Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[ericc]

Why should I do that?

Of course you wouldn’t. Because you don’t have the answer. You jumped into the discussion I had with Nixbits requesting his evidence for his counter arguments. He hasn’t. You assumed I invoke God, I didn’t. I said the probability is against a natural explanation for the universe and life. You said I got it wrong.

So prove it. If you don’t have the correct standard to judge others, how do you know they are wrong? In order to do that, you need to show you have the correct answer and why you have the correct answer and ours wrong. If you don’t have it, just go away. Repeating a mantra “I am right, you are wrong” doesn’t make you right. After a while, making statements and not having to prove it is tiring for the rest of us.

So let me ask for it again. Show us your allegedly correct way of doing probabilistic hypothesis for the universe and origin of life. I’d like to see that Kolmogorov space in your hypothesis. Else remain silent.

 

[You]

If abiogenesis was a possibility then it would have happened many times in earths history. but I have never heard of new life arising anywhere on earth from nothing. The conditions for life are the same now as they were back then apparently, temperatures 21 degrees C, fair winds, blue skies.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No problem. If you do not want to learn, I will leave you to your ignorance, just like that nincompoop whose video you linked to. It is rather telling that you link to a site and you don’t even know what it says. Par for the course, I guess.

If you are so much more intelligent than any of us please tell us where the man in the video went wrong. And I think you know I did not listen to the video, so please, enlighten me as to his mistakes. Don’t explain probability theory to me. I know that. I understand it. I got no grade under an A- in every physics class. Just tell all of us where the man in the video went wrong since it appears only you know.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Of course you wouldn’t. Because you don’t have the answer. You jumped into the discussion I had with Nixbits requesting his evidence for his counter arguments. He hasn’t. You assumed I invoke God, I didn’t. I said the probability is against a natural explanation for the universe and life. You said I got it wrong.

So prove it. If you don’t have the correct standard to judge others, how do you know they are wrong? In order to do that, you need to show you have the correct answer and why you have the correct answer and ours wrong. If you don’t have it, just go away. Repeating a mantra “I am right, you are wrong” doesn’t make you right. After a while, making statements and not having to prove it is tiring for the rest of us.

So let me ask for it again. Show us your allegedly correct way of doing probabilistic hypothesis for the universe and origin of life. I’d like to see that Kolmogorov space in your hypothesis. Else remain silent.

It appears she now has four people waiting on her answer: You, YOU, Christine, and me. I would like to see the use of a Kolmogorov space in her answer as well, Eric. Personally, I think you were right, and I will accept your hypothesis as correct unless and until PA gives us her hypothesis for comparison. Until that time, I will say this: Abiogenesis is a statistical impossibility:

trueorigin.org/abio.php

christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

youtube.com/watch?v=2A8H-WIWKF8

 

[Nixbits]

Ericc, I think you were a little too harsh towards Pallas Athene.

ericc:

You jumped into the discussion I had with Nixbits …

To be fair, you jumped into the discussion I was having with Lily Bernans. We’re not conducting private conversations. It needs to be open for anyone to contribute.

ericc:

After a while, making statements and not having to prove it is tiring for the rest of us.

I agree entirely. Especially when we believe that an assertion is without foundation. That’s precisely why I challenged Lily Bernans’ statement in the first place.

ericc:

Else remain silent.

I think it would be far better to silence people by the strength of your argument, rather than by telling them what they should or should not say. We may hold differing opinions, but let’s please try to be tolerant and respectful. “Do as I say or shut up” falls rather short of the mark. I, for one, have enjoyed Pallas Athene’s contributions.

That said, I’m going to bow out of this thread. It’s not lived up to it’s title, for me, I’m afraid. And pressure of work means that I can no longer spare the time I would need to read the papers mentioned (as I did with Dembski’s proposing the ‘Explanatory Filter’) and the counter arguments (such as “The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance.” by John S Wilkins & Wesley R Elsberry, Biology and Philosophy 16 (November 2001); “Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s Complex Specifed Information”, by Wesley Elsberry & Jeffrey Shallit, November 7, 2003; and “Wrongly Inferred Design”, by Richard Wein, Posted April 25, 2004).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I think it would be far better to silence people by the strength of your argument, rather than by telling them what they should or should not say. We may hold differing opinions, but let’s please try to be tolerant and respectful. “Do as I say or shut up” falls rather short of the mark.

If you read all the posts, you’ll see that Eric has been asking PA to give us her hypothesis so we can judge it. However, it is PA who refuses to post her hypothesis. She simply wants to say, “I am right and all of you are wrong.” With all due respect, that doesn’t work anywhere, with anyone. PA is not being singled out. Eric posted his hypothesis.

Four of us, at least, are now waiting for PA to post her counter-hypothesis. She says she has one. Why not share it and prove the four of us wrong? To say we wouldn’t understand is just a cop-out of epic proportions, and it’s uncharitable as well, which is against forum rules. Either she has a hypothesis she can post, or she has no argument to refute Eric’s. Those are the only two choices.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you are so much more intelligent than any of us please tell us where the man in the video went wrong. And I think you know I did not listen to the video, so please, enlighten me as to his mistakes. Don’t explain probability theory to me. I know that. I understand it. I got no grade under an A- in every physics class. Just tell all of us where the man in the video went wrong since it appears only you know.

Thanks in advance.

FYI, the man in the video you linked to is Stephen C. Meyer, whose books ***Signature in the Cell ***and Darwin’s Doubt, while controversial, have been widely regarded as presenting a strong case against Darwinian Evolution. Stephen has a PhD in the philosophy of science and was a geophysicist by education and training. So he is a scientist and a philosopher.

Merely because PA has displayed animus against Dr. Meyer means very little with regard to the validity of what Meyer said in his talk. PA knows very well he doesn’t have much of a response to Meyer, which is why he resorts to invective instead.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course you wouldn’t. Because you don’t have the answer.

Nope, that is not the reason. You should stop jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence.

I said the probability is against a natural explanation for the universe and life. You said I got it wrong.

So prove it.

I already did. Maybe you are not aware of it, but one does not need to present an alternative explanation just to show that the offered one is wrong. Teachers usually point out the mistakes of the students, without giving them the correct answers. Let the kids work out the answers themselves.

Show us your allegedly correct way of doing probabilistic hypothesis for the universe and origin of life. I’d like to see that Kolmogorov space in your hypothesis.

That is the point. There is NO correct application of probability theory for those “questions”. It is not an applicable tool.

The whole ID and its variants (like fine-tuning) are pseudo-science. The proponents tried to pollute the education system in US by attempting to introduce it into public schools. The case went to court MANY times(!), in every case the judges listened to their arguments and also to the arguments of the real scientists, and brought forth the verdict: “ID is not worthy to be taught, because it is NOT science”. Observe, the judges listened to the arguments, and found them wrong.

Observe the audacity of Lily, who dared to “declare ex cathedra” that the scientific community considers abiogenesis to be “refuted”. Then to add insult to injury she talks about “statistically IMPOSSIBLE”… not statistically IMPROBABLE.

---

If you wish to reopen it, try the actual scientific method:

1. On what ground do you assert that some constants “could have” a different value?
2. Which are those constants? Why those and why not others?
3. What are the upper and lower limits between the value could reside?
4. What is the probability distribution which describes the variance?

None of these have been presented by the proponents of “fine tuning”, therefore none of them can be taken seriously. Savvy?

---

Oh, and by the way, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. No matter what some nincompoops assert.

 

[inocente]

It appears she now has four people waiting on her answer: You, YOU, Christine, and me. I would like to see the use of a Kolmogorov space in her answer as well, Eric. Personally, I think you were right, and I will accept your hypothesis as correct unless and until PA gives us her hypothesis for comparison.

You guys must all have PhDs in mathematics, physics and microbiology to be so knowledgeable on such a wide range of stuff. As you Lily are asking about the use of Kolmogorov Spaces, could you please answer a couple of stupid questions?

1. I looked up Demski’s specified complexity thing, and couldn’t see any mention of Kolmogorov Spaces, only of Kolmogorov Complexity. Where do Kolmogorov Spaces fit in?
2. Sticking with Demski, one of my previous roles was software engineering so I think I understand Kolmogorov Complexity. It’s a measure of algorithmic complexity, it’s the length of the shortest program which can reproduce a given piece of information.

So, for instance, even though the value of Pi is (as far as we know) an infinite sequence of digits, its Kolmogorov Complexity is low, since we can write a short program to compute Pi to any required number of digits.

But suppose we didn’t know how to calculate Pi, we didn’t know any formulas and could only obtain the value empirically by trial and error measurements. So imagine there’s an entire industry of people inventing more and more subtle experiments to measure Pi ever more accurately. As far as we could tell, therefore, the Kolmogorov Complexity of Pi would be through the roof, since the program giving its value couldn’t use a formula but would have to literally specify every digit of Pi obtained in the experiments, potentially going on for ever.

So to summarize: if we didn’t know any formulas to calculate Pi, its Kolmogorov Complexity would be high, but in reality we do know formulas so the Kolmogorov Complexity is low. Likewise the Kolmogorov Complexity of many physical constants is high because we don’t (currently) know any formulas to calculate them, but would be low if we did. In other words the intelligent design notions of complexity and fine-tuning appear to rely on our current state of knowledge and as such are appeals to ignorance, fallacies of informal logic. Or is that not the case?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

FYI, the man in the video you linked to is Stephen C. Meyer, whose books ***Signature in the Cell ***and Darwin’s Doubt, while controversial, have been widely regarded as presenting a strong case against Darwinian Evolution. Stephen has a PhD in the philosophy of science and was a geophysicist by education and training. So he is a scientist and a philosopher.

Merely because PA has displayed animus against Dr. Meyer means very little with regard to the validity of what Meyer said in his talk. PA knows very well he doesn’t have much of a response to Meyer, which is why he resorts to invective instead.

Thank you, Peter. I appreciate the information.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nope, that is not the reason. You should stop jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence.

I already did. Maybe you are not aware of it, but one does not need to present an alternative explanation just to show that the offered one is wrong. Teachers usually point out the mistakes of the students, without giving them the correct answers. Let the kids work out the answers themselves.

That is the point. There is NO correct application of probability theory for those “questions”. It is not an applicable tool.

The whole ID and its variants (like fine-tuning) are pseudo-science. The proponents tried to pollute the education system in US by attempting to introduce it into public schools. The case went to court MANY times(!), in every case the judges listened to their arguments and also to the arguments of the real scientists, and brought forth the verdict: “ID is not worthy to be taught, because it is NOT science”. Observe, the judges listened to the arguments, and found them wrong.

Observe the audacity of Lily, who dared to “declare ex cathedra” that the scientific community considers abiogenesis to be “refuted”. Then to add insult to injury she talks about “statistically IMPOSSIBLE”.

The case is closed.

---

If you wish to reopen it, try the actual scientific method:

1. On what ground do you assert that some constants “could have” a different value?
2. Which are those constants? Why those and why not others?
3. What are the upper and lower limits between the value could reside?
4. What is the probability distribution which describes the variance?

None of these have been presented by the proponents of “fine tuning”, therefore none of them can be taken seriously. Savvy?

---

Oh, and by the way, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. No matter what some nincompoops assert.

But you are not a teacher, and we are not students. We are arguing one hypothesis versus another here. Well, you are backpeddling.

LOL I think I’ll go with my physics professors who gave me As on all my papers. They know more than you do. And I will assert it again: Abiogenesis is statistically impossible. Abiogenesis is not statistically improbable; abiogenesis is statistically impossible. Almost all of today’s eminent scientists are among those who agree that “impossible” is the correct word to use.

And yes, the case is closed. Since you cannot defend your hypothesis, Eric’s stands as unrefuted.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

**THREAD WARNING:

Discuss the topic, not each other.**

 

[Ben_Quincy]

**REMINDER:

Evolution debate is a banned topic.**

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We are arguing one hypothesis versus another here.

Nope, I simply showed that your “hypothesis” is wrong. I never presented any “hypothesis”.

Well, you are backpeddling.

Maybe you also got straight “A”-s in English, too. I suggest you learn English… before you try to use it. Because “peddling” and “pedaling” are two different words. “Peddling” means to try to sell an inferior product, just like you try to do with ID.

LOL I think I’ll go with my physics professors who gave me As on all my papers.

So, now it is physics, too and not just mathematics? Probability theory belongs to mathematics.

They know more than you do. And I will assert it again: Abiogenesis is statistically impossible. Abiogenesis is not statistically improbable; abiogenesis is statistically impossible. Almost all of today’s eminent scientists are among those who agree that “impossible” is the correct word to use.

Almost all “scientists”… again? Something can be logically impossible, but not statistically impossible. Concentrate on elementary English, like the difference between “pedaling” and “peddling”.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Mathematics is a part of physics, or do you deny that, too?

This is one of the books I studied:

amazon.com/Probability-Number-Theory-Statistical-Physics/dp/0262110679

I am not going to get into banned topics.

Maybe you would like to converse in French. That is my MT and the only language I spoke for 24 years.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Mathematics is a part of physics, or do you deny that, too?

This is one of the books I studied:

amazon.com/Probability-Number-Theory-Statistical-Physics/dp/0262110679

I am not going to get into banned topics.

Maybe you would like to converse in French. That is my MT and the only language I spoke for 24 years.

O no, I’m sure she would rather converse in some extraterrestrial language!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Mathematics is a part of physics, or do you deny that, too?

Of course I deny it. Mathematics is an abstract science, physics is part of the natural sciences. Mathematics is based upon axioms, physics is based upon observations. Of course physics USES mathematics as a TOOL, just like chemistry, economics and other sciences. The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you are ignorant of the subject.

This is one of the books I studied:

amazon.com/Probability-Number-Theory-Statistical-Physics/dp/0262110679

I am not impressed. If you wish to argue about probability theory you need to study in in college, and it has prerequisites, like calculus, combinatorics, etc… And it takes at least a few semesters.

Maybe you would like to converse in French. That is my MT and the only language I spoke for 24 years.

I could not care less about your Mother tongue. If you wish to converse in English, better learn it. When I make a mistake (which happens!), and someone corrects me, then I say: “Thank you!”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Of course I deny it. Mathematics is an abstract science, physics is part of the natural sciences. Mathematics is based upon axioms, physics is based upon observations. Of course physics USES mathematics as a TOOL, just like chemistry, economics and other sciences. The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you are ignorant of the subject.

I am not impressed. If you wish to argue about probability theory you need to study in in college, and it has prerequisites, like calculus, combinatorics, etc… And it takes at least a few semesters.

I could not care less about your Mother tongue. If you wish to converse in English, better learn it. When I make a mistake (which happens!), and someone corrects me, then I say: “Thank you!”.

and the more you post, the more arrogant and condescending you become. who would really want to engage with you?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

and the more you post, the more arrogant and condescending you become. who would really want to engage with you?

Unfortunately, YOU do, since you keep on intruding. As for being condescending, you “reap what you sow”. Instead of getting meaningful answers, all I get is YOUR condescension. I merely reciprocate your attitude.

 

[ericc]

Ericc, I think you were a little too harsh towards Pallas Athene.

To be fair, you jumped into the discussion I was having with Lily Bernans. We’re not conducting private conversations. It needs to be open for anyone to contribute.

I only offered administrative help to provide Lily with the references. I provide no insights at all. But since you chose to comment on the help I provided, I must respond to you otherwise you may think I am ignoring you. And I didn’t.

I agree entirely. Especially when we believe that an assertion is without foundation. That’s precisely why I challenged Lily Bernans’ statement in the first place.

And I can still leave the 2 of you to continue that discussion.

I think it would be far better to silence people by the strength of your argument, rather than by telling them what they should or should not say. We may hold differing opinions, but let’s please try to be tolerant and respectful. “Do as I say or shut up” falls rather short of the mark. I, for one, have enjoyed Pallas Athene’s contributions.

I disagree with that approach. If one were to criticise the viewpoint of another by calling it wrong, then at a minimum explain why it is wrong and why their own solution is the better one. One shouldn’t comment and evade all requests to respond appropriately. First of all, you lead others to think that you are genuinely interested to know what the real answer is, but no, none is coming. You waste everyone’s time to research and trying to respond to your critique. And if one has no intent to share their version of truth, isn’t it better to keep silent rather than coming all out accusing others of error? Silence is golden unless you have something of value to add.

It is good that enjoy PA’s contribution. Mine hasn’t been very fruitful. On the Prime Mover question he called Aquinas ignorant. #106. I asked him to refute Aquinas First cause argument. He didn’t. On the probability question, he said we are doing it all wrong. We ask him to show why he is right and why we are wrong, he didn’t.

That said, I’m going to bow out of this thread. It’s not lived up to it’s title, for me, I’m afraid. And pressure of work means that I can no longer spare the time I would need to read the papers mentioned (as I did with Dembski’s proposing the ‘Explanatory Filter’) and the counter arguments (such as “The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance.” by John S Wilkins & Wesley R Elsberry, Biology and Philosophy 16 (November 2001); “Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s Complex Specifed Information”, by Wesley Elsberry & Jeffrey Shallit, November 7, 2003; and “Wrongly Inferred Design”, by Richard Wein, Posted April 25, 2004).

I am sorry that you can’t stay on. I intend to bow out as well since it has been rather fruitless. After all my involvement was just trying to be helpful administratively only! And I still don’t know why Aquinas is called ignorant or why his Prime Mover argument is invalid, I still don’t have the answer to the probability problem which has been marked “wrong”.