argue that in order for there to be absolute truth, there must be a force that establishes that truth. You cannot have a law without a lawgiver.
In addition to my "waste of time" description, above, whether or not there's a lawgiver doesn't matter one little bit to whether or not we can figure out what the "laws" are. If the "laws" are unchangeable, then it doesn't matter whether the lawgiver is watching over us, or if it just handed down the "laws" and then split for the deific equivalent of Tahiti.
And if the lawgiver decides to change the "laws" on us, then knowing what they are now is a pointless exercise - why ask why, when the reasons might change at any moment? That particular kind of lawgiver would really suck, if you ask me.
("Laws" in quotes throughout, because the analogy attempts to confuse the legal and scientific meanings of the word. Scientific laws are simply equations, not "rules" that one can choose to obey or not. Don't I wish!) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 06:09:23 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps I can offer my two cents worth here:
To Ultra: It seems that your initial question was concerned with a possible "first mover" of the universe. That is possible, but you have to concede that if the universe had a creator, so too could the creator have had one and so on...and if the infinite regress is not enough, Occam's razor can very well be used to cut out the God hypothesis altogether. If God is "all around", and "in everything", which may (please note the may- just a hunch) be what you are getting at, then why have it around at all if more elegant arguments already exist to explain natural phenomena?
To everyone: I think that it may be useful to distinguish here between the world "out there", and our human understanding of it. Much of this topic's posts have revolved around the question of rational order in the universe. It is important to realize that science is a human conceptual framework. A powerful one, but still imbued with the errors of its users: us. Therefore, our understanding may be limited in areas where the universe is simply too complex for our current level of intelligence, and our current level of scientific methodology. This does not necessarily change the "world out there", simply the degree to which we can understand it in our own terms.
Thus, I don't think it is accurate to say that the universe is essentially rational. Nor is it accurate to say that science claims absolute truth. In fact, anybody claiming to have found absolute truth is not making a scientific statement. |
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 06:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Then why do you insist on making statements about something your tiny little finite mind could never fathom? Give it up, you just ruined your own argument. Next!
@tomic
To clarify, withregards to my earlier comment - 'A human being, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statements.' - what I meant to say was you can't state for example, "There are no dogs in Alaska" unless you have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of Alaska...every home, cave, etc. You would be forced to say: "With the knowledge I have now and the evidence I have observed, I don't think there are any dogs there."
You don't have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of the universe to be able to argue that there are NO absolutes.
Furthermore, by insisting that there are NO absolutes you are believing in an absolute. A contradiction. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 07:38:06 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
You don't have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of the universe to be able to argue that there are NO absolutes.
Seems to me that it's a little presumptive of you to say that without having absolute knowledge of @tomic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 08:34:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
Quantum Mechanics might replace God but how could a random fluctuation of energy deliver a universe with everything just right to produce human consciousness?
Within nature are amazing mathematical laws - but why are they of the form they are?
Why these forces, this maths?
It is argued by some that there has to be a deeper theory of how the fundamental or constant parameters of the universe, came to be so finely tuned.
Why do constants have the values that they do? Why is the universe the particular way it is?
A theory of 'everything' has yet to be discovered. Such a theory argues that there is only '1' typical universe. In such a universe;
1. Everything would flow logically from explicable mathematical principles. The Cosmological Constant, (a number at the heart of the universe) however is a stumbling block in the realization of this theory, which has stumped hardcore theorists whom fear it will never be explained.
2. Another method used to explain the astronomical odds against this universe being just right was that it wasn't the only universe, but one of trillions. In a multiverse, every possible universe exists, so the fact that '1' of them turns out to be 'just right', isn't so remarkable. But this 'designer free universe' put up by physics is pure supposition.
Should we accept this prodigal assumption or accept God as the designer?
Could God have fixed these constants?
Where does the quantum vacuum come from, for example?
Are the laws of nature themselves sufficiently self contained, sufficiently easy to accept as brute force or do they have features in them which point beyond themselves? We have more to learn than simply state, 'that's the way it happens to be'.
Perhaps the rational order & beauty of the universe is simply an expression of a divine mind?
An atheist may say that there is no reason as to why such laws exist. - the doctrine of cosmic absurdity - but this is an inconsistency as science is supposed to give logical & rational answers to things, and if you trace that down to the laws of nature and say 'well there's no reason for those, we just have to accept them', then we are doing a back-flip at the final stage.
We live in a Universe which is rational & logical in every respect, but underpinning it is absurdity! Surely it ought to be rational all the way down?
A parallel universe is not a solution - why would all these possible universes exist anyway? An even deeper mystery, which would require an explanation…
Proposing an infinite number of universes has shocking consequences - it means inescapably, that our physics is just one chance set of laws in one chance universe. The only reason that scientists are studying it was because by chance, it created them.
So instead of allowing God to have defined our universe, scientists are saying that the universe is defined by our presence in it.
The implications of this are profound.
According to a physicist at Cambridge University (sorry, I can't recall his name), as soon as we start saying that the universe depends on 'US' being there, we have retreated & we can never have a theory that explains everything but only the universe in which we inhabit. He also argues that, "If you ask at a deep level, why is the universe the way it is, we are no where near answering that question in science - we are no closer now than the ancient Greeks were…"
Your thoughts with regards to the above would be appreciated.
Gee. I go away for the weekend and my NASCAR fantasy league has a points nightmare, my in-laws computer takes a gaint shit, and then some fundie posts ID crap.
Oh, well. Lets try this again.
Science explains methodologies for change and interactions of systems. It does not take into account the thought processes of unseen and immeasurable theological concepts. Science attempts to explain how things changed into other things. This is the realm of evolution (how living species change over time) and abogenesis (the processes by which life first arose). It deals with the real and measurable such as the ability of life to form in an area that is most favorable to that life. (availability of food sources, correct amount of radiation, etc.)
The mere difficulty of life arising from nothing does not in any way empirically prove the existance of your unseen and immeasurable theological construct. (a.k.a. God)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 09:25:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ok, but some may argue that in order for there to be absolute truth, there must be a force that establishes that truth. You cannot have a law without a lawgiver. Why doesn't "an authority" seem likely?
The natural properties of matter or energy (that we observe) are not equivalent to absolute truths or laws. Thus the natural properties of say carbon may or may not require a property giver. The reason an authority seems unlikely is because there is no evidence that this authority exists nor do the properties reflect the fingerprint of any "intelligent" authority. Too many errors, too much slop, and so on.
The Jewel Wasp:
Wasp behavior like must insects is heavily genetically controlled. A pre-jewel wasp would be laying its eggs in some other fashion. A new mutation would have brought about the tendency to lay eggs in its victims. This behavior would have been beneficial thus selected for by natural selection. Thus the mutation would increase in frequency in the population until it become fixed at 100% (or maybe its not fixed, I don't know if all jewel wasps lay their eggs in this manner, many genetic traits have a wide range of variability and this may be one that does as well).
This is the basics of how evolution works via natural selection and genetic mutation.
The wasp did not experiment nor did it need to know anything or have foresite.
On genetic mutations:
What do you mean does every possible genetic mutation already exist? A mutation is a change in a sequence of DNA all the way from a single base pair modification up to whole chromosome rearrangements. The number of possible DNA combinations reaches astronomical proportions. The idea that every possible genetic configuration alredy exists today can easily be proven to not be so. DNA mutates randomally thus there is no system of mutation in place other than the physical properties of DNA.
See this thread for a detailed (attempted) discussion on the subject of the nature of DNA:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1808 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 10:42:29 [Permalink]
|
What prompted the wasp to (experiment???) with laying eggs inside its victim
Yes, after a fashion it is an experiment.
You start with a wasp who had a mutated gene. There are any number of reasons a gene might mutate. They aren't all that rugged and the break. Often it is cosmic rays which we are constantly showered with that is the cause. This mutated gene leaves the wasp with the strange urge to lay it's eggs in it's food.
how was is it able to grasp the concept that its young could not only survive inside the victim but also eat their way out - foresight!?
There's no foresight in evolution. There is no plan and there is no goal
is this genetic or learnt behaviour? If so how?
It's genetic, and how it is passed on is pretty simple.
The "experiment" has two possible out comes, neither of which is of any concern to the initial wasp.
Outcome #1: the place that the eggs are laid is hostile to larvae, say on a rock or in an acid. The larvae die, the mutated gene that they inherited from their parent dies with them. The "experiment" fails.
Outcome #2: the place the eggs are laid is neutral or even beneficial to the larvae. This time the larvae live and are able to pass this mutated gene on to the next generation. Now all the descendents of the initial wasp are passing this gene on.
Finally, does every possibile mutation already exists in 'theory'?
No, they are random. And since, in most creatures, it takes two sets of genes to make them there is a cumulative effect in the passing generations. That's how, over the billions of years, single celled critters were able to evolve into every species on the planet.
Have all possible permutations been programmed, from when life first appeared, within an organism?
No, there is no programming. The process is completely mindless.
If so, would this then imply that this 'theory' (which encompasses all possible genetic mutations) requires a source, an originator of these chemical & biological concepts?
No, considering the facts of how evolution actually works such an "originator" would have been a single celled creature, not a god.
I'm simply stating that a human being, such as Slater, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statement such as, "God is a fictional character"
I made a positive statement, not a negative one. I said what god IS not what god ISN'T.
And since I made a positive claim I am more than ready to back it up with proof.
First I can produce the novels that God is a character in.
Secondly these novels ascribe attributes to God that only fictional characters posses, namely super powers.
Third God has limitations that only fictional characters have. Namely his inability to been seen, heard, felt or perceived in anyway. This is a limitation that even fictional super heroes have that doesn't even apply to a non-fictional pile of dog crap.
because one would have to have absolute knowledge of the entire Universe in order to know that.
Obviously my brain is not as "finite" as some. Other wise it would be realized that since god is supposed to be omnipresent it isn't necessary for me to be every where to say that this god doesn't exist. All I have to do is observe my immediate surroundings, if there is no god there (and there isn't) then there is no omnipresent god.
I'm not referring to the God of organised religion (I subscribe to none) but a creative force.
Oh please, spare us the anthropomorphic drivel. You aren't talking about a "force" creative or otherwise. You have already called it a god, which is a word with a quite specific meaning. And you have attributed thought, planning and construction to it.
What created this god I speak of?
Apparently YOU created this god you speak of. So you must realize that it is make believe.
I do not know. I also do not know how the 'big bang' came into being...do you?
You have a choice. You can either say that you know how things came about--a creative deity. Or you can admit that you don't. You can't claim both at once.
Ok, but some may argue that in order for there to be absolute truth, there must be a force that establishes that truth.
Truth is a human concept, established by humans.
You don't have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of the universe to be able to argue that there are NO absolutes.
Okay here's some absolute knowledge. I know that you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. Therefore I know that you aren't telling the truth.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 11:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Hmm...why is the universe just right for human consciousness?
Simple. Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to ask why it is. |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 11:16:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Seems to me that it's a little presumptive of you to say that without having absolute knowledge of @tomic.
Point taken.
Ok @tomic, do you have absoulte knowledge of the universe? If the answer is NO, you cannot argue that there are NO absolutes.
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
A new mutation would have brought about the tendency to lay eggs in its victims.
I still don't understand what type of mutation would have lead the jewel wasp to suddenly change its method of egg laying? I just find it difficult to comprehend such a scenario, that a 'strange urge' comes down to genetics.
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
I'm simply stating that a human being, such as Slater, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statement such as, "God is a fictional character"
I made a positive statement, not a negative one. I said what god IS not what god ISN'T.
Slater, by stating that god is a fictional character it was painfully obvious that you were implying that god does not exist.
Not once in this thread did I refer to the 'God' of religion in support of my argument that a god/creative force/intelligence behind the universe etc..., may actually exist. I also assert that the 'God' of religion is a fictional character. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 11:42:29 [Permalink]
|
Slater, by stating that god is a fictional character it was painfully obvious that you were implying that god does not exist.
By stating that God is a fictional character I was making a positive statement. As the maker of a positive statement I am required to produce proof that my statement is correct. Which I did.
You, on the other hand, make positive statements and then try to support them without proof.
Not once in this thread did I refer to the 'God' of religion in support of my argument that a god/creative force/intelligence behind the universe etc..., may actually exist.
The term "God" is already taken and trademarked. If you are talking "god" you are talking religion.
If you want to claim that you are talking about some "being" whose name just happens to be God then supply a specimen.
I also assert that the 'God' of religion is a fictional character
Since the God(s) of religion is the product of human imagination and Space God is the product of your imagination, and you are human, I see no difference. As soon as you use the word "intelligence' you have anthropomorphized nature every bit as much as the Nomads who told stories of Yahweh around the campfire to scare their kids did. By calling it a "god" and saying it has "intelligence" you've made nature into a person.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 12:03:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I still don't understand what type of mutation would have lead the jewel wasp to suddenly change its method of egg laying? I just find it difficult to comprehend such a scenario, that a 'strange urge' comes down to genetics.
This is not a "strange urge". In wasp as in many animals and plants the mating behavior of the organism is dominately genetically controlled (as opposed to environmentally controlled). Genetic programs dictate how, when, and with whom the animal reproduces and how, how many, where, when, and how it cares for its offspring.
Reproduction behavior like any other behavior is a complex polygenic trait (controlled by more than one gene, although certain aspects may not be). Mutation of any gene modifies its products (proteins). Modification of a product that is responsible for how a wasp lays its eggs might modify the behavior of the wasp (note not all mutations actually modify the protein in any substantial way so I have to say maybe here, since some mutations will modify the protein and others will not - additionally some mutations of genetic material may not modify the protein at all since many of the codons in the genetic code are redundant).
Slater gave examples of mutations that could be harmful or beneficial (or even neutral) for the trait in question, where a wasp lays its eggs. Based on the odds of mutations one would expect these mutations on the gene(s) that effect this behavior to arise quite often and if one happens to cause a behavior that is beneficial and increases the odds of survival that gene will rapidly spread throughout the population over a handful of generations.
An interesting question to ask would be what kind of variations of this behavior do we see in nature. I do not know the answer to this having not studied this particular species of wasp at all however we might find that some wasps lay their eggs in other ways indicating that selection for the other behavior is not strong or we may find that all lay their eggs this way indicating that selection is strong.
I do not see what the complexity is of understanding these basic biological facts? To help me answer your specific questions, please give more detail as to what you do not understand. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
