B
buffalo
Guest
Throw the deck up in the air and have them land ace to 2 by suit 1,000 times.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Why won’t anyone take up this challenge?
Let’s go back to this:
The answer lies in how we process recognition of design.
Which of these two are designed and why?
http://www.svalbard-adventure.com/comp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ScZ-p3kTNX-J1xQU6WwmujVTnlGfkNmotEvPcYjDlVmKw
Let’s go back to this:
The answer lies in how we process recognition of design.
Which of these two are designed and why?
http://www.svalbard-adventure.com/comp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ScZ-p3kTNX-J1xQU6WwmujVTnlGfkNmotEvPcYjDlVmKw
T
Trurl
Guest
I made a policy. When I posit a question, I will not answer counter-questions instead of a direct answer. ONCE that question is answered, then and ONLY THEN the dialog can continue. I am always game for a dialog, but only on a give-and-take basis. You answer my question, and I will answer yours. Sounds fair, in my book.
I hope this thread will be closed soon, on account of too many posts. I plan to start a new one, specifically dedicated to the DOM.
B
buffalo
Guest
Then we should go back to the beginning of the thread and find out just how many times you did not answer direct questions yourself.
To get to the answer you seek we may have to go the indirect route. If you wish to continue OK - if not so be it.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Zro x:
Not too bad there! However, I for one - as I don’t speak for all Catholics - believe that God causes everything, via a process called “concurrence,” or “concursus.” Just as we believe that objects have solidity, we believe that we actually do things all by ourselves. God does not concur with us in sin. That is ours alone. Unfortunately. (BTW, this is Catholic teaching.)
Well, at least he is unwilling to provide us with conclusive scientific proof continually - every minute and hour of every day, 7/24/365. There are 73 books in the Bible. Many deny their historicity, but have no problem affirming the historicity of every other history book ever written! Interesting!
What do you think?
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Doxus:
You are truly a scientific man!
Look: “biology” means, 'the study of life."
Origin:
early 19th century: coined in German, via French from Greek bios ‘life’ + -logy [study of] - Oxford Dictionary on-line.
And, “abiogenisis” means what? Theoretically, how life might have begun? Do you see any commonality there?
Allow me to clarify that a bit for you: I said that the word, “evolution,” is not univocal. Can you look up the word, “univocal,” and see what it means? And, I am 100% correct. The word, “evolution,” is often used for the development all sorts of non-biological exigencies, such as, the evolution of modern taxation, the evolution of modern science, the evolution of cooking, etc., etc. All of them have an equal right to the use of that word! Plese don’t make be teach you English.
You must learn to read if you are going to try to do philosophy.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Doxus:
Why are you here - on a Catholic/Christian forum? What did you expect? Instant conversion by a new messiah?
God bless,
jd
C
Candide_West
Guest
Why do you keep saying that? You don’t need anything remotely so long winded. Once again, merely shuffle two decks of cards together and ANY result will exceed the UPB. No need for throwing or repeating etc.
And it STILL doesn’t differentiate designed and non-designed patterns of equal complexity. Simply repeating the same failed argument will not change this fact.
Once again, a direct question, do you know of any evidence of rational design (other than design by humans)? If you do then why don’t we talk about that?
D
Doxus
Guest
Honestly, I expected to be banned in minutes as is the standard practice on most Christian forums. I mostly haven’t bothered in the last ten years, except that I had a theological question to ask with regards to my mother.
Y’all surprised me by not using the banhammer instantly on people you disagree with, and after a conversation with one of your moderators who turned out to be perhaps over-sensitive, but an intelligent chap, I had high hopes that I might be able to engage in honest discussion here.
Instead, I’ve found more than the usual hostility. There are some rather quite nasty people on here who are practically rabid toward any mention of the possibility that they could be wrong.
And there are others who insist–no, demand–that “atheism believes x”, despite being told by an atheist that that’s not the case.
It would be like someone running around claiming that Catholics believe the transubstantiation is cannibalism, then when corrected by a Catholic they say, “Nuh-uh, Catholics actually believe that, you’re wrong, you just don’t understand anything!” It’s nasty, arrogant, childish, and rude to presume to be able to tell someone else what they believe, and then expect them to defend the strawmen you have erected.
I find it interesting that Catholics respect all other viewpoints on the existence of god; Protestants, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Juadism, even pagans. Even on this forum, threads on those subjects appear to be mostly civil. But if you’re an atheist, god help you, then it’s free game to make up whatever you like to slander them, and the fact that these people exist is so offensive that you don’t even allow discussion of their viewpoints in the Non-Catholic area of the forum–an oddly permanent “temporary” ban.
I’m going to be busy most of today. I’ll address your major points when I can. I’m sorry, I won’t be wasting my time on strawmen you’ve created.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Doxus:
This is something we could never know - scientifically! To say “we don’t require God,” is to postulate. To “postulate” is to acquiesce, but only for the sake of argument. He is well beyond the capability of science to demonstrate or falsify. However, IMHO, physics is demonstrating his existence and constant presence more and more every day.
Correct. And rightly so. We can’t even falsify ourselves! Except in a very cartoonish way.
As you said, we cannot prove that God is not required. It is our belief that God is required, absolutely required. The denier can only deny.
God bless,
jd
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
“Any result” is not the same as a “particular” result. You are presupposing that the origin of life was indeed just one of a wide range that just happened to obtain. How could you know that without presuming that it was a chance outcome? The true test would be to choose the outcome prior to shuffling and dealing the cards, and only then begin the test. At that point the probability of the outcome could reliably be determined as occurring by chance and not some other “fixing” or predetermination of the outcome. To determine that a particular outcome actually came about by chance would require that the outcome was not determined by other factors.
Sure, Joe got a royal flush in poker. If, and only if, all other possible explanations have been proven not to have influenced the outcome in this case, then chance can appropriately be invoked, however, wildly unlikely. However, until those other factors have been proven to not have influenced the outcome, an appeal to chance is not to be accepted precisely because the chance of this particular outcome was so highly unlikely.
Like Joe’s poker playing opponents, who must be convinced that chance was the only explanation and that Joe was not applying some unfair and undue influence over the outcome, we must reasonably be assured by refutation of all evidence to the contrary that life began strictly as a matter of chance.
You would have to prove that no other factor influenced the origin of life before you could credibly advance chance as the explanation. It is an explanation of last resort, in other words. It’s status as “astronomically improbable” stands as counter evidence. That it is so highly unlikely to have happened by chance is precisely the reason why all other explanations must be considered, even intelligent design, and thoroughly refuted, not just dismissed.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Zro x:
And I don’t believe that there is any conclusive evidence for undesignedness.
God bless,
jd
Z
zro_x
Guest
I’ll answer the question. Both are designed if God exists. Neither are designed if he doesn’t.
C
Candide_West
Guest
Sure, but if you’re allowed to state what the “particular” result is after you perform the shuffle then this isn’t a problem.*
Actually I’m not saying anything about the origin of life here. I’m just demonstrating why the UPB cannot be used to detect design. If it turns up a false positive every time you randomly shuffle two decks of cards together then it’s clearly so unreliable as to be useless.*
I’m not sure what you are putting this forwards as a test of I’m afraid. The UPB tells us that if an outcome occurred and it was sufficiently unlikely to have occurred by chance then it must have been designed. ANY order of cards from mixing two decks together is sufficiently unlikely.*
There is no requirement in the UPB to have specified the outcome before the event. Otherwise nobody would be able to apply it to the evolution of life anyway (because we weren’t around before it started to specify an outcome).
Well theres part of the challenge right there, we don’t yet know just how “astronomically improbable” abiogenesis really is. Sure its unlikely on the scale of human events, but in all the trillions of planets in the universe, each with billions of tonnes of material mixing around, for billions of years… Well, that’s a lot of shuffles of the cards and we only need one result.
Z
zro_x
Guest
there isn’t. But those who post a thread “conclusive evidence for design!” accept the burden of proof.
B
buffalo
Guest
Specified complexity is crucial here. You are either deliberately avoiding it because of its implications or I am not explaining it well.
Perhaps Peter Plato did a better job.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please explain further.
Z
zro_x
Guest
If God does exist, than the rock is ultimately designed by God, and the computer is designed by humans. If God doesn’t exist, than both are the results of random processes.
@ tonyrey
I’m going to let you have the last word in our discussion. As the thread draws to a close, We should probably begin to wrap them up.
B
buffalo
Guest
Even if God did not exist you are denying the computer was designed?
- Status