₦airaland Forum

skepticism and evidence...

Happy birthday Johnny!

unphilaz:
@devian

another question, though from the other thread but will be necessary in this thread as well, which atheist group do you fall into
INTELLIGENT CONSCIOUSNESS/INFINITE INTELLIGENCE OR INANIMATE EXISTENCE? . Please kindly oblige to state your position as you answer the above question. thanks

Those categories of atheism are non-existent...

unphilaz:
good attempt... is your above explanation water tight and fail-safe in our material universe?
Secondly, must what our human mind be able to comprehend as basis for all our trust?

It's not an "explanation" it's a fact, unless you know of anything negating how creation from nothing isn't just a baseless concept...

And your second question is vague, rewrite it plainly and if you can, specify what you mean exactly.

unphilaz:
what is nothingness? what is pure nothingness? then how can you factor time from nothing?

Nothingness is a concept that has no basis in the material universe,for it is a term that is often used for quite the opposite..the further you try to reduce anything in the material universe to "nothing" , the more you realise material phenomena cannot be taken out of it at all..

That is the reason philosophy and our human minds treat "creation ex materia" (creation from something) with more trust than "creation ex nihilo" ( creation from nothing)..

unphilaz:
not mine yes... but this is a open public forum where we express our opinion openly... so which is which? BIG BANG OR NOTHING?

unphilaz,

Was there ever a time of complete nothingness?

Reminds me of the time my mother claimed she was getting attacked by bright glowing witches,I noted her symptoms and found out she just had ocular migraines, medication and diet fixed it...

Ignorance fueled by superstition is what drives these claims, we often seek less complicated explanations to things... witches and wizards served as an initial basis to give life to inanimate ailments and afflictions..

Merry Xmas everyone,I quickly logged in to have a few laughs at the idiocy that has become the religious section of nairaland thanks to some believers and non-believers..
unphillaz, a simple question for you... was/is there such a thing as "purely nothing" anywhere or at any point in time?... or has anyone ever claimed that the universe emerged from purely nothing?

Note : Physicists like Lawrence Krauss, and Stephen hawking use the term "nothing" for low levels of radiation, a vacuum and quantum fluctuations as these are the lowest forms of anything the material universe can be reduced to(hence the term)

They urged him to stop drinking,yet they got him 4 cartons of beer!?

vooks:
I want to talk about ABIOGENESIS or chemical evolution.
This is the belief that elements formed compounds which formed life all by themselves.
I wish to touch on the probability of this happening naturally

As all may have noticed, whenever the probability of natural origins are pointed out, the antitheists deflect because the facts are embarrassingly against them.

Some simple maths
The probability of a tossed coin landing on tails is 1/2 or 0.5
The probability of two tossed coins landing on tails is (1/2)*2 or (0.5)^2
The probability of three tossed coins landing on tails simultaneously is (1/2)*3 or (0.5)^3
The probability of one hundred tossed coins landing on tails simultaneously is (1/2)^100 or (0.5)^100 or roughly 10^-30

Nothing like basic math in the morning to work up the old brain...

Sadly only the above math and postulates are sound,below is nothing more than a childish misapplication of mathematics..and this is why

The impossibility of ABIOGENESIS
The building blocks of life is amino acids. Amino acids combine to form proteins
There is something called chirality which is all about symmetry. Amino acids only combine if they are homochiral or like-handed, either right or left handed.
In fact, all proteins found in living things are made up of left-handed amino acids!
Let's take a simple protein made up of one hundred amino acids. What is the probability of these acids being left handed? Exactly 10^-30

Note, the smallest/shortest known protein has 20 amino acids whereas the smallest/shortest in humans has 234 amino acids

Remember forming the 100 amino acids would not form life, they'd still need to form RNA and DNA. These are more complex and homochirality equally applies to them.

Further, the 'simplest' known self-replicating organism requires at least 370 proteins!

Assuming the 'simplest' known self-replicating organism requires just 100 amino acid chains. What is the probability of these forming assuming each need 100 amino acids? 10^-(100*30) or 10^-3000 or 0.5^9966 or probability of 9,966 coins flipped landing tails!

To put this into context, recall it is estimated there are 10^80 atoms in the ENTIRE universe

I need a mathematician to correct me if I stray
We are told the universe is 15 billion years young and it has 10^80 atoms.
Supposing every atom in the universe flips a set of 9,966 coins a billion times per second for 15 billion years. How many sets of 9,966 coins would have been flipped by now?

10^80 * 15 * 10^9 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 10^9 =10^107

Now mr davien and plaetton, what is the probability of forming our 100 amino acids above given 10^107 attempts?
It is 10^-3000 * 10^107 or 10^ 3,893

This means even if ALL the 100 billion galaxies in the universe 'attempted' to make the simplest organism naturally, there is no chance in hell of them getting nowhere in 15 billion years!

Once again, mathematics knocks down naturalism, EVILution and panspermia.

For this, Prometheus is as believable as Ice Age my all time favorite animation

I'll summarize your shortcomings with these two points so that you can understand this again...

#1 You as usual ignored the fact that probabilities don't have a say on events that have already occurred no matter the figures arrived at,an example would be for you to calculate the odds of being born at the exact instant that you were to be 10^2000,now would that disprove your birth?....

#2 Garbage in-garbage out,plotting values and trying to select for an extremely specific instance would always yield astronomical results(especially when you don't know what you're doing).
Lets say a boy flips a coin 10 times and gets 10 heads,1/2 * 10 and repeats this every 6 hours ( 6 * 3600 = 21600 sec ) ,now what would we get once we threw in specific unnecessary or unwarranted figures like the probability of each individual atom in the thumb partaking in the coin toss and other things like what hand he used and how many fingers he had and the length of each one? Wouldn't we arrive at a finger so improbable that to a layman it would seem as though hands shouldn't exist atall?(lol)

Toyolad:
Kind as in from one class of animal to another. Evolutionism tells us that animals evolved and still do evolve from being one kind of animal to another kind just like the explanation given for the evolution of apes to man.. My confusion now is that, I've not seen any proof that backs up the claim that there is in fact change in KIND,admittedly there are changes in FORM of animals ranging from the development of adaptive features to change in physical and genetic make-up et al....I've not seen d proof of a fish that evolved in the past to become a reptilia animal and but I've seen d proof of a fish that developed adaptive features...get my d subject of my confusion.

Are you talking about evolution in science or the straw-man term called evolutionism invented by creationist?

I'll try to explain your shortcomings this way... humans are apes, apes are mammals, mammals are chordates, chordates have red blood cells, red blood cells are eukaryotic... so on and so forth..

The trend you see is that the ancestral organism and the following progeny would still fall under the same category,if enough changes accumulate or a bottleneck situation is encountered it can serve as a driving point for entirely new species...

These new species would still inherit critical remnants of their ancestors,an example is the plethora of ancient ape DNA we have and how the 2nd chromosomes in humans was a fusion site of two ape chromosomes..

Mozambique:
The golden rule sounds more like a moral principle. But karma? Methink it goes beyond mere natural occurence.

You do know the general idea of the "golden rule" predates christianity right?

Toyolad:
Pls can someone prove that there are changes in kind and not just changes in form in evolution. I'm confused and willing to learn.

Are you referring to "kinds" as a classification scheme?

Didn't Jesus claim his disciples would be alive in the second coming? Or have Christians downplayed and quietly ignored that as usual,just like anything that contradicts their belief is either antagonized or ignored..

Mozambique:
No. Karma says a kid who rapes will surely be raped. No two ways about.

Nope, just bad actions lay seed to bad repercussions.. . the repercussions of rape may be a paper cut or being murdered in another life.. the concept does not recognize reaping the same thing...and then again the kid getting raped is according to karma deserving of that effect due to some action he/she might have done in a past or current life.

But one thing that is clear is that the concept is non-existent in the real world, nor does it even have a reason that would justify it in the first place(beyond human emotions that is)

Rixy007:
newtons law states that... to all action there's always an equal and opposite reaction..
you believe it or not karma is real nd it hits us all

You have a kindergarten idea of karma... karma is simply reaping everything you do and experience in life, of your actions in this life, your past lives and your life to come...be it good or bad.

So in respect to karma, if a kid got raped... he/she deserved it...and the rapist may get the fruits of that action also, be it good or bad.. .

Karma is not a justice system as many Nigerians fail to understand, it's simply a "what you see is what you get" concept which is unsound and another non-existent concept bundled to account for the injustice in the world.

"Different schools of Indologists derive different definitions for the karma concept from ancient Indian texts; their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, that is good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth.

Other Indologists include in the definition of karma theory as that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to his or her actions in past. These actions may be those in a person's current life, or, in some schools of Indian traditions, possibly actions in their past lives; furthermore, the consequences may result in current life, or a person's future lives.

The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.



furthermore, the consequences may result in current life, or a person's future lives."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

vooks:
Thank you davien, you are almost there.
#1 I was explaining fine tuning for a layman. I did not stop at 'designed' but 'designed for life'. By deliberately ignoring that , you quote me out of context for your devious reasons. Wikipedia can give you a better definition of fine tuning. Go there if you are ready for that.

Leaving out the intent of a proposed design doesn't change much, but I'll take your terms either-way...
Now the claim is everything(the universe) is designed for life, let's examine and give the critical analysis of our universe in regard to life as we know it(earth life)

#1 The universe is mostly empty space, riddled with life threatening radiation...

#2 The space that is not empty is occupied by millions and millions of celestial bodies like planets, moons, suns, asteroids, etc which converge along supermassive blackholes to form galaxies....

#3 Among all known galaxies,only one is known that harbours life,the milky way.... the life in the milky way is harbored by only one solar system,and on only planet...

#4 On this planet that supports life, 2/3 of it is inhospitable to life...

#5 Of the regions that are hospitable, the requirements for survival like water, more precisely freshwater are only 2.5% while salt water is 97.5%

This is quite disappointing for a universe that's "designed for life"..

#2. This is partly true.

Completely, not partly

Like I said, you need not know all artificial processes are capable of to identify design, you can arrive at the same conclusion by understanding the LIMITS of a natural process.

Nobody knows the limits of natural processes, it would be foolhardy to say so being the astounding track-record of how we keep finding natural processes that redefine previous beliefs.. .

What we do instead is look for ways that an object could have developed naturally or if it is indicative of artificial origins... if evidence and experimentation doesn't swing one way over the other then the object is unknown.. it would be an argument from ignorance to swing one way "a priori" before investigating..

Take the Subaru, you damn well know there is not a chance in hell of random magma and rocks ordering such a beau as a WRX.

Nobody is claiming a WRX is made from magma,and this is the problem I keep pointing out.... you keep listing already known human designed objects then later on try to equivocate it to things which aren't known to be designed...

This is sufficient to conclude the machine as designed by intelligence without any knowledge of manufacturing. Had I for instance instead of the writing made a pentagram or a perfect square with a circle inside it, you'd have arrived at the same conclusion seeing you know too well the waves can't do that.

And how we know well about that is because we know how ocean waves operate, and how water shapes the shores...so it'll be dumb to say ocean waves make pentagrams when evidence doesn't support it, but instead shows otherwise...

In short, you employ elimination to be left with intelligence. You simply say, ' chance can't possibly do this, so there MUST have been some intelligence behind it'

Good, so can you give me an extract of all the possible undesigned universes(for life) that you crossed out?

#3. I used them to explain my sandy beach writing. I could have left it blank and aksd you for your interpretation. The point is, we can tell limits of chance when we see complexity

Really?
And what is the limit of complexity itself for designed objects and undesigned ones?

Is there a yardstick for designed complexity? or is complexity an argument from ignorance where because one doesn't know how a thing acquired it's component parts to become functional it is assumed to be a design?

#4. Am not equating them sir, it was an analogy. The simplest cell is a gazillion times more complex than writing on a beach or a WRX. Point is if such simple items scram design, how much more the overly complex and highly ordered living organisms!

Sorry but analogies compare two similar objects to each other, not equate them together based on those properties... the equivocation you've done is based on you mistaking the fact that writing, WRX and the likes are well-known human designed objects and then comparing their sophistication to living organisms which aren't known to be designed and thus needs evidence for that to be justified or at least an understanding of what a non-designed organism would be like

#5. Very true but there is complexity that defies the 'natural systems tend to become complex'. At this point, a relevant example would suffice. You may also want to define complexity and distinguish it from complicated.

I believe that would fall on you, since you're using the term as a basis for design.

vooks:
You are not coherent
Rephrase your question

I'll sum it up for you then...
1. You choose to ignore a basis for your original claim I. e "everything in the universe is designed"

2. How one knows artificially designed objects is due to the fact that there is evidence supporting it being produced by non-natural intelligences...

3. Words like "painting, writing, etc" that you often use to ask questions about design already infer design from the very definition...

4. You cannot then equate items that are already known to be designed(like paintings) to things which aren't(like the cell)

5. Words like "complex" do not give reason for design as natural systems also tend to become complex irrespective of any detectable intelligence...

vooks:
I have seen your moniker peeping about, it's good to know you have discovered your voice after an extended leave. Hoping you are well my broda.


I just wrote this on a sandy beach. Supposing you came across it and you never saw me writing it, what criteria would you use to conclude it was intelligence behind it and not some random waves?

I really need to laugh out loud here, for someone who claims design in everything, but yet can't answer up on his own premise...

First of all, writing is by definition(there can't be a writing without a writer) indicative of a writer... and as far as evidence goes human intelligences dwarf any other phenomenon be it animate or inanimate that would be assumed...

But for someone with your original premise, there is no distinction between words and ocean waves(since everything is designed) and I still want to know the criteria you base that on..

Funny how the criteria for determining intelligently designed systems is not given but largely ignored as the assumption itself is all that is needed...

Falcon01 considering what you wrote in your opening post,what do you honestly expect?

Religious people go about in Nigeria singing hymns and chanting praises to their god/gods in the open arena of the society,they plant loudspeakers on houses, buses, and any equipment they can find just to increase the range their preaching gets...

If or when you confront the religious about the negative nature of their careless preaching,they'll start claiming their beliefs are "personal" .... so why are "personal" beliefs bombarding the air waves and being chanted into the ears of others who aren't interested and who are busy going about their real lives? Hypocritical is what that is...

Now after 24/7 chanting,you expect everyone to keep quite and not even start critically analyzing the so-called "good news" that's been booming around?!

*Note: Nobody owes you any answer to the origin of anything, if you have the capability to surf nairaland, then you should be able to Google search and read up on the claims, hypotheses and theories science provides

kevoh:
Davien, you scarce these days ooo! Hope all is fine sha?

All is fine oh,thanks for the concern... I just have a lot to do offline nowadays.

The endless search for meaning and justification for humanities deeds has led to this "end times" fever dream...

Mindfulness:
No, he is not inclined toward atheism and none of your quotes proves that he was inclined towards atheism. Al you can deduce from your posts is that he wasn't religious and that he didn't believe in a personal God. That doesn't mean that he didn't believe in God at all.

This is what he said about atheism:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.


Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

How can you say the universe obeys laws when naturalistic laws are merely cause and effect patterns that are not always applicable and not entirely universal?

The Sims 4,cool future tech, aliens, home-based rocketships, etc.. .

johnydon22:
Oh Jesus not this many years old hoax again... **Face palm** why am i starting to feel that there is a close relationship between religion and outright insanity..

lol, From giant goliath skeleton hoax to this

AnnieOakley:
We're in agreement on this.

All truth is God's truth, someone once said. Science and God are not in conflict and never will be. The problem is with us humans.

Are you a creationist?

Pidggin:
Blasphemy!

Did you enjoy the joke?

ifeness:
Really? Yahweh has a preferred sexual position?

Obviously, who'd you think got mary pregnant?

KingEbukasBlog:
Difference of 0.8 billion years - 800 million years , 8 million centuries , 8 hundred thousand millennia , 250 billion days - evidently can't be seen/viewed as "immediately "

As compared to 4.5 billion years of age, it is.. learn to understand relative figures.