Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for ID-ists:

JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 7:49:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.

Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.

So here is the deck of cards example:

I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.

Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.

The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!. But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.

So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter. Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?

It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 7:49:42 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.

Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.

So here is the deck of cards example:

I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.

Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.

The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!. But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.

So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter. Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?

It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.

That leaves two possible generators of the universe. That is a metaphysical number or mind.

For chance to operate, as chance never generated anything by itself, it requires something to utilize it.

Equally the value of the number 4 never generated anything either.

The only metaphysical "thing" we know that generates is a Mind.

Now we would need to deduce is that Mind intelligent or arbitrary? Did the mind generate the universe by chance? or was it all by design?

We must look to the numbers.

Concerning your analogy:
When we calculate the probabilities of the deck the math looks like this.
52
51
x 2652
50
x 132600
49
x 6497400
48
x 311875200
47
x 14658134400
46
x 6.74274E+11
45
x 3.03423E+13
44
x 1.33506E+15
43
x 5.74077E+16
42
x 2.41112E+18
41
x 9.88561E+19
40
x 3.95424E+21
39
x 1.54215E+23
38
x 5.86019E+24
37
x 2.16827E+26
36
x 7.80577E+27
35
x 2.73202E+29
34
x 9.28887E+30
33
x 3.06533E+32
32
x 9.80904E+33
31
x 3.0408E+35
30
x 9.12241E+36
29
x 2.6455E+38
28
x 7.4074E+39
27
x 2E+41
26
x 5.19999E+42
25
x 1.3E+44
24
x 3.12E+45
23
x 7.17599E+46
22
x 1.57872E+48
21
x 3.31531E+49
20
x 6.63061E+50
19
x 1.25982E+52
18
x 2.26767E+53
17
x 3.85504E+54
16
x 6.16806E+55
15
x 9.25209E+56
14
x 1.29529E+58
13
x 1.68388E+59
12
x 2.02066E+60
11
x 2.22272E+61
10
x 2.22272E+62
9
x 2.00045E+63
8
x 1.60036E+64
7
x 1.12025E+65
6
x 6.72151E+65
5
x 3.36076E+66
4
x 1.3443E+67
3
x 4.03291E+67
2
x 8.06582E+67
1
x 8.06582E+67

The reason for this reduction is that once a card is drawn from 1/52 is now there are only 51 cards. So the next draw is 1/51 on down to the last card of 1/1.

None of these cards are independent of the deck.

Now lets look at just a mere five of the independent fine tuning values. You could go all day long calculating these physical laws but we will just take five independent.

There is no reduction in these calculations:
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the 37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the 40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the 55
Mass of Universe1 1:10 to the 59
Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the 120

So if we just calculate the astronomical odds by mulitiplying these independent constants and quantities.

This would be 1 : 10 to the 576,312,000th power for all of these to simultaneously "pop" into existence by chance.

That is beyond any deck card draw by hundreds of millions.

So if we equate each deck card draw of living and optimal to the independent constant, then we would:
1 : 10 to the 80 power
X 1 : 10 to the 80 power
X 1 : 10 to the 80 power
X 1 : 10 to the 80 power
X 1 : 10 to the 80 power

These are aggregated numbers by each specific event we are discussing here.

These numbers become rediculous.
To give a comparison there is only 1 : 10 to the 17th power of seconds in the history of the earth.

We are discussing very very very specific odds that are aggregated or compounded to produce this simply insane number.

To summarize:
But all of the numbers themselves simply ignore the fact that mere chance generates nothing.
We are determining if the one metaphysical concept, a "Mind" that does generate things, generated the fine-tuning by chance alone.

When we look at these numbers it begs the question. Why would chance behave in this very specific fine-tuned way.

When we realize a Mind is in play we must remove pure chance from the argument.

Same concept when we walk into a casino and a dealer lays out a living and optimal deck 5 times in a row there is only one conclusion that is justified.

The metaphysical mind of the person caused it to happen. Chance simply does not behave that way.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

Of course you can postulate a multiverse or some such speculative non-sense, but you have nor reason but an athiestic stand-by to do so.

At most you could state that both have presuppositions.
But clearly the design conclusion has warrant to their presupposition.
Any opposition does not.

As to my knowledge, yes I do know. God told me. You can ask him too. He was there.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?

Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.
Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.

Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.
Only a metaphysical mind generates.

Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.
The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.

Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.
Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well, we can rule out the first of the three, physical necessity.
That leaves chance and design.

Pure chance generates nothing. We have zero examples of chance generating.

We do however have countless examples of one single metaphysical concept that indeed generates new things.
The mind of person.

Through these concepts we can see the logical flow of the teleological argument from fine-tuning.

This leaves us with a logical conclusion that design from a metaphysical mind is the only option left.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 1:08:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?

Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.
Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.

Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.


Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.
Only a metaphysical mind generates.

Generation =/= Formation.

You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?


Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.
The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.

Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.
Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,

No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 5:29:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.

Irrelevant - we're not talking about the beginning of the universe - we're talking about how matter is organized AFTER it began, if it did.

That leaves two possible generators of the universe. That is a metaphysical number or mind.

This presumes that the universe actually had a beginning... Which is not certain by any means.

Concerning your analogy:
When we calculate the probabilities of the deck the math looks like this.

Yes, thank you, we have a basic grasp of what 52! means.

The reason for this reduction is that once a card is drawn from 1/52 is now there are only 51 cards. So the next draw is 1/51 on down to the last card of 1/1.

Yes, we also know how compounding probability works in a finite system.

None of these cards are independent of the deck.

What do you mean by this? All this says is that none of the matter in the universe is organized independently of the universe's existence. Congratulations, you've made a quasi-mystical statement that makes your position look more cogent than it really is.

Now lets look at just a mere five of the independent fine tuning values...

That is beyond any deck card draw by hundreds of millions.

Oh, so there is a threshold for probability where it becomes likely that it is design, not chance? Where is that number? I'll just keep adding cards to the deck, and suddenly it will be a designed deal.

We are discussing very very very specific odds that are aggregated or compounded to produce this simply insane number.

So where is the threshold please?

Same concept when we walk into a casino and a dealer lays out a living and optimal deck 5 times in a row there is only one conclusion that is justified.

But this isn't what we're talking about is it? That would be like multiple universes. We're talking about any one layout of the cards - it doesn't matter if they are 52 cards from a normal deck or 52 random images on cards - the chances of any one order are the same.

I want to talk about the probability of one single deal of the deck.

The metaphysical mind of the person caused it to happen. Chance simply does not behave that way.

So, in a nutshell, your argument is.... actually, none of what you said in any way addressed the example. The idea is that THIS arrangement of matter is no more probable or improbable than any other.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:58:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whenever I hear arguments similar to Gileando's I always think that it is vastly more improbable that a fully formed, omnipotent and omniscient mind capable of creating all of existence begins to exist rather than the current scientific theory, which can already explain a lot of how everything began to exist.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:19:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 9:58:22 AM, seraine wrote:
Whenever I hear arguments similar to Gileando's I always think that it is vastly more improbable that a fully formed, omnipotent and omniscient mind capable of creating all of existence begins to exist rather than the current scientific theory, which can already explain a lot of how everything began to exist.

Why? I found the Teleological arugment to be foundational. I had the direct opposite conclusion.

Why is it an easier leap to believe the universe generated itself from nothing rather than believing a being who has a metaphysical mind.

We have proof that metaphyics exist and minds exist.
We know metaphysics exist like values of numbers.
We all have metaphysical minds as well.

What is the leap exactly?

We have zero evidence that the universe is able to generate itself from nothing.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:43:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 5:29:29 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.

Irrelevant - we're not talking about the beginning of the universe - we're talking about how matter is organized AFTER it began, if it did.

That is not the essence of the theistic argument.
Clearly everything organized itself based upon what was "done" to the universe at its inception.
Everything organized itself based upon the first event.


That leaves two possible generators of the universe. That is a metaphysical number or mind.

This presumes that the universe actually had a beginning... Which is not certain by any means.

The only doubts are by atheistic viewpoints that deny all of the existing evidence. Intelligent Design presumes a beginning.
The fine-tuning portion of the Teleological argument presumes a beginning.

Everything physical has a begining. Everything physical has a cause. This is proven by everything we know that is physical has a cause. Unless you popped into existence?

We agree that metaphysics are outside of causation and outside of the physical.
However, as the universe is physical it necessarily has a cause.

That does not mean everything in existence has a cause as again Metaphysics need not be caused.


Concerning your analogy:
When we calculate the probabilities of the deck the math looks like this.

Yes, thank you, we have a basic grasp of what 52! means.

The reason for this reduction is that once a card is drawn from 1/52 is now there are only 51 cards. So the next draw is 1/51 on down to the last card of 1/1.

Yes, we also know how compounding probability works in a finite system.

None of these cards are independent of the deck.

What do you mean by this? All this says is that none of the matter in the universe is organized independently of the universe's existence. Congratulations, you've made a quasi-mystical statement that makes your position look more cogent than it really is.

Your insults are pointless. You stated above twice you had a better understanding of the math. You then proceed to insult my understanding.

However, is it not obvious that these countless theists are trying to say something you are not getting?
Perhaps you should approach with a bit more humility.

It is not a mystical statement. I laid out the math for you to (hopefully) recognize the difference in the applications of the formulas for fine-tuning and a deck of cards.

Each time a card is removed from the deck the probability is reduced the next "needed" card would be pulled.

Natural forces are not linked in this way. Each of the forces are independent.
Gravity can be see through acceleration and is entirely independent of the ratio of protons and electrons.

You aggregate the two rather than reduce as within the deck of cards analogy.


Now lets look at just a mere five of the independent fine tuning values...

That is beyond any deck card draw by hundreds of millions.

Oh, so there is a threshold for probability where it becomes likely that it is design, not chance? Where is that number? I'll just keep adding cards to the deck, and suddenly it will be a designed deal.

Exactly, as my example showed if you aggregate the deck by itself five times you begin to understand just the "first five" elements of the fine-tuning ratio.

Even in the trail of John Thomas Vaney the prosecuters utilized probability of 1 : 1.7 trillion that his house would burn down 7 times. It was beyond "bad luck".

We use our cognitive skills here. The prosecutors let the Jury use their own cognitive skills to determine if a house burning down was mere chance.

If any non-pattern formulation came out of the deck we would outright ignore it. When the pattern emerges we rightly consider design.

At no time if a rational person encountered a living and optimal laid out deck of cards would you think that happened by mere chance. Never.


We are discussing very very very specific odds that are aggregated or compounded to produce this simply insane number.

So where is the threshold please?

Read above.


Same concept when we walk into a casino and a dealer lays out a living and optimal deck 5 times in a row there is only one conclusion that is justified.

But this isn't what we're talking about is it? That would be like multiple universes. We're talking about any one layout of the cards - it doesn't matter if they are 52 cards from a normal deck or 52 random images on cards - the chances of any one order are the same.

I want to talk about the probability of one single deal of the deck.

Again as above, if you ran into any deck of cards laid out in a living and optimal alignment you would immediately "know" that the dealer did it. There is a zero practical chance of that happening.

How much more so when you are at a level of 1 : 10 to the 500,000,000 millionth power?
A deck of cards is just 1 : 10 to the 67th power.


The metaphysical mind of the person caused it to happen. Chance simply does not behave that way.

So, in a nutshell, your argument is.... actually, none of what you said in any way addressed the example. The idea is that THIS arrangement of matter is no more probable or improbable than any other.

Well, obviously if you actually understood what I was saying you would not be harping on this point of departure.

I can only encourage you to attempt to continue to roll what these brilliant people are trying to relay, over and over until it clicks.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 11:10:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 1:08:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?

Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.
Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.

Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.

Science itself requires philosophy as a parent. Science itself cannot be done without philosophy.
Logic is not necessary to do science, sadly. For example QM states time does not exist and everything is random. As Einstein pointed out that is absurd and illogical.
The Logical rule of the lesser and the greater (if I can do fifty pushups, I certainly can do one).
However, QM physicists claim they have illogical observations therefore logic does not have bearing.
This is just bad math, but hey people listen to them. I believe 50 years from now they will be laughed at as poor inferior scientists like those of 1,000 years ago.



Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.
Only a metaphysical mind generates.

Generation =/= Formation.

You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?

It appears to me you are stating that they do overlap but are seperate?

I will attempt to address though your response seems unclear.
The generation of the universe is the causation of the forming elements of the universe. Every physically determined "formation" was a physically necessary consequence of the generation of the universe.

That singular and complex event was the ground work for all the laws of physics, existence and nature of matter etc...

So we just discuss the generation factor within the Teleological argument.



Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.
The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.

Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.
Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,

No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.

I have over a zillion examples that indeed everything physical has a cause. It is why it is an Axiom.
How many uncaused phyiscal things can you point to? Science has been unable to even assert one uncaused physical event, much less a dogmatic one.

What is this evidence you feel makes this point is uncertain?

Do you realize that zero theistic physicists deny this Axiom and hold to an eternal universe or a multiverse concept?

Even many agnostics like Jastro do not hold to an eternal physical universe and such.

It is clearly a atheistic bias that asserts theories that are unprovable and against sound observational science, reason and logic.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 11:36:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 11:10:06 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:08:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:

First:
This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.
Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.


You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.

It is a matter of logic.
The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.
It would not then be the first.

You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?

Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.
Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.

Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.

Science itself requires philosophy as a parent. Science itself cannot be done without philosophy.

This is not in dispute.

Logic is not necessary to do science, sadly.

Yes it is.

For example QM states time does not exist and everything is random. As Einstein pointed out that is absurd and illogical.

Just saying something is absurd and illogical does not make it so, Einstein attacked QM because he did not like it, because it upset him. He never negated it.

The Logical rule of the lesser and the greater (if I can do fifty pushups, I certainly can do one).
However, QM physicists claim they have illogical observations therefore logic does not have bearing.

It is illogical to ignore observation.

This is just bad math, but hey people listen to them. I believe 50 years from now they will be laughed at as poor inferior scientists like those of 1,000 years ago.

You don't get science do you? In even the most basic of ways?

Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.
Only a metaphysical mind generates.

Generation =/= Formation.

You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?

It appears to me you are stating that they do overlap but are seperate?

Wow you are an idiot.

I will attempt to address though your response seems unclear.
The generation of the universe is the causation of the forming elements of the universe. Every physically determined "formation" was a physically necessary consequence of the generation of the universe.

That singular and complex event was the ground work for all the laws of physics, existence and nature of matter etc...

Repeating a blind assumption does not make it so, your argument is an argument from ignorance. You are assuming without evidence that the big bang is the first cause, we don't know this. It may just be the earliest event of our local universe.


So we just discuss the generation factor within the Teleological argument.



Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.
The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.

Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.
Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,

No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.

I have over a zillion examples that indeed everything physical has a cause. It is why it is an Axiom.

So you just ignoring what I said now?

How many uncaused phyiscal things can you point to? Science has been unable to even assert one uncaused physical event, much less a dogmatic one.

What is this evidence you feel makes this point is uncertain?

Do you realize that zero theistic physicists deny this Axiom and hold to an eternal universe or a multiverse concept?

Even many agnostics like Jastro do not hold to an eternal physical universe and such.

It is clearly a atheistic bias that asserts theories that are unprovable and against sound observational science, reason and logic.

Wow... you just don't even care what it is people are saying to you?

Fine I will leave you to your blind faith.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@C_N
Thank you for postulating that I lack understanding.

Given that I am the more educated of the two of us, I believe the augury is in my favor as to overall undertanding.

I am not saying that you are not intelligent or a bad person but that you may be the one lacking in understanding.

I also encourage a more mature attitude as that will give your viewpoint more weight.

If you feel that I am lacking in understanding I do not mind mature discussion.

Given that athiests are not theists, it also would be wise to assume that the atheistic side does not understand the arguments of the theistic side and vice versa.

Getting angry about my "lack of intellect" is not productive towards convincing me. If you are not here to convince me then you can feel free to stop posting.

After all if both sides understood each other completely from the outset there would be only one side left.

So please repost with a bit more decorum and explain what I do not understand.
Please explain in a very basic way as that will increase my understanding, if you feel that I am deficient.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 12:52:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 10:43:55 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Even in the trail of John Thomas Vaney the prosecuters utilized probability of 1 : 1.7 trillion that his house would burn down 7 times. It was beyond "bad luck".

We use our cognitive skills here. The prosecutors let the Jury use their own cognitive skills to determine if a house burning down was mere chance.

Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??

Again as above, if you ran into any deck of cards laid out in a living and optimal alignment you would immediately "know" that the dealer did it. There is a zero practical chance of that happening.

This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.

If I went looking for any specific arrangement of the deck and found it, I would of course be surprised - the odds of it actually occurring are 1/52! of course. You are getting caught up in which specific arrangement you are looking for despite the fact that all arrangements are equally probable.

Well, obviously if you actually understood what I was saying you would not be harping on this point of departure.

I can only encourage you to attempt to continue to roll what these brilliant people are trying to relay, over and over until it clicks.

This is quite humorous considering that it is obviously you who has not grasped this concept yet.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 1:19:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 12:50:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@C_N
Thank you for postulating that I lack understanding.

Thats okay...


Given that I am the more educated of the two of us, I believe the augury is in my favor as to overall undertanding.

1: You have no evidence to that effect.
2: The truth exists independently of someone's level of education.
3: These are basic concepts that a school child could understand.


I am not saying that you are not intelligent or a bad person but that you may be the one lacking in understanding.

I also encourage a more mature attitude as that will give your viewpoint more weight.

If you feel that I am lacking in understanding I do not mind mature discussion.

Given that athiests are not theists, it also would be wise to assume that the atheistic side does not understand the arguments of the theistic side and vice versa.

Getting angry about my "lack of intellect" is not productive towards convincing me. If you are not here to convince me then you can feel free to stop posting.

After all if both sides understood each other completely from the outset there would be only one side left.

So please repost with a bit more decorum and explain what I do not understand.
Please explain in a very basic way as that will increase my understanding, if you feel that I am deficient.

No, what I will do is ignore you as being beneath my concern. Keep your blind faith and self delusion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 1:49:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 12:52:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/12/2011 10:43:55 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Even in the trail of John Thomas Vaney the prosecuters utilized probability of 1 : 1.7 trillion that his house would burn down 7 times. It was beyond "bad luck".

We use our cognitive skills here. The prosecutors let the Jury use their own cognitive skills to determine if a house burning down was mere chance.

Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??

Again, you are pointing to a numerical threshold. It has been stated that each singular event is aggregated via pattern.

This is easily understood through cognitive abilities. Again, read the card player analogy below.


Again as above, if you ran into any deck of cards laid out in a living and optimal alignment you would immediately "know" that the dealer did it. There is a zero practical chance of that happening.

This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.

I disagree. It is not predetermined but cognitivly formulated.
I had used with you in the past that a person may miss the significance of a perfect hand of cards being dealt ten times exactly the same.
However, an experienced card player knows it was by design.


If I went looking for any specific arrangement of the deck and found it, I would of course be surprised - the odds of it actually occurring are 1/52! of course. You are getting caught up in which specific arrangement you are looking for despite the fact that all arrangements are equally probable.

Imagine using this argument after getting 10 perfect and exactly the same hands of cards in a row.
Do you think you will not be "treated" as a card cheat? No matter how much you protest?
Imagine you chuckle and state "Guys, heck! You are just predisposed towards the view this is against "all odds!"



Well, obviously if you actually understood what I was saying you would not be harping on this point of departure.

I can only encourage you to attempt to continue to roll what these brilliant people are trying to relay, over and over until it clicks.

This is quite humorous considering that it is obviously you who has not grasped this concept yet.

Again to be genuine to the converstation it is a potentiality that one of us is clearly not fully understanding the others point of view or potentially both of us do not understand each others view.

I feel my continued explanations resolve all doubt. Nothing you have said have I felt is new to me or beyond my comprehension.

Your responses seem to show that you are neglecting to weigh my very pointed responses.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 7:27:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 1:49:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??

Again, you are pointing to a numerical threshold. It has been stated that each singular event is aggregated via pattern.

This is easily understood through cognitive abilities. Again, read the card player analogy below.

All you've had to say on this point is that there is a threshold somewhere, and we can just sort of intuit where it is, but you reject any number to quantify it... So I ask yet again - where is the threshold? What do you use to determine it?? Specifically.... "cognitive abilities" is not an answer.

This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.

I disagree. It is not predetermined but cognitivly formulated.
I had used with you in the past that a person may miss the significance of a perfect hand of cards being dealt ten times exactly the same.
However, an experienced card player knows it was by design.

Why is it that I need to keep telling you that multiple hands is a complete disanalogy. We are talking about ONE SINGLE DEAL. I keep asking you about ONE DEAL and you respond that if this occurred multiple times, then etc... etc...

Your responses seem to show that you are neglecting to weigh my very pointed responses.

Your "pointed responses" have all had nothing to do with the actual point I'm making, or involve changing the analogy to suit your purposes.

******************************************************

This is very, very simple.

Any one arrangement of cards has the same probability as any other.
The cards have already been dealt.
All the ID position does is look at the cards and say that there is a 1/52! probability of this hand.

There is nothing "fine-tuned" or "designed" about it, despite the high improbability.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 3:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 7:27:23 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/12/2011 1:49:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??

Again, you are pointing to a numerical threshold. It has been stated that each singular event is aggregated via pattern.

This is easily understood through cognitive abilities. Again, read the card player analogy below.

All you've had to say on this point is that there is a threshold somewhere, and we can just sort of intuit where it is, but you reject any number to quantify it... So I ask yet again - where is the threshold? What do you use to determine it?? Specifically.... "cognitive abilities" is not an answer.

Imagine being asked "at what year does a physicist become a good physcist?"

Is a 20 year veteran of experimental physics less good than a 10 year physicist? How about a 40 year veteran?"

Your natural response is of course "It is far more complex than a mere number! You will have to be able to review all of the data to compare these physicists."

And I would agree with you. Imagine that the person keeps yelling "give me a numerical threshold based upon my personal assessment of years!"

That person may want a simple and easy representation for the divergence but reality does not afford it.

What would you think of such a person?


This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.

I disagree. It is not predetermined but cognitivly formulated.
I had used with you in the past that a person may miss the significance of a perfect hand of cards being dealt ten times exactly the same.
However, an experienced card player knows it was by design.

Why is it that I need to keep telling you that multiple hands is a complete disanalogy. We are talking about ONE SINGLE DEAL. I keep asking you about ONE DEAL and you respond that if this occurred multiple times, then etc... etc...


Your responses seem to show that you are neglecting to weigh my very pointed responses.

Your "pointed responses" have all had nothing to do with the actual point I'm making, or involve changing the analogy to suit your purposes.

******************************************************

This is very, very simple.

Any one arrangement of cards has the same probability as any other.
The cards have already been dealt.
All the ID position does is look at the cards and say that there is a 1/52! probability of this hand.

There is nothing "fine-tuned" or "designed" about it, despite the high improbability.

I have assented to your analogy in many aspects and then within different discussions changed the analogy to appropriate fit another portion of the discussion, and even at other points made a new analogy for a different aspect of the discussion.

I do not mean to frustrate you.

Directly staying within the analogy I have shown you that no matter any of the other combinations are meaningless. The living and optimal "draws" represent a pattern.

We recognize the fact that only one outcome has a pattern specifically tuned against all of the possible outcomes that do not have a pattern.

We assent that indeed this finely-tuned universe is equally improbable from the deck of cards.

That is not in question.

The question is what caused this pattern that overlayed the probability.

That is what the Teleological argument addresses.

1. It is not due to physical necessity, as the physical did not exist prior to the generation of the physical.

2. Pure chance creates/generates nothing. That leaves "something" meta-physical that generated the universe. Only one meta-physical object creates that is a Mind, as numerical values do not create.
-That leaves the question did the Mind do it randomly or by design. We look that a pattern was the outcome as opposed to not. We look at the extreme improbabilities of the pattern being the outcome and combine the "given" fact that a Mind is the only metaphysical object that could have created the universe.
- Dembski states it as chance behaving not like chance etc., I have used the analogy of the dealer "behind" the draw. Given that a dealer is dealing the deck and the high improbability of a living and optimal deck being drawn we easily can conclude the last remaining option….

3. That leaves design.

That was all addressed within your analogy. Hopefully bringing it together into one single post offers more clarity.

The problem is trying to address your objections as "yeah-but" one offs that lends to the confusion and your perturbation.

-To expand by addressing some formulated "yeah-buts".

Any adherence to a pure chance scenario is clearly wrong, as pure chance creates nothing.
If you are an atheist this leads to the "need" to offer some other option besides God. As no other metaphysical object, besides a mind creates, which the athiests do not want, it must be a physical force.
-Also to pose a metaphysical "force" would be impossible as none is known to exist, a physical force is a superior proposition, for the atheist as they are known to exist.

Thus, the need to "pose" a multiverse or parent verse etc, despite zero evidence to support this speculation.
- The theists offer evidence of a mind, in that we have obvious proof that a metaphysical object can create. That is clearly a human mind; it is able to manipulate physical laws to create, even on our "restricted" level. That is a near exactitude of the historical claim of God on an unrestricted level.
-Additionally, the atheist has zero evidence of a physical force prior to the creation/generation of the known physical universe.
-There is also zero evidence to support an eternal universe.

-The theist has evidence that metaphysical objects are independent of the physical universe and are thus admissible by all of the criteria.

This was the address over a multitude of posts.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:45:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 3:04:42 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Imagine being asked "at what year does a physicist become a good physcist?"

That person may want a simple and easy representation for the divergence but reality does not afford it.

What would you think of such a person?

That they clearly misunderstood the subject of the question... Supposing for a moment that there is a continuum of expertise, at some point in time, the person becomes more an expert than not. Such a point exists, regardless of our ability or inability to point to where it is. The idea that this prevents us from assessing whereabouts the threshold may be is ludicrous.

But strangely, ID proponents cannot identify a threshold for when chance magically morphs into design. Not even within several orders of magnitude...

Directly staying within the analogy I have shown you that no matter any of the other combinations are meaningless. The living and optimal "draws" represent a pattern.

A "pattern" that is statistically no different than any other arrangement of the cards. The only reason it is identified as a "pattern" is because of a preconceived notion that such arrangement is in fact a pattern.

Again - suppose that the cards don't actually have normal card faces - they are completely random images. We can define an order that constitutes a "pattern" and if that order occurs, it is no more likely or unlikely than any other. Whether you call it a "pattern" is immaterial to probability.

We recognize the fact that only one outcome has a pattern specifically tuned against all of the possible outcomes that do not have a pattern.

But that's not the case, is it? There is no tuning required - the constants are set in place before the cards are dealt. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that we have any idea whatsoever what tuning values are possible.

We assent that indeed this finely-tuned universe is equally improbable from the deck of cards.

That is not in question.

The question is what caused this pattern that overlayed the probability.

Do you not understand that the probability of a "pattern" is equal to the probability of a "non-pattern" ?? Nothing caused it - they are both equally possible functions of chance.

That is what the Teleological argument addresses.

1. It is not due to physical necessity, as the physical did not exist prior to the generation of the physical.

This is simply incorrect - the matter was THERE, it was just very compressed. The components of the universe at T0 still behaved with the same constants they do now.

2. Pure chance creates/generates nothing. That leaves "something" meta-physical that generated the universe. Only one meta-physical object creates that is a Mind, as numerical values do not create.

First, this is a terribly misleading statement - nobody is saying that chance "created" the universe. Chance cannot create - nor can anything metaphysical. Even blank consciousness cannot create something from nothing. Something must first exist to sustain the consciousness.

The ID argument faces a HUGE problem here. First, either you are committed to creation ex nihilo or not - meaning if God can create something from nothing, why cannot something just pop into existence from nothing. Second, if God caused things, but nothing caused God, you've abandoned causality, and must be equally willing to admit that the universe could have begun without a cause. Third, even if a metaphysical mind CAN create things, what created the mind?

-That leaves the question did the Mind do it randomly or by design. We look that a pattern was the outcome as opposed to not. We look at the extreme improbabilities of the pattern being the outcome and combine the "given" fact that a Mind is the only metaphysical object that could have created the universe.
- Dembski states it as chance behaving not like chance etc., I have used the analogy of the dealer "behind" the draw. Given that a dealer is dealing the deck and the high improbability of a living and optimal deck being drawn we easily can conclude the last remaining option….

Are you kidding me?? The high improbability of a "living and optimal deck" is exactly equal to the high improbability of ANY OTHER deck. What is your basis for assuming design in this case, where the probability is EQUAL for ALL OTHERS??

It seems that the ONLY criteria for assuming design over chance is that THIS deck is one you like, and the others are not. There is no "math" involved - there is no "probability" involved - it is pure and simple begging the question.

3. That leaves design.

It also leaves physical naturalism.... which you conveniently leave out - the idea that this world *could* be the product of natural physical processes. Chance IS a natural physical process, but the strawman idea that it "creates" is nonsense.

If you don't believe chance is a physical process, flip a coin. Or deny that true chance exists and buy into determinism - in which case you just run into the same issue - determinism is also a natural physical process.

That was all addressed within your analogy. Hopefully bringing it together into one single post offers more clarity.

I can only hope that my response finally gets this concept through to you.

Any adherence to a pure chance scenario is clearly wrong, as pure chance creates nothing.

Addressed above....

If you are an atheist this leads to the "need" to offer some other option besides God. As no other metaphysical object, besides a mind creates, which the athiests do not want, it must be a physical force.

Couple options here... first, the possible idea that no creation has ever taken place - all matter and energy has always existed. Second, that the idea that only metaphysical minds "create" is nonsense - either the idea of the mind or the definition of "creates" is incorrect. If you mean creates in the loose sense - reorganization of matter - then there is no barrier whatsoever to physical processes creating things. I encourage you to visit Hawaii as a prime example of this.

-Also to pose a metaphysical "force" would be impossible as none is known to exist, a physical force is a superior proposition, for the atheist as they are known to exist.

It would seem, would it not, that you have just restated in mangled version Occham's Razor...

Thus, the need to "pose" a multiverse or parent verse etc, despite zero evidence to support this speculation.

Which of course just puts the theory on the same evidentiary level as the uncreated, but existing before anything else without something to sustain it, metaphysical mind.

- The theists offer evidence of a mind, in that we have obvious proof that a metaphysical object can create. That is clearly a human mind; it is able to manipulate physical laws to create, even on our "restricted" level. That is a near exactitude of the historical claim of God on an unrestricted level.

What obvious proof? You can't point to the mind... can't prove logically it exists.... can't show anything it has done that can't be explained by physical processes... considerable doubt about its existence exists... right. Obvious proof.

-Additionally, the atheist has zero evidence of a physical force prior to the creation/generation of the known physical universe.
-There is also zero evidence to support an eternal universe.

Branes.

-The theist has evidence that metaphysical objects are independent of the physical universe and are thus admissible by all of the criteria.

This is, of course, almost a textbook definition of special pleading.

So your position is, in a nutshesll... My special pleaded evidence is better than the limited physical evidence you have.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:42:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 7:49:42 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.

Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.

So here is the deck of cards example:

I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.

Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.

The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!. But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.

So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter. Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?

It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...

Because God did it, obviously.

Wait, not God, not God...um...,some supreme intelligent being did it.

Yeah...
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 1:07:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 3:45:25 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 11/13/2011 3:04:42 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Imagine being asked "at what year does a physicist become a good physcist?"

That person may want a simple and easy representation for the divergence but reality does not afford it.

What would you think of such a person?

That they clearly misunderstood the subject of the question...

Exactly, the person screaming at the top of his lungs about a numerical threshold has to utilize his cognitive abilities to identify abstract concepts of when a Physicist becomes a "good" physicist.

This entire threshold is abstract and does not rely upon a numerical value.


Directly staying within the analogy I have shown you that no matter any of the other combinations are meaningless. The living and optimal "draws" represent a pattern.

A "pattern" that is statistically no different than any other arrangement of the cards. The only reason it is identified as a "pattern" is because of a preconceived notion that such arrangement is in fact a pattern.

A five year old would not see the pattern either in the deck of cards and would agree with you that it is no different than any other of the possible outcomes.

So you are suggesting that we should deal with reality as a five year old? Are you suggesting that we ignore abstract significances and patterns that are based upon our cognitive advances?

To give an example:
Mathematically from a pure motion standpoint, me boxing a hanging pig carcass is no different than boxing another man in a ring, however anyone with a semblance of cognition will notice a clear difference that transcends mere math.

You impress no one by stating there is no difference from a pure motion standpoint.
It would only convince an atheist looking for a reason to deny the obvious difference that transcends a pure motion "advocate".


We recognize the fact that only one outcome has a pattern specifically tuned against all of the possible outcomes that do not have a pattern.

But that's not the case, is it? There is no tuning required - the constants are set in place before the cards are dealt. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that we have any idea whatsoever what tuning values are possible.

We know all of the quantities and constants possible in this universe. I believe you keep saying that because you do not understand the source data. You will need to review the source data before making this claim.

I point out again that a five year old will not see a pattern to the cards either. However, when he matures to a certain point the cognitive advances show clearly there is a pattern of significance.


That is what the Teleological argument addresses.

1. It is not due to physical necessity, as the physical did not exist prior to the generation of the physical.

This is simply incorrect - the matter was THERE, it was just very compressed. The components of the universe at T0 still behaved with the same constants they do now.

This is agreed speculative but I would concur. We have no reason to assume the constants were different at T0. However, prior to the existence of the singularity the physical constants did not exist.


2. Pure chance creates/generates nothing. That leaves "something" meta-physical that generated the universe. Only one meta-physical object creates that is a Mind, as numerical values do not create.

First, this is a terribly misleading statement - nobody is saying that chance "created" the universe. Chance cannot create - nor can anything metaphysical. Even blank consciousness cannot create something from nothing. Something must first exist to sustain the consciousness.

LOL, the standard philosophical concepts of a persons mind and the Divine Mind is not misleading.

You just do not like it. Our Minds cannot generate the physical universe but that does not mean a Divine metaphysical mind would be so limited. We can completely see the possibility of a Divine Mind being able to generate the physical from a metaphysical source.


The ID argument faces a HUGE problem here. First, either you are committed to creation ex nihilo or not - meaning if God can create something from nothing, why cannot something just pop into existence from nothing. Second, if God caused things, but nothing caused God, you've abandoned causality, and must be equally willing to admit that the universe could have begun without a cause. Third, even if a metaphysical mind CAN create things, what created the mind?

I feel like I am beating my head against an atheistic wall. Every rebuttal is one that shows a lack of knowledge about historical philosophy much less theistic claims.

First everything Physical needs to have a cause.
Metaphysical objects are considered timeless, changeless and causeless.
God is a metaphysical mind therefore need not have a cause.

As to something from nothing - we (the theists) believe that something physical can be generated from nothing physical only with a meta-physical cause.

The atheistic view (not necessarily yours) believes that everything generated from nothing with "no cause".
This is easily refuted by logic. If you believe that physical things can spontaneously pop into existence with no cause, for no reason out of nothing, then why are you certain that right now a unicorn is not popping into existence in your bathroom trying to "rally the faithful rubber duckies"?

You can see that an atheist needs to rest upon an eternal causeless universe which is against the physical observations of science.


- The theists offer evidence of a mind, in that we have obvious proof that a metaphysical object can create. That is clearly a human mind; it is able to manipulate physical laws to create, even on our "restricted" level. That is a near exactitude of the historical claim of God on an unrestricted level.

What obvious proof? You can't point to the mind... can't prove logically it exists.... can't show anything it has done that can't be explained by physical processes... considerable doubt about its existence exists... right. Obvious proof.

That's a great argument! The mind logically does not exist!

That is a desperate atheistic tactic there. I will leave atheism to its absurdities and not bother.



-Additionally, the atheist has zero evidence of a physical force prior to the creation/generation of the known physical universe.
-There is also zero evidence to support an eternal universe.

Branes.

LOL Branes.
This is clearly just restating 4th dimensional space that has been empirically evidenced for a very long time.
Supposedly, we are positioned and separated 10-32 meters from another universe in a single flat layer, where only gravity crosses this boundary.

4th dimensional space is evidenced by additional gravitational forces, matter insertion, entanglement via additional space, heck even beings like angels who are present and next to us.

The evidence points to additional dimensions, calling them additional universes is just redefining.


-The theist has evidence that metaphysical objects are independent of the physical universe and are thus admissible by all of the criteria.

This is, of course, almost a textbook definition of special pleading.

So your position is, in a nutshesll... My special pleaded evidence is better than the limited physical evidence you have.

You have zero physical evidence for chance being the generator, and even less evidence for an arbitrary metaphysical generator utilizing chance.

We have ample evidence with a near limitless number of metaphysical minds contained within people all around us, which create and we need only point to in history as well, a claim of a Divine being throughout history.

Who exactly is in need of evidence?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 2:27:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think I see the focus for wich you want to push the question JCMT. not that you disagree the odds are in anyway phenominal a paticular could be delt but that they are the same odds as any hand of being delt.

Try seeing it this way then with your analogy....

The odds of drawing a royal flush in spades is
1 in the 2,598,960

The odds of drawing a any other hand that's not a royal flush in spades is
2,598,959 in 2,598,960

if you were to just change one card in your hand when you drew a royal flush in spades, it becomes a crap hand. A, K, Q, 5, 10 is no better than any other A high hand and is not going to win you the game almost for certain.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 2:33:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
even if you consider the chances of a mousetrap coming together from all its parts in the form of a mousetrap by itself is the same as the parts colliding into any other configuration, only one configuration catches mice.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 2:48:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 2:27:17 PM, Marauder wrote:
I think I see the focus for wich you want to push the question JCMT. not that you disagree the odds are in anyway phenominal a paticular could be delt but that they are the same odds as any hand of being delt.

Try seeing it this way then with your analogy....

The odds of drawing a royal flush in spades is
1 in the 2,598,960

The odds of drawing a any other hand that's not a royal flush in spades is
2,598,959 in 2,598,960

if you were to just change one card in your hand when you drew a royal flush in spades, it becomes a crap hand. A, K, Q, 5, 10 is no better than any other A high hand and is not going to win you the game almost for certain.

No - that's not the point...

Using your same analogy - the probability of drawing any one hand is 1 in 2,958,960. Which PARTICULAR hand is drawn is immaterial - the odds are always against it.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 2:56:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 3:04:42 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Do you not understand that the probability of a "pattern" is equal to the probability of a "non-pattern"?? Nothing caused it - they are both equally possible functions of chance.

I'm afraid until you can grasp this very, very simple point, there is nothing more to be said on this issue.

What is the justification for inferring DESIGN from a certain order of the deck where any other order of the deck has an EQUAL PROBABILITY?? If there is indeed any sort of threshold, it is immaterial here because the probabilities are EQUAL. I don't understand why you can't understand this very, very simple idea.

So far, the ONLY criteria you have given for inferring design is that you call a certain arrangement a "pattern" after it has already occurred.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:44:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 7:49:42 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.

Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.

That doesn't make any sense. "Let's place limits on probability for the sake of making my proof that life is probable sensible."

The need for those limits automatically dismantle your argument.

So here is the deck of cards example:

I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That is completely misleading, almost to the point of being outright false.

The probability of a random deal producing a predetermined sequence is (1/52!), but not any given sequence. The probability of any given sequence is determined by each card as an independent event, compounded.

Therefore, let's say we're talking about a Jack and an Ace. The probability of pulling a Jack is 4/52, whereas the probability of pulling an Ace is 2/52. However, there are a finite number of cards, so it depends on which is pulled first. Let's say it's the Jack. So, our actually probabilities for each independent event is 4/52 and 2/51. The overall probability of pulling a Jack and an Ace in sequence is therefore P(4/52) * P(2/51), or 8/2652, or 1/331.5. That's a 0.3% chance, but it isn't nearly as inconceivable as you're making it out to be.

But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.

There's another completely misleading statement. The probability of a sequence depends on the sequence we're talking about, and how that sequence is produced. However, the probability that there will be a sequence is 100%.

Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.

The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!.

No. The odds of getting A,2, and 3 on the first try after pulling all three cards at the same time is 1/52!. The odds of getting A, then 2, then 3 in sequence is 0.02%. Once again, pretty unlikely, but not astronomically unlikely.

But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.

So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter.

Now, that is outright false. The development of life is not solely contingent on a change encounter with the right elements. Conditions for life are very specific, though hardly understood. What I mean is, life only occurs under very specific circumstances as well as with the right components, and we're not entirely sure what those circumstances are, making your drawn-out probabilistic soliloquy completely meaningless.

Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?

Well, that would make specific outcomes all the less probable, suggesting that our specific arrangement (that is, not just the emergence of life, but life as we know it, which remains consistent despite the potential for variation -- see: silicone vs. carbon), may actually have a design.

It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...

Lol, stick to math. Biologically speaking, that is completely false according to current science, let alone any sort of intelligent design theory.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 4:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 3:44:20 PM, Ren wrote:

Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.

That doesn't make any sense. "Let's place limits on probability for the sake of making my proof that life is probable sensible."

The need for those limits automatically dismantle your argument.

Obviously not, as the "limits" are first, thermodynamics, second, linear time, and third, we don't take future considerations into account. If you want to argue about whether thermodynamics is incorrect, or whether time is linear, that's something else. And obviously we cannot analyze information from future events that haven't occurred yet.

The probability of a random deal producing a predetermined sequence is (1/52!), but not any given sequence.

That is, in fact the point of the exercise...

The probability of any given sequence is determined by each card as an independent event, compounded.

Therefore, let's say we're talking about a Jack and an Ace. The probability of pulling a Jack is 4/52, whereas the probability of pulling an Ace is 2/52. However, there are a finite number of cards, so it depends on which is pulled first. Let's say it's the Jack. So, our actually probabilities for each independent event is 4/52 and 2/51. The overall probability of pulling a Jack and an Ace in sequence is therefore P(4/52) * P(2/51), or 8/2652, or 1/331.5. That's a 0.3% chance, but it isn't nearly as inconceivable as you're making it out to be.

Let's work through some very basic math.

We want to know the probability that card A will be drawn followed by card B, C, D, etc... So p(A) is 1/52, p(B) is 1/51, p(C) is 1/50, etc... and the compounded probability is p(A) * p(B) * p(C)... So in the end, the probability of that specific order of the deck is indeed 1/52!.

You are generalizing the process - the probability of a Jack is 4/52 - but the probability of the Jack of Hearts is still 1/52.

There's another completely misleading statement. The probability of a sequence depends on the sequence we're talking about, and how that sequence is produced. However, the probability that there will be a sequence is 100%.

That is also exactly the point...

No. The odds of getting A,2, and 3 on the first try after pulling all three cards at the same time is 1/52!. The odds of getting A, then 2, then 3 in sequence is 0.02%. Once again, pretty unlikely, but not astronomically unlikely.

No... the probability of getting ANY A, 2, 3 is 64/132600 or about 0.00048 - 0.048%.

The probability of getting Ace of Spades, 2 of Hearts, 3 of Clubs is 1/132600 - about 0.0000075, or 0.00075%. We are talking about this second sort of sequence of course.

I'm curious how you are misunderstanding such simple math. Before drawing a card, the probability of drawing any one specific card is 1/52. After drawing the first card, the probability of the next one is 1/51. Then 1/50 and so forth. The probability of drawing these specific cards in order is the product of these - 1/52!. It's not a difficult concept at all.

So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter.

Now, that is outright false. The development of life is not solely contingent on a change encounter with the right elements. Conditions for life are very specific, though hardly understood. What I mean is, life only occurs under very specific circumstances as well as with the right components, and we're not entirely sure what those circumstances are, making your drawn-out probabilistic soliloquy completely meaningless.

That's incorrect - some arrangements of matter may give rise to life. Some may not. There is no inherent reason that a life-giving arrangement of matter is any more or less plausible than a non-life-giving arrangement.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 4:33:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 4:06:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Obviously not, as the "limits" are first, thermodynamics, second, linear time, and third, we don't take future considerations into account. If you want to argue about whether thermodynamics is incorrect, or whether time is linear, that's something else. And obviously we cannot analyze information from future events that haven't occurred yet.

Now, now. I didn't claim that reality is limitless. I was stating that placing limits on a probability example that is the root to an order of magnitude compared to the subject is fallacious.

The probability of a random deal producing a predetermined sequence is (1/52!), but not any given sequence.

That is, in fact the point of the exercise...

Hmm...

Let's work through some very basic math.

We want to know the probability that card A will be drawn followed by card B, C, D, etc... So p(A) is 1/52, p(B) is 1/51, p(C) is 1/50, etc... and the compounded probability is p(A) * p(B) * p(C)... So in the end, the probability of that specific order of the deck is indeed 1/52!.

Lol, I know what a factorial is. I expressed exactly that with the statement "it determines the probability of a predetermined sequence (although, I'd like to amend this by stating that it also holds true for the sequence of an entire deck), but not for a random sequence of individually drawn cards."

You are generalizing the process - the probability of a Jack is 4/52 - but the probability of the Jack of Hearts is still 1/52.

Lol, you never said anything about suit! But, yes, that's true, obviously...

There's another completely misleading statement. The probability of a sequence depends on the sequence we're talking about, and how that sequence is produced. However, the probability that there will be a sequence is 100%.

That is also exactly the point...

Hmm...

No. The odds of getting A,2, and 3 on the first try after pulling all three cards at the same time is 1/52!. The odds of getting A, then 2, then 3 in sequence is 0.02%. Once again, pretty unlikely, but not astronomically unlikely.

No... the probability of getting ANY A, 2, 3 is 64/132600 or about 0.00048 - 0.048%.

Lol, dammit. Yes, suits.

The probability of getting Ace of Spades, 2 of Hearts, 3 of Clubs is 1/132600 - about 0.0000075, or 0.00075%. We are talking about this second sort of sequence of course.

I'm curious how you are misunderstanding such simple math. Before drawing a card, the probability of drawing any one specific card is 1/52. After drawing the first card, the probability of the next one is 1/51. Then 1/50 and so forth. The probability of drawing these specific cards in order is the product of these - 1/52!. It's not a difficult concept at all.

I'm not misunderstanding the concept at all. :\ Matter didn't just appear on earth in a very specific sort of way and have only that instant to produce life from that combination. My point is that your factorial example would require such a scenario.

That's incorrect - some arrangements of matter may give rise to life. Some may not. There is no inherent reason that a life-giving arrangement of matter is any more or less plausible than a non-life-giving arrangement.

Ahhh, so here is where the discrepancy lay!

Nawls, see, as far as we know, there is only one arrangement that may give rise to life, but a practically inconceivable probability of any single arrangement.

Therefore, it is much more likely that life will not surmise of randomly strewn elements. However, science seems to contradict this -- that although, by probabilistic standards, it is so very unlikely that life will develop, it seems to every opportunity it gets nonetheless.

That, as far as I can tell, are the foundations of intelligent design.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:00:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 4:33:18 PM, Ren wrote:

Nawls, see, as far as we know, there is only one arrangement that may give rise to life, but a practically inconceivable probability of any single arrangement.

Would it not seem that we could think of other arrangements that would sustain life? For example, suppose that the Earth were 5% smaller... let's pretend that the moon was in fact created by a collision with another large body, but a greater proportion of the planet got blown off. Seems to me that such arrangement would just give rise to larger creatures...

More importantly, the operand line of reasoning is not about the existence of life - it's about the probability of the arrangements.

Therefore, it is much more likely that life will not surmise of randomly strewn elements. However, science seems to contradict this -- that although, by probabilistic standards, it is so very unlikely that life will develop, it seems to every opportunity it gets nonetheless.

Well our sample is kind of a problem here. Were our sample not a living world, we would not be able to actually take a sample... Life seems to arise at every opportunity, but that could just be what life does. We don't really know how life behaves in other environments - until we find life on another planet =)