Philosophy Now Forum

Felasco wrote:

Now don't get me wrong nothing I have said precludes God done it, but everything I said precludes it has to be directed by an intelligence.

Conversations about God are not directed by intelligence, as they typically presume we would be in a position to come to answers, when it's more likely we are not in a position to even ask useful questions.

We have a limited understanding of intelligence even in the creatures most closely related to us here on Earth.

What are killer whales or elephants thinking? Do they think in a manner similar to us? How do they experience emotions? Is that experience close enough to ours that the word "emotions" still applies?

If we're still puzzled about what intelligence means in the context of our fellow mammals, by what logic would we be able to form a useful image of an entity which is said to be able to create galaxies and such, should such an entity exist?

If we can't create a useful image of intelligence on such a huge scale, on what basis would we agree or disagree that such a thing exists?

How well does a squirrel understand human intelligence? Much much much better than we would understand the nature of intelligence in such an entity. Our ignorance is so vast that the word "intelligence" becomes utterly useless.

Is there a God that is intelligent? This is the wrong question.

The right question is, are there humans who are intelligent? And the answer is, no, not really. The epic God debate that's been going on for endless centuries is adequate evidence of that. Intelligent creatures would not endlessly debate concepts they are not qualified to even begin to define.

You've befuddled the conversation. To ask what squirrels might think about human intelligence implies that squirrels have the ability to think about themselves as conscious beings, which they do not, because they are not. If a critter cannot realize and ponder its own conscious mind, how can it possibly evaluate the behavior of another critter in a context that it cannot even consider?

Whether or not you approve of human tendencies to claim to know the motives of God, they will keep doing it. If the particular God whose motives some subset of humanity claims to know is the currently popular omniscient and omnipotent God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it and its members can freely make up whatever crap they want and make big bucks in Southern California, peddling their opinions to utter nitwits who need to feel good.

If one was to consider the possibility that the creator of the universe had an origin, at which point it knew less than a baby fruit-fly, and if that creator was limited by logic and the physics of the unstructured universe into which it was born, the game changes. Such a creator would have done his work with sensible, logical motivations that involved his (theirs, more likely) long term self-interest.

While it might not be possible for humans (never squirrels, not even chipmunks) to determine the precise motivations for creation, they can certainly use TV detective show principles to eliminate the stupid guesses. (E.g: "God made man to know him, love him, and serve him, and to be happy with him forever in heaven." Or, even better, "God made man.")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LXCZRpxHpg

Proof at last!

To ask what squirrels might think about human intelligence implies that squirrels have the ability to think about themselves as conscious beings, which they do not, because they are not.

Thank you for your expert testimony on squirrels, whom I'm guessing you have little experience with other than seeing them run across your yard.

If a critter cannot realize and ponder its own conscious mind, how can it possibly evaluate the behavior of another critter in a context that it cannot even consider?

This is essentially what I'm saying. If there is something like a God, it's context and ours would be so utterly different that our thoughts on the matter would be irrelevant. It's like asking a squirrel their opinion on art or physics etc.

Every species on Earth is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there. But it's brilliance is limited to it's niche. We confuse the fact that our niche is larger than other species with an ability to grasp the ultimate nature of everything etc. We do this because our brilliance is limited too, just like every other creature on Earth.

Because we aren't especially bright, we assume that understanding the ultimate nature of everything would be fantastic, when what it would really do is ruthlessly strip all the glorious mystery out of our relationship with reality.

As example, why do married men fantasize about sex with women they've never even met, when they have a perfectly willing woman in their own bed already? Because it's not sex they need, but the mystery, the unknown, the glorious ignorance.

Whether or not you approve of human tendencies to claim to know the motives of God, they will keep doing it.

Yes, I agree.

If the particular God whose motives some subset of humanity claims to know is the currently popular omniscient and omnipotent God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it and its members can freely make up whatever crap they want and make big bucks in Southern California, peddling their opinions to utter nitwits who need to feel good.

This is a ridiculously childish summary of the Abrahamic religions, but yes some of those folks are scumbags, just as there are scumbags in any substantial group of human beings.

If one was to consider the possibility that the creator of the universe had an origin, at which point it knew less than a baby fruit-fly, and if that creator was limited by logic and the physics of the unstructured universe into which it was born, the game changes. Such a creator would have done his work with sensible, logical motivations that involved his (theirs, more likely) long term self-interest.

Like all the rest of us, you have not a clue what you're talking about.

You're intellectually intelligent enough to know that, probably by a wide margin, but emotionally you have the need to construct some elaborate theory which you imagine will someday make you famous once the rest of us fools finally recognize your brilliance etc etc.

I have my "pet theory" too (hello Arising!). And so we will have a big debate about our theories, in order to jerk off our egos, the real goal of most such conversations.

Felasco wrote:
Like all the rest of us, you have not a clue what you're talking about.

You're intellectually intelligent enough to know that, probably by a wide margin, but emotionally you have the need to construct some elaborate theory which you imagine will someday make you famous once the rest of us fools finally recognize your brilliance etc etc.

I have my "pet theory" too (hello Arising!). And so we will have a big debate about our theories, in order to jerk off our egos, the real goal of most such conversations.

If you want to circle-jerk with the likes of Blaggard and AUK, you should be doing that amongst one another. There is no place within your group of pet-theorists for someone who has killed a half-century developing ideas and actually put his money and time behind their publication.

My motivations in doing so are the consequence of personal responsibility, plus one other minor expectation that those who've read my book might understand. Ask yourself, seriously, why I'd want to become famous among fools who are hard put to recognize whose little pecker they have in hand at the moment?

Craig is a professional spin-doctor. A charlatan and a scoundrel. Ever heard his 'argument' FOR being able to prove the non-existence of something? I would love to see what his evidence looks like. Is he still banging on about the 'second law of thermodynamics'?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug
This guy does a lot of videos debunking Craig.

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
If you want to circle-jerk with the likes of Blaggard and AUK, you should be doing that amongst one another.

Oi! Why are you bringing me into to this?

There is no place within your group of pet-theorists for someone who has killed a half-century developing ideas and actually put his money and time behind their publication. ...

Please do not include me in such a group as I'm not a member and especially do not group me with Felasco.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
If you want to circle-jerk with the likes of Blaggard and AUK, you should be doing that amongst one another.

Oi! Why are you bringing me into to this?

There is no place within your group of pet-theorists for someone who has killed a half-century developing ideas and actually put his money and time behind their publication. ...

Please do not include me in such a group as I'm not a member and especially do not group me with Felasco.

AUK!
Thanks for the laugh. I apologize, sincerely and profusely, but am nonetheless delighted to have learned by my mistake that you are not a member of that small gang of nits, now smaller by one (according to my new reckoning).

It was Felasco who incorporated you into his mini-gang, and since I've not had the time or inclination to peruse this forum's extensive body of threads, some of which could have engaged the pair of you, I made the mistake of trusting a pinhead. (Met one on the dance floor last Saturday night, too. Alas. Perhaps Saturday was a day appointed by the stars for me to trust pinheads. Wish I had an astrologer to consult.) This kind of thing happens all too often, but such mini-experiences keep me on track. I repeat my apology, yet am happy to have made the error.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Craig is a professional spin-doctor. A charlatan and a scoundrel. Ever heard his 'argument' FOR being able to prove the non-existence of something? I would love to see what his evidence looks like. Is he still banging on about the 'second law of thermodynamics'?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug
This guy does a lot of videos debunking Craig.

I'll check this out, to learn some things about style and performance. Thank you. Of course Craig is a spindoc, as is Dawkins for the opposite side. If I was God, I'd lock the pair of them in a women's public toilet for one week.

You might appreciate Michael Behe, if you actually peruse his books yourself, instead of reading the reviews of his books by puerile nitwits incapable of explaining nosepicking. Behe understands the issues, and has separated microbiological reality from his, and others' beliefs.

On the subject of the beginnings of existence, religionists and atheists are equally wrong. Behe's brief and clear forays into microbiology for the non-microbiologist make that as obvious as it can be made.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Craig is a professional spin-doctor. A charlatan and a scoundrel. Ever heard his 'argument' FOR being able to prove the non-existence of something? I would love to see what his evidence looks like. Is he still banging on about the 'second law of thermodynamics'?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug
This guy does a lot of videos debunking Craig.

I'll check this out, to learn some things about style and performance. Thank you. Of course Craig is a spindoc, as is Dawkins for the opposite side. If I was God, I'd lock the pair of them in a women's public toilet for one week.

You might appreciate Michael Behe, if you actually peruse his books yourself, instead of reading the reviews of his books by puerile nitwits incapable of explaining nosepicking. Behe understands the issues, and has separated microbiological reality from his, and others' beliefs.

On the subject of the beginnings of existence, religionists and atheists are equally wrong. Behe's brief and clear forays into microbiology for the non-microbiologist make that as obvious as it can be made.

I wouldn't call Dawkins a spin-doctor. He has science on his side. Craig tries to disguise superstition as science. There is a difference.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Craig is a professional spin-doctor. A charlatan and a scoundrel. Ever heard his 'argument' FOR being able to prove the non-existence of something? I would love to see what his evidence looks like. Is he still banging on about the 'second law of thermodynamics'?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug
This guy does a lot of videos debunking Craig.

I'll check this out, to learn some things about style and performance. Thank you. Of course Craig is a spindoc, as is Dawkins for the opposite side. If I was God, I'd lock the pair of them in a women's public toilet for one week.

You might appreciate Michael Behe, if you actually peruse his books yourself, instead of reading the reviews of his books by puerile nitwits incapable of explaining nosepicking. Behe understands the issues, and has separated microbiological reality from his, and others' beliefs.

On the subject of the beginnings of existence, religionists and atheists are equally wrong. Behe's brief and clear forays into microbiology for the non-microbiologist make that as obvious as it can be made.

I'd much rather be a nit than a patronising know nothing with a "theory" that makes about as much sense as spreading donkeys on space mushrooms.

Once again grey shows us the sheer extent of his ignore list, aka people he wont talk to because they destroyed his arguments with logic and reason. You haven't got the guts to discuss things with anyone accept those who agree with you, you're an intellectual coward, your shameless proselytising disgusts me.

Go back to flailing wildly about subjects you are not even remotely qualified to discuss let alone claim intellectual superiority over, like some pompous prig. And spare us the instulting nonsense, at least I have the balls to discuss anything and everything with anyone.

Who the hell cares what some IDiot thinks Behe's as big a crank as you are.

You might appreciate Michael Behe, if you actually peruse his books yourself, instead of reading the reviews of his books by puerile nitwits incapable of explaining nosepicking

Intelligent design is clown shoes and everyone knows it, you would be as well to just go back to calling these religious fanatics creationists. Just because you talk shit and publish books does not mean people have to take you vaguely seriously. The fact that he has vast swathes of rational people shooting down his mind bilge should tell you something about the utility of his wank fest to introduce religion to a debate where it doesn't remotely belong.

Yes, Behe it's just providing us with another "God of the gaps" pseudo-scientific explanation. Know also as the fallacy of false dilemma.

If I was God, I'd lock the pair of them in a women's public toilet for one week.

Finally a suggestion I can agree to.

Is there room in the toilet for us as well? Cause, um, you know, there's no difference between us and them, other than that they have better book sales.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Craig is a professional spin-doctor. A charlatan and a scoundrel. Ever heard his 'argument' FOR being able to prove the non-existence of something? I would love to see what his evidence looks like. Is he still banging on about the 'second law of thermodynamics'?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug
This guy does a lot of videos debunking Craig.

I'll check this out, to learn some things about style and performance. Thank you. Of course Craig is a spindoc, as is Dawkins for the opposite side. If I was God, I'd lock the pair of them in a women's public toilet for one week.

You might appreciate Michael Behe, if you actually peruse his books yourself, instead of reading the reviews of his books by puerile nitwits incapable of explaining nosepicking. Behe understands the issues, and has separated microbiological reality from his, and others' beliefs.

On the subject of the beginnings of existence, religionists and atheists are equally wrong. Behe's brief and clear forays into microbiology for the non-microbiologist make that as obvious as it can be made.

I wouldn't call Dawkins a spin-doctor. He has science on his side. Craig tries to disguise superstition as science. There is a difference.

Consider the possibility that Dawkins and Craig are opposite faces of the same, cheap, gold-plated lead coin.

The only thing that each of these guys have on their side is the agreement of their followers, religionists in Craig's case, atheists backing Dawkins' position. Dawkins is as scientifically conscious as Craig. Both are masters of dialectic for the easily fooled.

Craig's arguments can be refuted with no more than a few tidbits of common-sense logic, but because Dawkins claims to have science on his side, it is necessary to use a few tidbits of scientifically determined information, plus some mathematical logic to refute his position.

My book includes several examples, and in a few weeks I should be able to refer you to a simple essay about the implications of codons in genetics that put the lie to random chance as the cause of genetic change. In the meantime, let's do some really simple probability math, of the sort that when properly attended to makes casino owners rich, and when ignored, makes stupid gamblers poor.

We'll need a few scientific facts to get started. The human genome consists of about 23,000 genes (segments of DNA that code for protein molecules). For the most part these genes range in size from between 900 and 1500 base-pairs (I'm trusting that, as a Dawkins fan, you know your fundamental biology). The average gene size is about 1200 base-pairs, but to keep my presentation simple, let's assume that every gene has only 900 base-pairs.

The only mechanism that science has allowed for the creation of a particular gene is random change to a DNA molecule. (Natural selection can only operate after a gene has been changed, and a new protein put to work in a critter's body.) Random changes are fairly easy to calculate at the base-pair level if one ignores difficulties such as capping or marking the beginning and end points of a gene, or how a gene might be changed in length without drastically changing the protein for which it codes, or how, if a gene is modified to code for a new protein, the next-generation of body does without the old but perfectly functional protein.

So, ignoring those factors and keeping things simple, it turns out the probability for the occurrence of a single, small, 900 base-pair gene is about 1.4 x 10exp-542. That's a decimal point followed by 541 zeroes before the 1.4.

That's an ugly small number. Scientists generally regard a probability of 10exp-40 (a decimal point followed by 39 zeroes before a "1" as impossible.

Considering the scientific fact that there are about 23,000 genes in the human genome, and that probabilities multiply, the probability of the entire human genome coming into existence via the chance rearrangement of molecules is a really ugly number-- more than a million zeroes after the decimal point.

Now, that's science. It's not the kind of science that you'll get from the likes of Dawkins and his followers.

I apologize for offending anyone by introducing an element of mathematical logic into a philosophy forum, but if you are going to claim that bogus science is on the side of a particular idea, mathematical logic is the only way to refute the arguments behind that idea and expose the bogusity of the "science" that allegedly supports it.

I contend that Dawkins and Craig are both bullshit artists, like carnival barkers in opposite tents pitching credulous audiences of different predilections. Pay your $2 to enter either tent and you will get to see (but not examine) some goofy invented structure, perhaps a mummified alien from the Roswell crash, or a beautiful hirsute woman with four tits. Choosing the carnival barker is choosing the fiction he sells. The smart choice is to take a ride on the Ferris Wheel in search of a larger perspective.

If one actually examines the logic of religion and the science behind atheism, and does so with objective honesty, it becomes clear that with respect to the workings of things, and especially with respect to the beginnings of things, that science and religion are equally full of shit.

What's philosophy doing about this? It's trusting one finger up its collective ass, and another into its mouth. Then it plays switch, ad infinitum, as if there was no other game in town.

What are individual philosophers doing about this? I'd have to say, less than nothing. They'll side up with Dawkins without checking his science. They won't study Michael Behe, whose books are full of legitimate (and therefore non-trivial) microbiological science data. They side with the simple-minded dolt because he simplifies the agreement-base they've aligned with. They freely quote the opinions of some phony scientist, but never actually study science, thereby basing their opinions on agreement while claiming to be basing their opinions on science. So far, it looks to me like you're a member of that agreement crowd.

Ginkgo wrote:Yes, Behe it's just providing us with another "God of the gaps" pseudo-scientific explanation. Know also as the fallacy of false dilemma.

Those are the words of someone who has not perused either of his major books. Behe writes about microbiology, and the logical possibility of how complex microbiological structures might have come into existence. He does not write about God.

How do you identify a "false dilemma" in a book you've never read? Let's hear it, with quotes from "The Edge of Evolution." Maybe you could even get around to expressing your argument using correct grammar, just as an exercise to verify that you can.

Behe says because something can not be explained it is somehow by magic indicative of some intelligent designer, it is a classic God of the gaps style argument, if you can't explain something then by magic any other idea no matter how unfounded is the logical fit into the gap, either way Behe is wrong. Just about any mechanism that has arisen in nature, from the eye to the flagellum has been explained to the satisfaction of all but a few IDiots.

Consider the possibility that Dawkins and Craig are opposite faces of the same, cheap, gold-plated lead coin.

The only thing that each of these guys have on their side is the agreement of their followers, religionists in Craig's case, atheists backing Dawkins' position. Dawkins is as scientifically conscious as Craig. Both are masters of dialectic for the easily fooled.

I love how anyone who contends with you is deemed a fool or a follower. Where as at the same time you are trying to dupe people into becoming followers. The hypocrisy is rather amusing. Dawkins has more than blind faith on his side, he has thousands and thousands of independent studies, but then from someone who doesn't rate experiment as being important, or indeed logic or reason so it seems, the fact that evolution is a fact and pretty airtight is of little significance to the hopelessly adrift illusionist who merely floats through life using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to support his odd little fantasies. You showed how little you know about biology when you tried to pass off that mathematical drivel about any accumulation of mutation over billions of years is impossible. It just shows a woeful and inadequate level of understanding of a subject you hope to contend with. In other words it was just nonsense passed off as reasoned, hoping that most people would not understand the biology behind evolution and mutation and meiosis/mytosis so you could bamboozle them with maths that is so inadequate, mathemeticians everywhere span in their graves.

Isn't it far more healthy to say if we don't have all the answers and there are gaps in the fossil record or in our understanding then to presume that we need more information, than to wedge some fantasy in its place that has no more right to be there than any other gesticulation induced nothing but faith.