You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
People can think are natural laws the product of:
1. Design
2. Random ignorant chance lifeless non causal non design.
Understanding two things. Nature looks designed, and there is no scientific way to establish either design or non design.
1. Design
2. Random ignorant chance lifeless non causal non design.
Understanding two things. Nature looks designed, and there is no scientific way to establish either design or non design.
Quote from trendlover:
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
ID or non ID, the processes are exactly the same, the model is exactly the same, and in neither case is there any evidence for ID or non ID.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then people can think of 2 answers.
1. Everything is here from natural laws in nature
2. Everything is here from ID (god)
Ok you have recovered to your normal standard of base insults. Well done.Quote from jem:
you are such a fricken troll...
I am not asking for where the quote is on ET.... I am asking for a link to where the quote came from on the internet.
I would like to read the context of the quote.
The longer you wait to produce the more I suspect you are the one who is taking quotes out of context.
right now all we have is your word for the fact you provided a real quote or an accurate quote.
The quote comes directly from de Duve's book, all detail down to the page is provided, but that will never be enough for you.
In truth nothing, will ever be enough as you have already shown time after time.
You will rely by default that your jewish religious apologetics website is genuine and not cherry picking isolated comments fraudulently to mislead , in full bias of religious intent.
But you do insist against ANY evidence at all, any website, any quotes which come directly from a book (or in Susskind's case directly from himself in a video) are always suspect and don't say what they do actually say.
As far as you are concerned, absolutely nothing is capable of being proof if it is counter intelligent design.
Such is the determined denial if an ID'er.
So it won't matter one jot where the complete quote comes from, as you've already shown your hand over many threads at how groundless assertion and ignorant denial is the tool you'll use to divert anything counter to ID, which is all you want to conclude.
There's the root of your deceit.
However, even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that both quotes accepted as belonging to de Duve but taken out of context as you prefer to say, it is straightforward enough to see what his position is to his own rhetorical question........
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe."
"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."
In light of his quotes you will no doubt still want to make false assertions about de Deuve and ID so here is a link you can start to decry and refuse so as to to keep true to ID and huddled..... "to a professor from MITs Jewish website."
The Origin of Life
Christian de Duve
"But this optimizing selection during evolution is nothing like proof of intelligent design. Irrespective of the arguments put forward in support of ID, which have been abundantly refuted, let it simply be stated that a theory based on an a priori declaration that things are not naturally explainable is not a scientific theory. By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/duve1/English
He even threw in a lesson for OptionalZzz on how a priori really does not fit with rationalist.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
No, I side with the rationalists on that one.
Actually, most rationalists promote a priori views.
So much for your so called research, and yes, it was woefully incomplete.
But go ahead don't let the facts stop you, instead of feigning a willingness to acknowledge your errors, just go for the usual deny deny deny.
If you fall out of favor with de Deuve you can always throw a dozen more around from others, and even though they too are equally questionable, it need have no impact on the delusions you hold.
Really apparent by now is, thatâs all youâve got.
"By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable."
That's it in a nutshell. Based on an idea, not empiricism.
This idea of an idea is generated from man, not from science. The idea remains just an idea, sorely lacking proof that all of the evolutionary processes that can be measured are the consequence of non design.
It presupposes that an explanation, a model, a theory is necessarily true, because at present a majority of scientists believe in that idea?
"Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
Explainable? You mean to the atheists, or the gullible, or those who will swallow random ignorant chance as something factual, when there is no measurement in science for this mysterious, magical, unpredictable thingy of random ignorant chance?
Why look for an explanation, when the current one is founded on ignorance, not fact?
Not knowing if nature is programmed by something external to nature, of nature programmed itself (now there's a magical thinking idea) or if nature is eternal...because an explanation fits a model based on accepting random ignorance chance a priori (without proof of course on an a posteori basis) is necessarily the correct or even the best explanation.
Why indeed...it satisfies the atheistic bent...
That's it in a nutshell. Based on an idea, not empiricism.
This idea of an idea is generated from man, not from science. The idea remains just an idea, sorely lacking proof that all of the evolutionary processes that can be measured are the consequence of non design.
It presupposes that an explanation, a model, a theory is necessarily true, because at present a majority of scientists believe in that idea?
"Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
Explainable? You mean to the atheists, or the gullible, or those who will swallow random ignorant chance as something factual, when there is no measurement in science for this mysterious, magical, unpredictable thingy of random ignorant chance?
Why look for an explanation, when the current one is founded on ignorance, not fact?
Not knowing if nature is programmed by something external to nature, of nature programmed itself (now there's a magical thinking idea) or if nature is eternal...because an explanation fits a model based on accepting random ignorance chance a priori (without proof of course on an a posteori basis) is necessarily the correct or even the best explanation.
Why indeed...it satisfies the atheistic bent...
Quote from stu:
Ok you have recovered to your normal standard of base insults. Well done.
The quote comes directly from de Duve's book, all detail down to the page is provided, but that will never be enough for you.
In truth nothing, will ever be enough as you have already shown time after time.
You will rely by default that your jewish religious apologetics website is genuine and not cherry picking isolated comments fraudulently to mislead , in full bias of religious intent.
But you do insist against ANY evidence at all, any website, any quotes which come directly from a book (or in Susskind's case directly from himself in a video) are always suspect and don't say what they do actually say.
As far as you are concerned, absolutely nothing is capable of being proof if it is counter intelligent design.
Such is the determined denial if an ID'er.
So it won't matter one jot where the complete quote comes from, as you've already shown your hand over many threads at how groundless assertion and ignorant denial is the tool you'll use to divert anything counter to ID, which is all you want to conclude.
There's the root of your deceit.
However, even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that both quotes accepted as belonging to de Duve but taken out of context as you prefer to say, it is straightforward enough to see what his position is to his own rhetorical question........Again, even if for the sake of argument, the second part answer were not anything to do with the first , the first question doesn't stand unanswered by de Duve in light of this, as it is his unconditional statement.....
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe."De Deuve is demonstrably stating , paraphrasing to emphasize your ID assertion, one may legitimately wonder about say intelligent design, a creator writing into the fabric of the universe. The answer is cateogical chance, and chance alone. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence.
"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."
In light of his quotes you will no doubt still want to make false assertions about de Deuve and ID so here is a link you can start to decry and refuse so as to to keep true to ID and huddled..... "to a professor from MITs Jewish website."
The Origin of Life
Christian de Duve
"But this optimizing selection during evolution is nothing like proof of intelligent design. Irrespective of the arguments put forward in support of ID, which have been abundantly refuted, let it simply be stated that a theory based on an a priori declaration that things are not naturally explainable is not a scientific theory. By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/duve1/English
He even threw in a lesson for OptionalZzz on how a priori really does not fit with rationalist.
So much for your so called research, and yes, it was woefully incomplete.
But go ahead don't let the facts stop you, instead of feigning a willingness to acknowledge your errors, just go for the usual deny deny deny.
If you fall out of favor with de Deuve you can always throw a dozen more around from others, and even though they too are equally questionable, it need have no impact on the delusions you hold.
Really apparent by now is, thatâs all youâve got.
Again, I challenge any atheist to demonstrate how the processes of change in species, explained by one possibility would break down if random ignorant chance were replaced with ID, as I have defined ID. Substitute design for non design and evolutionary theory doesn't yield different results. It is an explanation that doesn't actually alter the equation one bit.
Why continue to look for other explanations when you have one that satisfies...it satisfies the atheistic bent...
The universe looks programmed...but we presuppose it isn't?
Why would someone do that? Why would they presuppose something than runs counter to their own intuition?
Life and energy in the universe came from a source of nothing, for no reason, with no programming, no design?
Laughable.
When I see scientists produce life from non life, produce energy from non energy...then I'll change my perspective.
ID and non ID if taken as a first assumption explain nature equally.
Really...a theory should be correctly stated in a conditional manner. If ______, then _______.
We can observe the second part empirically. The first part cannot be observed, or known, or measured, or predicted the first part is either ID or non ID.
Consequently, the theory remains non factual (it may be true that it is non ID at work, and may equally be true that it may be ID at work) but just a guess that satisfies some scientists.
Facts aren't supposed to change simply because scientist change their mind and embrace a different theory.
Darwin's theory was not a logical proof. Darwin, a deist, simply took a scientific view of gathering data, then speculating on it. Had he been a non Deist, but a practicing theist, he might have had a completely different theory. But his theory did not conflict at all with his deism, it fit very well actually. He studied nature and nature alone.
I've brought this up before, but some of the regulars continue to ignore the problem it brings to random chance on ID theory.
Random number generators exist, they are a fact. Where did they come from? A designer. Some programmer programmed some code which results in numbers being generated in a random manner.
So a programmer generated some code to produce randomness. The programmer designed and built a code driven program.
How often do we hear scientists speaking of genetic code?
All the time. A genetic code? Okay.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.
Where did this genetic code come from? Well, the scientists don't actually know. Could this binding genetic code be the produce of another code?
It still begs the question of why the genetic code is the way it is, where it came from, and why is the coding so similar in principle to the type of coding that we see from a programmer writing code.
Not knowing the answers of course, an assumption is made that the code must have just happened on its own, by itself, with no external programming. Or they might say, well, that's just the nature of things.
Okay, so "that's just the nature of things" is a satisfactory explanation?
It is to some, but not to those who then ask the logical question...why is nature the way it is?
Most scientific minds are driven to explore the what questions. They set up their camp, stake out their territory in which to explore and stay within those confines.
The questions of why nature is the way it is has not been scientifically answered in any way. Lots of theories, but no proofs.
So even if nature was programmed to act randomly and ignorantly and completely by chance...nature was programmed.
Darwin's ideas didn't impact deism, or other religions who subscribe to a natural universe coming from the design of a natural God. They impacted literalistic readers of the Bible.
Deism and Darwinism are fully compatible, in fact they explain deism quite nicely. Much more likely that a programmed universe came from a program, rather than from a non program.
Why continue to look for other explanations when you have one that satisfies...it satisfies the atheistic bent...
The universe looks programmed...but we presuppose it isn't?
Why would someone do that? Why would they presuppose something than runs counter to their own intuition?
Life and energy in the universe came from a source of nothing, for no reason, with no programming, no design?
Laughable.
When I see scientists produce life from non life, produce energy from non energy...then I'll change my perspective.
ID and non ID if taken as a first assumption explain nature equally.
Really...a theory should be correctly stated in a conditional manner. If ______, then _______.
We can observe the second part empirically. The first part cannot be observed, or known, or measured, or predicted the first part is either ID or non ID.
Consequently, the theory remains non factual (it may be true that it is non ID at work, and may equally be true that it may be ID at work) but just a guess that satisfies some scientists.
Facts aren't supposed to change simply because scientist change their mind and embrace a different theory.
Darwin's theory was not a logical proof. Darwin, a deist, simply took a scientific view of gathering data, then speculating on it. Had he been a non Deist, but a practicing theist, he might have had a completely different theory. But his theory did not conflict at all with his deism, it fit very well actually. He studied nature and nature alone.
I've brought this up before, but some of the regulars continue to ignore the problem it brings to random chance on ID theory.
Random number generators exist, they are a fact. Where did they come from? A designer. Some programmer programmed some code which results in numbers being generated in a random manner.
So a programmer generated some code to produce randomness. The programmer designed and built a code driven program.
How often do we hear scientists speaking of genetic code?
All the time. A genetic code? Okay.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.
Where did this genetic code come from? Well, the scientists don't actually know. Could this binding genetic code be the produce of another code?
It still begs the question of why the genetic code is the way it is, where it came from, and why is the coding so similar in principle to the type of coding that we see from a programmer writing code.
Not knowing the answers of course, an assumption is made that the code must have just happened on its own, by itself, with no external programming. Or they might say, well, that's just the nature of things.
Okay, so "that's just the nature of things" is a satisfactory explanation?
It is to some, but not to those who then ask the logical question...why is nature the way it is?
Most scientific minds are driven to explore the what questions. They set up their camp, stake out their territory in which to explore and stay within those confines.
The questions of why nature is the way it is has not been scientifically answered in any way. Lots of theories, but no proofs.
So even if nature was programmed to act randomly and ignorantly and completely by chance...nature was programmed.
Darwin's ideas didn't impact deism, or other religions who subscribe to a natural universe coming from the design of a natural God. They impacted literalistic readers of the Bible.
Deism and Darwinism are fully compatible, in fact they explain deism quite nicely. Much more likely that a programmed universe came from a program, rather than from a non program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from OPTIONAL777:
People can think are natural laws the product of:
1. Design
2. Random ignorant chance lifeless non causal non design.
Understanding two things. Nature looks designed, and there is no scientific way to establish either design or non design.
This is from the link stu put on the thread. You can see "chance" and "design" can be together in the evolution process. No person have to choose; (all chance), or (all design). You can see (design) can come from the (chance). So the design is not (intelligent)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/duve1/English
"One of the most astonishing discoveries of the last decades, revealed by exploration of space, nearby celestial objects, and especially meteorites that fell to Earth, is that many of the chemical building blocks of life form spontaneously throughout the universe.".....................................................................................................................................................................................................
"How this âcosmic chemistryâ gave rise to the first living cells is not known in detail, but the process may be summed up in two words. The first is chemistry , the essence of life..."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"If chemistry admitted even a small element of chance, there could be no chemical laboratories, no chemical factories."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"The second key word is replicability , the ability of certain information-bearing molecules to induce the making of (complementary) copies of themselves by the machineries responsible for the synthesis of their kind. This function, fulfilled mostly by DNA today, was probably first carried out by RNA, a close relative of DNA."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"Replication allowed the endless reproduction of the same entities, generation after generation, which is the basis of genetic continuity."
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"With replication, chance made its appearance, by way of the variations, or mutations, that were offered to the screening action of natural selection. According to all we know, these variations are strictly accidental, totally devoid of any intentionality or foresight â hence the widespread notion that the history of life was ruled by contingency."
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"But this view ignores the possibility that the array of choices offered by chance to natural selection may be sufficiently extensive to allow an optimal or near-optimal solution to emerge, in which case the process is actually close to obligatory and reproducible under the prevailing conditions.
Indeed, there are strong reasons to believe that optimizing selection may have occurred in the origin and evolution of life more often than is generally assumed. This implies that life, to the extent that it is the product of deterministic chemistry and of optimizing selection, is likely to arise, in a form similar to life as we know it, wherever conditions mimic those that surrounded its birth on Earth, thus justifying todayâs interest in extraterrestrial life.
But this optimizing selection during evolution is nothing like proof of intelligent design. Irrespective of the arguments put forward in support of ID, which have been abundantly refuted, let it simply be stated that a theory based on an a priori declaration that things are not naturally explainable is not a scientific theory. By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
"With replication, chance made its appearance, by way of the variations, or mutations, that were offered to the screening action of natural selection. According to all we know, these variations are strictly accidental, totally devoid of any intentionality or foresight â hence the widespread notion that the history of life was ruled by contingency."
"According to all we know."
So limited knowledge produces an idea of chance, but nothing known or knowable about this idea of chance. It could be by design just as easily.
Say you never watched sports, never saw a football game.
So you go, and you see order and chaos for 60 minutes.
Order? Sure. Very ordered. The players go out in an ordered huddle, then they line up orderly, then the play happens, and it appears to be complete chaos to someone who doesn't know the rules of the game.
Every player has a plan. There is a design to both the offense and defense. Each player plans to execute their assignments.
But not knowing this, the actual play looks like complete chaos.
To further the element of chaos, they use a ball that is oddly shaped and unpredictable in the way it will bounce.
All of this is by design. The chaos is by design. The unpredictability of the way the football bounces is by design.
By accident? How is that known? Could you stage a movie shot where it appears that accidents are happening, but in fact there are no accidents, everything is planned and programmed.
In any case, few could deny the universe is a system.
It has rules and regulations. It has laws.
It also has happenings that we can't explain nor predict.
Not know and not being able to predict do not automatically default to random ignorant chance. These happenings could just as easily be by design.
If the universe were simply following its own programming, its own nature, do you really think man could understand the programming of nature?
No, not likely. We get bits and pieces here and there, but scientists can't create life from non life, they can't create energy from non energy.
Random chance theory of life is a bit like a random walk theory. However, the stock market is a closed system, and if it could be known what each trader's plan was, then you could reasonably predict the outcome.
Human mind is filled with weaknesses. Subjectivity and emotions influence the purely objective and unemotional mind all the time. Mind is limited in capacity. Even if every single fact of the universe could be know, no one would have the capacity to hold at those facts in their mind at the same time.
So the human mind is unpredictable...therefore some say that accidents happen accordingly...but not by overall design.
The football is by design, to be used in a designed game, by humans who have accidents with something that is unpredictable, i.e. the football.
From a larger view, the game is fully designed to be unpredictable and predictable both.
Chance and design...by design.
"According to all we know."
So limited knowledge produces an idea of chance, but nothing known or knowable about this idea of chance. It could be by design just as easily.
Say you never watched sports, never saw a football game.
So you go, and you see order and chaos for 60 minutes.
Order? Sure. Very ordered. The players go out in an ordered huddle, then they line up orderly, then the play happens, and it appears to be complete chaos to someone who doesn't know the rules of the game.
Every player has a plan. There is a design to both the offense and defense. Each player plans to execute their assignments.
But not knowing this, the actual play looks like complete chaos.
To further the element of chaos, they use a ball that is oddly shaped and unpredictable in the way it will bounce.
All of this is by design. The chaos is by design. The unpredictability of the way the football bounces is by design.
By accident? How is that known? Could you stage a movie shot where it appears that accidents are happening, but in fact there are no accidents, everything is planned and programmed.
In any case, few could deny the universe is a system.
It has rules and regulations. It has laws.
It also has happenings that we can't explain nor predict.
Not know and not being able to predict do not automatically default to random ignorant chance. These happenings could just as easily be by design.
If the universe were simply following its own programming, its own nature, do you really think man could understand the programming of nature?
No, not likely. We get bits and pieces here and there, but scientists can't create life from non life, they can't create energy from non energy.
Random chance theory of life is a bit like a random walk theory. However, the stock market is a closed system, and if it could be known what each trader's plan was, then you could reasonably predict the outcome.
Human mind is filled with weaknesses. Subjectivity and emotions influence the purely objective and unemotional mind all the time. Mind is limited in capacity. Even if every single fact of the universe could be know, no one would have the capacity to hold at those facts in their mind at the same time.
So the human mind is unpredictable...therefore some say that accidents happen accordingly...but not by overall design.
The football is by design, to be used in a designed game, by humans who have accidents with something that is unpredictable, i.e. the football.
From a larger view, the game is fully designed to be unpredictable and predictable both.
Chance and design...by design.
Quote from trendlover:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from the link stu put on the thread. You can see "chance" and "design" can be together in the evolution process. No person have to choose; (all chance), or (all design). You can see (design) can come from the (chance). So the design is not (intelligent)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/duve1/English
"One of the most astonishing discoveries of the last decades, revealed by exploration of space, nearby celestial objects, and especially meteorites that fell to Earth, is that many of the chemical building blocks of life form spontaneously throughout the universe.".....................................................................................................................................................................................................
"How this âcosmic chemistryâ gave rise to the first living cells is not known in detail, but the process may be summed up in two words. The first is chemistry , the essence of life..."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"If chemistry admitted even a small element of chance, there could be no chemical laboratories, no chemical factories."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"The second key word is replicability , the ability of certain information-bearing molecules to induce the making of (complementary) copies of themselves by the machineries responsible for the synthesis of their kind. This function, fulfilled mostly by DNA today, was probably first carried out by RNA, a close relative of DNA."
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"Replication allowed the endless reproduction of the same entities, generation after generation, which is the basis of genetic continuity."
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"With replication, chance made its appearance, by way of the variations, or mutations, that were offered to the screening action of natural selection. According to all we know, these variations are strictly accidental, totally devoid of any intentionality or foresight â hence the widespread notion that the history of life was ruled by contingency."
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"But this view ignores the possibility that the array of choices offered by chance to natural selection may be sufficiently extensive to allow an optimal or near-optimal solution to emerge, in which case the process is actually close to obligatory and reproducible under the prevailing conditions.
Indeed, there are strong reasons to believe that optimizing selection may have occurred in the origin and evolution of life more often than is generally assumed. This implies that life, to the extent that it is the product of deterministic chemistry and of optimizing selection, is likely to arise, in a form similar to life as we know it, wherever conditions mimic those that surrounded its birth on Earth, thus justifying todayâs interest in extraterrestrial life.
But this optimizing selection during evolution is nothing like proof of intelligent design. Irrespective of the arguments put forward in support of ID, which have been abundantly refuted, let it simply be stated that a theory based on an a priori declaration that things are not naturally explainable is not a scientific theory. By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
I do not watch football. But you are saying there is no (chance) in all the world, in all life? Everything in the world is design and the plan?
I am suggesting the programming of the universe, just like a football game, is the product of design. The design is to program for chance happenings, but any chance happenings has its origin in the design of the system as a whole.
Quote from trendlover:
I do not watch football. But you are saying there is no (chance) in all the world, in all life? Everything in the world is design and the plan?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I am suggesting the programming of the universe, just like a football game, is the product of design. The design is to program for chance happenings, but any chance happenings has its origin in the design of the system as a whole.
If is true, than the designer who make the ("chance happenings") some people are born to poverty, can make the design to not do that too.