27-04-2004 03:55									#211
	Tired of ads?

The extent of our human ignorance is large. We do not know many things, phenomena in our Universe. Scientists and philosofers are probably one of the closest people to the truth, if we were to try to quantify it. Also one can also say that wisdom is not the same as scientific knowledge.
Definition of supernatural should be used with care though. supernatual may be also to many people something which is right to physics law, but occuring once every million years. Well..., someone after 80 years of living might conclude that something is supernatural because he/she sees it for the first time when being 81. Keeping a mind open is important, I think. The basis of science is to reveal previously covered things, to be ready to find something never seen before. I find it ironic that often people of science can be closed for a possibility of existence of God.

	27-04-2004 04:00									#212
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by mart7x5 The point is that God did not have to create our universe. Stating that because existence of God adds nothing to the equation proves that God does not exist is illogical for me. In the same manner I could say for example that existance of ... let's say Antarctica is unnecessary for me. I have never been there. All pictures I saw from there might be nothing more but a manipulation. Does it prove that Antarctica does not exist?

Uh uh, I didn't say it proved God did not exist. Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything. It does two things.

One, if the Razor cuts something out, it's because that object has no affect on the equation, i.e. the universe, and thus means nothing to the universe. If Occam's Razor says that God is not necessary for evolution or physics, then I will not take God into account when considering either of these things. Even if God does exist, it doesn't matter to me because God has no effect on my life.

Secondly, Occam's Razor forces you to point out how God is an integral part of evolution or physics. If you can show that, then the discussion begins anew. Until that point, however, there is no reason to even speculate upon God's existence, because it is of no consequence to our existence.

	27-04-2004 04:09									#213
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael ... God has no effect on my life. ...

For that you need to be sure that your life (your consciousness) ends with death of your biological body. I haven't yet seen such proof. Is my consciousness a bunch of electrons in my brain cells? Science determined that they are responsible for my body functioning, but is this the same as consciousness?

	27-04-2004 04:16									#214
	Remove this text

The burden of proof is on you, though. There is no reason to think that consciousness continues after death, so no proof is needed to ascertain this.

However, you have proposed this idea, so you must provide proof that it is so. You must show why things are different than what is seen.

And you cannot do this by invoking God's name, because you are attempting to show that God exists. Circular reasoning will not be accepted.

	27-04-2004 04:27									#215
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It's being open:

quote: There is no reason to think that consciousness continues after death

there is no reason also to think that consciousness does not continue after death.

For one person a glass is half empty, another person will say that this very same glass is half full. They both describe the same thing in different ways. Similarly here you cannot really proof any of theese two:

consciousnes dies with body
consciousnes does not die with body

my approach is: both are then possible

	27-04-2004 04:33									#216
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by mart7x5 there is no reason also to think that consciousness does not continue after death.

There certainly is. Consciousness is a product of the brain. When the brain is dead, it's reasonable to assume that consciousness is not continuing. In fact, it's a pretty simple, logical conclusion.

That's not to say it's proven that consciousness does not continue after death, only that everything we know of human physiology suggests otherwise, so it's a reasonable assumption that this is the case.

	27-04-2004 04:39									#217
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Consciousness is a product of the brain.

And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

	27-04-2004 04:49									#218
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by mart7x5 And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

We went over this in a previous thread about abortion.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness. Those "previous people" weren't relying on any scientific anatomy. It's been well established for hundreds of years now that the brain is the center of human consciousness. Perhaps, if you have some dramatic evidence that would overturn modern medical thought, you should present it.

Frankly, I get very tired of the "well, people in the stone age used to think X was true, but now we think Y is true, but we could be wrong like the people who believed X" argument. It's a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it that ignores the vast differences in the available information and techniques between then and now.

	27-04-2004 05:03									#219
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mart7x5 And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

Explain consciousness outside the body without the presence of God. This is what I'm getting at. You think that humans were granted souls by God. If you take away God, because you are after all trying to prove his existence, where does consciousness come from?

	27-04-2004 06:04									#220
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Elok No, we have different definitions of "troll," though. Don't forget, I'm a "religionist." I don't know much about Occam's razor, but it seems stupid to sneer at people for following the advice of several people from thousands of years ago, and support your sneering by following the precedent of a single man from hundreds of years ago. So yourself.

It's not precedent. We follow the rule because it's true

quote: As for "simplest explanation," you run into trouble there. You're in the rhetorical fishbowl here, remember. It's a pretty big statement to make when you can't ever see the whole picture at stake. It looks "simple" to you, but the way chimps fish for termites looks simple until you try it. Occam's Razor might be more sensibly applied to a question in a laboratory, where the full set of affecting circumstances are understood. Here it's sorta arbitrary.

Here's what it boils down to: no matter how you put it, in the end life arose through natural processes. There simply isn't anything outside of nature. Any argument that a creator is necessary for the complexity/existance of life, misses that the complexity would simply be deferred to the creator.

	27-04-2004 06:05									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The information argument above is simply an Argument from Personal Incredulity, and it's flawed to boot, as it is assigning a mystical defition to "information" that does not exist. The "information" in question is nothing more than the chemicals in question reacting based upon the laws of physics. You haven't adequately defined "information" at any rate. You use it without really understanding what it means in science. TalkOrigins has already dealt with this, because the Creationist dittoheads have been repeating variations on this for ages: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb04.html

I fully understand the definition of information givien in science as in "information theory" for example. And the classical definition certainly does exist. There is nothing "mystical" about it. It is plainly spelled out in the dictionary among other places. First the "scientific definition" as you call it:

That definition was made popular by a certain Claude Shannon. He made clear in his use of the word that he was not referring to the word "in the ordnarry sense". Read the introduction to his paper (I don't have it handy) but he essentially said that he was concerned with the TRANSMISSION of EXISTING information not the origin of that information. Richard Dawkins leaps on his work in an excersize in irrelevance. Not because Shannon was wrong but because he was not dealing with the origin but its transmission and how the true message is discerned among the noise etc.

The ordinary sense of the word information is quite obvious and that is the sense that is under discussion when we are concerned about the origin, as in the origin of the informtion in DNA for example or the origin of information in a computer, book or computerized machine. The definition is:

1. The act of informing or being informed. 2. Knowledge derived from study, experience or instruction etc.. 3. A non accidental signal used as an input in a computer or communication system.

Inform means to tell or otherwise give or send information.

The issue is where does the nonaccidential signal or the "telling" of the meaning (in the case of DNA) of the codons come from? Or in other words, how do the laws of physics take on a new role of informing chemicals that they have meaning beyond their normal blind characteristics? The question is simple:

What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell?

For example; AUG means Methionine. Yet Adenine Uracil and Guanine do not chemically form Methonine. The combination of Adenine Uracil and Guanine only MEANS Meathionine. How was the meaning assigned to, first the nucleotide bases (ATCG), and then to their correct combination into triplet 'words' and how was this meaning translated along with the formation of an associated gramatical system etc. to produce a language such as exists in DNA?

This subject of the origin of infomation was not a diobolic scheme of evil Creationists but it has provoked thought among most anyone who studies DNA as it did with Francis Crick who was among the first to discover its unique coded message. He thought it must have come from outer space.

(edit: I didn't read clearly and made a dumb mistake, so I had to change a couple of words.)

	27-04-2004 06:08									#222
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln The foundation of all life is contained in specific detailed instructions and information that can be read, interpreted, understood and acted upon logically. This type of information cannot arise without intelligent input.

And right here, you have a fundamental premise that discredits your entire argument. This information was present in the Creator's mind. Where did that come from?

What caused God?

(btw, existing "outside" of spacetime has nothing to do with anything, just to head that off - if God exists, he must be part of the universe. Spacetime is just a coincidence, like gravity, not some fundamental property of a universe)

	27-04-2004 06:14									#223
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mart7x5 The point is that God did not have to create our universe. Stating that because existence of God adds nothing to the equation proves that God does not exist is illogical for me. In the same manner I could say for example that existance of ... let's say Antarctica is unnecessary for me. I have never been there. All pictures I saw from there might be nothing more but a manipulation. Does it prove that Antarctica does not exist?

Here's a better example: because I have no proof that undetectable dancing elves live on the surfaces of electrons, they don't exist.

	27-04-2004 06:17									#224
	Suffering from ads?

When you tell me what caused the Big Bang and what caused the material to be present and what was before that then I will answer your question. If you cannot discuss an issue because it leads to a mystery then you have no business postulating anything about the formation of the universe. Both roads lead to a mystery.

	27-04-2004 06:17									#225
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln I fully understand the definition of information givien in science as in "information theory" for example. And the classical definition certainly does exist. There is nothing "mystical" about it. It is plainly spelled out in the dictionary among other places. First the "scientific definition" as you call it: That definition was made popular by a certain Claude Shannon. He made clear in his use of the word that he was not referring to the word "in the ordnarry sense". Read the introduction to his paper (I don't have it handy) but he essentially said that he was concerned with the TRANSMISSION of EXISTING information not the origin of that information. Talk Origins leaps on his work as does Richard Dawkins in an excersize in irrelevance. Not because Shannon was wrong but because he was not dealing with the origin but its transmission and how the true message is discerned among the noise etc. The ordinary sense of the word information is quite obvious and that is the sense that is under discussion when we are concerned about the origin, as in the origin of the informtion in DNA for example or the origin of information in a computer, book or computerized machine. The definition is: 1. The act of informing or being informed. 2. Knowledge derived from study, experience or instruction etc.. 3. A non accidental signal used as an input in a computer or communication system. Inform means to tell or otherwise give or send information. So Talk Origins simply evades the issue as does Richard Dawkins. The issue is where does the nonaccidential signal or the "telling" of the meaning (in the case of DNA) of the codons come from? Or in other words, how do the laws of physics take on a new role of informing chemicals that they have meaning beyond their normal blind characteristics? The question is simple: What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell? For example; AUG means Methionine. Yet Adenine Uracil and Guanine do not chemically form Methonine. The combination of Adenine Uracil and Guanine only MEANS Meathionine. How was the meaning assigned to, first the nucleotide bases (ATCG), and then to their correct combination into triplet 'words' and how was this meaning translated along with the formation of an associated gramatical system etc. to produce a language such as exists in DNA? This subject of the origin of infomation was not a diobolic scheme of evil Creationists but it has provoked thought among most anyone who studies DNA as it did with Francis Crick who was among the first to discover its unique coded message. He thought it must have come from outer space.

Now you seem to assume that the information-containing objects have some purpose in mind, that they are "aware" that they are in the process of creating life. That's not really how the system works.

	27-04-2004 06:19									#226
	Support Apolyton

quote: What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell?

What law of physics causes the earth to give a coded message that is understood, decoded, and translated correctly into actual motion by the moon?

	27-04-2004 06:21									#227
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln When you tell me what caused the Big Bang and what caused the material to be present and what was before that then I will answer your question. If you cannot discuss an issue because it leads to a mystery then you have no business postulating anything about the formation of the universe. Both roads lead to a mystery.

Why is it necessary that there be a cause for the universe?

If you say that there must be a cause for the universe, or for life, or whatever, then you must ALSO accept a cause for God. Another God, perhaps? What about a cause for that God? You get an infinite number of creators.

	27-04-2004 06:22									#228
	Increase Your PM Length

Is the information within your computer aware of what it is doing? No. But it is the result of intelligent input. The machine only manipulates the intelligent input. The information within a machine (or within life) only follows the laws of physics. The intelligent input was in the initial programming.

	27-04-2004 06:29									#229
	Tired of ads?

Actually I don't accept that there must be a cause for the formation of the Universe or the existence of God. I was simply explaining to you that any theory regarding origins leads to a mystery.

	27-04-2004 06:29									#230
	Suffering from ads?

What's your point?

Where did God's intelligence come from? Another God? Where did that God's intelligence come from? Forever and ever.

Obviously, it must be possible for intelligence to arise from non-intelligence, otherwise intelligence would never arise.

	27-04-2004 06:30									#231
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Actually I don't accept that there must be a cause for the formation of the Universe or the existence of God. I was simply explaining to you that any theory regarding origins leads to a mystery.

Thus, the answer is "it just exists". Otherwise, by your logic, you CANNOT DENY the existence of an infinite number of Creators.

	27-04-2004 06:34									#232
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Maybe there is an infinite number of creators if that is what you need to believe. I am only pointing out that the origin of life sugests an intelligent source for it's existence. You can take that ball and run with it however you want.

	27-04-2004 06:38									#233
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I am only pointing out that the origin of life sugests an intelligent source for it's existence.

And you're wrong, there. Intelligence (or rather, sentience, I assume you mean) obviously does not require an intelligent creator. In any case, sentience is the result of the interaction of natural laws (even with a Creator this is true, tautologically).

Moreover, the type of Creator that is permissible by science is not the one spoken of in the Bible.

	27-04-2004 06:43									#234
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Other people on this thread are discussing the Bible but I am only pointing out as you said "the creator that is permissible in science". I have my personal beliefs which I discuss some in my book but I try to seperate them from the evidence available to anyone (believer or not)that the origin of life points to intelligent input and not to a purely materialistic solution.

	27-04-2004 06:47									#235
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The creator permissible to science, meaning the one that doesn't violate physical laws, is basically just a "first mover". Occam's Razor takes care of him.

	27-04-2004 06:48									#236
	Inflate your Upload Space

We've been here before.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...0&pagenumber=15

Lincoln couldn't justify his core premise back then, either.

quote: Have you ever heard of a Creationist who is so incompetent that he can't even answer a single question, Lincoln? Because I certainly have. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for DNA? What is an example of a coded language that has no intelligent intended receiver? I've been waiting for an answer for quite awhile now, Lincoln. An answer would be most welcome.

@ loinburger

	27-04-2004 06:50									#237
	Put an end to popups!

Moreover, even if we do admit a "first mover", what's the point? How do you get from there to, say, a position on abortion? There was a Creator; so what?

	27-04-2004 06:55									#238
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I guess I am not following you Kucintch. What does my position on abortion have to do with the issue we are discussing?

	27-04-2004 07:00									#239
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If scientific evidence points to intelligent intervention what do you all do with that evidence? Do you ignore it because you cannot comprehend an intelligent being greater than yourself? Many discoveries in science lead to more unknowns but we cannot simply ignore evidence. Information comes from an intelligent source. The burden of proof is on one who proposes that it can originate without intelligent input.

	27-04-2004 07:05									#240
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This debate will go no further so long as you persist in using a false application of the word "information" to DNA. It is data, and it has no "meaning" beyond that which we, as intelligent people, give it by looking at it. The instructions it gives are not meaningful any more so than an electron moving from one atom to another is meaningful. It's about the laws of physics and property of chemistry, not any sort of "meaning." Your also making a huge leap in logic by assuming that DNA suddenly appeared as it is today, which nobody except Creationist making cartoonish strawmen arguments believe.

Why did you never answer loinburger's question?