God's Existence logically proved?

[CatSci]

Yes, but if this mutation benefits its organism, then it happened for a particular Reason, which was enabling the organism for better adaptation.

No, that is patently false.

First off, not all mutation are beneficial so the ones that aren’t still don’t happen for a reason with your argument.

But, there is no reason a particular mutation happens and claiming, in hind sight, that its reason was enabling the organism for better adaptation is a post hoc rationalization. It is impossible for a mutation to be beneficial until its within the environment under a selective pressure. The reason cannot be there beforehand.

 

[CatSci]

Do not confuse our inability to measure or come up with an answer with the non-existence of an answer.

But this is just begging the question. Whether or not everything happens for a reason cannot be determined by assuming there’s a reason when we have no reason to think there’s one.

In DNA replication, when and where a particular mutation happens doesn’t happen for a reason.

That we can determine.

No, mutations can happen because of transcription errors during the imperfect replication of DNA. They are purely accidental and we have determined that there is no reason behind when and where they happen.

 

[lemondiesel]

No, that is patently false.

Let’s see shall we?

First off, not all mutation are beneficial so the ones that aren’t still don’t happen for a reason with your argument.

If mutations are not beneficial for the organism, then they make the organism beneficial for another species of Life. Life benefits on mistakes, because mistakes happen for a Reason.

But, there is no reason a particular mutation happens and claiming, in hind sight, that its reason was enabling the organism for better adaptation is a post hoc rationalization. It is impossible for a mutation to be beneficial until its within the environment under a selective pressure. The reason cannot be there beforehand.

I agree, but when a mutation happens it allows for either benefiting the organism or benefiting other aspects. If a bird’s mutation hindered its ability to fly, it would then become beneficial to another organism. Therefore, there was Reason behind the mutation.

 

[CatSci]

Let’s see shall we?

If mutations are not beneficial for the organism, then they make the organism beneficial for another species of Life. Life benefits on mistakes, because mistakes happen for a Reason.

I agree, but when a mutation happens it allows for either benefiting the organism or benefiting other aspects. If a bird’s mutation hindered its ability to fly, it would then become beneficial to another organism. Therefore, there was Reason behind the mutation.

Now you’re just conflating… whether or not the bird itself or another will benefit in not the reason mutations happen.

You’re just plain wrong. The reason a particular mutation happens is not for some benefit of the organism or another. One reason they happen is that DNA transcription is imperfect and errors occur. When and where those errors occur does not happen for a reason, regardless of your ability to make one up, post hoc, to prop up your false reasoning.

 

[lemondiesel]

One reason they happen is that DNA transcription is imperfect and errors occur.

And it is random coincidence that the transcription is imperfect? What if DNA transcription was perfect, would you confidently say that everything would have turned out the way it did? Would you confidently say we would be having this very conversation at this very same moment if transcription was perfect?

If you are having trouble understanding my view point, I am asking you Why is DNA transcription imperfect? Why do errors occur? My answer is because Imperfections and Errors are reasonable, because they allow for diversification, which is Life!

 

[honestquestions]

You’re denying the possibility that a non-contingent being can exist. That’s what is illogical and irrational here.

No I agree, a non-contingent being certainly could exist, just as infinite # of things I could fathom also could exist. But should we immediately believe these infinite # of things?

 

[vz71]

But this is just begging the question. Whether or not everything happens for a reason cannot be determined by assuming there’s a reason when we have no reason to think there’s one.

So you would have us believe that there is no answer when we cannot determine an answer?
The very fact that something has happened tells us there is a cause.

No, mutations can happen because of transcription errors during the imperfect replication of DNA. They are purely accidental and we have determined that there is no reason behind when and where they happen.

No reason that we can determine.
You are trying to prove a negative, and that simply will not work.
There is a reason things happen.
Whether our science will be able to tell us why or not is a limitation of the science.

 

[CatSci]

One reason they happen is that DNA transcription is imperfect and errors occur.

And it is random coincidence that the transcription is imperfect?

It is the same random coincidence that the shape of the pothole perfectly fits around the water inside it.

My answer is because Imperfections and Errors are reasonable, because they allow for diversification, which is Life!

You’re looking at a puddle and saying that there’s a reason that the pothole is shaped the way it is and that is so that it can fit around the water.

This is flawed thinking. You shouldn’t base your theology on it.

 

[lemondiesel]

It is the same random coincidence that the shape of the pothole perfectly fits around the water inside it.

You’re looking at a puddle and saying that there’s a reason that the pothole is shaped the way it is and that is so that it can fit around the water.

This is flawed thinking. You shouldn’t base your theology on it.

I understand the point you were trying to make, however, my argument is based on that there is even water and a pothole in the first place. Then we can branch of to the idea you posted here

 

[CatSci]

I understand the point you were trying to make, however, my argument is based on that there is even water and a pothole in the first place. Then we can branch of to the idea you posted here

Oh, well that’s a fruitless endeavor… and certainly no logical proof of God’s existence.

 

[lemondiesel]

Oh, well that’s a fruitless endeavor… and certainly no logical proof of God’s existence.

Why and how is the water and pothole present?
Why does water form potholes?
Why does water act the way it does?

 

[CatSci]

Why and how is the water and pothole present?
Why does water form potholes?
Why does water act the way it does?

Because of a series of stoichastic processes… for no reason, really.

 

[lemondiesel]

for no reason, really.

which was my point of the entire thread

you think I am referring to God as some type of human outside the universe looking at us.

 

[vz71]

Because of a series of stoichastic processes… for no reason, really.

And yet again I see the tendency to lay claim that something we cannot determine the answer to be must have no answer.

This is flawed logic.

 

[CatSci]

for no reason, really.

which was my point of the entire thread

We you say that “Everything happens for a reason”, it seems like you’re claiming the exact opposite.

 

[CatSci]

And yet again I see the tendency to lay claim that something we cannot determine the answer to be must have no answer.

When you model radioactive decay on a computer and use a random number generater to determine which atom will decay next, it matches what we observe happens during actual radioactive decay. That is determining that it is a random process.

 

[vz71]

When you model radioactive decay on a computer and use a random number generater to determine which atom will decay next, it matches what we observe happens during actual radioactive decay. That is determining that it is a random process.

Any computer science student can tell you that random numbers generated from a computer are not truly random.
They are the result of several calculations run against the system clock (or whatever convenient variable is available).

If one knows the exact state of the computer at any given time, it is possible to predict the random numbers it will generate.

 

[rossum]

Any computer science student can tell you that random numbers generated from a computer are not truly random.
They are the result of several calculations run against the system clock (or whatever convenient variable is available).

If one knows the exact state of the computer at any given time, it is possible to predict the random numbers it will generate.

There are a number of things that a computer can use to produce true random numbers, as is done for various cryptographically secure True RNGs. Hardware additions can also be used.

See RFC 4086 for more detail than you probably want.

You are of course correct for a PRNG; given the same seed it will produce the same output.

rossum

 

[CatSci]

Any computer science student can tell you that random numbers generated from a computer are not truly random.
They are the result of several calculations run against the system clock (or whatever convenient variable is available).

If one knows the exact state of the computer at any given time, it is possible to predict the random numbers it will generate.

Irrelevant. Whethor not the generator is providing truly random numbers is beside the point that the randomness of radioactive decay is something that has been determined as opposed to simply assumed because we cannot determine the cause.

 

[vz71]

Irrelevant. Whethor not the generator is providing truly random numbers is beside the point that the randomness of radioactive decay is something that has been determined as opposed to simply assumed because we cannot determine the cause.

If you wish to back the supposed randomness of a radioactive decay using a computers random number generator, it is entirely relevent.

As I have said before, everything has a reason behind it.
We may not have the science necessary to understand the process, but that is simply a limitation of the science, not an indication that something has no reason.