Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God or Chance?

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God - unless you are going with a "living universe" theory; which seem even more unreasonable.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:27:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God - unless you are going with a "living universe" theory; which seem even more unreasonable.

Which is the reason I am looking for alternatives. Too unlikely to be chance, and I am in all practicality an atheist.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:38:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:27:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God - unless you are going with a "living universe" theory; which seem even more unreasonable.

Which is the reason I am looking for alternatives. Too unlikely to be chance, and I am in all practicality an atheist.

Sorry I don't think what you are looking for is possible. You pretty much have to accept that the Universe came about by some quantum fluctuation which randomly created us by shear improbable accident, or you are the intentional creation by an "omni" being referred to as God. It really is an all or nothing proposition - I think pretty much everything between falls apart.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:42:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:38:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:27:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God - unless you are going with a "living universe" theory; which seem even more unreasonable.

Which is the reason I am looking for alternatives. Too unlikely to be chance, and I am in all practicality an atheist.


Sorry I don't think what you are looking for is possible. You pretty much have to accept that the Universe came about by some quantum fluctuation which randomly created us by shear improbable accident, or you are the intentional creation by an "omni" being referred to as God. It really is an all or nothing proposition - I think pretty much everything between falls apart.

It is a conundrum(for me) but I will keep looking because I cannot accept either of the two main theories. It helps to be crazy:)
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities. : :

You have already rejected God, random chance and natural selection. God is the only one who can tell you how He created everything. Most people believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord but they get more confused than ever by reading that book.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:03:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:54:32 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities. : :

You have already rejected God, random chance and natural selection. God is the only one who can tell you how He created everything. Most people believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord but they get more confused than ever by reading that book.

How can God tell me how he created everything? God doesn't talk to people. If you've noticed, he is illusive. One of the many reasons I reject the notion of a creator.
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:03:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:54:32 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities. : :

You have already rejected God, random chance and natural selection. God is the only one who can tell you how He created everything. Most people believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord but they get more confused than ever by reading that book.

How can God tell me how he created everything? God doesn't talk to people. If you've noticed, he is illusive. One of the many reasons I reject the notion of a creator. : :

If you listen to His last saint who has testified to His knowledge for the last seven years, then you will learn how He created everything, but only if you were given the ability to hear Him and believe His knowledge.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Right out of the chute, you are already misrepresenting one of the choices. Random chance does not equal natural selection, nor are they companions of one another as you insinuate. By its very definition, when something is selected, it is NOT chosen at random.

Hopefully that clears up the issue at least somewhat...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it"

They're two very different propositions, Jane. The first says: something like humanity was bound to happen if you waited long enough, while the second says: we have no idea how it happened, but BOW to the awesome vagueness of our mythology!

If the first is true then over time we should learn every step. because when steps are bound to happen, the same steps will tend to occur over and over again.

But if 'bound to happen' is false, then there has to be at least one step in the development of species that's either ludicrously improbable or outright impossible, given what we already know. And if science found that, then it would hunt for missing additional information to turn 'highly improbable' into 'bound to happen' again.

So my question to you, Jane, is: what do you think the improbable step is?

Creationists are floundering to find it, so they've busted out their sawn-off intellectual shotgun and fired at everything claiming it's: intelligence, macroevolution, speciation, new organs, the first life itself. The truth is, they have no idea which step is improbable; they're just floundering.

But which do you think it is?

I myself don't see it. Although not a biologist, but having some experience in how science develops, it looks to me that abiogenesis is shaking out pretty easily. The transformations between early life-forms look okay... transitions to chordates seem credible, and once you have a spine, I think mammals are straightforward, and once you have mammals and flowering plants, I think tool-using gregarious arboreals make sense. There might be some subtle detail I'm missing, but if I am, the Creationists are missing it too.

And if you look at the rates of transition from fossil and genetic records, shorter times between transition seem to speak to growing probability. If we consider terrestrial life to be about two billion years old, around 92% of that time was spent just getting to flowering plants. yet it took only 10% of that time to get from mammals to humans -- so, given fruit and fur, humans seem pretty likely, and we've had more than one manlike species (with only one actually surviving), so that conjecture seems supported.

And apparently, humans are easier to make than apple-trees (which might actually be true, since flowering plant genes can be up to fifty times longer than human genes!) So it's the simple stuff that seems hard. The advanced stuff seems easier, once the simple stuff gets sufficiently complicated. But the simple stuff also doesn't look too hard, because... uh... it's simple. :)

That's my take anyway. :)
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:24:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

I see the God or Change dilemma as inherently false. "Chance" is not a causal force. Chance is used to model events which did not necessarily take place by necessity, as far as we know (i.e., events for which there may have been other possible outcomes other than the observed or actual outcome).

Therefore, when someone says the reason or cause for abiogenesis is "chance" they are mistaking a descriptive model for a cause. If abiogenesis occurred, then there is a causal chain of events that took place which lead to it. In other words, "chance" as an explanation does not mean that an event occurred without a cause, but that its causal factors are not known to be necessarily occurring (they may not have had to happen by necessity).

I hope I can make that more clear with an example:

When someone wins a lottery that has winning and losing tickets, we talk about the lottery being random, the probability of winning, and the notion that the person won by chance. That is all correct, but that does not mean that the cause of the person winning is "chance". The causes of winning can be attributed to the winning ticket being printed at a factory, sent out for delivery to a store at a certain time on a certain truck, ending up in a certain position on the counter, that individual coming to the store at a certain time and purchasing that particular ticket, etc.

When we say they won by "chance", what we mean is that probabilistic modelling is a more simple, useful, and meaningful explanation than listing out the causal factors (we care more, in this case, what the chances of winning were, rather than the journey the ticket took to get to that store and why the person went into the store in the first place). We may not even know when the ticket was printed and when it was delivered or which store it was at (that could lead to cheating), since we're not necessarily even interested in those details. We use chance here because the causal factors are actually trivial and uninteresting, and importantly, they were not necessary (the ticket didn't have to be on that truck at that time).

It is similar with abiogenesis. If it occurred, there was a causal chain of events, which we may or may not learn in detail. However, we haven't presumed that they happened by necessity, or that the causal chain of events was particularly special, and so it is simpler and often more useful, currently, to discuss the probability distribution of events and the stochastic sequences of events that may have taken place. So we are not attributing the causes of abiogenesis to chance, but we are saying that statistical models are meaningful and relevant in discussions of abiogenesis in the way that they are meaningful and relevant in discussions of winning the lottery.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:28:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:15:27 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:03:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:54:32 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities. : :

You have already rejected God, random chance and natural selection. God is the only one who can tell you how He created everything. Most people believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord but they get more confused than ever by reading that book.

How can God tell me how he created everything? God doesn't talk to people. If you've noticed, he is illusive. One of the many reasons I reject the notion of a creator. : :

If you listen to His last saint who has testified to His knowledge for the last seven years, then you will learn how He created everything, but only if you were given the ability to hear Him and believe His knowledge.

Are you BOG?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.

The Universe, by my definition, is all existence.

According to scientific data, the Universe was once in the form of a single mass in its entirety.

Nothing can exist outside all existence. Thus, the Universe is closed. It has definite boundaries. So, if you had ALL information about it at any time, you could do better than analyze probabilities. You would KNOW with certainty, assuming you could make the calculations with perfect accuracy.

Our Universe has laws; thus, it is not random. If certain things were "not determined", as you say, then cause and effect would not apply. The Universe would be chaotic.
You can call me Mark if you like.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:38:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:19:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it"

They're two very different propositions, Jane. The first says: something like humanity was bound to happen if you waited long enough, while the second says: we have no idea how it happened, but BOW to the awesome vagueness of our mythology!

If the first is true then over time we should learn every step. because when steps are bound to happen, the same steps will tend to occur over and over again.

But if 'bound to happen' is false, then there has to be at least one step in the development of species that's either ludicrously improbable or outright impossible, given what we already know. And if science found that, then it would hunt for missing additional information to turn 'highly improbable' into 'bound to happen' again.

So my question to you, Jane, is: what do you think the improbable step is?

Creationists are floundering to find it, so they've busted out their sawn-off intellectual shotgun and fired at everything claiming it's: intelligence, macroevolution, speciation, new organs, the first life itself. The truth is, they have no idea which step is improbable; they're just floundering.

But which do you think it is?

I myself don't see it. Although not a biologist, but having some experience in how science develops, it looks to me that abiogenesis is shaking out pretty easily. The transformations between early life-forms look okay... transitions to chordates seem credible, and once you have a spine, I think mammals are straightforward, and once you have mammals and flowering plants, I think tool-using gregarious arboreals make sense. There might be some subtle detail I'm missing, but if I am, the Creationists are missing it too.

And if you look at the rates of transition from fossil and genetic records, shorter times between transition seem to speak to growing probability. If we consider terrestrial life to be about two billion years old, around 92% of that time was spent just getting to flowering plants. yet it took only 10% of that time to get from mammals to humans -- so, given fruit and fur, humans seem pretty likely, and we've had more than one manlike species (with only one actually surviving), so that conjecture seems supported.

And apparently, humans are easier to make than apple-trees (which might actually be true, since flowering plant genes can be up to fifty times longer than human genes!) So it's the simple stuff that seems hard. The advanced stuff seems easier, once the simple stuff gets sufficiently complicated. But the simple stuff also doesn't look too hard, because... uh... it's simple. :)

That's my take anyway. :)

Take your example, flowering plants. Which came first, the flower or the bee?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God,

No, this couldn't be more false. Just take the universe we live in now - it obeys natural laws. Everything within it obeys those laws. Nothing happens randomly (at least on a macroscopic level) - and even if it did act randomly - it does so in biased and well-characterised ways (the biggest bias is from the second law of thermodynamics, which entails all sorts of interesting stuff). Yet it is not a guiding intellect, it is just descriptively formal and ordered. To state that God is the only mechanism by which something is not random is just a case of special pleading that is demonstrably false.

- unless you are going with a "living universe" theory; which seem even more unreasonable.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:33:30 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.

The Universe, by my definition, is all existence.

According to scientific data, the Universe was once in the form of a single mass in its entirety.

Nothing can exist outside all existence. Thus, the Universe is closed. It has definite boundaries. So, if you had ALL information about it at any time, you could do better than analyze probabilities. You would KNOW with certainty, assuming you could make the calculations with perfect accuracy.

Our Universe has laws; thus, it is not random. If certain things were "not determined", as you say, then cause and effect would not apply. The Universe would be chaotic.

We have free will. We are able to make choices between things, within the laws of physics.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:38:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God,

No, this couldn't be more false. Just take the universe we live in now - it obeys natural laws. Everything within it obeys those laws. Nothing happens randomly (at least on a macroscopic level) - and even if it did act randomly - it does so in biased and well-characterised ways (the biggest bias is from the second law of thermodynamics, which entails all sorts of interesting stuff). Yet it is not a guiding intellect, it is just descriptively formal and ordered. To state that God is the only mechanism by which something is not random is just a case of special pleading that is demonstrably false.

What you said does not actually refute what I stated unless you propose that the only possible quantum event that created the universe could only possibly result in this exact universe with our existence as is. Otherwise it is really a crapshot of a snooker break at the big bang as to whether we appear or not.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:18:59 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Right out of the chute, you are already misrepresenting one of the choices. Random chance does not equal natural selection, nor are they companions of one another as you insinuate. By its very definition, when something is selected, it is NOT chosen at random.

Hopefully that clears up the issue at least somewhat...

I wasn't talking about natural selection. Are you suggesting there aren't elements of randomness in the universe? Even in evolution, mutations are considered random. At least some of them are.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:44:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:41:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:33:30 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.

The Universe, by my definition, is all existence.

According to scientific data, the Universe was once in the form of a single mass in its entirety.

Nothing can exist outside all existence. Thus, the Universe is closed. It has definite boundaries. So, if you had ALL information about it at any time, you could do better than analyze probabilities. You would KNOW with certainty, assuming you could make the calculations with perfect accuracy.

Our Universe has laws; thus, it is not random. If certain things were "not determined", as you say, then cause and effect would not apply. The Universe would be chaotic.

We have free will. We are able to make choices between things, within the laws of physics.

Within the laws of physics. And you make those decisions according to the nature of your brain and body and the outside environment. All of which are determined.
You can call me Mark if you like.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:45:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:38:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:19:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it"
But if 'bound to happen' is false, then there has to be at least one step in the development of species that's either ludicrously improbable or outright impossible, given what we already know. And if science found that, then it would hunt for missing additional information to turn 'highly improbable' into 'bound to happen' again.

So my question to you, Jane, is: what do you think the improbable step is?

If we consider terrestrial life to be about two billion years old, around 92% of that time was spent just getting to flowering plants. yet it took only 10% of that time to get from mammals to humans. Apparently, humans are easier to make than apple-trees

Take your example, flowering plants. Which came first, the flower or the bee?

According to the fossil record, insects came first. They would have eaten non-flowering plants, and each other. About 20% of modern flowering plants can pollinate through wind and/or water, so flowering plants don't really need animals for pollination, but insects were around to do it (beetles in particular are thought to have done so), and a synergy between plant and animal can offer benefits to each, so that may account for why 80% of modern flowering plants now use animals.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:48:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:24:30 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

I see the God or Change dilemma as inherently false. "Chance" is not a causal force. Chance is used to model events which did not necessarily take place by necessity, as far as we know (i.e., events for which there may have been other possible outcomes other than the observed or actual outcome).

Therefore, when someone says the reason or cause for abiogenesis is "chance" they are mistaking a descriptive model for a cause. If abiogenesis occurred, then there is a causal chain of events that took place which lead to it. In other words, "chance" as an explanation does not mean that an event occurred without a cause, but that its causal factors are not known to be necessarily occurring (they may not have had to happen by necessity).

I hope I can make that more clear with an example:

When someone wins a lottery that has winning and losing tickets, we talk about the lottery being random, the probability of winning, and the notion that the person won by chance. That is all correct, but that does not mean that the cause of the person winning is "chance". The causes of winning can be attributed to the winning ticket being printed at a factory, sent out for delivery to a store at a certain time on a certain truck, ending up in a certain position on the counter, that individual coming to the store at a certain time and purchasing that particular ticket, etc.

When we say they won by "chance", what we mean is that probabilistic modelling is a more simple, useful, and meaningful explanation than listing out the causal factors (we care more, in this case, what the chances of winning were, rather than the journey the ticket took to get to that store and why the person went into the store in the first place). We may not even know when the ticket was printed and when it was delivered or which store it was at (that could lead to cheating), since we're not necessarily even interested in those details. We use chance here because the causal factors are actually trivial and uninteresting, and importantly, they were not necessary (the ticket didn't have to be on that truck at that time).

It is similar with abiogenesis. If it occurred, there was a causal chain of events, which we may or may not learn in detail. However, we haven't presumed that they happened by necessity, or that the causal chain of events was particularly special, and so it is simpler and often more useful, currently, to discuss the probability distribution of events and the stochastic sequences of events that may have taken place. So we are not attributing the causes of abiogenesis to chance, but we are saying that statistical models are meaningful and relevant in discussions of abiogenesis in the way that they are meaningful and relevant in discussions of winning the lottery.

Still, you know what I mean. That the processed are undirected.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:44:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:38:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God,

No, this couldn't be more false. Just take the universe we live in now - it obeys natural laws. Everything within it obeys those laws. Nothing happens randomly (at least on a macroscopic level) - and even if it did act randomly - it does so in biased and well-characterised ways (the biggest bias is from the second law of thermodynamics, which entails all sorts of interesting stuff). Yet it is not a guiding intellect, it is just descriptively formal and ordered. To state that God is the only mechanism by which something is not random is just a case of special pleading that is demonstrably false.

What you said does not actually refute what I stated unless you propose that the only possible quantum event that created the universe could only possibly result in this exact universe with our existence as is. Otherwise it is really a crapshot of a snooker break at the big bang as to whether we appear or not.

You are affirming a God or chance dichotimy, with no justification as to why this isa dichotimy. I simply rendered that dichotimy unsound by appealing to background knowledge. Unless you actually have been outside of the universe and samples the possibilities, then I don't see how you can soundly propose any possibility, let alone God or chance, in the first place.

I argued that those who do not posit God are not necessarily constrained to chance, and natural laws are a good example of something which is not constrained to chance.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:44:52 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:41:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:33:30 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.

The Universe, by my definition, is all existence.

According to scientific data, the Universe was once in the form of a single mass in its entirety.

Nothing can exist outside all existence. Thus, the Universe is closed. It has definite boundaries. So, if you had ALL information about it at any time, you could do better than analyze probabilities. You would KNOW with certainty, assuming you could make the calculations with perfect accuracy.

Our Universe has laws; thus, it is not random. If certain things were "not determined", as you say, then cause and effect would not apply. The Universe would be chaotic.

We have free will. We are able to make choices between things, within the laws of physics.

Within the laws of physics. And you make those decisions according to the nature of your brain and body and the outside environment. All of which are determined.

I see your points, yet I still believe in free will. Perhaps it is a bias.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:56:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:45:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:38:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:19:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it"
But if 'bound to happen' is false, then there has to be at least one step in the development of species that's either ludicrously improbable or outright impossible, given what we already know. And if science found that, then it would hunt for missing additional information to turn 'highly improbable' into 'bound to happen' again.

So my question to you, Jane, is: what do you think the improbable step is?

If we consider terrestrial life to be about two billion years old, around 92% of that time was spent just getting to flowering plants. yet it took only 10% of that time to get from mammals to humans. Apparently, humans are easier to make than apple-trees

Take your example, flowering plants. Which came first, the flower or the bee?

According to the fossil record, insects came first. They would have eaten non-flowering plants, and each other. About 20% of modern flowering plants can pollinate through wind and/or water, so flowering plants don't really need animals for pollination, but insects were around to do it (beetles in particular are thought to have done so), and a synergy between plant and animal can offer benefits to each, so that may account for why 80% of modern flowering plants now use animals.

Interesting.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:57:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:50:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:44:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:38:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:24:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:22:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:18:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

How can a random occurrence have a goal? It is really an all or nothing proposition. Everything or nothing has ultimate purpose and meaning.

I am saying it's not random.

If it is not random then you are implying a guiding intellect which would bring you back to God,

No, this couldn't be more false. Just take the universe we live in now - it obeys natural laws. Everything within it obeys those laws. Nothing happens randomly (at least on a macroscopic level) - and even if it did act randomly - it does so in biased and well-characterised ways (the biggest bias is from the second law of thermodynamics, which entails all sorts of interesting stuff). Yet it is not a guiding intellect, it is just descriptively formal and ordered. To state that God is the only mechanism by which something is not random is just a case of special pleading that is demonstrably false.

What you said does not actually refute what I stated unless you propose that the only possible quantum event that created the universe could only possibly result in this exact universe with our existence as is. Otherwise it is really a crapshot of a snooker break at the big bang as to whether we appear or not.

You are affirming a God or chance dichotimy, with no justification as to why this isa dichotimy. I simply rendered that dichotimy unsound by appealing to background knowledge. Unless you actually have been outside of the universe and samples the possibilities, then I don't see how you can soundly propose any possibility, let alone God or chance, in the first place.

I argued that those who do not posit God are not necessarily constrained to chance, and natural laws are a good example of something which is not constrained to chance.

Natural laws do not dictate that an "earth" exactly like the one had to be formed regardless of the specifics of the Big Bang. It was either sheer happenstance or it was God who predesigned all of the laws and specifics to unfold in such a manner so as to create us.

You act as if the laws of nature cannot be dictated as part of God's creation. The laws are not really evidence either way, though some people use them in a fine tuning argument.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:57:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 3:54:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:44:52 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:41:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:33:30 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:27:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 3:15:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:42:42 PM, janesix wrote:
That we arose through random chance and natural selection doesn't work for me,and neither does "God did it" so there must be a third way, in my opinion. I am looking for theories that provide another, different alternative.

"Random" is misleading. Our evolution was, as far as we know, the result of the "evolution" of the singularity that once was our universe, as time progressed, after the Big Bang. Our evolution has its roots entirely in cause-and-effect. It is not a question of randomness, but of determinism.

Meaning that if you had all the information about the universe at any time during its "lifespan" before human evolution, you could have predicted the course of human evolution, even from the original prokaryotes, with absolute certainty.

"Morphogenic fields" as an organizational principle is interesting to me, as is a living, evolving(towards a goal) universe. Other ideas are welcome,and I would be interested in any and all possibilities.

Just think about determinism. It'll make sense. As far as we know, our universe is not random at all.

I am toying with the idea that there are "attractors" of some sort, that the universe tends to follow and point towards. I don't think everything is completely determined though, although I think there are constraints.

The Universe, by my definition, is all existence.

According to scientific data, the Universe was once in the form of a single mass in its entirety.

Nothing can exist outside all existence. Thus, the Universe is closed. It has definite boundaries. So, if you had ALL information about it at any time, you could do better than analyze probabilities. You would KNOW with certainty, assuming you could make the calculations with perfect accuracy.

Our Universe has laws; thus, it is not random. If certain things were "not determined", as you say, then cause and effect would not apply. The Universe would be chaotic.

We have free will. We are able to make choices between things, within the laws of physics.

Within the laws of physics. And you make those decisions according to the nature of your brain and body and the outside environment. All of which are determined.

I see your points, yet I still believe in free will. Perhaps it is a bias.

Whatever it is, I hope you take time to think about it if you are unsure. :)
You can call me Mark if you like.