Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How simple turns into complex?

Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 8:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I have heard some theistic arguments of how evolution could not have happened naturally because simple things cannot create complex things. This gives theists the lee-way to then posit their God as the complex origin of everything. On the surface it seems reasonable in evolutionary terms, as we first had a self-replicating molecule then bacteria and eventually eukaryotic and multicellular life. I have thought about how in programmable simulations with simple laws, many complex things can form (I have made a simulation that does this), which is analogous to how simple natural processes create complex organisms over time. However, the point here is that no matter what simulation I can code to show this, there is always the fact that the code itself had a complex programmer/creator (me). This would be true even if I created a program that can create programs. As an atheist this pisses me off. So outside of programming (or perhaps from a different perspective) are there examples of simple things turning complex? How would you refute this argument?
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol
hiroki01
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

Isn't declaring at the outset that you need a programmer for complexity begging the question? I mean, I can easily argue that evolution is a self-propagating process (in the same way the cellular automaton is) which had been initiated stochastically.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 10:49:05 PM, hiroki01 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

Isn't declaring at the outset that you need a programmer for complexity begging the question? I mean, I can easily argue that evolution is a self-propagating process (in the same way the cellular automaton is) which had been initiated stochastically.

Sure, but it makes more sense if there is a programmer, even if it is possible there isn't one.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

True. But seriously I don't think there is any other example of simple things turning complex without a human to control that situation.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 9:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:06:00 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

True. But seriously I don't think there is any other example of simple things turning complex without a human to control that situation.

Or some kind of intelligence. Perhaps there is intelligence behind evolution, and it is not really an example of "simple to complex without intelligence" at all..
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 9:53:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 8:58:59 PM, Orangatang wrote:
So I have heard some theistic arguments of how evolution could not have happened naturally because simple things cannot create complex things. This gives theists the lee-way to then posit their God as the complex origin of everything. On the surface it seems reasonable in evolutionary terms, as we first had a self-replicating molecule then bacteria and eventually eukaryotic and multicellular life. I have thought about how in programmable simulations with simple laws, many complex things can form (I have made a simulation that does this), which is analogous to how simple natural processes create complex organisms over time. However, the point here is that no matter what simulation I can code to show this, there is always the fact that the code itself had a complex programmer/creator (me). This would be true even if I created a program that can create programs. As an atheist this pisses me off. So outside of programming (or perhaps from a different perspective) are there examples of simple things turning complex? How would you refute this argument?

I wouldn't, because I tend to think that there is an intelligence behind evolution... lol. But not necessarily in the "snap bang, boom ba, creation!" type.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 2:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 9:24:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/25/2014 8:06:00 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

True. But seriously I don't think there is any other example of simple things turning complex without a human to control that situation.

Or some kind of intelligence. Perhaps there is intelligence behind evolution, and it is not really an example of "simple to complex without intelligence" at all..

What?! I thought you were an atheist...
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 2:53:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:48:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 10:49:05 PM, hiroki01 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

Isn't declaring at the outset that you need a programmer for complexity begging the question? I mean, I can easily argue that evolution is a self-propagating process (in the same way the cellular automaton is) which had been initiated stochastically.

Sure, but it makes more sense if there is a programmer, even if it is possible there isn't one.

Why does it make more sense?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 3:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:48:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 10:49:05 PM, hiroki01 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

Isn't declaring at the outset that you need a programmer for complexity begging the question? I mean, I can easily argue that evolution is a self-propagating process (in the same way the cellular automaton is) which had been initiated stochastically.

Sure, but it makes more sense if there is a programmer, even if it is possible there isn't one.

Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 7:19:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fractals are an example of simple patterns amounting to all the complexity we see in both matter and organic life.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 10:57:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 7:19:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Fractals are an example of simple patterns amounting to all the complexity we see in both matter and organic life.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you, this is exactly what I was pondering upon (patterns in snowflakes and other parts of nature) I guess no theist can truly prove that simple doesn't turn into complex without presupposing a creator.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:00:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 3:10:39 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:48:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 10:49:05 PM, hiroki01 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 9:03:14 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Wait I just realized that evolution IS an example of simple things turning into complex things. I am so brain dead.

That still doesn't mean you don't need a programmer lol

Isn't declaring at the outset that you need a programmer for complexity begging the question? I mean, I can easily argue that evolution is a self-propagating process (in the same way the cellular automaton is) which had been initiated stochastically.

Sure, but it makes more sense if there is a programmer, even if it is possible there isn't one.

Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.

Not necessarily. If it can be established that evolution without God is so unrealistically improbable, and then that evolution with God is more probable in general, Occam's razor would favor the God hypothesis. You might have to make more assumptions of chance without God. But then again, this assumes that we have some sort of way of comparing the probability of there being a God in order to compare.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's razor.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:57:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.

Not necessarily. If it can be established that evolution without God is so unrealistically improbable, and then that evolution with God is more probable in general, Occam's razor would favor the God hypothesis. You might have to make more assumptions of chance without God. But then again, this assumes that we have some sort of way of comparing the probability of there being a God in order to compare.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's razor.

Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:57:41 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.

Not necessarily. If it can be established that evolution without God is so unrealistically improbable, and then that evolution with God is more probable in general, Occam's razor would favor the God hypothesis. You might have to make more assumptions of chance without God. But then again, this assumes that we have some sort of way of comparing the probability of there being a God in order to compare.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's razor.

Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.

I like this forum! I've thought about those things myself. I've often told people that I think Evolution is the best evidence for a creator-God out there.

I suppose though that in order to keep parsimony (Occham's Razor simplicity) we could adjust our conclusion. I think it would be parsimonious to say that the compiling of complexity from simplicity justifies the hypothesis in the existence of some "driving tendency." This attribute would seem to be counter to the Universe's standard tendency to decay. It's a long way from "God," but it's a start of something.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:57:41 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.

Not necessarily. If it can be established that evolution without God is so unrealistically improbable, and then that evolution with God is more probable in general, Occam's razor would favor the God hypothesis. You might have to make more assumptions of chance without God. But then again, this assumes that we have some sort of way of comparing the probability of there being a God in order to compare.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's razor.

Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.

So you're saying that there's no point at which a naturalistic account gets so ridiculous and improbable that we posit a supernatural explanation?

So if you were walking through a church, and a statue waved at you, you would posit the explanation that the particles just so happened to all shift one way and then the other way, despite the extreme improbability?

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:33:31 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:57:41 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Actually adding the God hypothesis as the ultimate cause of biological evolution goes against Ockham's razor. It is an unnecessary assumption.

Not necessarily. If it can be established that evolution without God is so unrealistically improbable, and then that evolution with God is more probable in general, Occam's razor would favor the God hypothesis. You might have to make more assumptions of chance without God. But then again, this assumes that we have some sort of way of comparing the probability of there being a God in order to compare.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's razor.

Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.

I like this forum! I've thought about those things myself. I've often told people that I think Evolution is the best evidence for a creator-God out there.

I suppose though that in order to keep parsimony (Occham's Razor simplicity) we could adjust our conclusion. I think it would be parsimonious to say that the compiling of complexity from simplicity justifies the hypothesis in the existence of some "driving tendency." This attribute would seem to be counter to the Universe's standard tendency to decay. It's a long way from "God," but it's a start of something.

Agreed, I just think this driving force is called natural selection. You can posit that God created natural selection but that would not be parsimonious.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.

So you're saying that there's no point at which a naturalistic account gets so ridiculous and improbable that we posit a supernatural explanation?

So if you were walking through a church, and a statue waved at you, you would posit the explanation that the particles just so happened to all shift one way and then the other way, despite the extreme improbability?

Well there could be many naturalistic explanations to a statue moving, like somebody rigging the thing. If you mean to say that it is truly a normal statue that has been rigorously tested to verify this fact, and the exact same statue was also demonstrated via recording devices from multiple sources to waving. If there were no naturalistic explanations like in that scenario, then yes perhaps a God or something supernatural may have done this. However, no such miracle or suspension of the natural order has ever been truly scientifically demonstrated to occur.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:31:29 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Any supernatural explanation defies Ockham's razor, as there are always less assumptions when only dealing with natural explanations. When we use supernatural beings as explanations we are creating another mystery where there is none.

So you're saying that there's no point at which a naturalistic account gets so ridiculous and improbable that we posit a supernatural explanation?

So if you were walking through a church, and a statue waved at you, you would posit the explanation that the particles just so happened to all shift one way and then the other way, despite the extreme improbability?

Well there could be many naturalistic explanations to a statue moving, like somebody rigging the thing. If you mean to say that it is truly a normal statue that has been rigorously tested to verify this fact, and the exact same statue was also demonstrated via recording devices from multiple sources to waving. If there were no naturalistic explanations like in that scenario, then yes perhaps a God or something supernatural may have done this. However, no such miracle or suspension of the natural order has ever been truly scientifically demonstrated to occur.


Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry I do not think we even have the capabilities of calculating the natural probability of that happening. But it would more parsimonious to assume this than a God according to Ockham. According the skepticism and the scientific method, if this happened consistently perhaps it would lend credence to some supernatural force. The problem with saying it is God is that God is not the only supernatural explanation. It could be ghosts or spirits or multiple Gods, or whatever else you can imagine. This is why Ockham is so crucial in these situations, to cut the crap right through and posit natural explanations.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.

Great point. I guess there is no arbitrarily chosen probability that would allow the God hypothesis over the natural one. If God wanted us to know he exists, he must consistently and reliably demonstrate his miracles. If he truly was all powerful and all knowing he wouldn't have any trouble proving his existence to absolutely everyone.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:56:01 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry I do not think we even have the capabilities of calculating the natural probability of that happening. But it would more parsimonious to assume this than a God according to Ockham. According the skepticism and the scientific method, if this happened consistently perhaps it would lend credence to some supernatural force. The problem with saying it is God is that God is not the only supernatural explanation. It could be ghosts or spirits or multiple Gods, or whatever else you can imagine. This is why Ockham is so crucial in these situations, to cut the crap right through and posit natural explanations.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.

Great point. I guess there is no arbitrarily chosen probability that would allow the God hypothesis over the natural one. If God wanted us to know he exists, he must consistently and reliably demonstrate his miracles. If he truly was all powerful and all knowing he wouldn't have any trouble proving his existence to absolutely everyone.

See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.

Lol, I would probably attribute that to intelligent aliens before God. It is kind of arrogant to think we can distinguish which events are miracles, which are not, and especially which supernatural being was responsible. We truly are not knowledgeable enough to decide on some of these issues, so I stick with the claim that I will not believe anything until the evidence supports it. I will always try to stay open-minded but never enough to let my brains fall out.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:06:36 PM, Orangatang wrote:
See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.

Lol, I would probably attribute that to intelligent aliens before God. It is kind of arrogant to think we can distinguish which events are miracles, which are not, and especially which supernatural being was responsible. We truly are not knowledgeable enough to decide on some of these issues, so I stick with the claim that I will not believe anything until the evidence supports it.

I will always try to stay open-minded but never enough to let my brains fall out.

LOL. Nicely played ;)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 9:51:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:58:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:56:01 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry I do not think we even have the capabilities of calculating the natural probability of that happening. But it would more parsimonious to assume this than a God according to Ockham. According the skepticism and the scientific method, if this happened consistently perhaps it would lend credence to some supernatural force. The problem with saying it is God is that God is not the only supernatural explanation. It could be ghosts or spirits or multiple Gods, or whatever else you can imagine. This is why Ockham is so crucial in these situations, to cut the crap right through and posit natural explanations.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.

Great point. I guess there is no arbitrarily chosen probability that would allow the God hypothesis over the natural one. If God wanted us to know he exists, he must consistently and reliably demonstrate his miracles. If he truly was all powerful and all knowing he wouldn't have any trouble proving his existence to absolutely everyone.

See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.

I don't understand why everyone assumes that if there is a God, it has to be supernatural.

If a universe without a god can "accidentally" create life, then that universe must surely be capable of making something that we would define as a God, especially in comparison to us.

It's unlikely that a disease knows it's attacking a human being.
The human being is not supernatural, even though the disease can't perceive it.

Also:
Non-physical is not the same as supernatural.
If there is any non-physical part of the natural universe, it seems reasonable to assume that the universe either created that too, or "uses" it as a creative element just like any physical element.

Also:
Everyone assumes that God, if he exists, came first.
I see no reason to assume that a God like being wouldn't have been evolved from smaller life.
However, even if God came after life, being a God, he'd have the power to re-order the universe.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 2:54:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 9:51:34 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:58:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:56:01 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry I do not think we even have the capabilities of calculating the natural probability of that happening. But it would more parsimonious to assume this than a God according to Ockham. According the skepticism and the scientific method, if this happened consistently perhaps it would lend credence to some supernatural force. The problem with saying it is God is that God is not the only supernatural explanation. It could be ghosts or spirits or multiple Gods, or whatever else you can imagine. This is why Ockham is so crucial in these situations, to cut the crap right through and posit natural explanations.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.

Great point. I guess there is no arbitrarily chosen probability that would allow the God hypothesis over the natural one. If God wanted us to know he exists, he must consistently and reliably demonstrate his miracles. If he truly was all powerful and all knowing he wouldn't have any trouble proving his existence to absolutely everyone.

See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.

I don't understand why everyone assumes that if there is a God, it has to be supernatural.

Well that is the colloquial understanding. Give a definition of your God for clarification.

If a universe without a god can "accidentally" create life, then that universe must surely be capable of making something that we would define as a God, especially in comparison to us.

You can define anything as God, however if you are going to define God as something that is already natural, like the universe, than there is a major difference between your God and the God of religion. There is also no point in giving another name ("God") to something that already has a name, and it is a moot point to then posit it's existence because of this newly skewed definition. An example I always hear is that God is energy. Well then of course your God must then exist but that is not what is normally meant by God in the first place.

It's unlikely that a disease knows it's attacking a human being.
The human being is not supernatural, even though the disease can't perceive it.

Also:
Non-physical is not the same as supernatural.
If there is any non-physical part of the natural universe, it seems reasonable to assume that the universe either created that too, or "uses" it as a creative element just like any physical element.

Agreed, I can see energy as something that is non-physical but still a part of our natural universe. What else do you mean by non-physical?

Also:
Everyone assumes that God, if he exists, came first.
I see no reason to assume that a God like being wouldn't have been evolved from smaller life.
However, even if God came after life, being a God, he'd have the power to re-order the universe.

Wtf did I just read. Do you have any evidence or arguments for this hypothesis?
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 8:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Computer program simulations always tell you what you want to hear. You told it to.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 8:52:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1+1 =2 You will get many to make this complex
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:32:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 2:54:38 AM, Orangatang wrote:
At 2/1/2014 9:51:34 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:58:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:56:01 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Well there would be the natural explanation... That the particles all just happened to move in one direction, and then the other. This is possible, yet extremely extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry I do not think we even have the capabilities of calculating the natural probability of that happening. But it would more parsimonious to assume this than a God according to Ockham. According the skepticism and the scientific method, if this happened consistently perhaps it would lend credence to some supernatural force. The problem with saying it is God is that God is not the only supernatural explanation. It could be ghosts or spirits or multiple Gods, or whatever else you can imagine. This is why Ockham is so crucial in these situations, to cut the crap right through and posit natural explanations.

I'm just curious. I don't see why a "supernatural explanation" is less preferred than an improbable natural explanation. Isn't it the hypothesis with fewer assumptions that Occam's razor favors?

Let's say somebody gets a royal flush, perhaps a few times to make it even more unlikely. There are a few ways to explain this:
1) It was all an extremely rare but nonetheless possible event.
2) Someone, perhaps the man or the dealer, rigged this outcome. (Magic tricks)
3) God miraculously did this.

Seems to me that (3) should always be discarded as it assumes the existence of some supernatural entity. How does God do this? Why did he do this? It creates a bigger mystery than there was in the first place. The naturalistic explanation are always much more beautiful and harmonious.

Comparing getting a royal flush to evolution or a statue waving isn't comparable. That being said, I would argue that getting a royal flush can almost always be discarded as more probable than the existence of a God. But the point is... is there a point when natural explanations just get too complicated, and we must posit something supernatural? If so, at what point? I'm not entirely sure either way.

Great point. I guess there is no arbitrarily chosen probability that would allow the God hypothesis over the natural one. If God wanted us to know he exists, he must consistently and reliably demonstrate his miracles. If he truly was all powerful and all knowing he wouldn't have any trouble proving his existence to absolutely everyone.

See.. What I mean is that if we looked into the sky and found "JESUS SAVES ALL" written on every other meteor and planet... Well, you could still have a naturalistic explanation for that. It seems very very difficult to say when the natural explanation gets too improbable, and a supernatural explanation is more plausible. Atheists often say that "X would convince me God exists" but I rather doubt that personally.

I don't understand why everyone assumes that if there is a God, it has to be supernatural.

Well that is the colloquial understanding. Give a definition of your God for clarification.

Well, I kind of did define below what I thought a God might be like.
I agree that the various religions define God as a supernatural being.
So, that first sentence is basically a mission statement.
I say, God doesnt have to be supernatural, then I show some examples of how that is possible.

If a universe without a god can "accidentally" create life, then that universe must surely be capable of making something that we would define as a God, especially in comparison to us.

You can define anything as God, however if you are going to define God as something that is already natural, like the universe, than there is a major difference between your God and the God of religion. There is also no point in giving another name ("God") to something that already has a name, and it is a moot point to then posit it's existence because of this newly skewed definition. An example I always hear is that God is energy. Well then of course your God must then exist but that is not what is normally meant by God in the first place.

Ok, I can see how I might ave caused confusion there......
For purposes of this discussion, we can assume that I am sticking loosely with the traditional definition of the religious Gods.
I'm just saying that, just because we have not found natural proof of these Gods that doesn't mean that they would have to be supernatural.
They could exist, coud be natural, and we could possibly still not be able to perceive them.
Thats what the next part is about.......

It's unlikely that a disease knows it's attacking a human being.
The human being is not supernatural, even though the disease can't perceive it.


I added the disease thing, to show that we could be living inside of a God right now.
That would not make God supernatural, but we would still have no way to perceive the God we lived in.

I'm not saying tha I believe this is the truth. It's just a possibility.
Scientists are conjecturing right now that our entire universe could be a computer simulation.
What I am saying is no more outrageous than that.

Also:
Non-physical is not the same as supernatural.
If there is any non-physical part of the natural universe, it seems reasonable to assume that the universe either created that too, or "uses" it as a creative element just like any physical element.

Agreed, I can see energy as something that is non-physical but still a part of our natural universe. What else do you mean by non-physical?

So, when I am defining something non-physical, I am talking about something that we can not perceive through any of our physical senses.
Energy however, is perceivable through one or more of our physical senses.

Also:
Everyone assumes that God, if he exists, came first.
I see no reason to assume that a God like being wouldn't have been evolved from smaller life.
However, even if God came after life, being a God, he'd have the power to re-order the universe.

Wtf did I just read. Do you have any evidence or arguments for this hypothesis?

Nope! I'm just suggesting a possibility that seems to me to be no more outrageous than.....oh let me see......the MWI.....string theory......Schrodinger's cat.....implications from the double slit experiment suggest that we can determine reality by our observations. None of those ideas are less outrageous, to me, than anything I have posited.

But also......
Yes, I might argue that life began as a single celled organism, then evolved into multi-celled organisms.
Evolution didn't stop there did it?
No.
It continued, and made as many variants of life as conditions have allowed it to make.
Do you think evolution worked its way up from a single cell to the complexity of man then just stopped? I doubt it.

Having said all of that, I do believe in a godlike being, but there are no religions involved.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.