Statistical evidence of god

[lightgigantic]

Because we require our inferences to have support in physical reality and valid argument.

yes thats the requirement of empiricism

I guess two important q's arise from this

1 - does classical empiricism have the monopoly on knowledge?

2 - If there is no physical evidence of life arising from dull matter, why is your argument valid?

Why does someone keep resurrecting these old threads? I guess it's still fun to answer.

Since Darwin, we have learned a great deal about the eye. It's structures are not irreduceable, and the mechanisms for their formation were already well known before the creationists invented this as a reason in support of their hypothesis. In fact, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently. Although there are several broad strategies, many of them converged on the idea of the lens.

lol - so when is an eye not an eye?

Secondly, evolution doesn't work by chance, it is the opposite of chance. A mildly successful eye will confer great benefit, and it's offspring will not have to reinvent it, only improve on it.

not sure how this addresses issue of the topic

I don't think that all happening as it has, in terms of the way everything is, is absurd to it occur on it's own, but it seems very likely there was SOME sort of outside, intelligent intervention.

Life and conciousness is so complex that it is highly, highly unlikely that we, especially, as intelligent creatures, are as we are purely naturally.

purely naturally what?

OMG all this evidence and you STILL beleive on god...we have been learning about natural selection in svchool (year 9) and it takes millions of years which ALLOW such complex body parts to eveol DUH

erm - all what evidence?
despite the sheer impossibility of indicating a square inch of something that doesn't contain life on this planet, abiogenesis remains theoretical.

testing testing
lynx that is

‘There’s a rumor circulating that the brown acid going around is poison. Cool it. It’s not poison—it’s just badly manufactured.’"

Argument from irreduceable complexity. Natural processes explain or offer a credible explanation for the complexity of life. No God is necessary. Seen all at once, yes life is complex, but each step towards that complexity need only be small.

the next question is whether the nuts and bolts of science is simply the ability to offer credible explanations or repeatable evidence of cause and effect?

 

[iceaura]

1 - does classical empiricism have the monopoly on knowledge?

2 - If there is no physical evidence of life arising from dull matter, why is your argument valid?

1) dunno what "classical empiricism" would say, but some kind of physical evidence and an argument is required for the inference of macro-evolution. And so if you want to infer a God the same way, as you suggested, you'd need the evidence and argument the way requires, yes.

2) If there were no evidence and argument, the inference would not be made.

 

[Cannon]

Remember, god, not God.

god : Superior intelluctal being

God : Creator of heaven and eath

heaven : Celestial Bodies

god exsists because God made it so, being that god is a proper noun it is not capitalized, so hereato God is the being of the Celestial Bodies which has existed longer than god or who may qualify as god.

 

[Cannon]

Grammar solves all problems through logic, thus the diplomat.

 

[lightgigantic]

1) dunno what "classical empiricism" would say, but some kind of physical evidence and an argument is required for the inference of macro-evolution. And so if you want to infer a God the same way, as you suggested, you'd need the evidence and argument the way requires, yes.

thats right
claims of god based on the issue of design are just as valid as claims of macro-evolution based on the fossil record

2) If there were no evidence and argument, the inference would not be made.

thus the flexible nature of inference makes it the weakest limb of empiricism (since "science" prides itself on the notion of "getting the job done")

 

[greenberg]

I agree
but such information can make one begin to search for god in earnest

I suppose so. But I think without conviction in karma and rebirth, it is impossible to really move on when one's belief in God is logic- and statistics-based.

Because if a person's stance consists of these premisses:
- I have only about 30 years more to live and this is it for me and life,
- sooner or later I am likely going to become seriously ill, someone I love is going to die,
- I suffer and there seems to be nothing I could do about it in the long run,
- there is an infinitensimal chance that God exists and might save me from suffering.
No, I don't think that a person with such an outlook will really believe in God, or be really moved to believe in God, other than as in act of despair or sentimentality. I think that belief driven by despair or sentimentality doesn't accomplish much; it might soothe one for a while, but it doesn't give a hopeful outlook on life, doesn't inspire one to train and purify one's mind.

 

[Myles]

thats right
claims of god based on the issue of design are just as valid as claims of macro-evolution based on the fossil record



thus the flexible nature of inference makes it the weakest limb of empiricism (since "science" prides itself on the notion of "getting the job done")

Claims for God based on design are not as valid as claims based on the fossil record.This argument has been repeated and refuted ad nauseam but it still crops up.


Inference is only flexible until there is sufficient evidence to lead to a consensus of what that evidence entails. That's how science gets the job done.

 

[SnakeLord]

"Perhaps the greatest proof of the Creator’s existence is seen when you gaze into the mirror. Your eyes have focusing muscles that move an estimated 100,000 times each day. Each eye has within a retina that covers less than a square inch and contains137 million light-sensitive cells.

*Puts on glasses*

That's better, I can read it now, (unless there's a bit of text stuck in my blind spot). If an "intelligent designer" did it, he's an idiot.

I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone: the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2384584&page=1

Finally.. LG I see you still work under an incorrect understanding of 'macroevolution'. Such a shame.

Regards,

 

[lightgigantic]

*Puts on glasses*

That's better, I can read it now, (unless there's a bit of text stuck in my blind spot). If an "intelligent designer" did it, he's an idiot.



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2384584&page=1

Finally.. LG I see you still work under an incorrect understanding of 'macroevolution'. Such a shame.

Regards,

just what we need
more inference

 

[spidergoat]

I guess two important q's arise from this

1 - does classical empiricism have the monopoly on knowledge?

If you can show useful knowledge, it should be able to be tested using empiricism, otherwise the knowledge isn't knowledge.

2 - If there is no physical evidence of life arising from dull matter, why is your argument valid?

Natural processes have been found to result in increasing order and complexity, both in living and non-living things. Therefore you would have to rule that out as an explanation before you postulated a more radical non-natural explanation.

lol - so when is an eye not an eye?

When it's a collection of light-sensitive cells.

the next question is whether the nuts and bolts of science is simply the ability to offer credible explanations or repeatable evidence of cause and effect?

It's both. Credible explanations need to be confirmed with repeatable evidence before they can be accepted. However, credible explanations, even if not confirmed, should be considered as more likely than more radical ones.

 

[Myles]

Well I guess you will have to fie Ray Comfort since it was his quote - I don't knowif he is a christian or not

but all this aside,it still says nothing about the statistical evidence of god - namely that given the complexity of the human body, thechances of it existing without a creator are lesser than the chances of it existing with one - if a person can accept macro evolution in the absence of direct perception why not god?

You are using a jaded argument. Instead of pontificating, why not check out the argument from design and complexity for yourself. William Paley and his watchmaker is a case in point because it shows a total misunderstanding of how evolution works, just as your post does. Go educate yourself !

 

[SnakeLord]

just what we need
more inference

O....k :bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat
“

I guess two important q's arise from this

1 - does classical empiricism have the monopoly on knowledge?
”
If you can show useful knowledge, it should be able to be tested using empiricism, otherwise the knowledge isn't knowledge.

so what do you make of anything going down under the banner of "soft science" (eg - psychology)?

“
2 - If there is no physical evidence of life arising from dull matter, why is your argument valid?
”
Natural processes have been found to result in increasing order and complexity, both in living and non-living things. Therefore you would have to rule that out as an explanation before you postulated a more radical non-natural explanation.

there is no findings of that complexity shifting from one genus to another, what to speak of matter shifting to a life form, so its not clear how your suggestion is any less radical

“
lol - so when is an eye not an eye?
”
When it's a collection of light-sensitive cells.

I see
so its kind of like saying a nuclear warhead is not a nuclear warhead when it is a mouse trap

“
the next question is whether the nuts and bolts of science is simply the ability to offer credible explanations or repeatable evidence of cause and effect?
”
It's both. Credible explanations need to be confirmed with repeatable evidence before they can be accepted. However, credible explanations, even if not confirmed, should be considered as more likely than more radical ones.

hence the whole issue of science without the goods on the table is completely speculative and subjective.

 

[spidergoat]

so what do you make of anything going down under the banner of "soft science" (eg - psychology)?

Psychology uses many of the same tools as other branches of science, collecting data, statistical analysis, hypothesis creation and testing.

there is no findings of that complexity shifting from one genus to another, what to speak of matter shifting to a life form, so its not clear how your suggestion is any less radical

The sequential nature of the fossil record contradicts your notion that evolution on the genus level (a human classification system) hasn't been found.

I see
so its kind of like saying a nuclear warhead is not a nuclear warhead when it is a mouse trap

A true eye is just a result of small modifications to the structure of light-sensitive cells. The literature on this is easily available.

hence the whole issue of science without the goods on the table is completely speculative and subjective.

Of course. Hypotheses need to be tested to see if they fit the data before they are accepted as a working model.

 

[Repo Man]

LightGigantic I accuse you of deceit; I accuse you of lying; I accuse you of gross dishonesty; I accuse you of unChristian behaviour; I accuse you of despicable conduct. Your post, opening this thread, is a vile deceit. Your behaviour in posting it is reprehensible. For such a gross distortion of the truth you should be banned permanently from this forum, and, if I had the power to do so, stripped of any and all educational qualifications you possess.

The quotation above seems, yes seems, to say that even Darwin felt that the eye could not develop by chance alone. Putting that quote out of context, and using it to justify that position is the disgusting behaviour I refer to. Fie upon you.

Place the sentence in its proper context:
TO suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Source: Origin of Species. Charles Robert Darwin

And that completely transforms the meaning of the quotation.

May your God forgive you for your gross, underhand dishonesty. I certainly shall not.

This reply ought to have been the end of the thread. Hope you're well Ophiolite. The forum is lesser in your absence.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat
“

so what do you make of anything going down under the banner of "soft science" (eg - psychology)?
”
Psychology uses many of the same tools as other branches of science, collecting data, statistical analysis, hypothesis creation and testing.

but at the end of the day they have nothing "physical" - there is no reductionist indication of minds, emotions etc

“
there is no findings of that complexity shifting from one genus to another, what to speak of matter shifting to a life form, so its not clear how your suggestion is any less radical
”
The sequential nature of the fossil record contradicts your notion that evolution on the genus level (a human classification system) hasn't been found.

once again, thats merely inference, not a finding

“
I see
so its kind of like saying a nuclear warhead is not a nuclear warhead when it is a mouse trap
”
A true eye is just a result of small modifications to the structure of light-sensitive cells. The literature on this is easily available.

in the same way, tweak a mouse trap a certain way and you have a WMD

“
hence the whole issue of science without the goods on the table is completely speculative and subjective.
”
Of course. Hypotheses need to be tested to see if they fit the data before they are accepted as a working model.

so why do you suppose this integral part of verification has jumped the starter's gun?

 

[spidergoat]

but at the end of the day they have nothing "physical" - there is no reductionist indication of minds, emotions etc

You can observe the activity of the brain as thoughts are thunk. In any case, it doesn't matter if there's anything physical or not, as long as the model works, it can predict behaviors, it fits the observed data. If there were no observed source of thought one could invent other theories that involve other types of phenomenon. Newtonian mechanics works even though he had no conception of what matter was made of.

once again, thats merely inference, not a finding

The fossil record fits the model. A transitional creature between fish and land animals was predicted to be found in strata of the divonian era, and later on it was.

in the same way, tweak a mouse trap a certain way and you have a WMD

Mouse traps and WMDs are designed objects. Eyes are not.

so why do you suppose this integral part of verification has jumped the starter's gun?

Evolution has been verified over and over. It continues to be central to biology, with definite useful and predictive qualities.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat

but at the end of the day they have nothing "physical" - there is no reductionist indication of minds, emotions etc
”
You can observe the activity of the brain as thoughts are thunk.

but those observations don't equal thought - IOW they may observe some sort of chemical activity, but th eissue of thinking cannot be reduced to the said chemicals

In any case, it doesn't matter if there's anything physical or not, as long as the model works, it can predict behaviors, it fits the observed data. If there were no observed source of thought one could invent other theories that involve other types of phenomenon.

indeed
this accounts for the "softness" of "soft science"

Newtonian mechanics works even though he had no conception of what matter was made of.

but he knew what movement, dimension and mass were, which is essentially all that was required

“
once again, thats merely inference, not a finding
”
The fossil record fits the model. A transitional creature between fish and land animals was predicted to be found in strata of the divonian era, and later on it was.

once again, thats merely inference, not a finding (since fish and land animals remain separate

“
in the same way, tweak a mouse trap a certain way and you have a WMD
”
Mouse traps and WMDs are designed objects. Eyes are not.

even if that was the case, it doesn't help your argument against irreducible components

“
so why do you suppose this integral part of verification has jumped the starter's gun?
”
Evolution has been verified over and over.

"reiterated" might be a more apt word than "verified" ....

It continues to be central to biology, with definite useful and predictive qualities.

.... mainly because there is no substance to evolution. If it was suddenly deemed a fallible outlook by the scientific community, the only thing that would suffer is the egos of a few persons in esteemed intellectual positions

 

[spidergoat]

but those observations don't equal thought - IOW they may observe some sort of chemical activity, but th eissue of thinking cannot be reduced to the said chemicals

Probably not, but at present the model of thought originating in the brain is well supported by the data. It was actually discovered long ago, when the nerves were found to all lead to the brain.

once again, thats merely inference, not a finding (since fish and land animals remain separate

The theory made a prediction that was later found to correspond to the fossil record. The presence of this transitional fossil was exactly what could be expected if evolution were true.

The rise of germs that are anti-bacterial agent resistant was also predicted by evolution.

even if that was the case, it doesn't help your argument against irreducible components

There is no sequence of small changes that could be a transition between a mousetrap and a nuclear weapon, with each small transition also being useful. In the case of the eye, this has been demonstrated. Animals with eyes at most stages of development have been found. Computer programs confirm the notion that eyes could develop through evolution. Every small step from the light-sensitive cell to the lensed eye would be progressively more useful to a creature. The only limitations are that maybe a more complex eye is not necessary to some animals, or that they take too much mass, or energy to grow, or that they live where there is no light.

"reiterated" might be a more apt word than "verified" ....

Now you are being dogmatic. DNA was not known during Darwin's time, but now we know that genes are the mechanism of inheritence. If you understood how science works, you would see that the basic concept of evolution is confirmed by the most rigorous experimentation. Someday we may give up or improve the theory, but only when a better one comes along.

.... mainly because there is no substance to evolution. If it was suddenly deemed a fallible outlook by the scientific community, the only thing that would suffer is the egos of a few persons in esteemed intellectual positions

Scientists want their theories to be overturned, because when that happens, it's a scientific breakthrough, leading to greater understanding of reality. Newtonian mechanics were deemed fallible, but they are still used for many purposes. They still work on most levels, but they do not explain what's going on at the level of the atom or smaller, they don't explain relavistic effects.

 

[iceaura]

claims of god based on the issue of design are just as valid as claims of macro-evolution based on the fossil record

No, claims of God based on evidence of design and an argument from that evidence would have some validity - depending on the nature of the God claimed.

So far there has been no such evidence produced nor any argument visible, so the nature of the God hasn't come up, in scientific argument.

2) If there were no evidence and argument, the inference would not be made.
”
thus the flexible nature of inference makes it the weakest limb of empiricism (since "science" prides itself on the notion of "getting the job done")

Of course. So?

once again, thats merely inference, not a finding (since fish and land animals remain separate

1) It's a predicted finding, predicted by inference from a theory applied to previous findings. That's what a scientific theory does - makes predictions that check out. 2) There's nothing "mere" about such inferences - they're the payoff of good theory. The capability of making them is the most important achievement of Western civilization, IMHO.

here is no sequence of small changes that could be a transition between a mousetrap and a nuclear weapon, with each small transition also being useful.

Wanna bet ? Lessee - radiation kills mice - - -

The entire argument from design so far has been just an ornate argument from incredulity.