Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "TED"
channel.
-
31
-
23
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Oh you mean the same definitions that are completely unevidenced and as already explained preclude the need for any creator and even contain contradictions with your initial claims (an't go around saying that the odds are extremely low, and then claim that they are maximal without any evidence)...
As already explained your idea no different from claiming the existence of a full multiverse with all possible laws of physics ensures that a universe like ours must exist... where is the evidence for a multiverse? In the same place where the evidence for the "world" where you claim god is.
As already shown your your completely exotic interpretations of claims in the bible do not have any support on the actual texts of the bible - rather they purely reflect your own ideas.
Again,
"Our universe is calibrated (...) in a such way as to maximally ensure its evolutionary development" - Ah... I'd have to agree with you if the universe was just teeming with life, complex life nonetheless, but according to you: "The probability of the emergence of intelligent life in our universe due to evolution is unknown, but it is known that in our galaxy it is very small." Oh...
So is there any evidence of intentional calibration? None.
And as already explained in response to your first argument, "After assuming the unconstrained randomness across the spectrum of those alternate possibilities (and thus the equal probability of any given one being picked at random), somehow our universe must not have been picked at random [according to you and without any evidence] (I guess the equal probabilities dissolved away for some reason)."
"even this calibration is not enough for evolution to proceed without the creative power of the Holy Spirit."
The unsubstantiated claim that you make, blatantly unsubstantiation seen that you accept that evolution is a mechanism that works. You even quoted the bible as saying that the eye was one such case, which is counterfactual as there are examples of the various stages of the evolution of the eye (I even posted a link to exmplify that: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a75cc9ba27ac3e85ff523c397a49a4c-c).
"to declare that God is not necessary", what I have done is use your own line of reasoning:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Which renders god unnecessary:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
...Again "And that mode of argument is either unsound or god is superfluous (in addition to being completely unevidenced). Plus if your reasoning is valid your argument on probabilities is invalid."
"you need to calculate the probability"
And there we are back yo your first argument (the one that was a matrioska of fallacies).
Here is the highlight:
You used probabilities that represent purelly the degree of completion of our knowledge (for an event that 100% did happen: our existence).
Then you used said lack of knowledge to assert "god did it" (or to use your wording: "that God is necessary" - why? because: ignorance of how it happened)
Furthermore, as already explained if your claims about infinity are true, these events are certain to happen. (You might as well start adding 10^-500 over infinity to account for it happening somewhere in an infinite universe or an infinite "world").
And now the "probability of an evolutionary transition from a monkey to a human"
Where we again know that it did happen (100%). Where we know it was the outcome of evolution. Where we know it resulted from a high number of variations (more over: variations on top of the fittest genomes).
Even if you want to claim that our species is just one conceivable outcome our of many and therefore unlikely, then:
"I guess I'll go and generate a random number with 500 digits and contemplate the well reasoned idea that I must have deliberately picked it. ...But I'm quite sure I didn't... Darnit!!! It must of been gnomes."
Still no divine intervention to be seen, just fallacies to justify a preconceived idea.
Could a god just make adam and eve? (Not really if you think god made a man and then made a woman or made them in separate acts of creation from the rest of living things. But you such counterfactual ideas. so...)
I don't know how that would work. I guess the answer to that would have to be the same as the answer to "could fairies have hidden my car keys?": Only, if they actually existed and by some mechanism were able to do such a thing. But in actuality it all all points to me having simply misplaced my keys.
"If there is a God, then his interference with evolutionary processes is just as obvious as the fact that a complex program was written by an intelligent person, rather than an ape, who understands nothing, but can only knock on the keys."
Except the only valid explanation so far (the one with actual evidence, rather than a fantastic "what if") explains that what these events are the result undirected process.
Your analogy with the computer program is as inept as the claim that this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg/1024px-Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg
must be made like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/31/c8/bc31c8df9bf3f4f0a4e1579609278f3e.jpg
Not to mention that your claim inevitably presupposes that something was not programmed. You claim that there is a neural network that was not not programmed like the ones programmers create, you might as well claim that that neural network was in turn created by another neural network (because neural networks require a designer), while In indulge less in fantasizing and say that it might as well be the processes we observe that were not programmed.
(And before you go on to claim that I don't understand your argument and that a neural network must exist, that is exactly my counterargument: that our universe is necessary if it is in an "infinite, full world" that encompasses all the possible sets of laws of physics).
The bible is definitely primitive (not as primitive as cavemen-like, but primitive in that it is ancient - it's a matter of historical record). What you're telling me is to read it not with my brains turned on, but with my imagination in full throttle to read things that aren't there at all. And no, to not invent outlandishly eccentric meanings for a text is not the result of a position of opposition to anything, it is a position of not pretending that something is true when it is blatantly false. But unless you pretend that the stories of greek gods are true accounts of actual events and actual gods, surely it's because you are now you are in a position of opposition to Mount Olympus. It certainly isn't because such stories are fantasy. Not at all.
For all your talk of necessity of god's existence, it boiled down to fallacies, a "what if" and an incredibly elastic reading of the bible.
That makes you a modernist theist (in this context modernism is: "a movement toward modifying traditional beliefs in accordance with modern ideas").
But unfortunately it does not lend any validity to your ideas.
7
-
Drop0112 Exactly: this is all hypothetical (should I go on to reinterpret the bible pretending it refers to a multiverse instead of god?).
The principle would be something like this:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
Which is basically the same principle the you proposed in order to explain god's existence:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Or the more baseless way you put it now:
"in an infinite and fullness world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [our universe], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world. And such model of the world is complete and is a logical consequence of the infinity and fullness of the world at a counterweight to an incomplete and illogical model of the world with god."
And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. (Why? are you saying that god in your conjecture required a mega generator to generate god? Like some sort of god being necessary to explain another god?)
The reason why this hypothesis is more probable is just that it cuts superfluous unconfirmed elements.
And as stated this is hypothetical. Being it unconfirmed, I obviously do not accept it as fact.
the fact that we do have an explanation that is substantiated by the various lines of evidence does make it a compelling case that evolution does explain, well, evolution. I'm still waiting to see any of that divine intervention though.
"objectively calculated probability of the evolution of the first cell to a man without the intervention of the mind"
And there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers.
but it's all so easy when not knowing means god did it. It's like when I can't find my car keys... gomes did it, I'm damn sure of it.
"And the Bible actually speaks of the evolutionary creation by God of living beings, but it was a creation, not a bare evolution."
Except it doesn't. It often specifically says "each after it's kind", not each slightly different until they become distinct.
"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
The idea that it talks about evolution comes from your head, not from the text (it just says "bring forth", it doesn't specify how - you then use your modern knowledge to fill the gap).
It also doesn't talk about creating from biomaterial, as what it actually speaks of are the "creatures" (of various kinds).
"God saw "that it was good" only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take."
I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it.
But lets pretend the bible talks about evolution rather than acknowledge that it is a work of complete ignorance about how things actually happened:
"plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds"
A lot of emphasis on the kinds is the least of it's problems. It's that trees were missing an essential thing which god only did the next "day(?!)": "God made two great lights".
I guess god forgot that the lights were already there for at least a day or two ...or a couple billion years.
For anyone reading what is actually written in the bible, that myth is a page right out of harry potter, where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days.
You can try and stretch it, but unless you are basically rewriting it (as you do with your extremely exotic interpretations), this myth has little to no parallel with reality.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"Our universe is calibrated (...) in a such way as to maximally ensure its evolutionary development" - Ah... I'd have to agree with you if the universe was just teeming with life, complex life nonetheless, but according to you: "The probability of the emergence of intelligent life in our universe due to evolution is unknown, but it is known that in our galaxy it is very small." Oh...
But is our universe calibrated for life? Not if it is "full" (because then "It has been said that if the world is infinite, one and complete, then the existence of one God humans in it is inevitable").
"in the presence of a cell capable of self-replication, mutations and natural selection will lead its descendants to complications" [for the attentive reader 'compilations' = 'increase in complexity' - but correct me if I got it wrong @drop0112]
I totally agree. that's the gist of it: biological evolution, the way living things gained complexity.
"complications up to a certain level (let's call this level the boundary of complexity)"
I see no evidence of that. The complexity seems to have been limited due to things like lack of energy (which is why use of oxygen allowed for more complexity than anaerobic, as it was more efficient). Plus complexity comes with error checking mechanisms that improve the ability to maintain the code. Not to mention that some species that have huge genetic codes (which needless to say work just fine), such as a "rare Japanese flower named Paris japonica (...) [has a genetic code] 50 times the size of a human['s]" .
but you might be referring to other kinds of complexity barriers: having 50 arms might be too much, but we are well adapted with our 2 arms and our exceptionally big brains haven't got us killed just yet.
Oh well...
"The Bible teaches us that when creating all life on earth, God relied precisely on the evolutionary processes"
No, the bible does not tell any such thing, it pretty much says the contrary: that each kind gives rise to the same kind and that god created various kinds, including a man without a woman and then a woman (which is plainly wrong as you seem to understand - in fact you seem to understand that the bible is wrong and you then proceed to completely change what it says to fit your own views).
"Examples of boundaries of complexity are auditory and visual systems: “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye,"
Oh the eye! The same eye that was already explained to have perfectly viable paths for it's gradual evolution - examples of every stage still identifiable in nature in various species. This is a famous example: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a75cc9ba27ac3e85ff523c397a49a4c-c
"he created "big fishes" and reptiles not from scratch, but from that biomaterial that "waters bring" "
And he created a woman out of a man's biomaterial (and not the biomaterial in his testes) - which effectively didn't happen.
But there's more: Big fishes you say?! You might want to add the birds (and in the next day take care of the land dwellers)...
But wait a second you say: birds came after the land animals...
(No, you don't say that, you're set on forcefully reinterpreting this myth so that it fits with what we now know to be true...)
Is there any confirmation that a god did any of that?
Nope... just a made up story that needs to be heavily reinterpreted with modern knowledge in order for someone to pretend that it is not purely mythological.
So far we have a god that is hypothetical completely unnecessary.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
I've heard before the idea that the universe is "mathematically impossible to happen by accident", but it was a fallacy that took the probabilities of the universe being the exact way it is based on our ignorance of why it is the exact way it is, and then attempted to make a case that somehow god was needed to fill that gap in knowledge. The exact same fallacious argument can be made about any random event and about every event about which we lack information.
We might as well made the exact same case for balancing rocks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_rock ), and we would arrive at an incorrect answer.
What we do know, is that the bible's accounts don't resemble the way things actually happened/happen.
Amazingly, some people (a notable example being the pope), understand that basic ideas in the bible are factually false, but still pretend that there is validity to it.
Sticking to what can be verified (a good idea for those who are interested in believing what is true and not what is false), these myths go right out the window.
And, actually, the more a person studies the less a person tends to believe in a "creator" (95% of believers general US population vs 42% in US scientists, and the figure goes even lower for top scientists). Impressively even people who study religion tend to believe less after they study it (for instance philosophers of religion after their studies tend to believe less in god). So let's not pretend that studying real things (including books regarding myths) should lead a person to have a belief in some "creator".
I don't know what you mean by "a tangled mess that is harder to understand than is necessary". The basics are quite simple, and the specifics are a tangled mess because that tangled mess is a better description than a basic global picture. To say that the specifics are unnecessary is to dismiss modern machinery, medicine and weather prediction just to mention a tip of the iceberg.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Drop0112 Exactly: this is all hypothetical (should I go on to reinterpret the bible pretending it refers to a multiverse instead of god?).
The principle would be something like this:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
Which is basically the same principle the you proposed in order to explain god's existence:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Or the more baseless way you put it now:
"in an infinite and fullness world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [our universe], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world. And such model of the world is complete and is a logical consequence of the infinity and fullness of the world at a counterweight to an incomplete and illogical model of the world with god."
And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. (Why? are you saying that god in your conjecture required a mega generator to generate god? Like some sort of god being necessary to explain another god?)
The reason why this hypothesis is more probable is just that it cuts superfluous unconfirmed elements.
And as stated this is hypothetical. Being it unconfirmed, I obviously do not accept it as fact.
the fact that we do have an explanation that is substantiated by the various lines of evidence does make it a compelling case that evolution does explain, well, evolution. I'm still waiting to see any of that divine intervention though.
"objectively calculated probability of the evolution of the first cell to a man without the intervention of the mind"
And there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers.
but it's all so easy when not knowing means god did it. It's like when I can't find my car keys... gomes did it, I'm damn sure of it.
"And the Bible actually speaks of the evolutionary creation by God of living beings, but it was a creation, not a bare evolution."
Except it doesn't. It often specifically says "each after it's kind", not each slightly different until they become distinct.
"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
The idea that it talks about evolution comes from your head, not from the text (it just says "bring forth", it doesn't specify how - you then use your modern knowledge to fill the gap).
It also doesn't talk about creating from biomaterial, as what it actually speaks of are the "creatures" (of various kinds).
"God saw "that it was good" only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take."
I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it.
But lets pretend the bible talks about evolution rather than acknowledge that it is a work of complete ignorance about how things actually happened:
"plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds"
A lot of emphasis on the kinds is the least of it's problems. It's that trees were missing an essential thing which god only did the next day: "God made two great lights".
I guess god forgot that the lights were already there for at least a day or two ...or a couple billion years.
For anyone reading what is actually written in the bible, that myth is a page right out of harry potter, where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days.
You can try and stretch it, but unless you are basically rewriting it (as you do with your extremely exotic interpretations), this myth has little to no parallel with reality.
4