Teaching kids about God/s: What group are you in and why?

[JemyM]

But you can break the above creating chain if you believe the first engineer is almighty and exist beside space and time.

Belief explains nothing.

The "First-Cause" is refuted by the question it tries to solve (everything that exists has a cause), which it's also probably one of the weakest proposals ever. All done is a request for special pleading for what one wish to add (God) but one can't suggest rules and then break them.

Space and time are theoretical limits in logic, constructing a sentence that breaks the meaning of those words (outside space and time) is possible in language, but is a logical paradox.

If special pleading and logical paradoxes are possible we can just as well propose that the universe itself exists beyond what we perceive as space and time. Once we break logic anything is possible and every suggestion is plausible.

And then again if someone doesn't agree/like/believe my conclusions - What is your answer to the question "Why is not Nothing ?"
Why are the laws of nature so, that it was possible to create materials more complex than hydrogen, forming galaxies with material clouds, stars and planets and life ?
A slight variation of Newton's gravitational constant and life would never be possible at all.

You think teleologically. You look at the end and ask "how did this happen" when you should have asked "how did we get here". Look at the smallest buildingblock we know and how it interracts with other buildingblocks, then scale. When you see that simple rules is all it takes to build complex patterns, the complex becomes not so complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuBvj0pw-E

The periodic table in physics seems daunting at first, but after some time with it, it becomes very simple. Positive particles (protons) and negative particles (electrons) really do it all by themselves.

If we have more questions, saying "I do not know" is what gives us a reason to do research to learn more. If we instead try to fill the void with an answer that is even more complex and relies on logical paradoxes we shortcut our capacity for progress.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Belief explains nothing.

The "First-Cause" is refuted by the question it tries to solve (everything that exists has a cause), which it's also probably one of the weakest proposals ever. All done is a request for special pleading for what one wish to add (God) but one can't suggest rules and then break them.

Space and time are theoretical limits in logic, constructing a sentence that breaks the meaning of those words (outside space and time) is possible in language, but is a logical paradox.

If special pleading and logical paradoxes are possible we can just as well propose that the universe itself exists beyond what we perceive as space and time. Once we break logic anything is possible and every suggestion is plausible.



You think teleologically. You look at the end and ask "how did this happen" when you should have asked "how did we get here". Look at the smallest buildingblock we know and how it interracts with other buildingblocks, then scale. When you see that simple rules is all it takes to build complex patterns, the complex becomes not so complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuBvj0pw-E

The periodic table in physics seems daunting at first, but after some time with it, it becomes very simple. Positive particles (protons) and negative particles (electrons) really do it all by themselves.

If we have more questions, saying "I do not know" is what gives us a reason to do research to learn more. If we instead try to fill the void with an answer that is even more complex and relies on logical paradoxes we shortcut our capacity for progress.

The problem with that that is that complex life forms are much harder to get to than much less complex ones. Have you heard of "specified complexity"?

 

[JemyM]

The problem with that that is that complex life forms are much harder to get to than much less complex ones. Have you heard of "specified complexity"?

I say it's the other way around. At one point you begin to patch together complex components to create a more complex entity. This patchwork and it's end product is not as complex as those components themselves.

If we go back to the Mercedes above. That engineer put together parts that already exist. Now take that cars engine and you have quite a history lesson to go through if you want to know how humanity learned to produce car engines. The further back you go, you see that each step on the road creates new questions. How did humans learned to use oil for example? What was neccessary to know before humans knew about octane? How long did it take to figure out combustion? When did we learn how to use fire?

Each step you go back to will show you that the most basic and trivial components actually took alot more time to evolve, than the more complex ones. This is also why evolution of technology is faster today than 300 years ago, even if technology 300 years ago was faster than 3000 years ago.

Understanding a cell or an atom is very hard and very complex. Much harder than then explaining a lung or a combustion engine.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I wasnt referring to the human body, but rather human cells. Going from simple bacteria to human cells is a long process.

 

[JemyM]

I wasnt referring to the human body, but rather human cells. Going from simple bacteria to human cells is a long process.

Might be. Yet the human cell in itself is also an organism. The birth of what we call "life" is the tough question. Posing "God" there suggests that God is dead. You can't answer "how did life begin" with adding a living maker.

 

[Rithrandil]

How many time did you roll to get that? And how many times did you get that? And no i am not taking the "good" external statistical anomalies. Some people trust in God completely every time something bad happens to them and God delivers them everytime or turn that bad thing into something good. Only so many times that can happen before you think that God is a possibility.

I've rolled that exact score once and I've rolled several hundred characters over time. Possibly thousands if you include the D&D PC games. You can think what you want, but you seem to not be understanding that it is *not* evidence whatsoever. Highly improbable things happen all the time. It's luck of the draw. Your odds of rolling *any* set of stats on a D&D character, for example, are frighteningly low.

As for "some people believe in God when something bad happens" and "god delivers them or turns it into something good" - wow, that's a REALLY bad assertion, man. Some times something bad happens to someone and they get over it. Unless it's being dropped into a volcano or falling out of an airplane without a parachute or something fatal, people tend to get over and move beyond whatever bad thing happened to them. There's nothing supernatural about it. You're just asserting the existence of the super natural without any evidence!

 

[Rithrandil]

The problem with that that is that complex life forms are much harder to get to than much less complex ones. Have you heard of "specified complexity"?

Dembski's specified complexity is a joke and not accepted by scientists. Additionally, since it is based off of Behe's "irreducible complexity", which is also a joke and not accepted by scientists...

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Behe's irreducible complexity is completely misunderstood though. He never said that complex structeure cant be broken down into smaller structure and they perform different functions. He was saying you cant break these complex structures like the bacterial flaggellum and perform the same function. Critics of Behe always seem to misrepresent what he said or wrote:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behes_critics_make_dar044511.html

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I've rolled that exact score once and I've rolled several hundred characters over time. Possibly thousands if you include the D&D PC games. You can think what you want, but you seem to not be understanding that it is *not* evidence whatsoever. Highly improbable things happen all the time. It's luck of the draw. Your odds of rolling *any* set of stats on a D&D character, for example, are frighteningly low.

As for "some people believe in God when something bad happens" and "god delivers them or turns it into something good" - wow, that's a REALLY bad assertion, man. Some times something bad happens to someone and they get over it. Unless it's being dropped into a volcano or falling out of an airplane without a parachute or something fatal, people tend to get over and move beyond whatever bad thing happened to them. There's nothing supernatural about it. You're just asserting the existence of the super natural without any evidence!

Sorry for making you misunderstand me. I was saying that having [event unprobable] happening consistently 90% of the time is not blind luck. What if you rolled those same stats 10 times in a row? You would think that you found some bug right?

 

[JemyM]

He never said that complex structeure cant be broken down into smaller structure and they perform different functions. He was saying you cant break these complex structures like the bacterial flaggellum and perform the same function.

A completely meaningless comment.

An attribute evolved enough can be discovered to have other functions that can give new advantages, such as eyelashes.

An eye takes in visual input, but if you go back in time it's a fotoreceptor that converts light into energy, similar to what plants use.

Changes is completely blind and strive for no end or plan. The environment decide if an attribute has an advantage or disadvantage or neither. An attribute can thus change function when environment changes.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

A completely meaningless comment.

An attribute evolved enough can be discovered to have other functions that can give new advantages, such as eyelashes.

An eye takes in visual input, but if you go back in time it's a fotoreceptor that converts light into energy, similar to what plants use.

Changes is completely blind and strive for no end or plan. The environment decide if an attribute has an advantage or disadvantage or neither. An attribute can thus change function when environment changes.

I am struggling to comprehend what you are saying in regards to what i wrote. I was talking in terms of function if that helps not in terms of advantage or disadvantage.

 

[Rithrandil]

Sorry for making you misunderstand me. I was saying that having [event unprobable] happening consistently 90% of the time is not blind luck. What if you rolled those same stats 10 times in a row? You would think that you found some bug right?

If I did it in software, probably. If I did it in in person, I'd shrug and chalk it up to luck. I've rolled a twenty seven times in a row before.

 

[Rithrandil]

Have to agree with Jemy here. Also, Casey Luskin is a dishonest fraudulent jackass. He's a well-known creationist *and a lawyer*. He's not an evolutionary biologist, a biologist, or even a scientist!

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

If I did it in software, probably. If I did it in in person, I'd shrug and chalk it up to luck. I've rolled a twenty seven times in a row before.

I am unfamiliar with dice rolling is that you roll 3 dice and add 2?

Have to agree with Jemy here. Also, Casey Luskin is a dishonest fraudulent jackass. He's a well-known creationist *and a lawyer*. He's not an evolutionary biologist, a biologist, or even a scientist!

I didnt read his name. I dont ven know who Casey Luskin is. Still, is what he wrote true or not? All i know is the definition of "irreducible complexity". I see all the time misrepresentation of Micheal Behe's irreducible complexity.

Here is a link to his website where Behe responds ot his critics.

http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

 

[Rithrandil]

I am unfamiliar with dice rolling is that you roll 3 dice and add 2?

No, I'm talking about in D&D. I've rolled a 20 on a 20 sided die 7 times in a row before. It's highly improbable.

I didnt read his name. I dont ven know who Casey Luskin is. Still, is what he wrote true or not? All i know is the definition of "irreducible complexity". I see all the time misrepresentation of Micheal Behe's irreducible complexity.

Here is a link to his website where Behe responds ot his critics.

http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

This is why you need to investigate who says things that you quote and put forth, Damian. Behe and Luskin are not credible sources. Behe's ideas have been soundly defeated and rejected by mainstream scientists.

 

[dteowner]

Space and time are theoretical limits in logic, constructing a sentence that breaks the meaning of those words (outside space and time) is possible in language, but is a logical paradox.

Is it logical paradox that a fish doesn't understand flying, or just a lack of necessary experience? You're committing basically the same flaw that you're accusing the other side of committing by artificially creating boundaries. The only way such an argument holds up is if you presuppose that you know all, perceive all, and comprehend all such that you're somehow qualified to define universal boundaries of thought. I know you ivory tower types tend to get lost in your impressive stacks of books, but I don't think you're *that* far gone.

 

[Rithrandil]

My books are either in a bookcase or in a carefully arranged pile on the floor, thank you very much!

 

[JemyM]

You're committing basically the same flaw that you're accusing the other side of committing by artificially creating boundaries.

If I do, explain the boundaries I set up now.

The only way such an argument holds up is if you presuppose that you know all, perceive all, and comprehend all such that you're somehow qualified to define universal boundaries of thought.

Do you really know all the rules of chess?

Logic, like math, is a system that relies on itself according to it's own rules. The theoretical limits are set up by us, as a rule for that system.

When we apply Logic and Math to reality it may allow us to accurately predict future events, but we can as well make incorrect conclusions if we use it wrong. The "Bumble-Bee cannot fly" is an example of this. If you use aerodynamic calculations on a bumblebee you can accurately predict that it cannot fly, yet it can. The reason it can is because it have flight based on things that aerodynamic calculations aren't meant to calculate.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

No, I'm talking about in D&D. I've rolled a 20 on a 20 sided die 7 times in a row before. It's highly improbable.


This is why you need to investigate who says things that you quote and put forth, Damian. Behe and Luskin are not credible sources. Behe's ideas have been soundly defeated and rejected by mainstream scientists.

Can you give me an example of "soundly defeated"

 

[JemyM]

Can you give me an example of "soundly defeated"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPWZ7ASnhiE