Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[MrBaggins]

based on Jehovah in this case

[loinburger]

Give me a demiurge over a Jehovah any day of the week.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
From us, of course.

Scientific theories are just our attempts to explain things in this universe. "Theory of Everything" (another name for the yet to be derived Grand Unifed Theory) is no exception. What it seeks to do is to present a coherent explanation of the four known basic forces in this universe.

Now what does that have anything to do with an infinite, personal being?

I'm sorry, but I can't let you get away with that one.

Science does not create the physical laws. We only create descriptions of them. When I said the "theory of everything" I obviously do not mean the paper in which the idea is first published, but the physical laws which are manifest.

These laws cannot by definition be explained away. The very best you can do is to state that there is some physical principle (probably a symmetry) out of which all the laws are natural consequencies. But you will not be able to say why this principle holds (without resorting to another principle).

Science only seeks to describe the universe in terms of laws and principles which hold universally. It does not attempt to ask 'why?' (and nor should it).

Incidentally, the "Theory of Everything" is not the same thing as a "Grand Unified Theory".


Since you can never disprove the existence of God with science you should stop trying. A much better argument for the existence of God in my opinion in mataphysical.

What distinguishes us as sentient intelligent beings? What, other than degree of complexity, distinguishes us from a chair? Are we just a collection of atoms whose motion are governed by the laws of physics and thereby set in stone (apart from unpredictable and uncontrollable quantum fluctuations). Do we have free will? If so, where does it come from, because there is certainly no place for it in physics?

Why is it wrong to murder someone else? If they are just an arrangement of atoms, then murder is just rearranging atoms, which doesn't seem too bad. Is it the destruction of complexity that we object to? If so, why is complexity 'good'? Any argument of philosophy which relies on the arguement of 'it is good for society' falls apart when we ask 'why should preservation or well being of a society be important if it is all just so many interacting atoms?'

I have yet to see a good explanation of a morality which we should continue to follow without the existence of God.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
*snip*
What distinguishes us as sentient intelligent beings? What, other than degree of complexity, distinguishes us from a chair? Are we just a collection of atoms whose motion are governed by the laws of physics and thereby set in stone (apart from unpredictable and uncontrollable quantum fluctuations). Do we have free will? If so, where does it come from, because there is certainly no place for it in physics?
*snip*

what about neurons? all the brain and its related processing ability amounts to is an absurdly complex interrelation of neurons, where pathways are strengthened and weakened to produce neural input, storage, comparison and reasoning.

Humans are just started on working on a few slug neurons at a time...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
what about neurons? all the brain and its related processing ability amounts to is an absurdly complex interrelation of neurons, where pathways are strengthened and weakened to produce neural input, storage, comparison and reasoning.

Humans are just started on working on a few slug neurons at a time...

I don't see that difference neurons make.

It is just another level of complexity, but can be explained by the application of the laws of physics. Why should complexity imply humanity or sentience?

[MrBaggins]

human made devices are limited in their ability to reason, because they are limited in complexity. Given a complex enough human produced learning algorithm a computer could interact with the universe just as well as any other sentient being.

The proof that neurons make sentience isn't in our ability to understand how, but to understand how their absence affects sentience. When you remove certain portions of the brain, you remove certain attributes, such as visual input, visual recognition, creativity, long term memory, short term memory and so on. If you remove the same part of the brain on different people, you will get the same consequent result.

[Rogan Josh]

So why, MrBaggins, do you adhere to any morality? If you believe that we are sentient only by virtue of our complexity, do you object to destroying complexity? If so, why? What is 'wrong' with rearranging these neurons?

Indeed, how would you define any 'right' or 'wrong' in this way?

[MrBaggins]

Interestingly, if you removed all short and long term memory capacity, then a human would cease to be able to reason or have knowledge of true self-awareness, hence sentience. They would however, die in short order because they would not 'remember' to breathe. An effect that can be duplicated by some narcotics, I once read.

[MrBaggins]

'Right' and 'wrong' are just knowledge concepts based on reasoning formulated by groups of sentient beings ultimately for the survival of the whole. A self built natural selection defense.

Furthermore

'Morality' can be seen in non-sentient nature... like not all mothers eating young, just because they are edible.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Science does not create the physical laws. We only create descriptions of them. When I said the "theory of everything" I obviously do not mean the paper in which the idea is first published, but the physical laws which are manifest.

He did NOT say that science creates physical laws. He said it explains them.

These laws cannot by definition be explained away. The very best you can do is to state that there is some physical principle (probably a symmetry) out of which all the laws are natural consequencies.

No one is trying to explain things away except perhaps the creationists. Certainly not the other side. Science trys to explain things not explain them away. That is what christian apologetics are for. Its a rather large industry on the net explaining away the errors in the Bible.

It does not attempt to ask 'why?' (and nor should it).

Actually it does occasionaly ask why. Profound answers are sometimes found that way. Such as why is it that the speed of light is the same for moving observer as a stationary observer.

It just cann't always answer the why. That doesn't meen it shouldn't try.

Since you can never disprove the existence of God with science you should stop trying. A much better argument for the existence of God in my opinion in mataphysical.

No one on this thread has claimed or tried to disprove the existence of god. Not a general god anyway. There is no proof in the realm of the metaphysical. Insight maybe but not proof. By definition the metaphysical is what is not physical. Its darn hard to prove anything about anything that can't be tested.

What distinguishes us as sentient intelligent beings? What, other than degree of complexity, distinguishes us from a chair?

Not much really. Its the complexity that gives us movement and intelligence. Of course a chair is made and we grow but if you had picked a life form instead of a manufactured object this question would have made a lot more sense.

Are we just a collection of atoms whose motion are governed by the laws of physics and thereby set in stone (apart from unpredictable and uncontrollable quantum fluctuations)

Yes. And that parenthetical part helps answer the next question.

Do we have free will? If so, where does it come from, because there is certainly no place for it in physics?

But you just showed where it comes from. We do have it. Nothing is fixed because of Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So we are not fixed at birth. We can and do make choices based on what we think.

You can take a christian to Quantum Mechanics but you can't make him understand what it means I guess.

If we lived in a purely Newtonian Universe and there was no such thing as non-linear equations then you would have a point. In that case nothing would have free will even if there was a god. Only uncertainty and chaos can give us free will.

I pointed this out to a friend who had gone Creationist and he started claiming that the Devil was controlling me. He knew I was right you see. He had too many classes in physics to deny what I had said. You can't have free will with a god that controlls every sub-atomic particle as he was insisting.

We had gotten tired of his acting as if god was giving him good die rolls in D&D or that bad rolls were from something he had done wrong.

Why is it wrong to murder someone else? If they are just an arrangement of atoms, then murder is just rearranging atoms, which doesn't seem too bad.

Well then I guess it would be OK by you if I just tracked you down and did you in. No? Could it be that humans are social animals? Could it be that humans that prey on other humans tend to get dead first? Why yes it could.

You don't have to be a christian or religous in anyway to understand that morals are litterly a matter of life and death. In fact Atheists and Agnostics (at least in the US) are demonstrably more moral than christians. This can be seen in prison statistics.

The Golden Rule is not something that is impossibe for humans to think of. We don't need a god to tell us that we should treat others as we want to be treated. It rubbish to claim otherwise.

Any argument of philosophy which relies on the arguement of 'it is good for society' falls apart when we ask 'why should preservation or well being of a society be important if it is all just so many interacting atoms?'

Any arguement that has decended to level of pretending that humans are monster without a god fell apart allready. Society has nothing to do with it. Self-interest does. Interest directly in yourself and in your offspring and relatives. We are people as well as interacting atoms. We need each other for survival. Those that forget that get dead.


I have yet to see a good explanation of a morality which we should continue to follow without the existence of God.[/QUOTE]

Then you think you are imoral. I am not. I am not religious. I seriously doubt that there is a god. I do not a need a god to tell me what the Golden Rule is. Its christians that go to jail mostly not unbelievers. Check the prison records if you don't believe me. I have checked. I will post it if you aren't competent to do it yourself.

Yeah I get irked when someone implies that I am imoral for not being a christian and that is the inevitable conclusion from you are saying. Dig out the data yourself. Try and prove me wrong. You won't be able to do it with US data anyway.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Rogan:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So why, MrBaggins, do you adhere to any morality? If you believe that we are sentient only by virtue of our complexity, do you object to destroying complexity? If so, why? What is 'wrong' with rearranging these neurons?

Indeed, how would you define any 'right' or 'wrong' in this way?

How does the involvement of a deity "add meaning" to life?

Ultimately, if there is a god, and if murder is against God's rules: why is this fundamentally any different from murder being against society's rules? A deity might be more efficient at detecting transgressions, but does this mean that in a godless "Big Brother" society with cameras everywhere, murder is just as "wrong" as one with an omniscient deity instead?

Apart from purely pragmatic reasons (fear of detection and punishment), why is "destruction of God's sentient playthings" inherently more immoral than "destruction of the sentient products of naturalistic evolution"?

I don't see that the addition of a deity changes the morality of murder.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred


He did NOT say that science creates physical laws. He said it explains them.

Go back and read it. I asked where do physical laws come from and he answered "From us, of course.".

No one is trying to explain things away except perhaps the creationists. Certainly not the other side. Science trys to explain things not explain them away. That is what christian apologetics are for. Its a rather large industry on the net explaining away the errors in the Bible.

Oh come now, that is like saying the physics papers published on the web each day are trying to explain away the errors in our theories of the universe.

Actually it does occasionaly ask why. Profound answers are sometimes found that way. Such as why is it that the speed of light is the same for moving observer as a stationary observer.

It just cann't always answer the why. That doesn't meen it shouldn't try.

You can always ask, but science never answers the question of why without resorting to some other principle which also can be asked 'why?'. For your example, the scientific answer is Special Relativity, but that just shifts the question to 'why special relativity?'. You will always have at least one 'why?' left at the end of it all, no matter how successfull science is.

No one on this thread has claimed or tried to disprove the existence of god. Not a general god anyway. There is no proof in the realm of the metaphysical. Insight maybe but not proof. By definition the metaphysical is what is not physical. Its darn hard to prove anything about anything that can't be tested.

Forgive me, but that is what I thought you were trying to do. What are you trying to do then?

But you just showed where it comes from. We do have it. Nothing is fixed because of Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So we are not fixed at birth. We can and do make choices based on what we think.

Do you really believe that your sentience comes down to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Wow - you have more faith than I thought.

You can take a christian to Quantum Mechanics but you can't make him understand what it means I guess.

Do you understand QM? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all about the mechanism of wavefunction collapse.

If we lived in a purely Newtonian Universe and there was no such thing as non-linear equations then you would have a point. In that case nothing would have free will even if there was a god. Only uncertainty and chaos can give us free will.

Non-linear equations have nothing to do with it. Chaotic systems are still predictable - it is just very hard to do. I am certainly not ready to believe that my free will comes from Quantum mechanics - a subject which no-one properly understands

I pointed this out to a friend who had gone Creationist and he started claiming that the Devil was controlling me. He knew I was right you see. He had too many classes in physics to deny what I had said. You can't have free will with a god that controlls every sub-atomic particle as he was insisting.

I would say it was the other way round - you can't have free will without a God. Or to paraphrase your statement: You can't have free will with physical laws (as we currently understand them) that control every sub-atomic particle.

Well then I guess it would be OK by you if I just tracked you down and did you in. No? Could it be that humans are social animals? Could it be that humans that prey on other humans tend to get dead first? Why yes it could.

That doesn't hold water. You are arguing that murder is always disadvantageous to the society or the individual (aren't you?). This is not true. Assume a circumstance where you could murder a fellow human being who has no impact on the world - say for example someone you found on a desert island who had been shipwrecked years ago and long forgotten - who has something advantageous to you - say a priceless object from the ship which washed up on the beach with him. You could kill him without anyone ever finding out and profit from it. Neither you nor society loses out from his murder. Is it still wrong? Of course it is.

In fact Atheists and Agnostics (at least in the US) are demonstrably more moral than christians. This can be seen in prison statistics.

I don't believe this for one second.

We are people as well as interacting atoms.

Why? What makes us more?

I will post it if you aren't competent to do it yourself.

I seriously doubt that you are competent enough to make a rational examination of these statistics.

Dig out the data yourself. Try and prove me wrong. You won't be able to do it with US data anyway.

Since you are the one who is making this claim, perhaps you should prove something first before I 'try and prove you wrong'

Yeah I get irked when someone implies that I am imoral for not being a christian and that is the inevitable conclusion from you are saying. Dig out the data yourself. Try and prove me wrong. You won't be able to do it with US data anyway.

I did not say that you were immoral. I did not imply it either - I instead implied that if there is no God, then your morality os merely a genetic artifact left in your DNA by the needs of evolution. It has no basis in rational thought and your 'beliefs' in what is right or wrong are all illusions.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Go back and read it. I asked where do physical laws come from and he answered "From us, of course.".

No you didn't, at least it wasn't what he was answering anyway.

Your actual question. The one that he was answering.

You have to explain where the 'Theory of Everything' came from.

Obviosly theories come from humans. So does confusion about which questions are asked and answered.

Oh come now, that is like saying the physics papers published on the web each day are trying to explain away the errors in our theories of the universe.

No one in science explains away errors. They fix them. There aren't supposed to be any errors in the Bible which is why its called apologetics. Snowjobs would be more honest.

You can always ask, but science never answers the question of why without resorting to some other principle which also can be asked 'why?'.

Same for saying god did it. It answers nothing it merely evades a real answer since it ignores why god exists.

For your example, the scientific answer is Special Relativity, but that just shifts the question to 'why special relativity?'. You will always have at least one 'why?' left at the end of it all, no matter how successfull science is.

You will always have one evasion. Why does god exist?

Forgive me, but that is what I thought you were trying to do. What are you trying to do then?

Jehovah is not all gods. In fact if you look at the thread title you will see what I entered the thread for. Jehovah is merely a imaginary bystander. He got in the way via creationist insisting Jehovah did it.

Evolution is a real and well proven aspect of life. The Bible is the only reason for claiming otherwise. It simply fell out of that. If the Bible is the word of god then it must be accurate or the god is either uncaring or a liar or non-existant. Non-existant seems the most likely. That god is Jehovah. No other gods need apply nor was anyother possible god covered by my statement that Jehovah does not exist.

Do you really believe that your sentience comes down to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Wow - you have more faith than I thought.

Can you read? You sure are having a terrible time understanding what the question is and the answer.

The question was about FREE WILL not SENTIENCE. You have less understanding than I had hoped. You don't even remember your own bloody questions. Thats twice in one post.

Sure is funny how some believers can't even quote right. Not even themselves sometimes.

Do you understand QM? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all about the mechanism of wavefunction collapse.

Perhaps you would care to do the Feynman diagram for us?

When you figure out the mechanics of wave function collapse you can apply for your Nobel. You have made it clear allready you don't even understand your own questions though so I guess the rest of us will have to wait for a different genius.

Non-linear equations have nothing to do with it. Chaotic systems are still predictable - it is just very hard to do.

They aren't predictable. You have to run the numbers to get the results and the results change if you change the precision of the numbers. The best that can be managed is an approximation.

I am certainly not ready to believe that my free will comes from Quantum mechanics - a subject which no-one properly understands

It doesn't come from magic which is what you are claiming. There is nothing supernatural. Perhaps you don't have free will and there is only an illusion of it.

Why do you think you have free will? I don't mean how do you have it. I mean how do you know you have such a thing?

You don't know of course. Unless Uncertaintity is the cause.

You aren't ready to believe a lot things that are true from what I can see. Anything that shows the Bible wrong for instance.

I would say it was the other way round - you can't have free will without a God. Or to paraphrase your statement: You can't have free will with physical laws (as we currently understand them) that control every sub-atomic particle.

That is not what we understand though. Physical laws do NOT controll every sub-atomic particle. That is Newtonian physics and the Mechanical Universe. We live in a Quantum Mechanical Universe and that is proven. The computers we are typing on function at least in part on Quantum Mehcanical principles and there are allready actual primitive Quantum computers in the first stages of development in the labs.

Again it is the Uncertaintity Principle that shows the Universe is not riding on fixed rails. Even Jehovah would have to allow for uncertaintity to also allow free will.

That doesn't hold water. You are arguing that murder is always disadvantageous to the society or the individual (aren't you?).

No. I never said that. There are no absolutes in morals or human behaviour. Since that is so there is no need for absolute advantage for a moral principle to arise.

Then again murder IS always disadvantageous for someone. There wouldn't be anyone dead otherwise. You wouldn't want it done to you so you shouldn't do it to others. Thats the Golden Rule and no god is needed to understand it.

This is not true. Assume a circumstance where you could murder a fellow human being who has no impact on the world - say for example someone you found on a desert island who had been shipwrecked years ago and long forgotten - who has something advantageous to you - say a priceless object from the ship which washed up on the beach with him. You could kill him without anyone ever finding out and profit from it. Neither you nor society loses out from his murder. Is it still wrong? Of course it is.

Of course it is by the Golden Rule. There is no god needed to understand it. Why is this so difficult for you? You just invented a nice imaginary experiment that still fits the rule. Act towards others as you would have them act towards you. That is the basis of all human morals. Even the ones we invent dealing with the hypothetical god. Of course I can't say much the thinking of the inventors of the idea of worshiping a god. Why would I want millions of worshippers? Especially if I never showed myself.

2000 years without showing yourself is a long time.

Unless you are counting Oral Roberts seeing an 800 foot Jesus that threatened to kill him if he didn't get enough money from the gullible flock.

Oh another thing I noticed as I am checking this over.

Evolution is does not function on a single murder by one person on an island. This is not the normal human condition. We live in groups and normally people notice these things. Not only that there is one tribe where the murderers do quite well in the Amazon. Unlike most other groups the murderers have more offspring than the non-killers. Morals are not exactly high there.

I don't believe this for one second.

Dealing with reality is not your strong suit. Look it up. You won't believe me if I do it for you. Go to Google and do a search. It doesn't take long. You will have to settle for state statistics and only from the states that have checked.

Post the results of your search. US state prisons. I will check your results. I have noticed you have a problem with reporting accurately things you don't like.

Why? What makes us more?

The level of complexity. A few interacting atoms are not very complex in comparison to however many trillion that we have.

I seriously doubt that you are competent enough to make a rational examination of these statistics.

Well then why didn't you check. Fear of finding the truth I suppose.

[QUOTE]
Since you are the one who is making this claim, perhaps you should prove something first before I 'try and prove you wrong' [QUOTE]

After you said I wasn't fit to do it you should have done so yourself. Smilly faces are no substitute for reason or evidence.

You have made it clear you don't trust me. Check yourself. You won't believe it even when you see it I suppose but the exposure to reality may have some residual effect.

I did not say that you were immoral. I did not imply it either

Your disbelief that the prisons would have fewer atheists and agnostics than the general population show this is not true. You clearly expect there to be more not less.

Nevertheless what I said holds true. You may not have been aware of what you said meant. I didn't really think you did know it which is why I said it the way I did.

- I instead implied that if there is no God, then your morality os merely a genetic artifact left in your DNA by the needs of evolution. It has no basis in rational thought and your 'beliefs' in what is right or wrong are all illusions.

Genetic or philosophic it still needs no god. My beliefs are not illusions. They may be based on illusions occasionally but since morals are in my head the cause is irellevant to their reality.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I have yet to see a good explanation of a morality which we should continue to follow without the existence of God.

I'd attempt to provide such an explanation, but I know from experience that it would just jack this thread beyond recovery.

But, let me ask you this: why do you behave morally? How does your presupposition that God exists cause you to behave in a moral fashion? If it were somehow proven to you that God does not exist, does this mean that you would no longer behave morally?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
No other gods need apply nor was anyother possible god covered by my statement that Jehovah does not exist.

The problem is that you are asserting that this is fact without a shred of evidence. Hardly credible....

The question was about FREE WILL not SENTIENCE. You have less understanding than I had hoped. You don't even remember your own bloody questions.

temper temper! Are you asserting that one can be sentient without free will or have free will without being sentient?

Perhaps you would care to do the Feynman diagram for us?

If only you new....

When you figure out the mechanics of wave function collapse you can apply for your Nobel. You have made it clear allready you don't even understand your own questions though so I guess the rest of us will have to wait for a different genius.

Believe me, you do not want to start a pissing contest. We have had enough of your **** already.

Seriously though, have you ever studied any physics?

They aren't predictable. You have to run the numbers to get the results and the results change if you change the precision of the numbers. The best that can be managed is an approximation.

The only limitation is that one cannot have infinite precision in a computer (ie transendental numbers). But one can predict up to any accuracy one desires.

That is not what we understand though. Physical laws do NOT controll every sub-atomic particle. That is Newtonian physics and the Mechanical Universe. We live in a Quantum Mechanical Universe and that is proven. The computers we are typing on function at least in part on Quantum Mehcanical principles and there are allready actual primitive Quantum computers in the first stages of development in the labs.

Oh rubbish. Quantum field theories are still predictive. The fields all obey field equations, and are nicely behaved, perfectly under the control of the physical laws.

Then again murder IS always disadvantageous for someone. There wouldn't be anyone dead otherwise. You wouldn't want it done to you so you shouldn't do it to others. Thats the Golden Rule and no god is needed to understand it.

Are you high priest of this 'Golden Rule' then?

Of course it is by the Golden Rule!

I can almost hear the thunder

Well then why didn't you check. Fear of finding the truth I suppose.

I didn't check because it is completely irrelevant what the statistics say. There have been plenty of bad people in the world who claimed to be christians, just like any other segment of society.

My beliefs are not illusions. They may be based on illusions occasionally but since morals are in my head the cause is irellevant to their reality.

Well, it certainly seems that most of what goes on in your head is irrelevant to reality.....

[MrBaggins]

Just out of curiousity, Rogan do you have any response to:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Interestingly, if you removed all short and long term memory capacity, then a human would cease to be able to reason or have knowledge of true self-awareness, hence sentience. They would however, die in short order because they would not 'remember' to breathe. An effect that can be duplicated by some narcotics, I once read.

and

Originally posted by MrBaggins
'Right' and 'wrong' are just knowledge concepts based on reasoning formulated by groups of sentient beings ultimately for the survival of the whole. A self built natural selection defense.

Furthermore

'Morality' can be seen in non-sentient nature... like not all mothers eating young, just because they are edible.

If sentience and freewill can be cut out of a human with a knife, doesn't that imply that they are simple physical attributes?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
If sentience and freewill can be cut out of a human with a knife, doesn't that imply that they are simple physical attributes?

Yes, I think that makes sense, but it is by no means clear. there are certainly parts of our body which we cannot do without, at present levels of technology. But then again, if 100 years ago you had removed someone's heart they would die as surely. I am sure you would not support the idea that our free-will originates from there.

I don't pretend to have any answers about where free will comes from, and I don't know how it works.

Indeed, I think it consistent to believe that there is no outside influence and our sense of self is coming entirely from very complex interactions in our brain, but I do not believe that this mechanism could lead to 'free will' because the movements of the particles in our brain would be determined entirely by the laws of physics (irrespective of what our nursery grade amateur physicist would have you believe). In this context, with no free will, there can be no morality, other than as an artificial mechanism designed to futher the procreation of the human species.

I am not willing to believe this, because I think I am (and you are) more than this. There needs to be some other explanation. Now, whether that explanation comes from some bizarre new phenomena we do not yet know of or from God, I cannot say, but I think believe the latter to be more likely. I am not going to replace that conviction with a theory which we do not yet have.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The problem is that you are asserting that this is fact without a shred of evidence. Hardly credible....

Like you would know what credible is.

You are right I don't have a shred. I have tons. Megatons. The Bible is wrong on many things. Thats my proof.

temper temper! Are you asserting that one can be sentient without free will or have free will without being sentient?

Its irrelevant. It wasn't the question and YOU were the one that asked.

If only you new....

If only you could remember the questions you asked you wouldn't be down to using smileys instead of reason or facts.

Believe me, you do not want to start a pissing contest. We have had enough of your **** already.

You mean you don't like losing. I am never bothered by a pissing contest. I don't lose them.

Speak for yourself. YOU have had enough of me telling the truth.

Seriously though, have you ever studied any physics?

Apparently more than you but I could of course be wrong. You may just be one of those people that learns without understanding.

The only limitation is that one cannot have infinite precision in a computer (ie transendental numbers). But one can predict up to any accuracy one desires.

Increase the accuracy and you get a different result. Increase it some more and it is different yet and it will not tend towards a limit.

That is chaos.

Oh rubbish. Quantum field theories are still predictive. The fields all obey field equations, and are nicely behaved, perfectly under the control of the physical laws.

Yet you still don't know both the velocity and position of an electron at the same time. Or any other paired property. That is is not perfectly controlled in the sense you are using.

Are you sure you took a physics class?

Are you high priest of this 'Golden Rule' then?

Are you the high priest of smileys instead of proof?

I can almost hear the thunder

You do have delusions there is no denying that.

I didn't check because it is completely irrelevant what the statistics say. There have been plenty of bad people in the world who claimed to be christians, just like any other segment of society.

You didn't check because you don't want to know. You are much happier in ignorance.

Well, it certainly seems that most of what goes on in your head is irrelevant to reality.....

Yes this is typical. Insults instead of evidence. Very typical.

Lets see you have

Not one bit of evidence to support a single thing you said.

You have no skill at vitriol and depend on graphics that other people created.

You have not disproven a thing I said.

Very good its par for the course. Go off on a tangent and hope no one notices.

The Bible is wrong so there is no reason at all to believe in your god. It is sad that anyone would be so desperate to retain their ignorance like you are doing but their it is. Creationism is damaging to the brain apparently.

[loinburger]

Ethelred: Rogan's got a Ph.D in physics, IIRC.

[MrBaggins]

Rogan>

Now to elaborate on the principal; I was being very course in the neural areas that I was discussing...

What if I cut out everything except that which is necessary for breathing and heart beat, and use artificial nutrition. Or examine a patient with identical symptoms induced by trauma...

Does that being have free-will. Can they form strategies? No

Yet they are alive.

Incidentally... Quantum theory, including quantum field theory has (through quantum computing implementation) as much proof as it is possible to get, or there abouts. A Los Alamos employee calculated that if printed, the proof through implementation of QM & QFT effects in QC calculations would fill the known universe.

Thats a lot of evidence. Awfully hard to debunk proof of law like that...


Also, your arguments all seem to tend to rely towards your prefering one explanation... that there is a god. Thats just arbitrary. It might be nice to think that we are special beings on a rock in the middle of no where, but that is far from explanation.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ethelred: Rogan's got a Ph.D in physics, IIRC.

Thats fine. He should learn to use it. If true he knows better.

Our thinking is as dependent on electrons as a computer and the parts are smaller making the results less certain.

He thinks he has free will yet cannot explain it. He even evaded my question of how does he know he has free will. Yet he insists he has it.

I think he has lost his balance in his anger towards me.

[SlowwHand]

"At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them."


Because you pick a topic that is unwinnable by either Scientists or Creationists.
You're either of faith or you're not. Who wants to waste time?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them."


Because you pick a topic that is unwinnable by either Scientists or Creationists.
You're either of faith or you're not. Who wants to waste time?

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

The scientists cannot disprove Santa, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis, and if that stands... then the scientists 'win'.

Of course, creationists can always say that Santa did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven. The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

You evolutionists are pathetic.

Number one i didnt leave because you prooved anything to me. Rather i left because your all nit pickers who judge a persons intelligence on grammer and spelling. Come on cut a guy some slack. There are plenty of smart people who dont have perfect grammer and spelling like all you 250 iq genious scientists who have access to labratories and a mountain of information. LOL

I didnt respond to your "Facts" or "theory's" because I already know them. Believing them is denile. Evolution is a Fairy tail.

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

The Creationists cannot prove that God exists, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis, and if that stands... then the creationists 'win'.

Of course, Evolutionists can always say that mathmatically impossible odds of chance did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven that something was created from nothing. The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.


Creationists follow Science too, just not the false "theorys"

[Draco aka Se7eN]

OH and dont worry, Evolution wont be around much longer, it shouldnt be more than 15 years till it is finnaly disproved. Ofcourse there will still be evolutionists

[Spiffor]

I was not sure of anythin until I read some creationist literature on the web.
It was so ridiculous I supposed it was caricatural... doesn't seem so though.
Since I read some creationism, I'm sure it is utterly absurd. To consider biblical bigotry as a valid basis for secular science, while even the pope acknowledges the Bible is metaphorical ! Ludicrous.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
You evolutionists are pathetic.

A cunning argument, and one that shall take me all of 1.5 seconds to discount as meaningless! I salute you, sir!

Number one i didnt leave because you prooved anything to me.

Of course not, you are obtuse. It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything to you.

Rather i left because your all nit pickers who judge a persons intelligence on grammer and spelling.

Say that to Ethelred, who is not Apolyton's premiere speller or gammaticist, yet who is not dismissed from debates (typically) as a result. You were dismissed because us "nitpickers" demanded things like evidence or justification which you were incapable of providing.

Come on cut a guy some slack.

Seeing as how your ignorant troll has spawned several intermediate debates, I'd say that you were cut all of the slack that you deserved and then some.

LOL

LOL! Another cunning argument, and one which is again useless like your previous cunning argument, you ignorant troll.

I didnt respond to your "Facts" or "theory's" because I already know them.

Obviously not, Mr. "I've read 22 physics books yet still don't understand the meaning of E = MC^2."

Believing them is denile. Evolution is a Fairy tail.

You are full of cunning arguments tonight. Fortunately for me, you have come lacking in evidence once again, so your "cunning arguments" amount to nothing more than "lies."

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

One side has baseless assertions (or, in your case, "lies"). The other side has empirical evidence.

The Creationists cannot prove that God exists, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis

Oh, you mean "valid," as in "based on the irrational presupposition that there is a God"? If you're prone to believing in fairy tales, or if you want easy answers to life's most fundamental questions, then yes, I suppose these baseless presuppositions could be called "valid." If, on the other hand, you are more prone to skepticism, or rather "not believing every damn lie that is fed to you," then I would hardly call these hypotheses "valid."

and if that stands... then the creationists 'win'.

What a shallow victory indeed. "We are correct because we assert that it is so, and are so goddamn stubborn that we will not even consider any opposing argument! We win!"

Of course, Evolutionists can always say that mathmatically impossible odds of chance did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven that something was created from nothing.

Prove to me that God exists. If you cannot, then shut the hell up.

The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.

See my last statement.

Creationists follow Science too, just not the false "theorys"

Rather, they follow "assumptions based on absolutely no evidence." What wonderful science you preach, Draco.

[MrBaggins]

Draco aka Se7en is just evolution at work. Sadly, society has support structures that mean that less effective beings still survive

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
OH and dont worry, Evolution wont be around much longer, it shouldnt be more than 15 years till it is finnaly disproved. Ofcourse there will still be evolutionists

There are still Creationists, after all, and the evidence has been mounting against them for centuries!

Your nebulous claims to proof are always comical, Draco. At least, they're comical the first few times around. They grow mighty tiresome after six pages of your ignorant trolling...

If you feel that you have something to contribute, then by all means, please do so! If you just want to spam the Off-Topic forum with your asinine comments, then please be courteous and go back to the Civ III forum where trolls are better received (or rather, not recognized until it is too late), because here, a troll is a troll is a troll regardless of how obtuse the troller may be.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
What if I cut out everything except that which is necessary for breathing and heart beat, and use artificial nutrition. Or examine a patient with identical symptoms induced by trauma...

Does that being have free-will. Can they form strategies? No

Yet they are alive.

I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. Obviously there must be a physical dependence on brain function to have higher thinking ability. You can see this by just going down the pub and having a drink - you don't need brain surgery. But dependence on one component to function does not imply that the component is the entire mechanism.

Incidentally... Quantum theory, including quantum field theory has (through quantum computing implementation) as much proof as it is possible to get, or there abouts. A Los Alamos employee calculated that if printed, the proof through implementation of QM & QFT effects in QC calculations would fill the known universe.

With minor technical caveats which are far too geeky even for this thread, I have no problem with QFT (although QM itself of course is just a toy model of the real thing). Indeed I use it everyday in my work. QFT at no point, however, even makes mention of the idea of free-will. The idea that Quantum mechanics leads to free-will has absolutely no proof what-so-ever.

And yes, I do have a PhD in physics - in fact I work as a theoretical particle physicist, so I am the one who is supposed to come up with these theories of how the universe works. Currently I have been working on some supersymmetric theories and worrying about solving the problems with axions in the early universe. That was why I laughed at Ethel's Feynman diagram comment - I actually have the distinction of having calculated the hardest one-loop Feynman diagram system ever calculated (it took me about 2 years....). So I am sick of the bloody things. (I make a point of saying one-loop since harder two-loop diagrams have now been calculated.)

Also, your arguments all seem to tend to rely towards your prefering one explanation

If you look at the particle physics theories which people come up with to explain the universe, they also favour one explanation for multiple effects whenever possible. Of course, I am not saying that God is a scientific explanation, but I do think there are some questions which science will never be able to answer. I think the origins of free-will is one of them.