Perry the nanobots story is more interesting
Article: The Atheist's Dilemma
by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
Perry
Skeptics have all been debunked. It is genuine. There are human foot prints all over that area in "70 million" year old rock.
Repeat after me s l o w l y.
C o g n i t i v e D i s s o n a n c e
-
Caedes
There is nothing wrong with my English comprehension, but claiming in your hypothetical scenario that some scientists would say that something was just a theory shows that you do not understand the scientific meaning of the word. Do you now accept that even hypothetical scientists would not refer to something as just a theory?
Look, first you claim I said something, which I did not. I put it in the mouths of the characters in my story. Now you say I put it in the mouths of the scientists in my story, which I did not. If you look carefully I put it in the mouths of the 'believers' in my story. It's time to admit you're barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.
Another quote from you
Even if scientists insist that this technology can all be explained by applying Darwinian principles?
Perhaps you would like to admit I was correct in my comprehension of what you wrote?
So if you are now saying the characters in your hypothetical scenario who believe that artificial creatures can spontaneously appear on the moon are not scientists and don't understand science? I guess you can see where I am going with your new line of thinking.
How on earth is admitting that we do not know for certain, wriggling? The only assumption I would make is that life and the origins of life are the result of entirely natural processes.
Good. So you accept that you have made the assumption that life began spontaneously. A hypothesis for which you have no evidence.
No, re-read what I actually said. We do not know how abiogenesis occured because we have no empirical evidence.
Since you cannot prove that abiogenesis is impossible then the question is rather a moot point.
Likewise, you cannot prove that abiogenesis is possible. It is a matter of faith to you that it happened.
We know it happened because we are here, the mechanism is what we don't know.
On the Behe thing, I can only suggest you read his latest, The Edge of Evolution.
Without a peer review I'll pass.
Incidently while going back to find your quote I re-read some of your posts, I am curious, what sort of engineer does not think metallurgical analysis of a robot would give an indication of manufacturing method?
-
Caedes
Perry,
Since you believe in that perhaps I could interest you in a piece of the true cross? (postal discount available for multiple orders)
-
Spook
But this is not the issue at hand, since we agreed (I thought) that natural selection applies to nanotechnological life as well as organic life. The issue at hand is spontaneous generation of life, and in both cases (organic and inorganic origin) that is a hypothetical entity.
I came late to this debate and have since challenged some of the basic concepts of life vs. nonlife. Again, I reiterate, there is organic life, period. Non-organic machines with artificial intelligence are hypothetically alive only in the philosophical sense, not the biological one. I would also recommend you explore the idea that the generation of life is not proposed to be spontaneous in the case of the earth. All theories taken seriously posit causes and long spans of time. So I think that is a red herring as well.
You don't have to jump through these hoops. This ground has been well traveled. We have "natural" and "designed" corn, along with many other vegetables, plants and some genetically altered animals. Now, if you can tell me precisely how you would tell the difference between a genetic strand which was "designed" (by humans) vs. one which was "natural" (not changed directly by humans) we'll really be going somewhere.
Irrational to believe in a designer, but rational to believe in spontaneous generation? Lol, there's no other profession where it would be regarded as irrational to infer a designer on examining something that has apparently been designed. So, your position is that it would be irrational to believe in alien intelligence should we find advanced lifelike nanotechnology on the moon, so long as we have alternative hypotheses as to their origin.
There is some small evidence that fits the latter in a non-circular way. I personally don't find it very comprehensive or well developed. The former idea, however, cannot even be phrased in a logically coherent manner and is infinitely improbable as such. There are many professions where it would be irrational to infer agency (i.e. design) when no such agency can be confirmed. Law, for example has great precedencts for establishing agency. Medicine struggles endlessly to understand the tenuous boundary between the biological/genetics roots and the active impact of the environment. A great many blunders of history are due to the human tendancy to anticipate active agency where none exists.
Probably best not, since a virus does not fit your definition of life. But you seem to be saying that a 'synthetic machine' could be 'alive'? So the only difference between my nanobots and life is if they can be nominated as synthetic?
Viruses don't fit many peoples definition of life, I didn't make this up - or the definition of life, for that matter. I say don't go there because I'm willing to bet nobody on this board is an academic virologist, and the science behind it is quite complex. I return to the original contention - this "identifying design" can be done only by comparison or analogy to objects of known design vs. objects of known naturality. You are unfortunately in a position where this hypothetical entity is either so life-like that it is clearly an organic extraterestrial life-form in and of itself OR so obviously a non-living mechanical entity that the question is entirely useless.
But I'll set that aside:
If synthetic life is logically possible, then it is also logically possible that all synthetic life forms would share a common ancestor. It is furthermore logically possible that this ancestor be a simple synthetic-life-like entity with different causal sources than its descendants. If it were extraterestrial life, then it is evidence in and of itself of extraterestrial life, and no extraterestrial designer need be "invented" to explain it. If it is clearly a machine/artifact, then it is obviously designed, but is non-living. We could extrapolate based on analogies to earth because we know civilizations leave artifacts and there are many well traveled ways of evaluating such artificats.
-
PrimateDave
lol! I didn't realize this thread was still alive.
Guys (and gals), there is no winning this argument!
Fortunately for us atheists, there is no divine retribution for our point of view.
Let the believers imagine their alien nanobots and 70 million year old human foot prints. ;)
Dave
-
Damocles
Hi Barefoot,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Its start of garden time here and I am busy outside.
You asked me the following questions:
What about the incredible fine-tuning of the universe and the amazing series of coincidences that make life, not only possible, but extremely pleasant? Do you regard this sort of 'evidence' as admissable? If not, what would you regard as admissable evidence for a designer? Have you read Michael Behe's challenges to evolutionary theory?
I am familiar with Prof Behe and his ideas but am not persuaded.
Probability is a difficult subject for most of us and its hard to wrap our minds around the way it works. Simple cause and effect is much more intuitive for us. The latest bank crisis is another testament to my mind of the struggles we humans have with probability. It certainly is hard for me and I struggle with the subject.
I think its useful to think of coincidences and probabilities from a personal perspective. What is the probability of my existence? On the one hand, I could view it as an absolutely incredible series of chance occurences going all the way back to early man - or Adam if you will. On that I would peg my probability of existence at near zero. Even given my parents being together, there was one egg and one sperm that combined to make me. Against maybe 300 eggs versus many billions of sperm. If I did the math, then my existence is nothing short of miraculous. That's one perspective and I could conclude that there must have been intent to my existence. (It IS all about me after all LOL)
Now what is the probability that someone like me would exist given that my parents got together with each other or even someone else. Likely in the 80% range since most people who married in the 50's had children. Certainly, there was intent but not for me specifically.
So what is the true probability of my existence? near zero or 80%...... Its 100%. I do exist.
Its a fundamental premise of probability that anything that occurred has a probability of one. We like to do experiments with dice or colored balls to try and get some help in predicting future events and that's the reason we look backward. Still, if the event occured its probability is now 1.
So the probability that the world is the way it is ... is 1. What is the probability that it would turn out this particular way looking forward from some arbitrary point in the past - very hard to predict but likely small given all the chance occurences. What is the probability it would turn out some what close to this world? Pretty high. Consequently, I don't think that arguments from coincidences are persuavsive.
To your main point though, what test or evidence might convince me of the existence of a designer?
First, I'd have to be convinced that its worth my time to test the subject. If there is a designer of you and me, what prevents him or her from introducing themselves. 'Hello, I am the first Cause and I made you.' That would be nice along with a little proof of the claim. If he or she is not interested in introducing themselves then I assume that they have a good reason or that there is no first cause.
Barring that, I would have to test that this is the best of all possible worlds. There's lots of talk of good design, lets get to the bad ones. Knees are a good, painful example of an atrocious design. What about the 98% or so of species that are currently extinct? Why do I live 80 years and my pets 10 or at most 20? What's with the cancer thing? First it helps us grow from 1 cell to billions, then it runs amok and kills us. Where's the sense in that? Why is one of my most sensitive organs (my testicles) outside the safety of my body? I have rued that design choice many a time. Finally, I think I know just a little bit about raising kids, not much but a little...just in time to never do it again. To summarize, the designer would have to explain all the flubs, not just the successes.
Its not so much that I am against the idea of a First Cause, a Designer. I just really don't know and while I am curious about beginnings, I'm skeptical that I will ever know much about it. But my not knowing doesn't have much of a down side and I live a happy and productive live without that knowledge.
The god of the bible is a whole other matter. He clearly is bogus. But I take it we are talking mostly about deism not christianity or some other religion.
Regards
Damocles
-
drwtsn32
They have dozens of artifacts that, if ANY are genuine; then the whole atheist paradigmn collapses.
That's sorta like saying: "There are thousands upon thousands of UFO reports and abductions. They can't all be wrong!"
Yes, they can.
-
Caedes
lol! I didn't realize this thread was still alive.
Guys (and gals), there is no winning this argument!
But flogging dead horses is so much fun!