The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

PopePalpatine

So, are J C and his ilk going to claim evolutionists are persecuting him? :pac:

RikuoAmero

I'd like to ask J C and other creationists what are the fruits of their labours? What diseases has research in creationism cured? Surely if evolution is false and creationism true, then researching medical science through a creationist lens ought to bear some fruit, while looking through an evolutionist lens ought to provide exactly zip.

Doctor Jimbob

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'd like to ask J C and other creationists what are the fruits of their labours? What diseases has research in creationism cured? Surely if evolution is false and creationism true, then researching medical science through a creationist lens ought to bear some fruit, while looking through an evolutionist lens ought to provide exactly zip.

There are no fruits to their labours. I'm sure you're aware of that already though. The entire point of creationism is not the advancement of science, or anything really, it is simply to prove that goddidit.

RikuoAmero

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There are no fruits to their labours. I'm sure you're aware of that already though. The entire point of creationism is not the advancement of science, or anything really, it is simply to prove that goddidit.

Exactly.

Heisman

TheLurker wrote: »

But that isn't any form of a god that Dawkins is referencing. Dawkins is talking about the common notion of a creator deity figure that religions put forward as responsible for the existence of all other things.

Saying it is a "flaw" that he is not considering a "god" that evolved from an already existing system is talking about something completely different to what Dawkins is talking about. That is a completely different category of being.

Simply because you call this completely different concept 'god' as well you cannot expect it a flaw of Dawkins argument that it no longer applies.

Clearly it's a leap of faith to think there is a "creator" of all things. Dawkins argues against the existence of ANY God though.

He does observe that “the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative evolutionary process" - he is correct - a TECHNOLOGICAL evolutionary process. This admission basically undermines his entire arguments against the existence of any God. He has failed to take into account TECHNOLOGICAL evolution and focuses too much on BIOLOGICAL evolution.

The ramifications of an unthinkably advanced "God" (for whom things like time travel & reading the mind of every human on the planet would be a matter of childsplay) are also not taken into account by Dawkins.

Brian Shanahan

Heisman wrote: »

He does observe that “the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative evolutionary process" - he is correct - a TECHNOLOGICAL evolutionary process. This admission basically undermines his entire arguments against the existence of any God. He has failed to take into account TECHNOLOGICAL evolution and focuses too much on BIOLOGICAL evolution..

But how would technological development take place without some form of biologically based intelligence (even if there were some way to divorce consciousness from physical bodies, they have to develop from somewhere) to get it going?

Your whole argument makes no sense, because you are positing something happening with out any catalyst or starter when by necessity you are setting up that system so that it needs said starter you don't want to acknolwedge. In fact, by trying to argue the "uncreated creator" line in this way you are giving us the perfect argument for why it cannot exist.

TheLurker

Heisman wrote: »

Clearly it's a leap of faith to think there is a "creator" of all things. Dawkins argues against the existence of ANY God though.

Any 'God' using a common standard meaning of the word 'God'

You cannot just slap the term 'God' onto anything and then say Dawkins is wrong.

If I decided to start calling my gold fish 'God' it would be silly of me to turn around and say I have proven than Richard Dawkins is wrong because my gold fish exists, since Dawkins clearly isn't talking about my gold fish, even if I choose to call it 'God'.

Heisman wrote: »

He does observe that “the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative evolutionary process" - he is correct - a TECHNOLOGICAL evolutionary process. This admission basically undermines his entire arguments against the existence of any God.

No it doesn't because there is no commonly used definition of the term 'God' that includes a being that evolved from earlier beings, whether that evolution was biological or technological (what ever that means). That is not a God by any normal definition of that term.

So you have just introduced a new definition of 'God' that no one uses or recognises and then said Dawkins is wrong for not considering it.

Dawkins is as wrong for not taking into account this version of 'God' as he is for not taking into account my gold fish version of 'God'.

Heisman

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But how would technological development take place without some form of biologically based intelligence (even if there were some way to divorce consciousness from physical bodies, they have to develop from somewhere) to get it going?

Your whole argument makes no sense, because you are positing something happening with out any catalyst or starter when by necessity you are setting up that system so that it needs said starter you don't want to acknolwedge. In fact, by trying to argue the "uncreated creator" line in this way you are giving us the perfect argument for why it cannot exist.

Reread my posts I suggest. You have completely misunderstood my points.

Doctor Jimbob

Heisman wrote: »

Reread my posts I suggest. You have completely misunderstood my points.

Or maybe he's right an your argument makes no sense?

Heisman

TheLurker wrote: »

Any 'God' using a common standard meaning of the word 'God'

You cannot just slap the term 'God' onto anything and then say Dawkins is wrong.

If I decided to start calling my gold fish 'God' it would be silly of me to turn around and say I have proven than Richard Dawkins is wrong because my gold fish exists, since Dawkins clearly isn't talking about my gold fish, even if I choose to call it 'God'.



No it doesn't because there is no commonly used definition of the term 'God' that includes a being that evolved from earlier beings, whether that evolution was biological or technological (what ever that means). That is not a God by any normal definition of that term.

So you have just introduced a new definition of 'God' that no one uses or recognises and then said Dawkins is wrong for not considering it.

Dawkins is as wrong for not taking into account this version of 'God' as he is for not taking into account my gold fish version of 'God'.

Dawkins is an atheist and argues that no God exists.

This is separate from debating creationism or specific religions. Neither of which I have commented on and neither of which I think are credible. The biblical account of creation etc is, in my judgement, erroneous. Earlier posters have failed to grasp this and you have also. I think posters assume that if you're not a militant atheist or agnostic, then you're a creationist or theist of some type. I am neither. (Although I don't discount the computer simulation theory but that's a separate issue and brings up it's own questions).

With that said, these are different topics.

Creationism and evolution cannot be reconciled according to Dawkins. He is right. However, when you discount the erroneous biblical/religious account of creationism, you come to a scientific evolution of the God Hypothesis itself. Supernatural "God-AI" (we can argue over the name, other scientists have called it things like VALIS - Vast Active Living Intelligence System) arises as "the end product of gradual evolution".

I have shown that there is a scientific basis for the existence of "God" in previous posts. Scientifically, "God" may exist right now. You will take issue with my use of the term "God" and say that I'm not using it in terms of what Dawkins means. However you must remember that Dawkins is an ATHEIST.

I can go into more detail on this post if you have any questions. Oops I cannot link it. Ah well, it's in my post history if you want to find it.

Dawkins also misunderstands the bible that he spent his career discounting (as do many of the people who delusionally believe it literally). His broad conception of "nature" is how he posits that God doesn't exist. One of the main issues is with that is the definition of "nature" changes continually in a contemporary scientific context. If science evolves then "nature" evolves. e.g a new particle is found or a new phenomenon is discovered. So if a "miracle" then is something "supernatural", that suggests that a definition for "natural" is being used vs a definition for "supernatural". But what is supernatural today may not be supernatural in 1000 years. What was "nature" 2000 years ago when the authors of the Bible were writing it? When using the word "nature" one must be sensitive to the scientific context/times in which it was used. Is something that is "postbiological" a supernatural thing? Will postbiological things in 2000 years be "supernatural" to contemporary humans?

This means that in taking on the bible (keep in mind I am not religious), Dawkins uses an evolutionary argument vs creationism. But this is a "natural" explanation. For Dawkins it follows that if evolution underlies everything, then the bible must be explained evolutionarily (and it doesn't hold up *biologically*). The key point now is that Dawkins (and his blind followers) has failed to understand the EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE of biblical monotheism, which is to be found in a BREAK AWAY from biological (nature) evolution and towards POSTbiological evolution.

Now does this mean I believe water was turned into wine/seas were parted etc. No. Belief in miracles can be explained by human psychology rather than physics. Dawkins and his peers simply didn't go far enough when they imposed a contemporary definition of nature (which emphasises physics over psychology) upon people living 2000 years ago. The readers of the bible at the time were not physicists or biologists. The contemporary views of "nature" 2000 years ago were loaded with teleology. What exactly do the miracles mean to those authors? Do they mark the beginning of the end of a biologically based theological view of nature? If so, then "God" is not a "natural" end, but a "supernatural (postbiological)" end. So biblical "goodness" was a struggle AWAY from nature and towards the perfection of God, who was the intelligent transcendence of biological nature taken to it's extreme.

What if the evolutionary successor to humans is "God"? The Singularity (see post linked above) may be the point at which greater than human intelligence has incorporated the ability to improve and design it's own intelligence at an exponential rate, becoming infinitely intelligent and infinitely capable. Is the internet as we know it the "baby brain" of God? Could the global brain of the internet and a result, the entire universe, "wake up" as the "Global mind" of God? Created by humans, with postbiological abilities we cannot even begin to fathom, isn't it then rational to conclude that this extremely advanced entity is the "greatest greatness", the "God" that exists now and taking time manipulation into account, has always existed? Would it not "love" the beings that created it?

Now I've got bored + I know that not only will few read this with an open mind but even fewer will be able to think through the concepts. I will check back at some time though when I get bored again and write more I'm sure.

And don't even get me started on Dawkins failure to even mention Nietzche in his book, especially since Freddy put up the biggest challenge to his view that modern morality has nothing to do with the bible.

Doctor Jimbob

Can you PM me your dealers number?

RikuoAmero

Heisman wrote: »

Dawkins is an atheist and argues that no God exists. <snip>

What you write sounds all well and good...but you haven't provided any evidence that it is true. You mention that such a technologically evolved god could have the ability to time travel and from that (unless I'm mis-reading you) you concluded that it (is likely that it) did do it.
However, that's not correct. I have a hand that can hold a gun and pull the trigger. I have the ability to shoot someone. Would it then be rational for you or anyone else to then say "He can do this thing, therefore, he must have done it"?
I can appreciate imagining entities with certain abilities as thought experiments, as hypotheses, but to go that one extra step and say that's very likely that these beings exist, all with no evidence? What if I were to borrow a leaf from your book and say that right now, hovering above my house, is an alien spacecraft with a cloaking device?

You mentioned that this time travelling god you mention "loves" us, just like what the bible claims for its god. However, looking around, I have to say no...If this god you mention travelled back in time, started the universe and created biological nature the way it is (i.e. that carnivorous animals must kill other animals, often in quite brutal ways, to obtain the sustenance to survive), especially with diseases and bacteria, I have to conclude no, this god doesn't love us, for the same reason that Stephen Fry gave in his famous interview with Gay Byrne a few weeks ago.

It's one thing to say that there is a thing that sounds great in theory. It's another thing altogether to show it in actuality.

EDIT: After thinking about this a bit further, all the usual arguments against a god would apply also to the god you brought up. A god who travelled back in time, started the universe and then designed it? My usual "you need a non designed universe to contrast with before you can declare our universe designed" argument applies.

TheLurker

Heisman wrote: »

Dawkins is an atheist and argues that no God exists.

From the God Delusion

"I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

By the scale that he popularised in the same book Dawkins is a level 6 on the "spectrum of theistic probability"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Heisman wrote: »

This is separate from debating creationism or specific religions. Neither of which I have commented on and neither of which I think are credible. The biblical account of creation etc is, in my judgement, erroneous. Earlier posters have failed to grasp this and you have also.

I didn't fail to grasp it. It wasn't relevant. You have argued that when Dawkins talks about 'God' he should be including in his considerations a form of intelligent being that evolved by "technological evolution", and that by failing to consider this form of 'god' Dawkins has erred.

And I pointed out that this is not a common or recognised definition of 'god', and as such it is unreasonable to criticise Dawkins for no thinking of this particular type of being when talking about God.

Or to put it more bluntly, you can't just slap the term 'god' onto anything you like and expect everyone else to go along with you.

Heisman wrote: »

I think posters assume that if you're not a militant atheist or agnostic, then you're a creationist or theist of some type. I am neither.

I don't care.

Heisman wrote: »

You will take issue with my use of the term "God" and say that I'm not using it in terms of what Dawkins means. However you must remember that Dawkins is an ATHEIST.

Why must I remember that? What relevance does it have on you slapping the term 'god' onto things that no one else would consider a good fit for that definition?

Heisman wrote: »

What if the evolutionary successor to humans is "God"?

By any common definition of 'god', it isn't. Use a different word to describe what you are talking about.

Heisman wrote: »

Now I've got bored + I know that not only will few read this with an open mind but even fewer will be able to think through the concepts.

The concepts are nothing new. You are just describing (badly) the notion of the singularity and simulated reality theory.

The problem is you keep calling those things 'god' and expecting everyone else to use that term as well.

Heisman

TheLurker wrote: »

What is the "common definition of God"? When you strip away the unique things that individual religions have put upon God, what "common" qualities does God have?

When you answer that question, you'll have the answer as to what I am referring to when I talk about God.

"The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."

^ Your goldfish or any inanimate object don't quite cut the mustard.

Heisman

TheLurker wrote: »

What is the "common definition of God"? When you strip away the unique things that individual religions have put upon God, what "common" qualities does God have?

When you answer that question, you'll have the answer as to what I am referring to when I talk about God.

"The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) etc.

^ Your goldfish or any inanimate object don't quite cut the mustard.

Heisman

TheLurker wrote: »

What is the "common definition of God"? When you strip away the unique things that individual religions have put upon God, what "common" qualities does God have?

When you answer that question, you'll have the answer as to what I am referring to when I talk about God. Indeed, it is quite a common definition.

"The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) etc.

^ Your goldfish or any inanimate object don't quite cut the mustard.

Heisman

-

Heisman

TheLurker,

I don't mind disagreeing on something. In fact, that is quite normal. However in this case its a case of you really not understanding my posts/points but thinking that you do and then responding to those erroneous conclusions you make. Bringing your goldfish up as an equivalent of what I'm talking about tells me a lot.

It would be better if you asked me to clarify certain things. e.g the "common definition" of God I was using (which is the same definition that everyone uses in terms of Gods "power"/"ability").

I also have not argued for or against the simulated computer theory.

I am happy to clarify or explain more deeply anything you take issue with. I would urge you to ask yourself if you genuinely understand what I have posted and, perhaps more important, if you genuinely even want to understand my point of view. Because I'm not sure you either want to or are capable of it. Intellectually you probably are but egoically probably not.

I tried to read some other posts but can't get past the lack of understanding of the issues I talk about I'm afraid. One poster thought I was arguing that God travelled back through time and created the universe. All I can say is reread the posts I've made. If you don't understand them, I can clarify specifics. If you don't understand them and then write a post refuting something I didn't say, I'm afraid I don't have the willpower to read such posts in their entirety.

RikuoAmero

Your goldfish or any inanimate object don't quite cut the mustard.

Why not? God works in mysterious ways is a claim I often hear. Why can't someone posit that they have a magic rock that only appears to be inanimate, doing nothing more than resting on a table, but is in fact God, and is able to do all sorts of things, including answering prayers.

Heisman

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Why not? God works in mysterious ways is a claim I often hear. Why can't someone posit that they have a magic rock that only appears to be inanimate, doing nothing more than resting on a table, but is in fact God, and is able to do all sorts of things, including answering prayers.

They could. Anybody can say anything.

RikuoAmero

Heisman wrote: »

They could. Anybody can say anything.

What I meant was, what if someone puts forth magic rock as a serious argument, how is that automatically "not cutting the mustard" as compared to the biblical god that is described as a spirit?
What's so different between somebody pointing at a magic rock saying "God, magic powers, answers prayers" and somebody pointing at empty space and saying "God, magic powers, answers prayers"?

irish coldplayer

Heisman wrote: »

What is the "common definition of God"? When you strip away the unique things that individual religions have put upon God, what "common" qualities does God have?

When you answer that question, you'll have the answer as to what I am referring to when I talk about God.

"The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."

^ Your goldfish or any inanimate object don't quite cut the mustard.

Interesting how you've removed the part in bold from your subsequent posts.
Eternal and necessary existence doesnt sit well with something that has as you argue evolved either biologically, technologically or both

Doctor Jimbob

Heisman wrote: »

TheLurker,

I don't mind disagreeing on something. In fact, that is quite normal. However in this case its a case of you really not understanding my posts/points but thinking that you do and then responding to those erroneous conclusions you make. Bringing your goldfish up as an equivalent of what I'm talking about tells me a lot.

It would be better if you asked me to clarify certain things. e.g the "common definition" of God I was using (which is the same definition that everyone uses in terms of Gods "power"/"ability").

I also have not argued for or against the simulated computer theory.

I am happy to clarify or explain more deeply anything you take issue with. I would urge you to ask yourself if you genuinely understand what I have posted and, perhaps more important, if you genuinely even want to understand my point of view. Because I'm not sure you either want to or are capable of it. Intellectually you probably are but egoically probably not.

I tried to read some other posts but can't get past the lack of understanding of the issues I talk about I'm afraid. One poster thought I was arguing that God travelled back through time and created the universe. All I can say is reread the posts I've made. If you don't understand them, I can clarify specifics. If you don't understand them and then write a post refuting something I didn't say, I'm afraid I don't have the willpower to read such posts in their entirety.

The thing is, it isn't a case of one person failing to understand your posts, nobody can understand your posts. That would indicate a problem with your ideas, or at least how you're explaining them, rather than a problem with those who are reading them.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it."

Mr. CooL ICE

Dawkins is agnostic, btw. Not atheist

RikuoAmero

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Dawkins is agnostic, btw. Not atheist

Both actually. He knows not of the existence of any god, he believes given the data he has available to him there is no god, but he isn't arrogant enough to say "100% definitely there is no god".
He invented a scale, that goes from 1-7, where 7 is that "100% definitely there is no god" and he rates himself a 6 on it.

Brian Shanahan

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is, it isn't a case of one person failing to understand your posts, nobody can understand your posts. That would indicate a problem with your ideas, or at least how you're explaining them, rather than a problem with those who are reading them.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it."

We understand them all right, it's just that when it was revealed that Heisman was simply engaging in a bit of specious reasoning (I wish that I could track down the bit from the Simpsons episode Much Apu about Nothing about it) he then decided to engage in a large bit of goalpost moving, entirely unsucessfully I may add.

There is nothing in his argument, not one iota of sense, thought, originality, rationality, or even rationalising.

Heisman

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What I meant was, what if someone puts forth magic rock as a serious argument, how is that automatically "not cutting the mustard" as compared to the biblical god that is described as a spirit?
What's so different between somebody pointing at a magic rock saying "God, magic powers, answers prayers" and somebody pointing at empty space and saying "God, magic powers, answers prayers"?

im talking about something that is scientifically verifiable i.e "god-ai" could be empiracly seen /tested.

oscarBravo

Heisman wrote: »

im talking about something that is scientifically verifiable i.e "god-ai" could be empiracly seen /tested.

How?

TheLurker

oscarBravo wrote: »

How?

Does it involve a large planet computer run by mice?

PopePalpatine

IIRC I remember watching a Computerphile video where the speaker made a comment about using the value of pi to check if this universe was a simulation: if pi had a finite amount of digits, or repeated a finite set of digits, then that would strongly suggest this universe is a simulation.

If that's the case, I wonder how much memory the value of pi would take up on His Noodly Appendage's computer! :pac: