My life is in direct defiance of God.

249 posts / 0 new
Last post
Valiya's picture
Nyarl

Nyarl

yes nobody is disputing that. If a cancer in late stages is suddenly cured, you can conduct lab tests and prove that it has been cured... if a clinically dead patient comes back to life...you show that his heart is pumping and that he is alive after being dead... if this is what you are talking of, yes, it is measurable... but if you are saying that the displacement of the object should leave some trace of some 'pixie dust'... that's what iam saying you cannot demand, because you don't know how the action was done.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "if this is what you

Valiya - "if this is what you are talking of, yes, it is measurable"

Valiya - "yes nobody is disputing that"

You have disputed this several times (I'd guess half a dozen), mostly in your discussion with ThePragmatic. He has painfully pointed this out to you, over and over. I think Travis took a stab at it at least once, and so did I.

Below is an except from one of the earlier attempts from ThePragmatic's post of 01/28/2015 - 22:35; which you did respond to, so I have to assume you read it:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...

ThePragmatic - "I'm not claiming there would be a 'trace' of god, like magical fairy dust or a mystical aura. I'm saying that t̲h̲e̲ l̲o̲a̲f̲ o̲f̲ b̲r̲e̲a̲d̲ is the result of the action of your god. A human can see it, touch it, weigh it, cut it in pieces, taste it, eat it."

talathies's picture
Valiya, you refer to this

Valiya, you refer to this outside dimension. where is your proof it even exists. is there some door that leads to some man with thousands of tvs around him. whom tells you that it is inevitable and the end is the same? you are assuming that this place that is outside the space time continuum is real with no proof that it is real. you are just saying it is real. all I need is to carbon date a rock and that alone proves god is not real. the bible itself makes no sense. first there is only adam and eve. then they get kicked out and all of the sudden there are whole cities and countries out there?? I agree with kat, that there is no overlord god presiding over us like pawns. the facthat we are starting to understand this world and its laws faster and faster, only means that if there is a god who is out of this space time continuum better be worried. once that door is found there will be lots of angry people ready to great him. or her or it.

ThePragmatic's picture
Here we go...

Here we go...

Valiya: "In other word I exhaust all naturalistic causes for the emergence of the bread, and decide that it is miraculous."

Wow, your lack of imagination as an investigating scientist is scary. But I guess that when you don't want to know, you're not that motivated to investigate... I hope you don't work as a scientist.

Valiya: "Now, questions like what recipe God used to bake that bread is... I don’t know what to say… naïve. If you thought God actually kneads the dough with his hands, and then put it in some super-cosmic oven and stuff like that"

Haha, yes. That would perhaps be naive (kind of like believing in an out of space-time continuum super intelligence that can't be subjected to empirical evidence), but I didn't say anything remotely like "god baked the bread", now did I?

The bread would still have to be composed of ingredients, no? I.e. a recipe.
Would it be a modern recipe? An ancient, Middle Eastern recipe? Perhaps the same recipe as MacDonald's use for their hamburger buns?
Would it be modern flour from the local grocery store? Celestial flour? 4000 year old flour from the Middle East?
How about spices? Yeast? Nuts? Salt? Garlic? Olive oil? Other ingredients?
Are there any micro organisms in it? Can any other ingredients or chemical agents be detected?
Where does those ingredients or chemicals normally come from?
Can it be dated? Is it resent or ancient?
Does it emit any form of radiation?

The box in your example could be caught on film when it happens. And the box itself could be examined in many different ways.
Data like this could be gathered and used for later analysis, and statistical comparison when/if similar incidents happen again. If several similar incidents were investigated, the data could be used to verify authentic events and weed out frauds, and so on. A lot of conclusions could be made about the results, and if different types of events could be scientifically investigated as well, the pool of data would grow, with other types of data.

Even if nothing in the data stands out, in such a way that any interesting conclusions could be made, then several possabilities or hypothesis will have been excluded. This is also a result.

But, you keep maintaining that "How can you say that the actions of an external entity, which we have no clue about... should leave some verifiable trace."

How can you say it wouldn't?! It is just silly that you keep repeating it, when it is quite obvious that is would. Otherwise your god could not act upon this universe at all.

Valiya (to Travis): "your first hypothesis “we don’t know” is open to the possibility of a supernatural cause too"
The atheist position, does not rule out the supernatural. But the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural, suggests that any such assumption is false.

Hmm, your didn't seem to approve much for the phrase "practical rationality" earlier, when I said it. Now its your new favorite phrase. LoL

Valiya: "I can quite accurately say that it’s impossible for a man to float in air."
Do you know why you can say that with accuracy? It is called: Testability and Measurability (methods of scientific investigation).

Valiya: "My logic for God is this" [3]
Here I would like reply with a couple of quotes from you yourself...
Valiya: "bring your proof... you are the one making claims."
Valiya: "If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof..."

Valiya: "You are ignoring my explanation to make it sound like I was just making these assertions without any logical backing", "you or anybody for that matter wouldn’t believe that a watch can be made by a 3 year old, because you agree it requires intelligence", "and I see the same kind of specified complexity in nature"

Wow, I am dazzled into amazement yet again, by the Watchmaker Analogy! Thank you for demonstrating your versatility in debating. (Now the child is 3 years, not 4 or 5. Soon it will have to make watches in the womb)
Sorry, but that is not logical backing and not an explanation.
So no, it doesn't change much of the meaning of the quotes as you continuously demand proof, evidence and examples from everyone else, but insist that your flawed logic and unfounded "commonsensical" assumptions are good enough as evidence. That is what the quotes show.

Valiya: "I see the same kind of specified complexity in nature"
And you think I am repeating myself?! I am a feeble amateur compared to your repetitive powers.

Valiya: "NO matter how much you try to discredit the example, it is valid as long as you won’t accept that a child can create a watch."
This is such bad logic and a lousy claim.
No, no, no. It is not valid, because it is not comparable in any way.
The "complexity" in nature cannot be compared with a watch. And your ridiculous insisting on a child (that seems to get younger for each time you give the example) is in no way comparable with natural processes.
It is flawed logic. It is not a valid example.
NO amount of repeating it over and over will make it valid.

Valiya: "From all around me and thousands of examples in my life I very clearly see that specified complexity comes from intelligence"
Yes, you do... YOU do. YOU... as in your personal understanding, your personal opinion.
That is it, nothing more. No proof, no evidence, no valid logic.

Valiya: "But it better be able to give an explanation without any gaps."
Why? All you have to show for your "intelligence" assumption is o̲n̲e̲ ̲gi̲ga̲n̲t̲i̲c̲ ̲ga̲p. No evidence to even have gaps in between!

Valiya: "You can’t blame me for picking on the gaps that are there."
YES! I most definitively can! Because all you have is o̲n̲e̲ ̲gi̲ga̲n̲t̲i̲c̲ ̲ga̲p! Not a single shred of proof! But you keep pointing at some missing pieces in a enormous jigsaw puzzle, and demand they are found, even though the image on the puzzle can easaly be seen without them, and even though more and more peices are found continuously.

Valiya: "I am arguing for the need for intelleigence for specified complexity, and I have provided my proofs for it...If you are arguing for evolution, then you better bring the proof."
LoL! You have provided proof? WHERE? I certainly haven't seen any!
Oh, I forgot, you are exempt from proof. But everyone else "better bring the proof". *facepalm*

Valiya: "If you want to discredit that argument, you just have to show me how practical rationality tells us that specified complexity can come about without intelligence."
Sorry, but I don't have to do that.
See, you are still the one making claims of a supernatural nature. You have no proof at all, only an assumption based on your personal feelings and opinion.
I don't have to discredit your argument, because it has no credit to begin with.

I think I will start using "creationist logic" against your Watchmaker Analogy:
You see the same complexity as watches in nature? Okay, when you find a tree that are growing watches you have your evidence! Or when you find a watch that can give birth to new watches, then I will accept your argument. I think it is practically rational and sound logic!

Referenced posts:
[1] http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it?p...
[2] http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...
[3] http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...

Valiya's picture
PRAGMATIC

PRAGMATIC

“The bread would still have to be composed of ingredients, no? I.e. a recipe.”

Before I begin, Cmallen has understood what I am saying. He agrees to the extent that the actions of the external entity will be immeasurable to us. Of course he has other problems with that idea. But you seem not to understand even that basic logic. But anyways, let’s continue.

I don’t know what you are driving at with this. But let me humor you. Okay, say the bread is made from the best Egyptian wheat, best Cuban sugar, and some great variety of yeast, olives from cypress… and dated in our present times…or may be it has ingredients the likes of which can never be traced to any source in this world…
So what is your point?

“The atheist position, does not rule out the supernatural. But the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural, suggests that any such assumption is false.”

At one point of time, there was complete lack of evidence for black holes or dark matter. The lack of evidence for something does not make it false. Yes, I agree that it will not have any scientific purchase without evidence. However, if you remember how this discussion started out, I am not arguing for supernatural at all…. I am only invoking intelligence behind specified complexity. As I explained, there is a reasoning to it, and it’s not baseless.

“Hmm, your didn't seem to approve much for the phrase "practical rationality" earlier, when I said it. Now its your new favorite phrase. LoL”

If you remember, I appreciated you for bringing that phrase up ‘practical rationality.” I said it’s a nice way to describe my idea of commonsense. As before, I still agree that this phrase is useful to me in explaining my concept better. I have not changed my stance in any way.

“Do you know why you can say that with accuracy? It is called: Testability and Measurability (methods of scientific investigation).”

Without any scientific knowledge, any village bumpkin will be able to tell you this obvious truth that a man can’t float in air. Do you know how…because it is so commonsensical, oh I forgot that useful phrase…practical rationality.

“Wow, I am dazzled into amazement yet again, by the Watchmaker Analogy! Thank you for demonstrating your versatility in debating. (Now the child is 3 years, not 4 or 5. Soon it will have to make watches in the womb)”

I am wondering why you have given emphasis to a peripheral issue in the example (age of the child) which in no way alters the meaning of my example… whether 3, 4 or 5… the point is that a child can’t build a watch. It’s because it’s such a side-issue, that I didn’t even bother to remember what age I have been quoting each time.

“Sorry, but that is not logical backing and not an explanation.”

If the purpose of that example is to show that specified complexity arises only from intelligence, and you agree that a child can’t build a watch… I think the explanation is logical.

“I think I will start using "creationist logic" against your Watchmaker Analogy:
You see the same complexity as watches in nature? Okay, when you find a tree that are growing watches you have your evidence! Or when you find a watch that can give birth to new watches, then I will accept your argument. I think it is practically rational and sound logic!”

Specified complexity is the arrangement of several primitive parts for achieving a function, disrupt that arrangement and the function fails. I see this in watches, washing machines and rockets. I also see this in living cells, eyes, heart and so on. Therefore the analogy works fine.

Now, you are saying that as watches don’t give birth like animals, they can’t be compared. This is a faulty logic. You are comparing the functions here. The differing functions do not invalidate the comparison for specified complexity. Watches show time. Rockets fly to space. They have different fucntions…yet they both have specified complexity. Similarly, a living cell reproduces…that’s a great function…but just because it’s a different function from what a watch does, you cannot say the analogy is wrong… so far as specified complexity goes, the analogy works just fine.

If you actually thought… the information in the DNA that enables reproduction is such great engineering, that we are still grappling to figure this mechanism out. Probably, in future we might have watches that give birth to great designs when they get worn out. After all, hasn’t man been copying nature in designing various machines?

ThePragmatic's picture
Correcting myself:

Correcting myself:

Me: "I didn't say anything remotely like "god baked the bread", now did I?"

Actually, that is what I almost said: "What recipe would god use to bake some bread?"

Which can easily be interpreted as if god actually did knead the dough and bake it in an oven.

My apologies for that.
I should have been clearer in my choice of words, as that is not what I intended it to sound like. To get the correct focus of the question, I should have written:
"What recipe would god use when creating some bread?"

cmallen's picture
Well, either way you can be

Well, either way you can be darned sure it was unleavened.

ThePragmatic's picture
Valiya - "Cmallen has

Valiya - "Cmallen has understood what I am saying."

You really should start letting people speak for themselves, and avoid reinterpreting their opinions for your benifit.

Valiya - "So what is your point?"

My point is very clear, it has been the same for quite some time now:
(You who grasp basic logic so much better than me, should have understood the point by now)
Empirical evidence can be gathered, of the results from the actions of the god you define.

To elaborate on the point:
1. You claimed you had made sure that the intelligence you refer to is real. You claimed you hade made sure that this intelligence has good intentions.
2. I questioned how you actually could have made sure.
3. In your lack of posibilities to answer, you tried to exonorate god from being subject to empirical evidence.
4. I have since been trying to show you that, following your own logic, that is false. The god you define would absolutely be subject to emprirical evidence, at the very least indirectly by the results from the actions your god takes.

But for some reason you keep denying this, while you still acknowledge both that a food miracle would create that food physically and that if god moved an object it could be measured how far it has moved.

Since you said: "I exhaust all naturalistic causes for the emergence of the bread, and decide that it is miraculous."
That was such a poor attempt at scientific investigation, so I gave you an example of evidence that could be gathered from the loaf of bread. The examples you give for the components of the bread are completely valid as well. The point is that evidence can been gathered.

Depending on the evidence found, many different theories could be formed, and many different conclusions could be made.
If your god would be consistent, in for example answering prayers from righteous believers, where such eveidence could be gathered, there would actually be some evidence supporting the claims you make.

Valiya - "The lack of evidence for something does not make it false."

Quite right.
But there is very little reason to believe in something on no evidence.

Valiya - "I am not arguing for supernatural at all…. I am only invoking intelligence behind specified complexity."

Ah, yes. But then you go on to say that it is one god, and that it is the god of the Muslims. Not multiple gods, not the god of someone else and not a completely unknown god.
Interestingly enough, you are sometimes arguing for a complete Deistic view, and sometimes for a Theistic view. Then you switch when it suits your purposes.
Which is it?

Valiya - "Without any scientific knowledge, any village bumpkin will be able to tell you this obvious truth that a man can’t float in air. Do you know how…because it is so commonsensical, oh I forgot that useful phrase…practical rationality."

Hmm, perhaps you mean because it is so commonrational practicosensical? :)
Still, everyone have been testing gravity their whole life, and that is what they base their assumption on.

Valiya - "I am wondering why you have given emphasis to a peripheral issue in the example (age of the child)"

I'm just pointing out absurdities in your argument.

Valiya - "you agree that a child can’t build a watch"

Yes, so does everyone else. But you are completely missing the point (and I suspect you want to miss it):
Your argument is constructed on assumptions that does not follow. THAT is what others don't agree with.

Your argument is wrong from the very beginning. Repeating the watchmaker analogy will not fix what is wrong with it.

Valiya - "Now, you are saying that as watches don’t give birth like animals, they can’t be compared. This is a faulty logic. You are comparing the functions here."

No, it is not faulty logic.

One can come about in natural processes and one has to be assembled.
One can adapt to the environment and the other is static.
One can grow and reproduce, the other is mechanic.
One can get sick, the other one can not.
One can mutate, the other can not.
One requires nurishment and water, the other one doesn't.
One can starve, the other can not.
Natural process - Artificial process

Now, I feel I have to bring in a quote from an article, written by a David A. Schwatz:

"If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, "Oh, this must be designed," what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don't have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that's exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place."

It can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchm...

Another thing you should read is this, list of 7 points that refute The Watchmaker Analogy:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

Point one:
Your definition of god would not be excempt from inderect evidence, or he would not be able to act upon our world at all.

Point two:
The Watchmaker Analogy is false, self refuting and irrelevant. (No matter the age of the child in your examples).

ThePragmatic's picture
I didn't realize it at first,

I didn't realize it at first, but you actually took it one step further here:

Valiya - "I am not arguing for supernatural at all…. I am only invoking intelligence behind specified complexity."

You sometimes argue for a Theistic view (specifically Islam).
You sometimes argue for a Deistic view.
And here you claim to be arguing for a completely non-supernatural view?!

For anyone else than yourself to understand what that means, you will have to elaborate. The intelligence that you are arguing for is not supernatural, but it is outside of space-time and has created the universe and life?

You keep switching between these views when it suits your purposes. This is intellectually dishonest.

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

“To elaborate on the point:
1. You claimed you had made sure that the intelligence you refer to is real. You claimed you hade made sure that this intelligence has good intentions.”

Let me tell you my position once again. My logic of ‘specified complexity’ leads me to look for an intelligent agent. But science can’t show me that intelligence, and claims that it knows nothing of realities outside of spacetime. And so I turn to sources outside of science. That brings me to religion. From hereon belief begins. I am not arguing that the intelligence is GOD. That’s my belief. And all that I believe about God (good intentions and so on) are all extensions of that belief. If you are attacking my belief of God, that’s a strawman, because I am not bringing God belief to the table as part of my argument. I am only saying that nature indicates to an intelligent agent. That’s all I am saying.

““3. In your lack of posibilities to answer, you tried to exonorate god from being subject to empirical evidence.”

The moot question is should an external cause for an internal effect leave any empirical trace? The simple answer is we can never know because we have no knowledge of the external agent. All your examples of some agency leaving indirect evidence of its actions are applicable only to objects subject to physical laws.

“But for some reason you keep denying this, while you still acknowledge both that a food miracle would create that food physically and that if god moved an object it could be measured how far it has moved.”

Yes…the distance an object moved by the action of the external cause can be measured…that is the effect…but what evidence should that leave about the cause???

“The examples you give for the components of the bread are completely valid as well. The point is that evidence can been gathered. Depending on the evidence found, many different theories could be formed, and many different conclusions could be made.”

Okay… now there is a bread that appeared out of nowhere. You test it and you find it to have certain ingredients. Fine. Now based on those ingredients, what is your inference? The effect is measureable in our universe…but how do you say that it should give evidence of the external agent???

“Ah, yes. But then you go on to say that it is one god, and that it is the god of the Muslims. Not multiple gods, not the god of someone else and not a completely unknown god.”

As explained earlier… I am not saying you should accept the notion of God. That is belief. I am not bringing God as an argument. Neither am I saying that I am trying to prove the concept of God in Islam…I repeat, “I AM ONLY SAYING THAT THERE IS INTELLIGENCE BEHIND NATURE.” It could be aliens, it could be God, it could be any X.

“Interestingly enough, you are sometimes arguing for a complete Deistic view, and sometimes for a Theistic view. Then you switch when it suits your purposes.
Which is it?”

This discussion is not about theism or deism, because this is not about God. This discussion is only about the need for an intelligent agency behind nature. It is only after this is settled, the question of who that agency is has any value. That’s when discussions on theology will make sense. Why would I discuss theology with an atheist.

“Still, everyone have been testing gravity their whole life, and that is what they base their assumption on.”

What do you mean testing gravity… if you mean testing in the sense that Newton conducted tests, then I don’t think 99.999 % people of the world do any test. If you mean making practical judgment based on experience, then yes. And that’s what I mean when I say practical rationality.

“One can come about in natural processes and one has to be assembled.
One can adapt to the environment and the other is static.
One can grow and reproduce, the other is mechanic……” etc.

Computes interact with humans, a wooden furniture doesn’t.
Computer is made of plastic and silica chips, furniture is made of wood.
Computer does computations and solves math problems, a furniture can’t.
A computer produces copies of files, a furniture can’t.
Therefore, computers are designed, but furnitures are not.
Your comparisons and inference is as baseless as this.

No matter how many more differences you bring, you are only attacking the functionalities. My premise is specified complexity. Many parts put in a specific arrangement for a function. I see this in rockets, watches and living things. These arrangements may be doing different functions, as you pointed out above. But the very fact that those functions are achieved through accurate arrangement of parts, shows specified complexity, which comes from intelligence.

"If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, "Oh, this must be designed," what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.”

This is misleading. In the example above the differentiation is in the class of objects. Watch Vs Nature. I can make similar distinctions between a lot of things. Watch Vs Furniture. If I find a watch in the midst of furniture, I will immediately know it’s different from the furniture. If I see a mobile phone in midst of cars, I will know one is different from the other. But we know that watches and furniture, or mobiles and cars…all have specified complexity, and hence intelligently designed. Similarly, life has specified complexity…and hence intelligently designed.

I went through the links you sent. All the points in them are as silly as this example. As I don’t have the time, I am not going to deal with them. But if you think there is any important point in it that needs answering, bring it up.

CyberLN's picture
"No matter how many more

"No matter how many more differences you bring, you are only attacking the functionalities. My premise is specified complexity. Many parts put in a specific arrangement for a function. I see this in rockets, watches and living things. These arrangements may be doing different functions, as you pointed out above. But the very fact that those functions are achieved through accurate arrangement of parts, shows specified complexity, which comes from intelligence."

So, are you positing that this 'accurate arrangement of parts' you describe always comes first? Things are arranged and then that combination is used for doing X?

Is this specified complexity supervisor also responsible for setting up the natural processes that cause 'parts' to, say, join to become something different?

Are these 'accurate arrangement of parts' static or fluid?

And what do you mean by "accurate" arrangement? How do you determine accuracy? Accurate for whom? What if, for me, an accurately arranged thing needs to be re-arranged for it to be functional? For me, its accuracy is diminished.

Now let's chat about, say, the death cap mushroom versus a shiitake mushroom. How is poison in one accurate but not in the other? Did this intelligence decide it is functional in one but not the other?

"But the very fact that those functions are achieved..." Fact? Really?

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

“For anyone else than yourself to understand what that means, you will have to elaborate. The intelligence that you are arguing for is not supernatural, but it is outside of space-time and has created the universe and life? You keep switching between these views when it suits your purposes. This is intellectually dishonest.”

Yes, I am not invoking supernatural… I am only saying two things. 1. There is intelligence behind nature. 2. Science can’t explain it. Period. There is nothing supernatural about these two claims.

I had made it very clear that only when I turn to religion, do I come to know of an intelligent agent outside this universe. That’s the point where belief begins. I am not bringing my faith to the table at all.

But this whole argument started because you began asking questioning about the external intelligence (God). And so I forced to defend my faith.

If you accept that nature has emanated from an intelligence… I would consider this discussion is over. Who is that intelligence and whether it is inside our universe or not etc…are all topics of another debate all together.

cmallen's picture
"Yes, I am not invoking

"Yes, I am not invoking supernatural… I am only saying two things. 1. There is intelligence behind nature. 2. Science can’t explain it. Period. There is nothing supernatural about these two claims."

Well, as you mentioned earlier to Pragmatic, I do understand your position here. And as I said before I don't have a problem with this line of though as a purely mental exercise. But a problem does arise when one makes the leap from philosophic musing to real-world application. To say, "if there were an entity operating outside our space-time which could somehow manipulate things in our space-time it could be that we wouldn't even see any evidence of said manipulation nor of the entity," is a perfectly reasonable and perhaps entertaining riddle. It is indisputable from a logical standpoint because there really is no logic in it, it's just fantasizing. It's like saying, "trees may have some form of consciousness we are not aware of and can't understand." Saying, "Then if it is possible that trees have a form of consciousness we are not aware of and can't understand, they MUST have a form of consciousness AND we aren't aware of it AND can't understand it," is ridiculous. Same goes for saying, "if it could be that an entity operating outside our space-time can manipulate our space-time and leave no discernible trace, there MUST be some such entity who DOES manipulate our space-time AND leaves no trace.

Please tell me you understand what I'm talking about here, because I'm not really sure if I am explaining myself in a way anyone but I can understand.

Valiya's picture
Cmallen

Cmallen

I fully understand what you are trying to say. I appreciate your line of argument. This is the reason that I agree that God belief is a leap of faith. And that’s also the reason I am not arguing for God here. I am only trying to establish that specified complexity arises only from intelligence. Once this is established, then we will have to try and tackle the question of what is that intelligence. From there onwards, I have a different set of reasoning that leads me to religious beliefs.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - I am only trying to

Valiya - I am only trying to establish that specified complexity arises only from intelligence. Once this is established..."

You will NEVER be able to establish that so long as you hide its definition from us.

Valiya's picture
I have done that so many

I have done that so many times. Specified complexity is the arrangement of primitive parts to enable a function, which would not be possible if the arrangement is disturbed. The more parts you require to accomplish the task, the more complex it gets. The less the arrangement tolerates disruptions, the more specific it is.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ok so what dimensions does it

Ok so what dimensions does it have? Once you told me it was a 4 vector, you still sticking with that (lol)? Earlier you claimed a sentence has more specific complexity than a string of random letters, but never told us how much. Please show us exactly how to calculated that it had more.

cmallen's picture
I've considered your argument

I've considered your argument that specified complexity arises only from intelligent design. I reject it. I will always reject it. In fact, I reject the idea of specified complexity, things work together largely by chance or accident. Even when some things are designed by people, much of it is a happy mistake and none of it is a truly original creation.

Valiya's picture
Cmallen

Cmallen

"Even when some things are designed by people, much of it is a happy mistake and none of it is a truly original creation."

I am shocked that this would come from a reasonable person like you!!!!

ThePragmatic's picture
Valiya - "This discussion is

Valiya - "This discussion is not about theism or deism, because this is not about God."

Nice try to wiggle your way out of the corner you have backed yourself into...

Valiya - "Let me tell you my position once again. My logic of ‘specified complexity’ leads me to look for an intelligent agent. But science can’t show me that intelligence, and claims that it knows nothing of realities outside of spacetime. And so I turn to sources outside of science. That brings me to religion. From hereon belief begins. I am not arguing that the intelligence is GOD. That’s my belief. And all that I believe about God (good intentions and so on) are all extensions of that belief. If you are attacking my belief of God, that’s a strawman, because I am not bringing God belief to the table as part of my argument. I am only saying that nature indicates to an intelligent agent. That’s all I am saying."

I think you do an excellent job at strawmanning yourself.
You were arguing for Islam and that there was no such thing as blind following in Islam. You claimed that a Muslim was supposed to make sure that when someone tells you to pray 5 times a day, these commands were indeed from god:

Valiya - "From an Islamic point of view, this is not wholly true… there is no blind following… there is a certain logic and reasoning to your belief and practices. Let me explain how.
If someone were to come and tell you that you need to kiss the ground 5 times a day because God said so… a muslim is not supposed to follow it. Rather, he is supposed to investigate if this command is indeed from God. If you are convinced that it is from God, then you have to do it, whether it makes sense to you or not... because we agree that God’s wisdom is much greater than ours."
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it#c...

So I quoted you from that post, and asked "How do you make sure?":
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it#c...

That is how we started. We have also been talking about a god that listens to prayers and performs miracles, or are you suddenly going to deny that?

So please, if you want to accuse someone of strawmanning, take a look in a mirror.

Valiya - "The moot question is should an external cause for an internal effect leave any empirical trace? The simple answer is we can never know because we have no knowledge of the external agent. All your examples of some agency leaving indirect evidence of its actions are applicable only to objects subject to physical laws."

The question is only "moot" in your eyes, because you don't want god to be subject to empirical evidence.
You keep asking what evidence should god leave when acting upon the world?
The only way to know is to actually look for evidence. How would you know if god left traces or not? You seem to want to avoid looking for such evidence, and keep repeating your assumption that there would be no trace. How do you know that when you haven looked?

Valiya - "how do you say that it should give evidence of the external agent?"

How about your own example? "or may be it has ingredients the likes of which can never be traced to any source in this world"

Well that sure would be some interesting results! It would remove doubt about its authenticity and immediately bring on powerful reactions from all around the world. You don't think that would be significant?
How about if all the ingredients could be shown to come from local sources? Or perhaps even from a specific grocery store? That would probably support the theory of a hoax, rather than a miracle.
If data from multiple events had been gathered, questions could be posed and conclusions could be drawn.
Is it just random? Is there some specific pattern? There is no need to already know something about god, to draw conclusions based on patterns from the evidence.

You have successfully proved that your imaginations shuts down completely when you don't want to look for answers. And I am not about to waste hours on trying to speculate on what the evidence could lead to, just to humor you. Evidence could be gathered, a growing pool of data could be collected, theories could be formed, conclusions could be drawn and perhaps even tested and verified.

Valiya - "What do you mean testing gravity"

I mean experience: walking, running, jumping, climbing, throwing, lifting, dropping, weighing.

Valia - "Therefore, computers are designed, but furnitures are not. Your comparisons and inference is as baseless as this."

No, you are still comparing manufacturing with growing, reproducing, mutating. Epic fail...

Valiya - "But we know that watches and furniture, or mobiles and cars…all have specified complexity, and hence intelligently designed."

Yes, "we know" they are designed. Manufactured, assembled, most likely "Made in China".
So, compared to what in nature are they complex? An animal? A tree? A rock? Are animals designed and rocks are not? I don't see much "specified complexity" in a boulder. So, god did not make it?

To refute the Watchmaker Analogy, I couldn't have said it any better than you do yourself:
"This is misleading. In the example above the differentiation is in the class of objects. Watch Vs Nature."

Valiya - "I am not invoking supernatural… I am only saying two things. 1. There is intelligence behind nature. 2. Science can’t explain it. Period. There is nothing supernatural about these two claims."

Valiya - "Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer… This convinces me of the existence of a creator."
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it#c...

So, your saying that the intelligence, that you are arguing for, that has single handedly created nature is not supernatural?
Did that creator live on Earth and he created life? Did he die a long time ago? Or perhaps he doesn't age and is living here on Earth with us? Oh, I get it, he's an alien from outer space? Of course, it's so simple... but, eh. Who created that ailen?

You do realize that you are only backing further into a corner?

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

“So I quoted you from that post, and asked "How do you make sure?":

This is exactly what I am saying. I didn’t present the argument of the supernatural in this thread. That’s not my intention here. You brought it up by quoting me from another thread. And since you raised it, I had to defend it. But the basic purpose of my argument in this thread is only to show that the specified complexity in nature is indicative of intelligence.

“The only way to know is to actually look for evidence. How would you know if god left traces or not? You seem to want to avoid looking for such evidence, and keep repeating your assumption that there would be no trace. How do you know that when you haven looked?”

I am not assuming there would be no trace. I am only saying that you cannot pig-headedly demand there should be a trace, because we don’t know anything about the nature of what is outside timespace. May be there is a trace which we are unable to perceive. May be there is a trace which we will perceive in future. Or may be there is no trace at all. I am open to all possibilities…but we cannot conclusively say anything about it.

“How about if all the ingredients could be shown to come from local sources? Or perhaps even from a specific grocery store? That would probably support the theory of a hoax, rather than a miracle.”

Local ingredients will not tell you anything about how the bread popped out of thin air. If you can verify (by witnessing it let’s say) that the bread had appeared out of thin air, then no matter what the ingredients, it’s cause is still unknown.

“I mean experience: walking, running, jumping, climbing, throwing, lifting, dropping, weighing.”

This is what I mean by practical rationality. Living your everyday life. In like manner, i am experiencing specified complexity in my everyday life, based on which I rationalize about nature.

“No, you are still comparing manufacturing with growing, reproducing, mutating. Epic fail...”

If tomorrow scientists build a watch that grows, adapts and produces new watches…would you say watches arise without an intelligent designer??? As I told you before, the fact that living things grow and reproduce is sign of a superior intelligence, because the specified complexity in the information that enables these things is truly marvelous, which we humans haven’t fully unraveled. Your argument is extremely weak on this point. I am only making one comparison here: specified complexity. I see that in watches, rockets and living cells.

“So, compared to what in nature are they complex? An animal? A tree? A rock? Are animals designed and rocks are not? I don't see much "specified complexity" in a boulder. So, god did not make it?”

Firstly, my argument as I had made it clear several times is not for proving God. I am only trying to establish that there is specified complexity in nature, and this can arise only from intelligence. There are a lot of things in nature that do not have specified complexity. As you said rocks, stones etc. And I am NOT arguing that these point to intelligence. But then a lot of things do have specified complexity. Like living cells. And these definitely point to an intelligent agent.

And then you are trying to establish that I am contradicting myself by quoting me from two different threads.
“Valiya - "I am not invoking supernatural… I am only saying two things. 1. There is intelligence behind nature. 2. Science can’t explain it. Period. There is nothing supernatural about these two claims."
Valiya - "Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer… This convinces me of the existence of a creator."
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it#c...”

When I said I am not invoking supernatural I obviously mean in this thread, in our discussion. As a believer, it is obvious I invoke and believe in the supernatural.

“Did that creator live on Earth and he created life? Did he die a long time ago? Or perhaps he doesn't age and is living here on Earth with us? Oh, I get it, he's an alien from outer space? Of course, it's so simple... but, eh. Who created that ailen?”

These points are actually irrelevant to the topic. I will quickly respond though, but I hope you wouldn’t hold me up later by quoting this answer to show that I am trying to include God in our discussion. You are the one who is bringing it up.

If God is the creator of timespace, He is not subject to the laws of it. Therefore, all your questions are baseless. Even to ask where He lives, you are assuming that He has got our kind of physical dimensions requiring space to exist. Asking about His age, you are assuming He exists in time. You cannot even imagine about things outside our universe, leave alone empirically studying it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "I am only trying to

Valiya - "I am only trying to establish that there is specified complexity in nature..."

Perhaps you should start by defining it in an objective manner. You know so when you say X has more specific complexity than Y, we can actually check that?

Yaweh_saves's picture
You are not defying God. He

You are not defying God. He is the one who has preserved your life. He has preserved your life for a reason. Pray to Him and he will reveal to you His will for you. He has a good plan for your life, despite adversity. And it is a plan for your good and for His glory.

cmallen's picture
What the heck is wrong with

What the heck is wrong with you? Kataclismic specifically said, "I would prefer to look at life for what it is and not fantasize about deities and holy spirits floating through my brain while I'm living it." Why are you trying to cause more pain for someone who has gone through more than enough already?

This is a shining example of how people try to force their beliefs on others only to make themselves feel better. If you really cared you would be more interested in soothing pain than saying, "well, god wants you to suffer for his greater plan." Ooh, I so want to use some profanity right now.

ThePragmatic's picture
Valiya - "When I said I am

Valiya - "When I said I am not invoking supernatural I obviously mean in this thread, in our discussion."

From your last post, I read that you are actually arguing for different incompatible claims, thus hold an incoherent world view.

Most impressive word acrobatics. Almost like a rhetoric contortionist! :)

This should not surprise me, as this is exactly what should be expected from a creationist debater. A partitioned mind that can hold incompatible world views, but can somehow still work as a single unit.
However...

I have been conducting the same discussion as in the thread "I don't really get it.", and I have not made any secret of that.
I clearly referenced back to that discussion in the beginning of this thread, here:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...

And then when the chain of comments were broken due to lack of space, i referenced back to the chain here:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...

In that post, I also summarized t̲h̲e̲ ̲e̲n̲t̲i̲r̲e̲ ̲d̲i̲s̲c̲u̲s̲s̲i̲o̲n̲ from start to finish.

So, as I was saying: Nice try...

---

Valiya - "I am not assuming there would be no trace."

Really?

Valiya - "there is no way we can study him even to understand how His powers can act in our dimension. Therefore, no matter how much you question, the answer is simply 'we will never know.'"
Valiya - "how then can u say that a miracle should leave some trace of the actions of god?"
Valiya - "We don’t even know how the outside agent is interacting…therefore forget measuring that interaction."
Valiya - "God is external to our space-time, and the bread is internal of space-time...what emerpircally verifiable trace do you think that should leave???"
Valiya - "How can you insist that an extra-universal entity should also be subject to it? To make such an assertion, we need to have some knowledge of laws outside of time-space, which we DON’T have"
Valiya - "i am saying is that the bread can be touched, weighed, cut in pieces and eaten. But it will not leave any evidence/trace of God"
Valiya - "you are talking about God's action ---- it still doesn't let you overcome the limitation of the extra-spacetime .... because God's action is also not subject to our laws"
Valiya - "How can you say that the actions of an external entity, which we have no clue about… should leave some verifiable trace."
Valiya - "but if you are saying that the displacement of the object should leave some trace of some 'pixie dust'... that's what iam saying you cannot demand, because you don't know how the action was done."
Valiya - "Cmallen has understood what I am saying. He agrees to the extent that the actions of the external entity will be immeasurable to us."
Valiya - "The moot question is should an external cause for an internal effect leave any empirical trace? The simple answer is we can never know because we have no knowledge of the external agent."

You sure gave me the impression that you were assuming there would be no trace.

Valiya - "you cannot pig-headedly demand there should be a trace"

I have be trying to avoid that as much as possible! Once again you reinterpret what others write.
I h̲a̲v̲e̲ been insisting that there would be empirical evidence at some of your god's actions in our world, but I have been very clear that I was talking about the r̲e̲s̲u̲l̲t̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲a̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲, like the loaf of bread. N̲o̲t̲ the action itself.

I went as far as I could to explain that here:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...

It was only in my pr̲e̲v̲i̲o̲u̲s̲ ̲po̲s̲t̲ I asked:

Me - "You keep asking what evidence should god leave when acting upon the world? The only way to know is to actually look for evidence. How would you know if god left traces or not?"

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

You have not posited anything logical here…just personal attacks on my credibility. So, some quick responses.

“I have been conducting the same discussion as in the thread "I don't really get it.", and I have not made any secret of that.
I clearly referenced back to that discussion in the beginning of this thread, here:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...”

I am not saying you are playing a trick. I just said that you initiated the topic of the supernatural…yes you referenced things…but you started it. That’s why the whole discussion started. Not because I was trying to premise my argument on the supernatural. My premise was and is (in this discussion) sing of INTELLIGENCE in nature.

“Valiya - "there is no way we can study him even to understand how His powers can act in our dimension. Therefore, no matter how much you question, the answer is simply 'we will never know.'"
Valiya - "how then can u say that a miracle should leave some trace of the actions of god?"
Valiya - "We don’t even know how the outside agent is interacting…therefore forget measuring that interaction." …… etc.

Count the number of times I said “We will not know” or terms and phrases equivalent to that in all the posts you quoted of mine. My argument was always that we will not be able to assert anything about interventions of the external entity in our universe. We can definitely look for traces, but not finding any doesn’t disprove anything, because we don’t even know what to look for in the first place.

You sure gave me the impression that you were assuming there would be no trace.

ThePragmatic's picture
I am very disappointed in you

I am very disappointed in you.

When I said I have given up debating with you, I should have listened to my own advice.
This kind of intellectual dishonesty is hard to imagine for me. There is no point in debating with people who displays this kind of behavior.

ThePragmatic out.

Nyarlathotep's picture
the crazy part is, he

the crazy part is, he probably don't even realize he is doing it.

Valiya's picture
Fine... if you wish so.

Fine... if you wish so.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Every time I open your post

"Every time I open your post to answer it, the sheer size of it saps out my energy. So, apologies for the delay. Here again, I haven’t touched on all the points you raised."

Believe me, you aren't the only one. You were fairly brief here, so I will try to respond to all the important bits, but won't promise that it will be particularly exhaustive or satisfying(I haven't had sleep in more than a day).

"Just stuck to what I thought was important. Let me know if there is anything important left out."

At this point, I wouldn't know, brain no worky rightly.

"If by existence you mean presence in space and time… then yes, nothing exists outside spacetime."

More than that. The mere concept of existence absolutely necessitates a state or condition for something to exist in, it is possible that no such state or condition exists outside of spacetime, meaning that asserting the existence of anything inside of it is question-begging.

"But we know our limitations to even understand any other kind of existence. So, it would be foolhardy to dismiss it."

It would be even more foolhardy to accept and believe that which has not been, and can not be, demonstrated in any capacity whatsoever.

"Perhaps a little epistemological humility might serve us better here."

O.o Like that you show when you assert that it is impossible for the information in DNA to have arisen naturally without demonstrating it beyond a weak inference based on personal incredulity and ignorance of how it could possibly occur? Hmmm...

"May be we can say, we don’t know."

Do we know if anything at all exists beyond our spacetime? No. That is precisely why science, UNLIKE religion, doesn't assert that something actually exists there. There is a difference in me rejecting your unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion that your god being exists there, and me rejecting the notion that anything at all could exist outside our spacetime, and we need to deal with that. I am NOT the one making positive assertions about existence beyond the universe, you were.

"Yes. But that’s not our everyday location."

Ah, there it is, the admission that conditions apply. The beginning of the universe, life, and evolutions occurred in an environment very different from ours as well; so your "commonsensical practical rationality" falls apart utterly and completely.

"Just because levitation is possible in outer space, do you want me to believe my neighbor who says that he levitates in his bedroom every night????"

No, but it is enough to establish that YOUR intuition is NOT as accurate an indicator of reality as you seem to believe it is. Your "practical rationality" divorced from the exact conditions it is used to, is "practically" useless.

"I wouldn’t, because it goes against my practical rationality… and I would be right in doing so."

Only in certain circumstances in your experience, beyond those, your rationality is utterly moot. Yet you are attempting to do just that, apply your intuition to things far beyond both your experience and understanding.

"Just like the inference of the levitating neighbor based on commonsense observations, this inference is valid too."

Given that a great many things fall outside "commonsense observations", not it really isn't, it is just a weak attempt to establish something without demonstrating it.

"And it’s not just me, you too make such inferences in your life."

Mine are generally MUCH better than the ones you are describing.

"That’s the reason you wouldn’t believe that a small child can build a watch."

1. Using this as if children aren't intelligent is actually not very intelligent. Even if a child builds a watch, it would demonstrate that it would require a thinking agent, making your analogy defeat itself. Read here:

http://www.teachthought.com/interest/the-10-youngest-college-students-of...

Do not use the Child Watchmaker argument again, it is Bad.

2. Not only do watches not reproduce in any naturalistic way, as organisms do, but not even their parts appear in nature. We do not find metal in the shape of gears, or battery deposits, if we did it would be much more probable that one could accidentally occur. If they then had the capacity to reproduce themselves naturalistically, it also wouldn't be unlikely that there would be multitudes of them. We do, actually, find the same chemicals, organic molecules, amino acids, and phospholipid bilayers abundantly in nature; even on freaking hunks of rock in space!

3. If given sufficient evidence that a child did build a watch, it would be incumbent upon an open mind to consider it possible, THAT is the nature of a rational mind.

"Specified complexity needs intelligence to arise."

Unless you can demonstrate this, which you haven't outside of a weak inference based on false analogy and incredulity/ignorance, you aren't doing much more than throwing a hot dog at a bulldozer and expecting it to crash.

"I agree with you here."

We'll see, I highly doubt it.

"But it also need not mean that a there could be a religion that is actually correct. Therefore, you have to analyze the religions before coming to such a conclusion."

You never actually could come to such a conclusion based on raw analysis, not enough evidence.

"Or the best thing to do would be observe some epistemological humility and say that we don’t know."

Like the religious are? Like you have in all these various exchanges? Funny how we should observe such humility when the believers are allowed such loud and mealy-mouthed irrational shenanigans.

"Okay. Relativity proved our commonsense understanding wrong."

You ain't kiddin', it all out eviscerated it and handed it back without so much as dinner and a movie first.

"But what commonsense judgment that I make in my everyday world changed as a result of that? None."

Mass Aviation
Satellite television
Gps
Hadron Colliders

This is a small sample of things that would be IMPOSSIBLE in the modern area without an understanding of time dilation and mass/energy ratios. It impacts a lot more than you might suspect...

"If an intruder came into my room and when caught he invokes quantum physics and says that it’s one of the man ghost possibilities of himself that intruded, while he didn’t mean to… or something like that, will it be acceptable?"

Not unless he can back it up with adequate proof, because science cares about what you can evidentially demonstrate, not what you claim. We have heard you claim quite a bit, and are still waiting for the supposed pudding your proof must be hiding in.

"Just like my neighbor’s story of levitation will have no purchase even if astronauts floated in space."

If adequate evidence was presented to support his levitation account, it wouldn't matter what the astronauts are or aren't doing, nor would your intuition be enough to deny real scientists the chance to study and attempt to understand it.

"Example: Information in the DNA."

Restating the example you are trying to substantiate as a supernatural creation event, as an example of a supernatural creation event, is dishonest at so many levels that I a surprised you didn't break the internet.

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.