Octopuses are Aliens

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-30-2015, 10:26 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's pretty much all i've been saying here. I too agree with scientific theories on the Universe but, instead of just not ruling out, i take it a step further and claim that the theories point toward design. 

The headaches come from those that keep trying to use the "science says it's this way, while creationist's say 'God did it'" argument that doesn't apply here.

You can't rule it out, any real atheist will agree with this.  The point isn't that there is definitely no god, the point is there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of one.  Going a step further, it's a huge leap to say that a divine creator exists to saying you know exactly what that creator wants from us; what kind of sex "he" wants us to have and in what positions, what kind of food we should eat, what kind of clothes we should wear, I could go on but I trust the point is made.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 12:55 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The headache is coming back again and i know it's from people not taking the time to read and comprehend a post, then thoughtfully construct their reply. The fact that people can't put aside "God did it" and focus on the statistical merits fore each argument and the likely-hood of each is starting to make me think it's a waste of time to even try and engage most around here.

I believe I did thoughtfully construct my reply.

You want to play it that way (the bolded part), then just what are the statistical probabilities of each....big bang vs intelligent design?

My reply was that there is not likely even a statistical probability for ID since it is not a naturally occurring explanation, and the probability of the big bang is based upon how likely it is for those chemicals to mix, etc. So if you have a low statistical probability of the big bang, coupled with evidence....it still is a better choice than ID which has a probability of zero (no statistics for it) and is also accompanied by zero evidence other than believers saying it is too complex to have not had a designer.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 10:26 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's pretty much all i've been saying here. I too agree with scientific theories on the Universe but, instead of just not ruling out, i take it a step further and claim that the theories point toward design.

But the theories in no way point towards ID. Richmond is just saying that the beginning of the universe may have happened like the big bang....but that a creator may have put those laws of nature into motion.

Thats very different than the ID position of a creator popping things into existence in their current form without change. And if you want to go a step further, you have been using the term ID wrong. when speaking of creationism and/or ID, those terms are applied specifically to how life is proceeding on Earth as an opposition to evolutionary theory. And they are also both not as flexible as you have been assuming. Neither creationism, nor ID allow for evolution even taking place. Both attribute man and nature solely to a supreme being.

You are following (maybe unintentionally) the same mistake most believers make....being so concerned with saying your way is correct that you don't even realize or care that you are explaining the scientific side all wrong. Constant mixing and misuse of scientific ideas and terms is part of the reason this debate is so muddled, and in my opinion still has legs. Other countries have put the evolution debate to bed as far as an educational topic. But the constant confusion created by the believers in this country (most often intentionally) leads to the less infored questioning the topic based upon false or incorrect info.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can't rule it out, any real atheist will agree with this.  The point isn't that there is definitely no god, the point is there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of one.  Going a step further, it's a huge leap to say that a divine creator exists to saying you know exactly what that creator wants from us; what kind of sex "he" wants us to have and in what positions, what kind of food we should eat, what kind of clothes we should wear, I could go on but I trust the point is made.

And i would agree that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God. I never have, nor would, disagree with this. 

Before answers were found, i would agree that there were a lot of believers that would simply say "God did it", and i can certainly agree with a non-believer that this answer would be annoying and unproductive. No doubt, many still fall back on this, to this day. Going back to my original point (post #87), the claim of ID is based on known quantities of things like the fundamental interactions. 

Two of the most, if not the most, influential thinkers of all time--Einstein and Newton-- both saw the order of the Universe. Newton was a believer in God, Einstein was a self-proclaimed agnostic (with a heavy lean towards Spinoza's Pantheism), but they both saw design or order in everything around us. 

That "order" is what i've attempted to discuss from the time i entered this thread. Though i have a personal belief, i'm preferring to strip it down and ask the question if it's possible that the order of the Universe is the result of a random act or if it was designed by "something".

I know that the field of Science is about the attempt to find the answers to why and how things work the way they do. I also know that unknown quantities, like God, are left out of the answer because...it/He can't be quantified. That leaves the question for laymen to ask if, by the answers given, is it possible that it was designed?

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 11:48 AM)Beaker Wrote: I believe I did thoughtfully construct my reply.

You want to play it that way (the bolded part), then just what are the statistical probabilities of each....big bang vs intelligent design?

My reply was that there is not likely even a statistical probability for ID since it is not a naturally occurring explanation, and the probability of the big bang is based upon how likely it is for those chemicals to mix, etc. So if you have a low statistical probability of the big bang, coupled with evidence....it still is a better choice than ID which has a probability of zero (no statistics for it) and is also accompanied by zero evidence other than believers saying it is too complex to have not had a designer.

Intelligent Design is not an answer that the field of Science is willing to use because it's not quantifiable. I get that. With that said, there are many things that have not been answered because they're not known yet. That doesn't mean they're not possible. That's where my belief lies (lays, not untruth). God hasn't been proven, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, so, does the structure of the Universe point towards the unknown of God instead of the unknown of a different answer. An unknown is...unknown, so the merits of each are equal until evidence is presented that makes it known.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 12:13 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Two of the most, if not the most, influential thinkers of all time--Einstein and Newton-- both saw the order of the Universe. Newton was a believer in God, Einstein was a self-proclaimed agnostic (with a heavy lean towards Spinoza's Pantheism), but they both saw design or order in everything around us. 

That's what scientists and mathematicians do. They make observations and look for possible explanations. If they can detect a recurring pattern or order to the way things happen, that helps lead them to the explanation. Logical thinkers are very linear and can see/find these patterns better than others. That is what makes them such great scientists. But finding order does not = finding design caused by another being.

Fractal geometry is now being investigated as the underlying pattern or order to all of nature from crystals, to the diameters of trees in a forest, to mountain ranges. If this is found to be true, it could be show than nature is not as overly complex as we are lead to believe. Nature simply follows a very basic pattern. Thermodynamics shows that all energy moves from order to chaos. But along the way to that disorder can be groupings of order. In other words, there can be pockets of order, as long as the overall scope eventually leads to disorder.

Both of these lead away from the idea of an intelligent design or a creator.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 12:23 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Intelligent Design is not an answer that the field of Science is willing to use because it's not quantifiable. I get that. With that said, there are many things that have not been answered because they're not known yet. That doesn't mean they're not possible. That's where my belief lies (lays, not untruth). God hasn't been proven, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, so, does the structure of the Universe point towards the unknown of God instead of the unknown of a different answer. An unknown is...unknown, so the merits of each are equal until evidence is presented that makes it known.

I have stated that I think there is something beyond our physical being. And the only thing preventing us from quantifying it may be our technology. We may find that evidence in the future. The creationist argument that science has to keep changing as it makes new discoveries as a way of trying to imply science is a guessing game is actually a strength of science. It modifies the paradigm as new evidence becomes available. Often times that new evidence arises with new technology. For example, we didn't know of cellular structure until the microscope came about as a new technology.

There is zero evidence for a god in the religious sense...a single, judgmental, sentient being. And I doubt there ever will be. Possible, yes, anything is possible. But extremely unlikely. That is why....since you brought up statistical probability...I asked you to put the statistical probability of the big bang theory side by side with the statistical probability of the existence of a god as portrayed by religion.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 12:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: But the theories in no way point towards ID. Richmond is just saying that the beginning of the universe may have happened like the big bang....but that a creator may have put those laws of nature into motion.

Thats very different than the ID position of a creator popping things into existence in their current form without change. And if you want to go a step further, you have been using the term ID wrong. when speaking of creationism and/or ID, those terms are applied specifically to how life is proceeding on Earth as an opposition to evolutionary theory. And they are also both not as flexible as you have been assuming. Neither creationism, nor ID allow for evolution even taking place. Both attribute man and nature solely to a supreme being.

You are following (maybe unintentionally) the same mistake most believers make....being so concerned with saying your way is correct that you don't even realize or care that you are explaining the scientific side all wrong. Constant mixing and misuse of scientific ideas and terms is part of the reason this debate is so muddled, and in my opinion still has legs. Other countries have put the evolution debate to bed as far as an educational topic. But the constant confusion created by the believers in this country (most often intentionally) leads to the less infored questioning the topic based upon false or incorrect info.

My personal beliefs aside, i don't disagree with the possibility of each. My contention is that it seems much less likely that it just randomly occurred. 

I wouldn't ascribe to the theory of a creator popping things into existence without change. That's easily disputable.

And i would also disagree with any rejection of evolution in some form.

Claims of my concern with saying my way is correct aside, things that have happened after the "bang" are, mostly, separate from what i'm saying. I'm talking about the building blocks of the Universe and how they came into existence, as specific as they are.

My claims of design are not out of line with many scientists throughout history. "Intelligent" design, the specific Christian God, sure. As stated before, God can't be quantified so He's not part of the equation, but design is. My basis for Intelligent Design is derived, and of course my opinion, based simply on the concept of design. 

Everything in the physical world comes from something. How the origins of that something came into existence hasn't been answered yet. But as i claimed earlier, the more things are answered, the more it points toward "some sort" of design. And that, of course, is nothing more than my personal opinion, though based on known quantities while adding in unknown. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 12:23 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's what scientists and mathematicians do. They make observations and look for possible explanations. If they can detect a recurring pattern or order to the way things happen, that helps lead them to the explanation. Logical thinkers are very linear and can see/find these patterns better than others. That is what makes them such great scientists. But finding order does not = finding design caused by another being.

And i'm not saying that is their job. I'm taking known factors and proposing a theoretical question for debate.


I probably came across too strong in the beginning and that's why we can't get away from the "God did it" angle. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 12:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have stated that I think there is something beyond our physical being. And the only thing preventing us from quantifying it may be our technology. We may find that evidence in the future. The creationist argument that science has to keep changing as it makes new discoveries as a way of trying to imply science is a guessing game is actually a strength of science. It modifies the paradigm as new evidence becomes available. Often times that new evidence arises with new technology. For example, we didn't know of cellular structure until the microscope came about as a new technology.

There is zero evidence for a god in the religious sense...a single, judgmental, sentient being. And I doubt there ever will be. Possible, yes, anything is possible. But extremely unlikely. That is why....since you brought up statistical probability...I asked you to put the statistical probability of the big bang theory side by side with the statistical probability of the existence of a god as portrayed by religion.

I couldn't put a statistical probability on something that's not quantifiable, but i know you know this. The statistical probability i referred to is between the Universe coming into being through a random process or by design. The improbability of random, based on the specific constants, leads to "design" or some other force, unknown. 

If i'm a believer, the claim of design based parameters is logical since there are no other known answers. Logical doesn't mean proof. It just follows based on belief and unexplained structure. 

Anything that followed the creation of the Universe, disputed by creationists with the argument "God did it" is not something i'm getting into with anything i've posted since my OP in this thread (even though i vehemently disagree with this argument). Not that i'm unwilling to do so, just, it's not a basis or part of what my original claim was.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 01:22 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The statistical probability i referred to is between the Universe coming into being through a random process or by design.

Then post those two probabilities side by side with a reputable source.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 02:40 PM)Beaker Wrote: Then post those two probabilities side by side with a reputable source.

It's not possible to post the two probabilities side by side. I only need to see the improbability of a random Universe, coupled with the appearance of design, coupled with my experiences in faith to come to my opinion.

http://www.harvardhouse.com/random_universes.htm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

[GMDino]

(08-30-2015, 04:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's not possible to post the two probabilities side by side. I only need to see the improbability of a random Universe, coupled with the appearance of design, coupled with my experiences in faith to come to my opinion.

http://www.harvardhouse.com/random_universes.htm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

Clearly not a preconceived opinion.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clearly not a preconceived opinion.  

I'm still waiting on some opposing evidence that would help change my mind.

[GMDino]

(08-30-2015, 05:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm still waiting on some opposing evidence that would help change my mind.

Why?

That would have to be something that would change your faith.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 05:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm still waiting on some opposing evidence that would help change my mind.

(08-30-2015, 06:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?

That would have to be something that would change your faith.

Or you could just deflect when you don't have anything.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 06:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?

That would have to be something that would change your faith.

For the sake of argument; i'm 49 years old. If there was proof of the origin of the Universe and it proved the concept of God was impossible, why would i spend what years i have left believing in it?

[GMDino]

(08-30-2015, 06:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: For the sake of argument; i'm 49 years old. If there was proof of the origin of the Universe and it proved the concept of God was impossible, why would i spend what years i have left believing in it?

Impossible.  Because everything new that is discovered that adds to what we know will lead you to believe that since it is so orderly something (god) must have designed it.

There will never be proof of a negative (no god).

Your faith won't permit you to believe anything else.  And that's all well and dandy.  Just quit pretending you are open minded about it.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 04:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's not possible to post the two probabilities side by side. I only need to see the improbability of a random Universe, coupled with the appearance of design, coupled with my experiences in faith to come to my opinion.

http://www.harvardhouse.com/random_universes.htm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

And what you aren't considering when believers call it "random" is that any probability statistic that they assign to it cannot be accurate. This is because all factors are not know, nor are they considered in any probability statistic. Newer discoveries such as dark matter and dark energy are yet to be fully comprehended. Thus, when a believer says you cannot comprehend the scope of god, I counter with you cannot comprehend the scope of nature. Once things like dark matter and dark energy are better understood, it could show that the formation of the universe was not random at all, but follows very established laws (patterns) of nature. So your whole argument about scientists won't consider the remote probability of total randomness is moot. It is not considered because the formation is not considered totally random to begin with as believers want to put forth.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 06:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Impossible.  Because everything new that is discovered that adds to what we know will lead you to believe that since it is so orderly something (god) must have designed it.

There will never be proof of a negative (no god).

Your faith won't permit you to believe anything else.  And that's all well and dandy.  Just quit pretending you are open minded about it.

lol. Such hubris. "must" "wont" "pretending". 

I didn't become a Christian until i was 20 years old. Before that, i had an awareness of God, same as anyone else. Events in my life, for a time, lead me to go away from 'being/acting like a Christian should'. 

So, i guess you're right. I'm so indoctrinated that nothing could change my mind.  

Just admit you have nothing, already. 

P.S. My theory has proven conclusive. Given two options, you choose the low hanging fruit that doesn't cause you to have to explain yourself.