Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
Calilasseia's picture
Well first of all, I do

Well first of all, I do understand your pretence of an argument. Your pretence of an argument consists of asserting that any pattern of observed data has to be the product of an intelligent agency, which is blatantly false. Not least because regular patterns arising from such sources as electrostatic forces, which are about as mindless as one could wish for, are abundantly observable. This was not only known to Alan Turing, but the basis for a paper on morphogenesis that he wrote in 1952, demonstrating that a mass of patterns could be generated by nothing more than the actions of a growth promoter and a growth inhibitor, moving through a tissue in a manner consonant with a diffusion equation.

As a corollary, there is no "reasoning" in your pretence for an argument, it's nothing more than a blind assertion, one that is falsified by a wealth of natural phenomena.

I also do not find it surprising that you don't understand what I'm telling you, despite it being pretty much obvious to several other people here, because rectally self-inserted pedlars of dogma tend to lack the basic cognition required to understand anything that requires proper understanding of processes.

Quite simply, what I'm telling you, is that unless you have a proper, rigorous means of detecting "design", all you have to offer is blind assertions.

Now, here's a clue for you. One of the rocks in this photo was "designed", in the sense that it was shaped by human hand, in this case a Palaeolithic human fashioning a stone tool. Can you pick out the "designed" rock from the others in this picture? If you can't do so, and provide substantive reasons for your choice, then you're not qualified to peddle assertions about "design".

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
arakish's picture
Ooo! Ooo! I found it.

Ooo! Ooo! I found it.

***tree quickly shambles off in forest before the "wanna be" human can ask***

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
LOL

LOL

I see a strawman in the rocks turning in his grave.

Dude SETI **EXISTS**. It is a real agency. Doing real work. Not a blind assertation.
They look for signals. Real signals. There are actual live, educated people doing this work with houses and driving cars.

Do you not get that?
If they found a signal **YOU** and all your buddies would conclude ET.

THAT is the point. It's not about some imaginary signal from some natural star.
It's about looking for a REAL signal from your REAL ET buddies.

How hard is that to understand?

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine

@ sourcecodemigraine

Another favorite tactic of the Religious Absolutists: Change the Subject and dodge the question.

Still cannot the rock? Sad, just sad.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
Sure, agree with the rocks

Sure, agree with the rocks dude, no problem.

Then SETI should agree with the rocks and shut down right?

No WAY to find ET, it's just an imaginary pattern. Close up shop boys we have a rock picture.

Oh wait, I forgot that you never have clue but just keep writing, nm

Calilasseia's picture
What part of "SETI has yet to

What part of "SETI has yet to find a signal that is unambiguously the product of an alien intelligence" do you not understand, despite being schooled on this repeatedly?

What part of "SETI is staffed by astronomers who know it takes diligent effort to distinguish between a signal of natural origin, and a signal of sentient origin" do you also not understand?

All you have here is "It looks 'designed' to me, therefore it is". Come back when you have something other than cranial diarrhoea to offer.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Seriously?

Seriously?

It looks designed to me? All you sci-boy fantasy fanatics would be having wet dreams about ET if they found a signal like the one I described. A binary signal that encoded into an mpeg movie??!!?? Nobody would be contemplating any suggestion that it could be naturally caused, least of all YOU. What a hypocrite.

Calilasseia's picture
And what makes you think that

And what makes you think that aliens would send out a signal encoded in a format originating from Earth? That's merely one of many absurdities in your drivel. Far more likely that scientists on Earth would have to spend time working out the data format that the aliens devised, before they could start addressing the content. Then they would have to decipher an alien language, without any a priori clues as to such details as word order, alphabet or the presence of declension, and quite possibly an alien number system too. Then of course, even once all that is in hand, the content might not even be a "message" for the consumption of beings other than the producers. Radio and TV signals from Earth have been radiating into space without any attempt on the part of the producers thereof, to send messages to aliens. Any aliens out there picking up those signals are receiving everything from the opening of the Berlin Olympics in 1936, to "Dallas" and "Dynasty".

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Meanwhile, back to that challenge ... do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into something other than a mantra you're parroting the way my pet budgie used to repeat "Little Pee Bird"?

David Killens's picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA

Dayum Calilasseia, you are the Tsar Bomba

sourcecodewizard's picture
also, to clarify, yes those

also, to clarify, yes those are 3 blind assertations not meant to prove anything only to offer my explanation as to why God allows evil to exist. Hence the term "I believe" to differentiate it from the objective, simple proof of a designer with the EVIDENCE being us. The logic and evidence are clear for a genius designer unless you adhere to unspoken axiom 1 where evidence no longer matters. Christianity, on the other hand, is a faith by its very teachings. There is no proof but the logic is that given the solid fact that it was all designed, it makes sense that someone who can create matter and us would have a reason for it all. Christianity offers such a reason although, if you cannot get past the concrete fact of the obvious SETI argument, there is really no hope to use logic to go any further.

Cognostic's picture
Where in the hell do you get

Where in the hell do you get this crap? Seriously. Each time you make an assertion please cite where you got the information from. Stars Flickering - High School Science Class informs students why the stars seem to flicker. The fact of design? Come one! You have been trashed on this one. Just give it up.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Seems like you guys are all

Seems like you guys are all not clear on the argument.
again read my step by step response to the dude with the red eyeballs.

No my argument stands, you guys could maybe think a little.
Its the watchmakers argument, just sanitized to remove the knee jerk counters that you people memorize then believe to be reasoning.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cali

@ Cali

This is like watching the offensive line of the Patriots playing an under 10's netball team at gridiron....fun, but you have to keep looking away.....

Love your work Cali. Seriously love your work....

sourcecodewizard's picture
more of the same, thank you a

more of the same, thank you a hootin and a hollerin backed by zero logic.
Again proving my point.

sourcecodewizard's picture
the logic of the atheist

the logic of the atheist shown yet again

Randomhero1982's picture
Beautifully put Calilasseia!!

Beautifully put Calilasseia!!! *applaudes*

The only thing I would add (and this isn't your mistake, it is the OPs) stars do "flicker", if we consider pulsars.

But they are not some bloody intergalactic morse code device, dreamt up by some random muppet.

Calilasseia's picture
@Randomhero1982

@Randomhero1982

Oh Indeed, pulsars do produce regular pulses, hence the name, but those pulses aren't a data bitstream of the sort that the OP is imagining, the pulses are simple repetitive bursts of photons whose frequency is determined by the angular velocity of the pulsar.

sourcecodewizard's picture
From the OP:

From the OP:

Now imagine SETI found a star flickering in repetition. Imagine they recorded the flickers as binary numbers, saved them into a .mpeg file and found that they produced a movie showing the correct location of the star....

do you know what hypothetical means?

**IF** they found a flickering star that encoded information, **THEN** they would conclude ET

Everyone would, including you and your people here, without a doubt

Calilasseia's picture
Except that as I've already

Except that as I've already pointed out, every tenured astronomer would regard your "hypothetical" as an unreal fantasy. What part of this elementary concept did you miss, the first time I pointed it out?

sourcecodewizard's picture
Unreal fantasy? What do you

Unreal fantasy? What do you think SETI does?
Then why does SETI even exist?????
to find signals just like the one I specify.
Again you show the circular logic of your kind.

Go ahead, denounce SETI as irrational then.
Do it in public, I want to read it.

The very existence of SETI implies the universe was designed by the logic of the OP.
END

Calilasseia's picture
SETI doesn't look for signals

SETI doesn't look for signals in the visible light part of the EM spectrum. For numerous valid physical reasons. Which is the first reason why your gibberish fails.

Second, the existence of SETI doesn't imply the universe was poofed into existence by an invisible magic man. Because, wait for it, it's an exercise aimed at determining IF there exist other intelligent life forms capable of sending signals across interstellar distances. The question remains unanswered. Plus, even if another intelligent life form is found to exist elsewhere, it almost certainly arose via the same testable natural processes responsible for us, namely chemistry followed by evolution.

Once again, do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into a properly evidentially supported postulate, as opposed to the product of your rectal passage? I'm increasingly moving to the view that you don't. Prove me wrong if you think you're intellectually hard enough.

arakish's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Thanks for stepping up. I am an astrophysicist, more by hobby now that I am working with volcanologists. When I read the OP and there was something like 500 replies, I just did not bother reading any figuring y'awl would spank this little child for interrupting us adults.

Thanks Dude. Your one of the greats.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
" SETI doesn't look for

" SETI doesn't look for signals in the visible light part of the EM spectrum. For numerous valid physical reasons. Which is the first reason why your gibberish fails."

OMFG

But they DO LOOK FOR SIGNALS RIGHT?

Hello?

It remains unanswered because we have not found one. But **IF** we found one as I described in the OP **THEN** everyone would include intelligent causation, including you.

THAT is the point.

Randomhero1982's picture
Stick to your bananas pal...

Stick to your bananas pal...

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sapporo's picture
It's not so much that science

It's not so much that science has an unspoken axiom that deities are nonsense...rather, it's more that the supernatural does not even qualify as a hypothesis, because hypotheses must be possible explanations of observed phenomena.

The OP hasn't actually provided any evidence that a creator is necessary, nor have they explained why any primary creator must not have been designed.

sourcecodewizard's picture
yes it does, can you people

yes it does, can you people even read?
there is a simple proof of contradiction right there. The part about SETI using, you know, logic.

Aposteriori Unum's picture
@OP

@OP

"To counter their lack of evidence, science has dubbed the phrase “God of Gaps” thereby 1) glorifying their lack of EVIDENCE and 2) drawing attention away from the EVIDENCE of a planet filled with self aware computers."

Self aware computers... we aren't computers. You are making a false equivalence fallacy. Next...

"To anyone using logic it is clear that our reality must have been designed."

Let's use some of this magical logic thing right now...

"The Christian version of an omnipotent, totally benevolent designer is tough to reconcile with a lot of the stuff that has happened on Earth. Here is where logic cannot help us but can still guide us."

Logic dictates the impossibility of omnipotence. Can god create a stone so big that he cannot lift it? If yes, not omnipotent, if no, not omnipotent. You might then say well, omnipotence means that he can do all that is logically possible. To which I would respond that is is perfectly logically possible to create a stone so big that the creator of said stone cannot lift it. I can do it.

"I believe the existence of evil by an omnipotent, totally benevolent creator can be explained by the following Christian principles:
1)God knows how to make it all better. When it is over everyone will agree it is worth it."

That is the contradiction there. If he is able and not willing then he is not totally benevolent. And if he is willing and not able then he is not omnipotent. Great, point taken.

"2)We are world builders and being a world builder is a sacred trust."

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

"3)Hence, this is a proving ground where we prove we can be trusted
Free will. "

Also, omnipotence does not allow for free will. If he created all things and has all the power, which includes all knowledge past and present then we can do nothing except what he wills us do. It's a solipsistic world and we are but a mental simulation.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Ahh, finally some actual

Ahh, finally some actual reasoning to deal with. ty

Let's start with the part you skipped and work our way forward.
Our reality must have been designed based upon my point from the OP
let's hear the counter to the OP about that first

David Killens's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

"I believe the existence of evil by an omnipotent, totally benevolent creator can be explained by the following Christian principles:
1)God knows how to make it all better. When it is over everyone will agree it is worth it."

Then please explain why my father, a devout christian (even a Mason) suffered a long, lingering, and painful death from cancer?

sourcecodewizard's picture
Before I became born again

Before I became born again and chose to try and be Christian, I believed in something called hierarchical causation.

It is obvious in our bodies that decisions are propagated from individual downward to individual atoms and lower. It is directed top to bottom. Consider that human brains are constructed from "sub brains" like the cerebellum and cerebral cortex, etc. So too can one persons brain affect another persons brain there by extending the electrical activity just as if they were in the same skull. The result is a *literal* super brain that affects everyone through our subconscious as it imposes a superconscious at varying degrees of hierarchy such as work groups and families.

This "superbrain" controls all life and death from individuals down to cells. Kind of like the force in star wars. In this view, that I did and do see as readily apparent, we all vote on every pain and pleasure with varying degrees of influence.

So....in answer to your question. He suffered so that you could have a better life in a world that demands this price to be paid because of how evil people are.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.