To the Atheist: The Universe. By Chance or Design?

[Starboy]

Quote by: one deity Hmm. I would say that the looking for an explanation part is the most interesting part of that post. I think that is the only question that can be answered in the search for the beginning of the universe. What I mean is, we need to find out why we need a start or a reason so that we know we aren't fooling ourselves. Otherwise we will find the answer that suits us best, instead of finding out an objective truth of it all. If I am scared of death and full of existential doubt, I may jump to the belief in God. If I find it easy to rely on science and my immediate self-reliant perceptions I may jump to the big bang theory. The point of my last post was to attack the thread as it seemed to be using a completely void argument to support a view.

Well yes. People often fool themselves. That is why the first lesson in honesty is to learn how to be honest with one's self.

Can I ask, is it the design argument that makes you believe in God? Or is it something that makes sense in the light of your belief in God as 'creator'?

I'm an atheist, as in non-theist. I see all explanations based on the supernatural to be far too trite, contrived and anthropomorphic, and of course none of them are worth a damn at finding out anything new about the universe. But they are perfect at predicting things after the fact. And that is just what one would expect to see if it were coming from any two-bit psychic.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Petra Can't science be applied to the validity and probability of evolution, which is what this thread is about?

I don't think that the original OP was restricted to evolution but to competing explanations. The poster wanted to compare god based explanations to scientific explanations with a predilection to favoring god explanations. I would say that the poster that created the original post was creating a false dichotomy since even today there are more than just two competing explanations for the universe. There are thousands of other supernatural explanations and there are several competing scientific explanations most of which are variations on a few general scientific explanations.

But what I think is more important to this discussion is not the fact that there are competing explanations but the problem in general. What criterion should one use to favor one explanation over the others? What I have often found with the supernaturalists is the criterion often boils down to personal preference. And yet they are so desperate that we follow their preference rather than just leave us to our own preference.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy But what I think is more important to this discussion is not the fact that there are competing explanations but the problem in general. What criterion should one use to favor one explanation over the others? What I have often found with the supernaturalists is the criterion often boils down to personal preference. And yet they are so desperate that we follow their preference rather than just leave us to our own preference. Starboy

Starboy,
Would it be accurate to say that you will refuse to entertain any criterion that is beyond natural explanation. (meaning supernatural but not limited to any particular supernatural explanation)?

[Giglap]

Quote by: Blanh Proof of evolution? Ask anyone in the agriculture industry. Finding pesticides that will continue to destroy organisms with short lifespans is ONE form of study of evolution. One problem they take very seriously is trying to combat this. Quote by: Giglap If the mechanism of the adaptation was the loss of genetic information, would you still consider that to be evolution?

If not Blanh, can someone from ToE camp answer my question?

Thanks,
-Jim

[Blanh]

If by losing genetic information an organism becomes more adaptable to his environment, i suppose. Although, Im not quite sure what you mean. Could you be a little more specific?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap Quote by: Giglap If the mechanism of the adaptation was the loss of genetic information, would you still consider that to be evolution?

Yes I would. Why do you ask?

Starboy

[Blanh]

Starboy

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"

"Plurality should not be posited without necessity"

In other words, the simplest solution is USUALLY the best. Not always.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh Starboy "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" In other words, the simplest solution is USUALLY the best. Not always.

I understand that. But it changes nothing. The burden is still to show that something is necessary or unecessary. Once you have done that you do not need Ockham's.

Starboy

[Jack]

I'm not sure if I should jump in here or not, as I'm not exactly positive where either of you are headed. But if you're asking if evolution in a seemingly negative direction is still evolution, then yes. Evolution is simply a vehicle of change based on adaptation to circumstances. Humans contain several organs like the appendix (and brain, according to some) that no longer serve a purpose and are slowly disappearing. Humans are generally less hairy than in the past. The loss of attributes or function can still be "progress" in evolutionary terms.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Jeber I'm not sure if I should jump in here or not, as I'm not exactly positive where either of you are headed. But if you're asking if evolution in a seemingly negative direction is still evolution, then yes. Evolution is simply a vehicle of change based on adaptation to circumstances. Humans contain several organs like the appendix (and brain, according to some) that no longer serve a purpose and are slowly disappearing. Humans are generally less hairy than in the past. The loss of attributes or function can still be "progress" in evolutionary terms.

Yes but I think he is asking that if the genome shrunk for some reason would that be evolution. And in that case I would also say that would be evolution. I have no idea why people have such a hard time with it. Evolution is simply the explanation of how species change over time. The criterion for the change is that it confers some survival advantage on the species. If a shrinking genome does the trick then there is nothing in ToE that precludes it. Perhaps there are limits set by molecular biology but if there are the current knowledge is not good enough to say anything about it.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2005/125/2

Starboy

[Blanh]

i actually agree with starboy on this. Any gradual change based on adaptation to environment. A seemingly deteriorating genome is still an evolving genome.

[Blanh]

SB

I cant believe we're still arguing about this.

If I say there are 1000 invisible unicorns in your room with you right now that can not be sensed in any way possible to humans, i think MAYBE i'm positing an unnecessary plurality.

The whole point of Occam's razor is to not posit entites that do not need to be posited. I dont think i need to PROVE that there are not 1000 unicorns in your room. I cant do that.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap Starboy, Would it be accurate to say that you will refuse to entertain any criterion that is beyond natural explanation.

And what criterion would that be? Exactly how does one use a supernatural criterion?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh SB I cant believe we're still arguing about this.

Ditto.

If I say there are 1000 invisible unicorns in your room with you right now that can not be sensed in any way possible to humans, i think MAYBE i'm positing an unnecessary plurality.

You are simply making a statement of existence. What people use to evaluate such statements is not Ockham's razor. What they do is look around and say, “I don't sense 1000 invisible unicorns; explain to me why you think they are there.”

The whole point of Occam's razor is to not posit entites that do not need to be posited. I dont think i need to PROVE that there are not 1000 unicorns in your room. I cant do that.

Bahn, I have had this discussion before too many times to count with people who think just like you. But let us settle this once and for all. Explain to me why Ockham’s razor should not be applied to Ockham’s razor.

Starboy

[Blanh]

Quote by: Starboy You are simply making a statement of existence. What people use to evaluate such statements is not Ockham's razor. What they do is look around and say, “I don't sense 1000 invisible unicorns; explain to me why you think they are there.” Starboy

Exactly. Except in the God situation some people look around and say "i DO see God here". In this situation people are invoking God when it is uncalled for. All OR suggests is that you shouldn't posit a supernatural mysterious being when you dont have to.

Some people could say to you, "I read a book that told me that there are 1000 invisible unicorns in this room, and I believe it." To which you could reply that your everyday existence does not seem to depend on these unicorns and they dont seem to play any part in your everyday life, and as such, you have no use for them. In other words, you can get along just fine without granting their existence.

The action of realizing this can be considered a form of the principle of parsimony.

[one deity]

Quote by: Starboy Well yes. People often fool themselves. That is why the first lesson in honesty is to learn how to be honest with one's self. I'm an atheist, as in non-theist. I see all explanations based on the supernatural to be far too trite, contrived and anthropomorphic, and of course none of them are worth a damn at finding out anything new about the universe. But they are perfect at predicting things after the fact. And that is just what one would expect to see if it were coming from any two-bit psychic. Starboy

That question was going out to all the christians out there, sorry I didn't make that clear. Also, don't patronise me. 'I'm an atheist, as in non-theist' is unneccessary and undermines what intelligence you have, there is no need to be hostile.

[Starboy]

Quote by: one deity That question was going out to all the christians out there, sorry I didn't make that clear. Also, don't patronise me. 'I'm an atheist, as in non-theist' is unneccessary and undermines what intelligence you have, there is no need to be hostile.

I wasn't being hostile. I was simply trying to be clear. I have no idea what you think about atheists or what constitutes being an atheist.

Starboy

[one deity]

Quote by: Starboy I wasn't being hostile. I was simply trying to be clear. I have no idea what you think about atheists or what constitutes being an atheist. Starboy

Is there not a dictionary of philosophical definition?

[Starboy]

Quote by: one deity Is there not a dictionary of philosophical definition?

Sure, just like there is one for Christian that all the Christians seem to adhere to.

Starboy

[one deity]

True. *Bows head*