Return of the son of "the Origin of God"

[Annoying Twit]

Hello. I'm an annoying twit, who has only joined as I feel that a thread of over a year ago didn't give two important rebuttals of philosophical points concerning the existence of God.

 

[i'm not allowed to post links, so I've had to edit out my link to the previous

version of the thread. If you search on Google with "origin of god" and "site:hypography.com" you can find the thread easily. I would appreciate it if someone would post the direct link]

 

First, Pascal's wager. If someone believes in Christianity, and is wrong, then they have lost nothing. If they believe in Christianity and are right, then they get eternal salvation. If someone disbelieves in Christianity, and is wrong, then they die and get nothing, and if someone disbelieves in Christianity and dies, then they go to hell, a loss. So counting a death in the absence of a Christian god as a 0, going to heaven as a 1, and going to hell as a -1, then whatever finite probability you put on God existing, the expected utility for believing in God is positive, and the expected utility for not believing in god is negative.

 

In the thread there is some very nice discussion of the issues involved in this. Namely that believing in something false, and adjusting your life accordingly, may change the quality of life. But I think Pascal's wager has a more fundamental flaw. That is is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. It presumes that the truth must be one of two situations, the existence of a God more or less matching the description of the Christian God, or no God at all. There is an infinite number of possible Gods and supernaturals that can be postulated, and the true utility of believing in the Christian God would have to be calculated over all of these. Impossible to calculate of course. It is philosophically possible that some of these supernaturals might result in someone believing in the "wrong" God being punished, while someone choosing to believe in no God at all being let off. Hence, it's impossible to calculate utility or even determine its sign (as in the excluded middle situation). Hence, even without looking at the effects of belief on life, the water is an invalid argument.

 

Further more there's the ontological argument for god, described in detail in the thread. But putting it simply, that everything can be described in terms of attributes. And that God is something such that "nothing greater can be imagined". So every attribute must have the best possible value for God. "omnipotent" must have the value "yes", "evil" must have the value "yes", and so on. Finally we get to the attribute "exists". Since God must be greater than anything that can be described, the value of "exists" must be "yes", and hence God must exist.

 

The problem I have with this argument is that what is generated is a description. And it's possible to create a description of something that does not exist, even if the description states that it exists. For example, I can create a definition of the greatest songwriter ever by counting the number of songs that they wrote that got to No. 1. in the weekly charts. Assume that the record charts started in 1950 or so. The argument doesn't change if the date does. That's about 2912 opportunities for a song to be at No. 1. The greatest songwriter ever, by my definition, would be someone who wrote 2912 number one songs, each of which spent one week at the top of the charts.

 

Now, I can describe a large number of potential songwriters, some of whom such as Paul McCartney did exist, and some of whom such as Billy Shears, did not. I think that most would agree that if I describe the achievements of a particular songwriter in terms of number ones that they wrote, it's more impressive if it's a real person and real achievements, than if it's a fake songwriter and fake achievements. So, I'll add two additional attributes to my description of songwriters over and above the number of No. 1. songs they wrote. First whether they exist, and second whether the achievements described are accurate. Clearly "exists=true" and "achievements=accurate" both make a songwriter more impressive (=better), all else being equal.

 

So, my description of the best possible songwriter is that they had 2912 Number 1 hits since 1950, that they exist, and that my description of their achievements is accurate. But the fact that I can create such a description in language has no bearing on reality. I.e. just because my description says that this person exists, doesn't mean that they do. And of course, as five seconds research on a web search engine will show, they don't exist.

 

The same applies to the ontological argument for God. Just because a God that exists is the concept that best matches the definition of God, doesn't tell us anything about whether God actually exists.

[Seeker]

That is because in a infantile human mind, a person cannot comprehend a

being that is the beginning and end of all things. Modern science tries to teach

that everything must come from something else, that even the most tiny subatomic particles are comprised of even smaller particles, and that the infinite boundry of the universe has no end.

 

In retrospect, I suppose a atheist or unbeliever would describe god as everything science is unable to explain.

 

Consider this. The periodic table of elements describes the known basic elements, Why then can't the almighty scientists create even the most simple forms of life from scratch in the lab?

 

Atheists claim that mankind is the product of a random collection of primordial

evolution that exists randomly throughout the universe.

Mankind is arguably the most complex life form to exist on planet earth.

Comprised of a DNA strand of billions of random code.

How come then, if you where to take a million of every part of lets say,

a 747 jumbo jet, and pass a trillion tornados randomly through a junkyard

containing these parts, a fully functional plane will never be assembled?

 

Dinosaurs supposedly ruled planet earth for 120 million years, how come they never developed beyond primitives that ran around eating each other and never constructing anything more complex than a pile of dung?

If higher intellect is the end product of evolution, what was the problem with dinosaurs?

[InfiniteNow]

That is because in a infantile human mind, a person cannot comprehend a being that is the beginning and end of all things. Modern science tries to teach that everything must come from something else,

:D

 

Science teaches to test everything and replace it when it fails. Actually, to be even more accurate, science teaches nothing, since it is a method. It is people and experience which teaches.

 

 

that even the most tiny subatomic particles are comprised of even smaller particles, and that the infinite boundry of the universe has no end.

It's still under review actually. Theories have been proposed, but tests are tough to perform on this one. Here's a nifty link to make you feel stupid:

Is The Universe Closed?

 

In retrospect, I suppose a atheist or unbeliever would describe god as everything science is unable to explain.

Again, science is an approach, not an orator or instructor. However, following the principles of science, an individual CAN explain god in terms of history, psychology, and problems in our education system.

 

Consider this. The periodic table of elements describes the known basic elements, Why then can't the almighty scientists create even the most simple forms of life from scratch in the lab?

Misinformed much? They can. It's pretty snazzy stuff... plop plop fizz fizz, hey look, it's alive now...

Cosmic Evolution - Epoch 5 - Chemical Evolution

 

Atheists claim that mankind is the product of a random collection of primordial evolution that exists randomly throughout the universe.

All of them, huh? Those athiests and their solidarity with one another. It's truly breath taking. :hihi:

 

Mankind is arguably the most complex life form to exist on planet earth.

I guess it could be argued... I don't think it's valid though. Whatever floats your boat though (hint, it's called buoyancy)

 

How come then, if you where to take a million of every part of lets say,a 747 jumbo jet, and pass a trillion tornados randomly through a junkyard

containing these parts, a fully functional plane will never be assembled?

Prove that it will NEVER happen, I dare ya. You cannot. You do not know the future. However, taking your comment as if it were something which could be considered close to valid, look up entropy.

Entropy: Thermodynamics, Physics

 

[EDIT: 2/9]Looking back, I realize that as the length of time increases, so do the chances of the parts randomly coming back together into a functional plane. However, this growth is smaller than most will comprehend, and time span involved longer than the currently proposed age of the universe. [/EDIT]

 

Dinosaurs supposedly ruled planet earth for 120 million years, how come they never developed beyond primitives that ran around eating each other and never constructing anything more complex than a pile of dung?

Probably had something to do with that really big rock that fell from the sky and killed most of them and much of the other life they ingested.

Dinosaur Extinction - Enchanted Learning Software

 

If higher intellect is the end product of evolution, what was the problem with dinosaurs?

Evolution has no "end product." Evolution through natural selection is a process by which some mutations result in an advantage, and that advantage turns out to be passed onto future generations because it happened to prove more useful in an environment than some other mutation did.

 

At least try to get your facts straight before you use them to attack robust concepts. Better yet, why you don't you offer new concepts and describe their processes (or method of action) that are able to make testable predictions more accurately than existing concepts can.

 

 

Always amenble...

[Buffy]

Lots to argue with in your post but I'll try to stick to just two:

That is because in a infantile human mind, a person cannot comprehend a being that is the beginning and end of all things.

So are you claiming that you can't comprehend God either, or that you have a mind that is superior to humans? If the latter, what species are you?

Dinosaurs supposedly ruled planet earth for 120 million years, how come they never developed beyond primitives that ran around eating each other and never constructing anything more complex than a pile of dung? If higher intellect is the end product of evolution, what was the problem with dinosaurs?

What is the justification of your claim "intellect is the end product of evolution?"

 

In general, do you enjoy belittling and spreading hate about your fellow man in the name of God?

 

Speak and all shall know you,

Buffy

[Edella]

Modern science tries to teach

that everything must come from something else, that even the most tiny subatomic particles are comprised of even smaller particles, and that the infinite boundry of the universe has no end.

You seem to think that all scientists are in complete agreement on the nature of subatomic particles and the universe, this is not the case.

 

In retrospect, I suppose a atheist or unbeliever would describe god as everything science is unable to explain.

Most atheists or unbelievers would not describe God this way. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find even one.

 

Consider this. The periodic table of elements describes the known basic elements, Why then can't the almighty scientists create even the most simple forms of life from scratch in the lab?

Almighty scientists?

 

Atheists claim that mankind is the product of a random collection of primordial

evolution that exists randomly throughout the universe.

Please show me an atheist who claims this.

 

Comprised of a DNA strand of billions of random code....

How come then, if you where to take a million of every part of lets say,

a 747 jumbo jet, and pass a trillion tornados randomly through a junkyard

containing these parts, a fully functional plane will never be assembled?

To think of evolution as nothing more than chance and randomness is a conceptual mistake. Evolution does contain a component of chance, but there is far more to it than that, and it is the existence of the "non-chance" components that allows evolution to work. The process of evolution is driven by natural selection, which is certainly not random.

 

Three reasons the tornado-junkyard analogy fails to describe evolution:

- It has a target specified ahead of time.

- It is an example of single-step rather than cumulative selection.

- It operates purely according to random chance.

[Boerseun]

The "747-in-a-junkyard" analogy is quite interesting, actually. And also a clear indication that you don't understand evolution.

 

You see, evolution is driven by the environment. And, in order for a 747 to operate, to be "fit" for the environment, you'll need a complete international-size airport, complete with fuel supply, air traffic control, etc. If your "junkyard" was the environment your proposed "lifeform", the 747, was to evolve in, then clearly the "lifeform" won't be "fit" for the environment. But there sure as heck are lots of other combinations of the 747's spares that will be fit. For instance, a single wheel is dandy for the environment. It can roll around the junkyard and do impressive doughnuts on the dirt road. The wings and bodypanels can fall together in a pile of scrap metal, and be camouflaged amongst the other scrap in the junkyard. But until the junkyard itself changes into an international airport, there will not be any pressure for the stuff lying around to assemble into a 747.

 

If a 747 does, indeed, assemble from the tornadoes flying through the junkyard, it will be a mutational odditty which will serve no purpose whatsoever in the junkyard, and will be selected against when the next tornado blows through.

 

I know - this explanation isn't flawless; matter of fact, it's full of holes. But I've heard this "747" fallacy so often, and nobody who puts it forward understand that the environment in which this evolution is supposed to happen, is key to the whole process. And a junkyard simply doesn't offer a niche in which a Boeing 747 will thrive. That's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

 

Second, there is no end-result in evolution. Matter of fact, as the lemurs in Madagascar show, even if primates, that big family of which Man is the golden child, are left in a spot without any dangers or predators, there doesn't seem to be any pressure for further development. The lemurs of Madagascar is the most primitive of primates, having split away from the rest of the family millions of years before the first hominids even appeared on the scene. And they have regressed 'mentally', if I can call it that. They are not nearly as inquisitive as other primates. They are meek and mild, and, quite frankly, stupid. Reason being, of course, that 'till the arrival of Man, there wasn't any danger or threat to them on Madagascar. There wasn't any evolutionary pressure for them to change shape or form or enlarge their brains to outwit and outsmart predators, or become better hunters themselves. Sharks are also a case in point: They preceded and outlived the dinosaurs; simply because the niche they inhabit haven't changed, and they have no predators preying on them. So - zero evolution for sharks.

 

As far as history's concerned, Mankind is merely a flash-in-the-pan, up to this point. And Intelligence per se is no guarantee of survival. Thousands of nuclear bombs in vast arsenals testify to this. If you want to survive, be inconspicious. Cyanophites, or blue-green algae, seems to me to have hit the jackpot. They were one of the first life forms, and I bet the last penny in my bank account that they will still be around long, long after Mankind have exited stage left. Where "Life" is concerned, they are by far a more successful species that homo sapiens have ever dreamed to be.

[Lancaster]

 

In the thread there is some very nice discussion of the issues involved in this. Namely that believing in something false, and adjusting your life accordingly, may change the quality of life. But I think Pascal's wager has a more fundamental flaw. That is is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. It presumes that the truth must be one of two situations, the existence of a God more or less matching the description of the Christian God, or no God at all. There is an infinite number of possible Gods and supernaturals that can be postulated, and the true utility of believing in the Christian God would have to be calculated over all of these. Impossible to calculate of course. It is philosophically possible that some of these supernaturals might result in someone believing in the "wrong" God being punished, while someone choosing to believe in no God at all being let off. Hence, it's impossible to calculate utility or even determine its sign (as in the excluded middle situation). Hence, even without looking at the effects of belief on life, the water is an invalid argument.

 

 

Mr. Dawkins! Nice to meet you! This sounds very similar to a passage from your book, The God Delusion! I'm glad you finally decided to join the forums.

[Seeker]

The "747-in-a-junkyard" analogy is quite interesting, actually. And also a clear indication that you don't understand evolution.

 

Cyanophites, or blue-green algae, seems to me to have hit the jackpot. They were one of the first life forms, and I bet the last penny in my bank account that they will still be around long, long after Mankind have exited stage left. Where "Life" is concerned, they are by far a more successful species that homo sapiens have ever dreamed to be.

 

So are they the alpha or omega of life on this planet?

[InfiniteNow]

So are they the alpha or omega of life on this planet?

 

This is subjective to each observer, and you have provided, by no means, a complete list of options regarding "what they are."