God is a stack overflow?

[Max]

Does this make sense to anyone?

ekko84: It presents more questions than it answers
ekko84: For example
ekko84: What did the first thing evolve from?
ekko84: You work within a world that both posits the temporal impermanence of things and claims that everything has a cause and effect.
ekko84: That's self contradictory.
ekko84: To say that every effect has a cause, including the effect that first caused anything at all, is to exhaust your recursion stack.
ekko84: I say to you: STACK OVERFLOW!!!
ekko84: God is a stack overflow.

It was shoved into a conversation about him thinking evolution is compatible with ID.

[Max]

....ugh...

ekko84: I'll take a momentary break to work while yuo try to figure it out
ekko84: In the meantime, you might find the writings of Spinoza helpful.
ekko84: Talk soon
ekko84: Proove to me chance exists.
ekko84: You posited its existence, so prove to me that chance exists.
ekko84: Bring me chance on a plate.


Is this shifting the goal posts? All I did was assert that since he is claiming ID is just as logical as evolution, that he had to show evidence for a creator. That the burden of proof was on him.

[Max]

updating as I try to figure this out. I think his method is to bombard me with posts so I get bogged down.

ekko84: I'm thinking, maybe I don't believe in the supernatural.
ekko84: I'm thinking that everything is determinstic.
ekko84: You just like to believe in this "chance" thing because your head is too small to comprehend and analyze and realize the effects of nuclear reactions in the sun causing solar radiation that has intensely subtle, but deterministic, effects on the Earth.
ekko84: You posited the existence of chance. You have the burden of proof.

[Lord Zentei]

He is full of shit. Evolution does not require ID at all. In fact ID is intended as a replacement for evolution, as the proponents of ID claim that life is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved.

This is merely a reiteration of the First Cause argument, phrased in computer science terminology. Life evolved from protobionts; whether these protobionts emerged from abiogenesis or creation is irrelevant to biological evolution per se and even the latter case does not require ID. Taking chemical evolution into the mix as well, you get abiogenesis and transistion from nonliving to living forms.

The "all things have a cause" angle would presumably involve the Big Bang in the debate at some point, though the Big Bang does not have anything to do with either abiogenesis or evolution per se.

[Max]

...

ekko84: You can either a) admit I'm right right now, or b) somehow, miraculously persevere and discover true randomness and be the next Fields Medal winner, because mathematicians and computer scientists have been looking for it for years
ekko84: And yes, we DO in fact use solar radiation for a "random" entropy source in, inter alia, strong cryptography.


ok...so basically (sorry for the multiple posts) this comes from me saying that "one theory suggests that base components for life existed in the primordial soup, and through chance interactions with tides, and combined with the heavy geologic phenomena and lightning; induced the first amino-chains into being" after he asked where the first life form came from.

[Lord Zentei]

ekko84: Proove to me chance exists.
ekko84: You posited its existence, so prove to me that chance exists.
ekko84: Bring me chance on a plate.

Prove that the Intelligent Designer exists.

As for "proving that chance exists", he is not making sense... probability is defined as the ratio that outcome X will occour given repeated trials under identical conditions. Since outcomes can vary, for all intents and purposes, chance does exist.

[Lord Zentei]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, MAX!!

Will you quit posting multiple tiny posts continually. It's a fucking pain in the ass to have to respond to a post only to see several new ones with minimal content having emerged while I was typing. Are you talking with him simultaneously with posting here, or something?

[K. A. Pital]

Lord Zentei
Arrgh. You were first. I composed a post exactly like yours. This bullshit reiteration of First Cause argument is all too obvious, and he's trying to cover it up with some babble. Not to mention that it has jack shit to do with evolution, it's also a faulty-logic argument that postulates the Ultimate Cause and links it to God. Why this is done? The existence of the Universe is a better ultimate cause for all I know.

[Max]

Yes..sorry... I thought he stopped, and then while I tried researching it, he posted more....and I wasn't sure if he was just attempting to shift the goal posts instead of answering my questions.

Sorry

[Darth Wong]

This guy is not half as clever as he thinks he is. Asking for you to bring him "chance" on a plate is just stupid. It assumes that there is no such thing as randomness unless it can be made into a tangible object, even though it is defined as a lack of patterns and controls so it is an example of a universal negative which is only disproven in any particular case by proving the positive.

[Lord Zentei]

...

ekko84: You can either a) admit I'm right right now, or b) somehow, miraculously persevere and discover true randomness and be the next Fields Medal winner, because mathematicians and computer scientists have been looking for it for years
ekko84: And yes, we DO in fact use solar radiation for a "random" entropy source in, inter alia, strong cryptography.

What a moron. "True" randomness is not needed: all you need is effective randomness for any practical purpose.

[petesampras]

updating as I try to figure this out. I think his method is to bombard me with posts so I get bogged down.

ekko84: I'm thinking, maybe I don't believe in the supernatural.
ekko84: I'm thinking that everything is determinstic.
ekko84: You just like to believe in this "chance" thing because your head is too small to comprehend and analyze and realize the effects of nuclear reactions in the sun causing solar radiation that has intensely subtle, but deterministic, effects on the Earth.
ekko84: You posited the existence of chance. You have the burden of proof.

You can demonstrate need for chance with a simple example involving coin tosses or dice. Without a concept of chance you cannot model seemingly simple events such as these.

Even if we ignore the whole quantum stuff, you cannot model a great many events with a concept of chance. Unless he is claiming he can model the actions of every particle in a system accurately it is silly to talk about chance being made unnecessary by a deterministic view.

[Max]

I am just getting bombarded, and now he's saying he's NOT a proponant of ID...

ekko84: Their arguments are not "valid" arguments but neither are yours
mplsjocc: How aren't mine valid
ekko84: They simply aren't. They aren't deductive.
ekko84: You can't have a non-deductive argument that is deductively valid.
ekko84: Furthermore, Occam's razor itself is an inductive principle. It is not deductive, and any argument based on it cannot possibly be deductive, and therefore cannot possibly be valid.
mplsjocc: "they" being what?
ekko84: Any of your arguments or theirs concerning the existence or not of an intelligent designer
ekko84: A "valid" argument is one that absolutely, indisputably means you're right as long as all of the data you start with are right.
ekko84: A valid argument cannot be wrong if the data are good.

[petesampras]

updating as I try to figure this out. I think his method is to bombard me with posts so I get bogged down.

ekko84: I'm thinking, maybe I don't believe in the supernatural.
ekko84: I'm thinking that everything is determinstic.
ekko84: You just like to believe in this "chance" thing because your head is too small to comprehend and analyze and realize the effects of nuclear reactions in the sun causing solar radiation that has intensely subtle, but deterministic, effects on the Earth.
ekko84: You posited the existence of chance. You have the burden of proof.

You can demonstrate need for chance with a simple example involving coin tosses or dice. Without a concept of chance you cannot model seemingly simple events such as these.

Even if we ignore the whole quantum stuff, you cannot model a great many events with a concept of chance. Unless he is claiming he can model the actions of every particle in a system accurately it is silly to talk about chance being made unnecessary by a deterministic view.

should say - "without a concept of chance" - in second paragraph.

[petesampras]

I am just getting bombarded, and now he's saying he's NOT a proponant of ID...

ekko84: Their arguments are not "valid" arguments but neither are yours
mplsjocc: How aren't mine valid
ekko84: They simply aren't. They aren't deductive.
ekko84: You can't have a non-deductive argument that is deductively valid.
ekko84: Furthermore, Occam's razor itself is an inductive principle. It is not deductive, and any argument based on it cannot possibly be deductive, and therefore cannot possibly be valid.
mplsjocc: "they" being what?
ekko84: Any of your arguments or theirs concerning the existence or not of an intelligent designer
ekko84: A "valid" argument is one that absolutely, indisputably means you're right as long as all of the data you start with are right.
ekko84: A valid argument cannot be wrong if the data are good.

Ok, he's basically denying any argument that cannot be absolutely proved. No argument outside of formal systems of maths and logic allows this. Should be easy to show the absurdity of this position.

[Max]

ekko84: e.g., The cat runs away every time you stop your foot at it and you stomped my foot at it last night. Therefore, the cat must have run away.
ekko84: you stomped your foot*
ekko84: The second sentence cannot be wrong if the first sentence is true. That is a valid argument.
ekko84: I suggest you take a logical reasoning course.
ekko84: You really think you're something by spitting out "appeal to popularity" and "burden of proof" but you don't know when they apply.
ekko84: I think you would benefit from a few courses in critical thinking, and formal/symbolic logic.
ekko84: And yes, it was a restatement of first cause in comp sci terminology. sort of.
ekko84: i wasnt affirming first cause, merely pointing out that youre worldview necessitates the validity of the first cause argument
ekko84: Rather, the soundness. It's valid anyway.


I pretty much just stopped responding, because it went WAY off course of why ID isn't valid...

[Lord Zentei]

I am just getting bombarded, and now he's saying he's NOT a proponant of ID...

ekko84: Their arguments are not "valid" arguments but neither are yours
mplsjocc: How aren't mine valid
ekko84: They simply aren't. They aren't deductive.
ekko84: You can't have a non-deductive argument that is deductively valid.
ekko84: Furthermore, Occam's razor itself is an inductive principle. It is not deductive, and any argument based on it cannot possibly be deductive, and therefore cannot possibly be valid.

Bullshit. Occam's Razor is a means of selecting from among deductive arguments.

mplsjocc: "they" being what?
ekko84: Any of your arguments or theirs concerning the existence or not of an intelligent designer
ekko84: A "valid" argument is one that absolutely, indisputably means you're right as long as all of the data you start with are right.
ekko84: A valid argument cannot be wrong if the data are good.

Too bad that the data are NOT good for ID.

Also, see the impossibility of crafting a testable mechanism for ID in the "A Letter to the Editor" thread on this very forum.

[Lord Zentei]

ekko84: e.g., The cat runs away every time you stop your foot at it and you stomped my foot at it last night. Therefore, the cat must have run away.
ekko84: you stomped your foot*
ekko84: The second sentence cannot be wrong if the first sentence is true. That is a valid argument.
ekko84: I suggest you take a logical reasoning course.
ekko84: You really think you're something by spitting out "appeal to popularity" and "burden of proof" but you don't know when they apply.
ekko84: I think you would benefit from a few courses in critical thinking, and formal/symbolic logic.
ekko84: And yes, it was a restatement of first cause in comp sci terminology. sort of.
ekko84: i wasnt affirming first cause, merely pointing out that youre worldview necessitates the validity of the first cause argument
ekko84: Rather, the soundness. It's valid anyway.

Wow. Must be a college freshman all flushed with his first course on logical reasoning. Too bad teachers cannot boost actual intelligence. Though his examples of valid logical arguments are correct, this is nothing but dickwaving.

[Lord Zentei]

Wow. Must be a college freshman all flushed with his first course on logical reasoning. Too bad teachers cannot boost actual intelligence. Though his examples of valid logical arguments are correct, this is nothing but dickwaving.

IMOPRTANT GHETTO:

THE SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW DOES NOT VALIDATE THE SOUNDNESS OF THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT! NOR IS IT VALID!

I missed that little line at the end when I composed the previous post.

[Max]

ekko84: My food preferences aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they're incompatible with evolution.
ekko84: Your statement that being unscientific is incompatible with evolution is false.
ekko84: I can give any number of examples
ekko84: Over 6.5 billion people have subjective and unscientific food preferences. Since being unscientific is incompatible with evolution, and unscientific things exist, it is deductively valid and must be true that evolution is false.

[Lord Zentei]

ekko84: My food preferences aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they're incompatible with evolution.
ekko84: Your statement that being unscientific is incompatible with evolution is false.
ekko84: I can give any number of examples
ekko84: Over 6.5 billion people have subjective and unscientific food preferences. Since being unscientific is incompatible with evolution, and unscientific things exist, it is deductively valid and must be true that evolution is false.

WTF? What has food preference got to do with Evolution/ID? I thought the conversation had to do with the development of life?

This guy is just spouting sophistry.

[Max]

I don't know.. he's some 21 year old kid who got accepted to law school at harvard, so he thinks he knows EVERYTHING.

For example.

ekko84: And if you want to debate, you HAVE TO take a class on formal logic. I insist on it.
mplsjocc: I find that pleasently ironic, since you've had a few logical flaws in your rantings...so I'll just ignore that you said that..
ekko84: it's very obvious, reading over the conversation, that you either a) Intentionally put words in my mouth or b) Are even worse at reading comprehensino and logical reasoning than I imagined
ekko84: Which logical flaws?
mplsjocc: If I actually saved IM's... I'd tell you.
ekko84: There have been zero logical flaws.
mplsjocc: False.
ekko84: True.
mplsjocc: As long as you think so.
ekko84: There have been zero logical flaws in my argument.
mplsjocc: There were a couple.
ekko84: Like what?
mplsjocc: Why don't you bring the IM thread to a person who is an authority on the subject, and let them point them out. You'll just twist anything I may say.
ekko84: It's a straightforward argument Chris. I have two of them. 1a) Intelligent design does not imply the existence of God. 1b) God does not imply the existence of Intelligent Design. 1c) Since ~(G -> ID), ~(~ID -> ~G). 1d) Conclusion: the article, which infers from its claim that ~ID that ~G, contradicts sub-conclusion (c) and is therefore wrong.
ekko84: 2a) Evolution requires genetic recombination and only genetic recombination; any existence of genetic recombination is evolution. 2b) Genetic recombination presupposes the existence of genes and a process of recombining them. 2c) The existence of genes neither implies nor contradicts any particular explanation of the origin of genes. 2d) Intelligent Design in its less fundamentalist forms does not deny the existence of genes, nor does it deny that they can be recombined. 2e) Therefore, nothing in ID contradicts the existence of evolution; they are logically compatible.

[SirNitram]

Laughable. Whose the 'Designer', if not a deity?

[Lord Zentei]

OK, it's pretty annoying to have to conduct a debate by proxy - especially when I don't know what spawned the debate, or what the specifics of the topics are. These snipped bits of yours with new angles coming in from the left field but seemingly being based on previous exchanges are beginning to piss me off.

Moreover, he is right about one thing: you DO need to learn about formal logic if you mean to participate in debates like these in any other capacity than a courier between your opponent and whoever is browsing SLAM at the given time.

=====================

That idea that life on Earth was designed is not strictly speaking incompatible with evolution, assuming that the designer is himself of a species that evolved somewhere else. However, not only is there no evidence for this claim, but as long as one clings to it despite no evidence, one cannot produce a testable mechanism for ID; thus it remains unscientific. Anyway, claiming that the "less fundamentalist" versions of ID are not incompatible with evolution - the problem here is that if you accept a sufficiently vague definition, you can claim anything about ID. In this case we are dealing with shifting goalposts.

For while the claim that this broad version of ID does not imply God is strictly true for the above reasons, that is not what dr Behe had in mind when he crafted his bullshit: see the "Acolyte of dr Behe on the radio" thread on this very forum. In trying to explain life, he starts out with the postulate that life has a designer, and works from there. Moreover, such a postulate, if made universal, does not allow for the discovery of the origin of the designer himself - or of evolved life other than that of Earth and the designer - so in that incarnation it is indeed incompatible with evolution.

That God does not imply ID is true: see theistic evolution.

[Lord Zentei]

Laughable. Whose the 'Designer', if not a deity?

Indeed. Unless he is an alien primogenetor such as in drachefly's over-the-top apologism in the "Letter to the Editor" thread. Other than that, ID does require a diety de facto, even if you refuse to call him such.