Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[agustine]

To RickSp. With respect to your comment

.....while instead there are an infinite number of possible Gods. Chances are that if there is a God, he/she will not look kindly on your particular dogma. Blaise Pascal was a given mathematician but in this case, he screwed up big time.

Despite your misunderstanding of the Pascalian Wager, which is a test for meaning and not an argument for the existence of God, your many gods argument can only be valid if the Judeo/Christian, and/or the Islamic God does not exist given the substance of the relevation.

Augustine

[Jack]

I and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy disagree;

“Pascal's Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as "Pascal's Wager". We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.

Source
Infidels.com addresses the weakness of it;

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist." This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws. Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell. Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow? Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer. Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already. Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis. Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements: 1. One does not know whether God exists. 2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist. 3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist. 4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God. There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

[RickSp]

Quote by: agustine To RickSp. With respect to your comment Despite your misunderstanding of the Pascalian Wager, which is a test for meaning and not an argument for the existence of God, your many gods argument can only be valid if the Judeo/Christian, and/or the Islamic God does not exist given the substance of the relevation. Augustine

A test for meaning? A rather novel interpretation and rather at odds with what Pascal himself wrote.

From the Pensées:

God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

If you take Pascal at his word it is exactly a discussion of whether God does or does not exist. What else can "God is, or He is not," be taken to mean? The fallacy of the wager is the presumption that only one God is possible. Even if you limit the range of choices to the Judaic, Christian and Islamic Gods, one must still consider all the various sects in each. The chance of choosing the correct sect becomes mathematically small. Removing the artificial constraint of only these three possible gods and the chances of choosing correctly becomes almost zero.

The second fallacy of the wager is that by losing, one loses nothing. Even if you ignore the initial fallacy of the false dichotomy, one still loses by living one's life in accordance with a false dogma under false pretenses. If there is no God, one would live worshipping a false deity based on a fear of displeasing a being the knowledge of which Pascal himself says "reason can decide nothing ".

Pascal's Wager is a bad bet all around.

[littlebear]

Agnos said

That is, of course, your perogative. Though, considering that, I sure hope you wouldn't be the type of person to oppose having evolution taught in public schools. Are you that type of person? I mean, in light of your "faith", it sure would be inappropriate of you to carry that faith into the public arena. Are you one to oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools?

When I was in grade school, I was taught that science had found the missing link, the Piltdown man. When one of the students made reference to the creationist theory, the teacher quickly and emphatically stated that no such nonsense would be taught in her class. Considering the nonsense of the "Piltdown man", I find that to be rather contradictory. I have on many occasion found so called scientists to be biased towards anything that will prove their position. Fairly recently, evolutionists went bananas when a fossil was found that showed a reptile with wings. Acclaimed around the world, it was later proven to be a fake. Until the "science" of evolution is subjected to the same tests other sciences are subjected to, I find it ludicrous to teach it to anyone.

[littlebear]

pikatore said

Personally, you haven't read a single word in this thread. Countless times I have referenced the Miller-Urey experiment: Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This experiment proves that under the extreme conditions of the Earth back then, non-life can generate life. Organic molecules and complex proteins have been created from non organic compounds.

On the contrary, I have read extensively in this thread. I just don't think the "Miller-Urey experiment" proves squat. To begin, it is flawed. Constant stimulation of substances all of which were not found on the earth in the time frame in question by an uninterupted electrical source is hardly what could have happened in reality. The only source of electricity was lightening which is extremely high in voltage and short in duration.

Amino acids and proteins are not life forms. When someone conducts an experiment that produces an amoeba, I might have to rethink my position.

and...

a) the evolutions you talked to were either ignorant or argued badly. b) you are actually oblivious to the magnitude of the proof supporting evolution, and how it began via abiogenesis.

With restraint, I will let you put yourself in one of the two catagories you mentioned in a.

I am well aware of the magnitude of explanations supporting evolution and how it began via abiogenesis. I find none of them to be credible. I find none of them that would survive the rigorous tests and standards of proof other sciences are subjected to.

When you accuse me of not reading one bit of this thread, why did you not address the abiogenesis theory that there were multiple instances of life formation? What of the scientists who feel the recent genome discoveries support such a theory? If I were an evolutionist, I would skip over that issue as well.

[RickSp]

Quote by: littlebear On the contrary, I have read extensively in this thread. I just don't think the "Miller-Urey experiment" proves squat. To begin, it is flawed. Constant stimulation of substances all of which were not found on the earth in the time frame in question by an uninterupted electrical source is hardly what could have happened in reality. The only source of electricity was lightening which is extremely high in voltage and short in duration. Amino acids and proteins are not life forms. When someone conducts an experiment that produces an amoeba, I might have to rethink my position.

Somehow I doubt that. You no doubt would find a basis for sniping at that outcome as well. The Miller-Urey experiment succeeded in creating complex organic components from base elements, something that skeptics said couldn't be done. Amino acids and proteins are not life forms but they are the building blocks of life. The sunsequent discovery of amino acids on meteorites confirms that Miller-Urey were on the right track, whether they fit within your preconceived notions or not.

Unlike religion, which has all the answers, scientists must stumble along, experimenting. The Miller-Urey experiment was remarkable in its own right.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I thought every high school biology course taught about Miller-Urey.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I thought every high school biology course taught about Miller-Urey.

Yes, but many creationist sites make all sorts of silly claims why Miller-Urey should be discounted.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It seemed to me to be a good example of a proper experiment, they probably could've recreated the conditions better, but it looked alright to me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It seemed to me to be a good example of a proper experiment, they probably could've recreated the conditions better, but it looked alright to me.

They used the best data that they had at the time. It was fifty three years ago. And finding amino acids on meteorites confirmed their conclusions.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not to mention it's been re-tried since then.

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp Somehow I doubt that. You no doubt would find a basis for sniping at that outcome as well. The Miller-Urey experiment succeeded in creating complex organic components from base elements, something that skeptics said couldn't be done. Amino acids and proteins are not life forms but they are the building blocks of life. The sunsequent discovery of amino acids on meteorites confirms that Miller-Urey were on the right track, whether they fit within your preconceived notions or not.

Not only that, but if you look at some of the experiments that followed, specifically the Stanley Fox experiments in the 70s, you find that the output of the Miller-Urey experiments can easily form proto-cells that begin to act in many ways like a living cell and are absolutely identical to the earliest known microfossils that we find in nature. We *KNOW* they occurred, we have replicated them in the lab and it looks promising that they cross the boundary from non-life to life in at least some of their function.

In short, the theists are wrong. Anyone surprised?

[pikatore]

own3d for now i believe.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Cephus In short, the theists are wrong. Anyone surprised?

Shocked! To be fair, the folks spouting nonsense about Miller-Urey and related topics are creationists, an odd and fortunately not wholly representative subset of theists.

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp Shocked! To be fair, the folks spouting nonsense about Miller-Urey and related topics are creationists, an odd and fortunately not wholly representative subset of theists.

True, they represent the hardcore insane theists and there are certainly many who are much more reasonable and rational (although not entirely so, by necessity).