cypress

Thanks for the help, but I'm still quite confused... Maybe I should rephrase it in terms more useful to my book:

 

I've decided that the substance I mentioned is dispelled by light, and that a fire-lit torch would clear an area with a radius of about 7 feet. I'm trying to find out what kind of clearing power other light sources would have. If a candle really only has 1 lumen of lighting power, and what you said about the radius thing being proportional is true, then that would mean a candle would only clear the stuff in a field with a radius of... six tenths of an inch. That just doesn't sound right to me... am I missing something?

I think you did your math correct. It could be that the 140 lumen estimate was way off. Or perhaps it applied to a focused beam of light from a wood torch since the site was comparing flash lights and headlights and other focused beam light sources. I don't find the source in my google search history but let's assume I made one of these two errors in quoting that figure.

as far as distance and area goes swansont is correct for radial light as per an unfocused candle. The linear formula works only for focused beams as an approximation. I neglected that consideration.

An untestable singular event can never be determined to actually have occurred. What use is it to me to entertain the possibility when there is no logical way to ever know?

You might get a better understanding of the motivation behind raising singularities by asking mississippichem as that was the poster to whom I was addressing when swansont broke in. For my part I note that it makes little sense to complain in an argument with a theist that many of the arguments involve singularities. As it pertains to this thread, those who debate theists will find that they generally can't avoid singularities since the theist will often raise them in the context of historical evidence. To claim that singularities need not be entertained since they are untestable is to suggest that historical events are not worthy of consideration and this is simply untrue. Scientific tests are not the only source of truth, in fact science as a source of truth seems to be subordinate to other sources.

Science limits itself to testability out of pragmatism. What good is a description, a hypothesis, an explanation, if one can never know if it's true or false? It can't be used practically, because untestability implies no predictive power. It can't be used for its explanatory powers, because it has none.

Truth can be discovered in other ways and through these other sources of truth some of these descriptions, explanations and claims can be verified. Claiming or implying that scientific tests are the only way to establish truth is one primary way many atheists don't fight fair.

An untestable truth claim cannot claim to be the truth, because it cannot ever be demonstrated to be the truth.

False, I went to the store this evening and I can prove it without any repeatable test. I can prove it with sworn corroborated eye witness testimony. There is more than one path to truth.

A singularity is a mathematical concept, not a real object, even Hawking no longer thinks of a singularity is a real object. Again i ask you to name one thing that religion describes in a testable verifiable way, just one thing, I can't think of any, can you? I am not surprised science is wrong occasionally but name something religion got right...

Historical singularities are common. I will not fall out of my friends tree house and break my arm as an 9 year old more than once.

Theists posit that humans are body and soul. Mind and matter. I find this to be a testable posit.

Religion predicted the universe had a beginning. Even Einstein got this one wrong.

Hey, I'm writing a book, and in it there's a sort of substance in it that's neutralized by bright light. Recently I heard about lumens, the unit of measure for light, and I was wondering if anyone knew about how lumens scale...

It is a measure of the quantity of light per unit area. 1 foot candle is the light of one candle one foot away. 1 Lumen is 1 foot candle over one square foot.

Like, if something has twice the lumen level of something else, would the radius of the circle of light it cast be twice as big?

Roughly, yes. Precisely it means that one would receive the same amount of light per area at twice the distance.

How many lumens would a fire-lit torch have?

Not sure, found a couple vague references to 100-140

A candle?

1 as defined

A Heavy-duty flashlight?

200-300

The sun by the time its rays reach the earth?

No clue

A massive bonfire?

Stumped again.

I find it incredible to accept your claim that no theistic arguments are testable. In the specific case under discussion though mississippichem specified testability as a criteria and thus the reason for inclusion. But not all truth claims require testability as a criteria. A singularity is just one of many cases. I would hope that just a little thought would lead to to several others.

The responses are interesting enough I suppose but other than other than Jackson33 they have been mostly off topic and absent much practical advice.

Is pointing out the use by another poster of the logical fallacy of an ad hominem in itself an ad hominem?

If so do the site rules make it clear that pointing out ad hominem attacks are themselves ad hominems? If not are the rules vague in this regard?

Also:

Is it off topic?

Is it an insult?

If so, wouldn't pointing out any logical fallacy also be off-topic and an ad hominem?

Finally is reporting them really the most appropriate response?

DH; Nonsense, just as your comment here or my comment is, they can be defined as opinion.

I suspect he agrees and was being sarcastic. At least that is the way I took it.

cypress; I have noticed on several of your post, where as a moderator, he will admonish your post during the discussion which I find disgusting. However moderators "here" are expected and do participate in conversations.

Yes, I had been using his posting characteristics as a model to go by. I suppose, depending on the outcome of this thread I may have to find a different model. Perhaps this an example of being admonished for what he considered a logical fallacy and in the process he committed an ad hominem by his definition... Just a couple posts later we have this one, I leave it to the reader to decide what category to place it.

It wasn't hard to find more examples that I won't mention, but since I had thought this practice was proper I didn't make an issue of it at the time. I am anxious to here what other think. At the moment I am in a bit of a quandary as to how to proceed.

Since at least two moderators here and a couple posters, seem to hold grudges from elsewhere and will never post in agreement with any of your comments, to report any thread or post, in turn to them, seems rather fruitless. Ignore them, move on to the next challenge and note that most every one of your post/threads has been or will be scrutinized.

Perhaps this is good advice. Don't point them out, don't report them as this is more likely to be counterproductive for me.

You and I and a very few others are still around, that will challenge a consensus of authority in any way, even when right or correct and I won't bother you with the numbers of those now banned or gone, which are many....

Though errors of fact don't likely result in banning, selective enforcement of rules can be a very effective way to shape the content and discussion. I am not saying that this has occurred or is occurring but interpretations of rules such as the one being discussed in this thread seem ripe for this kind of eventuality. if this is policy, at the very least it should be clearly described in both the rules and posting etiquette sections. I don't see it mentioned at all.

Why should one expect nonrecurring physical phenomena to have anything but physical causes?

I wouldn't. I exclude them for a different reason since singularities are not generally considered testable and the context was around testability. I don't see how this clarification adds anything to the argument though.

edit to add: Theists, for centuries, did posit non-materialist reasons for physical phenomena. Why did they not expect physical causes?

For the same reason theists and atheists overreach today and posit explanations they can't confirm. Both theists and atheists have prior commitments and many frame everything according to their commitment regardless if it is valid or not. Some overstep the boundary to make persuasive arguments that sound great at the time but don't pan out in the long run. Again both sides are guilty.

You big mistake (and it really can be called a mistake because we have repeatedlyu tried to correct you on this), is that evolution is not totally random, nor is it totally deterministic. It is both.

 

Mutation is random, but selection is not. There are two (count them 2), parts. One is random, the other is deterministic.

I am quite aware of the mechanism and it is because of the dual process that adaptation is possible. Just as with moontonman's example with the beach where both processes are involved, changes occur but those changes do not represent a progressive net reduction in the probability of the configuration of the discrete states. You and the others are not correcting my argument you are repeatedly misrepresenting it.

Previously I have asked for cases where evolutionary processes do proceed along long contiguous pathways to novel form and function. This would demonstrate that new form and function is an inevitable result of the deterministic process of selection, that these new forms are no less probable than the forms from which they were derived plus any minor order is obtained from the probabilistic resources imported by random processes. Unfortunately you can't even offer a known contiguous pathway of four or more selectable steps. So this solution is unavailable.

I also asked for known examples of physical only processes accomplishing similar feats of net probability reduction. Some offered evolutionary algorithms but those examples included a designer that intentionally imported active information to accomplish the apparent reduction in probability so that when the information flux was included there was no net reduction. Others including yourself suggested that low probability energy could be substituted for low probability information or molecular order but you were unable to offer a verified demonstrable example; it was a just so story. Still others attempted more deceptive tactics that included making subtle redefinitions of the problem statement. One poster used traditional examples like the heat pump to show that thermodynamic cycles can reduce entropy of one component of the system when the fluxes entering and leaving that component is ignored. But this is not what is posited by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. For this redefined example to be a valid representation of how abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all observed biodiversity one must identify the information fluxes involved in these processes just as in the heat pump example one must point out that the distribution of discrete energy states is being reduced by removing energy state permutations in the form of a heat flux that is leaving the deliberately defined system. In other words one must identify the flows across the system boundaries.

Finally I have noted that design is an example of a process that does import information order in the form of functional prescriptive information into physical systems that store information including representations of digital computer code and DNA. Design is a process that does address the requirement that life from non-life and derivation of biodiversity must have a source of low entropy functional prescriptive information.

The original challenge remains unfulfilled except by design.

As you state a determinisitic process has a probability of 1, that it is a certainty. If the determinisit process amplifies existing information (not creates it, not imports it), and it does this with a certainty, then what is the provelem that you have?

Simple, if you are going to argue that new form and function is does not represent a reduction in probability of the discrete prescriptive character configurations, that instead these configurations have equal probability in that the change from one configuration to the next is driven by a deterministic process then you must identify this process. Currently you have the state changes occuring by random processes and selection by a deterministic process. Alternatively you will need to show that selectable pathways exist. You need to demonstrate that there are evolutionary pathways greater than those 1-2 step ones achievable by random processes alone. You need to offer up a handful of actualized four and greater step pathways.

You agree that imformation vcan be added through random processes, you agree that determinisitic systems have a probability of 1, then what is the problem with a determinisitic system amplifying (but not creating) information and the random process importing it?

It can be shown that there is insufficient probabilistic resources available for this process to achieve what has been observed within the posited timeframe. I have previously offered published articles to this effect. I am happy to discuss them again.

Yes, purely random processes are not. However, we are not talking aobut purely random or puely determinisitc system ehre are wew. You keep using the strawmen of pure determinisitc or pure random systems.

False as described above.

The existence of free will does not necessitate that everything I attempt should succeed -- merely that I be freely able to attempt it.

 

Suppose, then, I have free will, and I decide to murder my neighbor. Free will means I can take my gun over, aim it at him, and fire. Free will does not mean that God cannot stop the bullet in mid-air and prevent my neighbor's death, just like free will does not mean that I can travel at four times the speed of light if I want to.

Most humans are rational beings and don't attempt a course of action that has no likelihood of success. Free will implies contingency of outcome. If there is no contingency there is no real choice and therefore no free will. It is also silly and illogical to suggest that free will to be real should be extended to the impossible.

I am not concerned with God's goals. I am concerned with whether God is omnibenevolent. Should He value other goals at the expense of His benevolence, then we shouldn't go around calling Him omnibenevolent.

If you cannot establish that observation is inconsistent with the posited characteristics then you can't falsify the premise. Rather than taking this approach you seem to prefer to redefine that it means to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent. For your definition, you seem to require that it include the impossible in that you want to require that competing goods all be maximized. This is not possible.

In a thread a poster committed what I think is an ad hominem attack. I don't generally report them but I do think it is useful to point them out to show that the poster's argument is weak. Recently a moderator added a note that pointing these out in the thread also constitutes an ad hom attack. While it may well discredit the poster, and in that sense may meet the definition of an ad Hominem, I suggest the primary purpose of pointing out the logical fallacy is to demonstrate that the argument is weak. I think for consistency, pointing out any logical fallacy would have to be considered an ad hominem attack by the moderators description. Are the only remedies really to report these fallacies or ignore them?

What are your thoughts?

As swansont pointed out, I was not asserting that science has succeeded to date in all of its endeavors. Your argument that I am cherry picking the accuracy record for religion is only superficially relevant. Yes, the theistic explanation has been overturned countless times but even more significant is the fact that not one purely theistic, spiritual, or metaphysical explanation can be attributed to any physical phenomena;

But why should one expect reoccurring physical phenomena to have anything but physical causes? I don't have a problem with using absence of evidence as an indicator of an issue so long and the absence is for an event where one would expect the evidence to be. The Greek and Roman religions are falsified for this reason. There is no Mount Olympus, no Hades, no Thor and his lightning, no Atlas, etc. etc. The Muslim religion hangs together only because the earliest manuscripts are kept secret so that it is not outright falsified in similar ways. The Judeo-Christian Religion does not make many claims of repeatable events, instead they are mostly historical or personal or outright singularities that likely will never happen again. If one wishes to falsify Theism, one must go after the actual claims being made rather than claims that don't apply, to do otherwise is cherry picking or begging the question. To be seen as fighting fair, go after the claims that apply.

and all said "spiritual phenomena" like ghosts, faith healing and the like conveniently lack physical explanations. Saying that I can't make a scientific argument against a metaphysical claim may appear to be fair, but it really just shields the weaker argument from being found lacking.

You have to go after the doctrine, even theistic doctrine makes specific claims about the physical world. Theism remains in play because these claims remain in play. The major ones are this universe, life in this universe, the soul, a personal relationship with the creator, etc.

Theism doesn't make any testable hypotheses. This has already been discussed in the thread, but it's worth noting that just because theism lacks a critical logical pillar (testability), doesn't mean it gets a free pass on that part of the exam. That's how theism doesn't fight fair.

This is not true. Theism claim the universe was created by a powerful intelligent creator, and that there is no other way. It claims there should be evidence that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. It claims life was created and that there is evidence of creation in the universe and life in it. It claims that life has body and soul and there should be evidence that soul is unique from body. It claims there is a path to a personal relationship to the creator. These are all testable hypotheses.

It tries to make physical claims without physical evidence, then when theism gets called on it they claim that atheists are holding the bar too high and are comparing theists against an unfair standard. In debates, theism is allowed to creep into the realm of science, but when science encroaches on theism there is always faith or metaphysics as an out.

Many theist have this behavior to be sure. It is not theism or atheism that does not fight fair but as you say many theists and atheist don't fight fair. Atheist don't help much in the debate when they give the theist a way out by raising physical challenges that they can't even resolve. The fundamental issue is that the two sides are at an impasse on the root issues but many on both sides are not content with that so they attempt to get the upper hand by extending their arguments in ways that are not seen as fair.

The superiority of positivistic, materialistic, scientific reasoning over its alternatives can clearly be demonstrated.

Before scientific reasoning can make any sense, these alternatives must first be established. Science relies on logic and rationality for its own reasoning. As previously argued, science is subordinate to these alternatives.

Then please define what you mean by intermediary.

Intermediary means direct line ancestor not some distant presumed cousin.

If you wish to see something that looks half man half ape then you are surely mistaken about what it means to be an intermediary species.

You're begging the question, I have not asked for such an example.

Also, if these are not intermediaries, what are they.

The evidence is inconclusive. They are similar in many ways but there are also significant differences that are inconsistent with direct line ancestors. At best they are in different lines and are not directly related.

Just some hominids that happen to be dated in a timeline that would fit well with our current ideas of human evolution?

Yes they are at least this. They may be more, but it is unclear.

In any case this finger and DNA analysis does not seem to establish a forth human species. The authors seem to be overstepping their bounds particularly since instead the evidence actually shows clear signs of interrelationships with modern genetic lines. I am not sure how this adds anything to our understanding of human ancestry. Should we be surprised to find cut off lines races? Are there not different lines in human races today? An interesting question would be how different is this line from the most diverse current line? Is this information available?

God is omnipotent, isn't He? Are you saying He can't overcome laws of nature to stop evil? He is powerless in the face of a murderer with a gun?

I don't understand why you are still asking these questions. Why is free will an insufficient reason for you? Perhaps instead of repeating your questions you would instead show precisely why you think free will is not a sufficient response. Show us why this God would not value free will and would thus greatly diminish or eliminate it.

And what of the cases in which no external force is there -- the innocent baby with a painful terminal illness? How does free will make that necessary?

What of it? Free will necessarily requires non-intervention. Who are we to know when intervention is warranted and when it is not? Are we better equipped to know when this God should intervene and when this God should not? Can you demonstrate that intervention in the cases where you believe it is warranted would certainly not diminish the long term goals? If not, then you seem to be little more than an armchair quarterback.

For you to equate atheism with materialism, you have to abandon materialism as a theistic viewpoint. No theist can accept any science. That's trivially false.

I disagree. To say that many atheists use materialistic arguments as I have is not making an equivalence it actually implicitly acknowledges there is a difference. I am aware that there are atheists that do not use materialistic arguments but I have not heard from that subgroup on this site, have never experienced that subgroup making explicit arguments against theism that I would consider "fighting unfair" and don't think it is too much of an error to focus on the group that generates the most attention.

Why is a materialistic argument only "unfair" when an atheist makes it and the theist disagrees?

That's an odd question to ask. I don't remember making this claim. Why are you begging the question? Materialistic arguments and explanations are perfectly good when the explanation is causally adequate. The argument becomes unfair when the claims outstrip the evidence and is driven more by prior commitment than knowledge.

You have not explained this. You claim, for example, that most theists accepted that the earth was round well before even the time of Christ, but do not address whether they accepted this for material reasons or divine ones.

I did not see how the reasons for accepting these ideas was important. Mississippichem offered them as past examples of where physical only explanations won out over the popular claims of the theist community. He was hoping to establish that scientists have a better track record than theists. But in the case of a round Earth, theists recognized the earth was round long before it was factually established. I don't see how the motivation is significant in this particular argument unless I misunderstood his point, and perhaps I did.

The germ theory of disease, regardless of whether introduced by a theist or an atheist, is a theory that posits a materialistic cause, and replaced the theistic "model" of demonic possession. Did the theists abandon demonic possession because of holy inspiration, or because of the materialistic evidence? You aren't arguing theism vs atheism.

No I am not because we are primarily discussing the tactics of each side. Thanks for the invite but I don't wish to stray too far from the stated topic.

In the case of germ theory, it was theists, in support of their fundamental belief that God is the instigator of life and thus life comes from life, set out to demonstrate that the popular non-theistic notion that life can occur spontaneously was incorrect and also that those theists who believed that disease was a result of demons was also an incorrect doctrine of the tenants of their religion.

Mississippichem was attempting to make the point that theism has a horrible track record with respect to predictions, but one must cherry pick examples to make this point. It is common for someone who does not understand how or why something happens to assign it to a higher power and so it will be easy to cherry pick those falsehoods because they are generally ill-conceived ideas born out of ignorance. to show that it is cherry picking, we can also look at the record of published scientific research, where recent reviews of published conclusions indicate the papers are wrong more than 50% of the time (here, here and here). The point being that any group can be shown to have a poor track record, including the scientific community, but to be fair, when dealing with the bold claims of theism, and here we are speaking of how and why this universe came to exist, how and why life on earth came to exists, and wether or not this the cause is active in our realm spiritually so anything more, like for example how some ancient group of people explained lightning 3000 years ago seems mostly irrelevant. On the major points, the universe and life in it, the atheist has nothing over the theist, available evidence seems better explained by a creative force. Despite this, when it comes to debate tactics, thought many individuals do, on the whole, neither side seems to fight fair.

Where do those molecules come from? Out of an adjacent volume? That would be impossible, because if this were true one would also require for molecules to flow into that volume as well, rather than flow out of the volume. You are requiring a spontaneous increase in the number of molecules in the system. That's wrong.

Most refrigerators are not air tight, though airflow is limited, air mass flows into the refrigerator as the temperature drops so that pressure remains constant. In Skeptic's original problem statement he did not specify the hypothetical airtight refrigerator of his sixth and latest attempt, but as I explained it does not change the outcome.

Your insistence that one must include all inputs and outputs in an entropy calculation is basically insisting that the system always be the universe. This isn't particularly useful. It is perfectly acceptable to define smaller systems.

Not so, the system was defined by skeptic as the contents and earlier as a fixed volume inside the refrigerator. skeptic even agreed that the inputs and outputs must be considered and included. the system I used is quite small, It does not include the walls of the refrigerator or the evaporator, or the refrigerant pipes, or the compressor or expansion valve or any other part of the universe. Just the system Skeptic defined and the fluxes across the system boundaries.

chlorophyll is green because it absorbs the much of the blue and red light but does not absorb the more abundant greens and yellows.

Cypress, how do you reconcile that with:

 

[math] dU=TdS-PdV [/math]

 

or

 

[math] dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \! [/math]

 

About volumetric contraction: I would treat the refrigerator as a constant volume system. Correct me if I'm not understanding your treatment of the system as a non-constant volume system.

In Skeptic's original problem statement he defined the system as one cubic foot of free space in the refrigerator. Thus as the temperature in the refrigerator drops the molecules in that volume contract and additional molecules cross the boundary into the system. It was the volume of the molecules of air that I referred to as changing, but not the volume of the system Skeptic defined. Therefore Skeptic's original problem statement involved an open system and I recognized it as such. Unfortunately Skeptic did not, and he made use of an ad hominem as an attempt to discredit me.

I agree, the volume should be treated as constant as defined by Skeptic. The system, as originally described, was an open system since mass transfer into the system, despite his claim that it was closed.

EDIT: It's worth adding that biological systems exist in a state of perpetual dynamic non-equilibrium. I don't know if anyone here knows any non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I honestly know very little.

You are correct to point that out, however all macro systems acted on by physical processes alone, despite the configurations, proceed according to probability theory and entropy laws. All properly treated systems as defined above experience a zero or greater change in entropy so long as all the inputs and outputs are included in the system description. When they are not, the system is described incorrectly.

wiki articles are often well described but they are not always 100% precise. In context the wiki article are saying the same thing, but like Skeptic, the writer is choosing to treat the heat flux as part of the surrounding. This is incorrect because it is a flow across the boundary When considering the system, fluxes across the boundary must be included.

 

The only requirement on the sign of the [math]\Delta S[/math] term is that:

 

[math]\Delta S_{universe}>0[/math]

 

[math]\Delta S_{system}+\Delta S_{surroundings}>0[/math]

 

The entropy of the system [inside the refrigerator] must decrease if the above inequality or the Clausius Inequality is to hold.

the entropy of the contents of the refrigerator drops since the temperature of the contents drop, but including the flux across the boundary of the system, entropy rises as it must and as the wiki article describes.

The heat flux leaving the system is accounted for by [math] (\Delta S_{surroundings}) [/math]; you've incorrectly defined the system.

I have defined it differently and more accurately, particularly for the context of this discussion. The same process applies to the evaporator, or any other component of the refrigerator, fluxes across the system boundaries must be included. When they are not included then one must as a caveat as the wiki author did.

The thermal entropy of matter drops with temperature, but in a thermodynamic system, defined as the contents of an airtight refrigerator, inputs and outputs, all fluxes, must be included in order to obtain realistic results. The contents of an airtight refrigerator looses internal energy and thus the discrete energy states become less distributed, and have higher order, but the system includes the heat flux leaving the refrigerator contents and entering the evaporator coils. since entropy entropy, S = ∑Q/T this heat flux is taking entropy with it and it is part of the system. Furthermore Skeptic describe the system cooling and dropping temperature. I have now explained this six times. The net entropy of the system, being the contents or part of the contents of a refrigerator, and the heat flux leaving the contents, is rising since the process is not reversible as temperature changes.

I have indulged Skeptic's persistence to make it clear that Skeptic is attempting to ignore the heat transfer/heat flux leaving the contents of the refrigerator so he can incorrectly claim that entropy of the system dropped. He makes this attempt because his argument requires demonstration of a system where entropy drops so he can create the false impression that the theories in question, abiogenesis and biodiversity by known evolutionary process alone, as currently posited, don't require identification of a source of low entropy, or sink for high entropy information and molecular in order avoid violation the laws of probability and entropy for macro events.

The primary difference between his refrigerator example and these others is with the refrigerator (a heat pump) there is a known heat flux that accounts for the transfer of entropy out of the refrigerator contents. With these two theories there is no identified flux of information and molecular entropy across the system boundary. Skeptic has created an elaborate straw man. Instead he should either identify the entropy flux involved in chemic abiogenesis and the processes responsible for observed biodiversity or admit that he hasn't got a clue. Design is a process that does import large quantities of low entropy information and molecular order across system boundaries. It is a process that is known and in operation today. It is the only process so far as I am aware that does accomplish this task. I advocate that other processes be investigated that offer an alternative to design, but many advocates of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis seem to prefer to ignore the issues, claim there is none, and call the messengers ignorant.

In debate between atheism and theism, and this topic is about debate tactics, theists make largely creationistic arguments while atheists make largely materialistic arguments around the primary points of disagreement which is the exp. Since this topic is about fighting fair in debate, it seems appropriate to speak of the arguments being made on both sides as both mississippi and I are doing. I hope this adequately explains the motivation.

The yellow flame. Yellow light is an indicator that the temperature is low which implies incomplete energy conversion, incomplete combustion or way too much air intake. Given that burners are physically constrained not to run lean, it is a safe assumption to conclude it is overly rich due to plugging of some sort. Clean the yellow one.

Yes, I but I don't think a metaphysical approach is rigorous enough to go to bat for that particular claim.

It is a lot like stealing two bases on a bunt, but it is not illogical per se. It is not causally adequate but it does fit with observation. The materialist alternative has the same deficiencies in that it is not illogical but it is not causally adequate. However the materialist explanation also doe not fit observation as well in that there are any observations that seem to contradict what we think we know about physical only processes.

Another serious disadvantage the atheistic materialist has in this debate is that there are several flavors of theism that themselves are contradictory so you are left to make several arguments for the same situation. In this example we can have one theist arguing that life on Earth may not be as old as it appears while another theist accepts the apparent age of the earth. You are in the unfortunate position of having to defend against both.

Again though, to me, the best path forward would be to address the weaknesses in ones own argument, and avoid overstating it as many atheists do.

I'm making my judgment on the premise that their is yet to be even one phenomena that has been attributed to the supernatural.

I'm not sure it is possible from our vantage point to demonstrably attribute anything to a cause that transcends our universe. I think this is another example of where the atheistic materialist has set the bar too high. The demand is not reasonable. However there are many causes that continue to lack natural explanations, perhaps it is because there is no natural explanation. The universe appears to have a supernatural cause in that it appears to be caused by a powerful, deliberate and intelligent agent that transcends the time, material, and space constraints of this universe. If instead you meant to say that there is no evidence that a transcending creator intervenes in our universe today to cause events that don't have physical explanations in the current time, I don't se how that helps your case.

Physical explanations have always arisen to solve our philosophical questions and I believe they always will. Throughout history religion has played "gottcha!" with science every time religion has some "god of the gaps" argument that science cannot yet account for. Geocentric universe, flat Earth, Young Earth, germ theory and the lot. Now days we look back on that and laugh that anyone could have possibly rejected germ theory for demonic possession. Perhaps people like myself and others here will read this post in a few hundred years and laugh that we are even having this debate.

In my opinion, there are two problems with this argument. First of all the ignorance of debaters on both side of this argument has resulted in no end of overstated claims. The atheistic materialist has been sharpening the argument for hundreds of years as has the theist. Neither side has a good record of accuracy. Second, many of these errors are not accurately attributed to the theistic side of this debate and many of the ones that are attributable to the theist had more to do with politics or philosophical extensions of the theists framework than the current debate about evidence for a creator per see. The geocentric model for example was symbolic of man's relationship to the creator. The church objected to the attempts to raise the status of man in relation to the rest of the creation and that was the true nature of the debate. The flat earth belief is largely a myth propagated by historians by keying on minority opinions. Most theists accepted that the earth was round well before even the time of Christ. Modern germ theory was initiated by theists who were firmly arguing against the non-theistic notion of spontaneous creation. Just as with the flat earth myth, historians can find fringe groups who overstepped their bounds and attributed more to their creator than was warranted. The same is true of materialists even now; we need not go back too far into history to find examples on both sides of this debate. As we have agreed, neither side fights fair.

That's why I don't like to use the Razor, no one ever agrees on its use. I still think it applies there but I won't fight you over it.

I may not have been clear, my mistake. I agree it applies to the age of earth argument, but it does not apply to overarching debate which is about how and why the world is as it is.

Science must assume all questions and all answers are materialistic. Science is the study of materialistic answers. I choose to find my answers in the field of study that brought us space flight, chemotherapy, nuclear weapons, and RNA suppression therapy. There is no other route to truth, other than science, that has repeatably given benefits and results for society.

I disagree. methodological materialism rejects design as a valid cause, yet the search for extraterrestrial intelligence specifically accepts design. Forensic science also accepts design as a valid explanation. Introspection can be a source of truth. Historical studies provide a source of truth. Eye witness testimony is a source of truth. Logic and reason provides a source of truth. If you deny reason and logic and thought as a source of truth, then science cannot be a source of truth. Your argument itself is illogical.

I like metaphysics, but it needs to know its place. It has no place making claims about prehistoric geology. Maybe science will discover God one day, I doubt it, but scientifically I will assume there is no God until sufficient evidence has been brought to light and adequately defended. Metaphysics is great, but it doesn't work in courtrooms, scientific defenses, or calculating the age of the Earth.

Why do you choose to assume there is no creator until one is proved? Why not assume materialistic processes alone can't account for the universe until science shows it can? Your choice seems arbitrary and unscientific. The scientific approach would be to leave both as open questions and to allow for all modes of explanation so long as the explanation can be tested. Metaphysics brought us rules for logic and it is only with logic and reason that science and law makes any sense.

Yeah there's math too...I think science is the only route to objective truth that me and you can argue about and have a third part come in and declare who is right or wrong. Science is the best route to the truth because science admits that, if one person says 1+1=3 and the other says 1+1=2, somebody is wrong. Science doesn't allow multiple truth values. It keeps things internally consistent and keeps things so objective that sometimes one can feel the chill.

No, sorry argument relies on many sources of truth as the tools of debate. Without these other tools you cannot demonstrate your claim that "science is a source of truth" is true. Without these other sources of truth, science is impotent.

...well you know I can't agree there but we'll leave that in the "Evolution has Never been Observed" thread.

I was actually thinking of cosmological arguments.

Alright, We'll take it down the philosophical road. What's is said deity's motivation for tricking us into thinking the Earth is really billions of years old?

It does not make much sense to me, I can only think of one logical reason. I think the theist argument is stronger on other points so I prefer to accept geologic time and argue other points. Besides, as I mentioned before only some theists make this argument. If I were to take the Judeo-Christian view and make the argument that the bible is literally true on all points, and nothing was ever intended to be metaphorical or simplified for the direct intended audience, then I suppose I would have to argue this point, but I doubt you would insist that a 3000 year old text that has been transcribed and translated be taken literally on every sentence.

Cypress, I'll agree that both sides "don't fight fair" in the sense that I'm fighting from a materialistic worldview while my opponents are fighting from a spiritual worldview. I would rather call it "both sides are playing different ballgames and trying to compare scores". I'm not ashamed to admit though that I think science plays a rougher no-holds-barred ballgame and if the religious want to make converts or gain way with secularists they're going to have to put on their helmets and play the mean and hard hitting peer review game.

I agree. I've largely taken up the protagonist role here. Not so much because I am an advocate of this side, as because I don't see as many making a good argument from this side of the line (not that my arguments are particularly good either, but what is a poor boy to do?) and I strongly believe that truth is obtained only by strong challenge. In a different situation, I might see myself taking the side of consensus science, but not here and not now.

Except there is no deterministic component. The properties or the setup result in modified probability distributions, which is enough to sort objects via random collisions. This works for both larger items and the refrigerator example.

 

 

 

This challenge was answered long ago, with the example of the contents of a refrigerator. However, the example of a refrigerator only works when the inputs and outputs are considered, but won't work if it and its surroundings are treated as a single system with no inputs nor outputs.

As I have now explained 4 times, when you define the system as the contents of a warm refrigerator where the heat pump removes heat energy from the contents, a heat flux crosses the boundary you defined. Considering this heat flux as an output, and the mass transfer that occurs due to volumetric contraction, the system you defined gains entropy as it must. It is only by improperly ignoring the boundary fluxes that you get the "system" you defined as losing entropy.

It is the same with processes posited for abiogenesis and the evolutionary theory (as an explanation for observed biological diversity). Neither of these theories offer an explanation for how the apparently system looses entropy because just as you have attempted to do with the refrigerator example, these theories fail to include and fail to identify the source and mechanism by which low entropy prescriptive information crosses the boundary of the system. I claim that while in your refrigerator system was ill defined but the processes where correct, in these other two cases the processes are incorrectly defined and instead ther must be other processes involved that do account for import of functional prescriptive information. It is clear from this thread that these sources are unknown. It is also clear that there are no examples of physical only processes alone that do derive or organize large amounts of functional prescriptive information beyond the amount predicted by probabiliity for random processes based on the resources available.

That is exactly what i am saying, my example of the beach is true, it actually happened, the waves not only created the heart shaped pieces of brick it sorted them out by shape. I have seen this with many other shapes of particles on the beach and in rivers but the surf is better than a river at shaping and sorting objects. The heart shape caught my eye that day but the beach had both created and sorted out lots of other shapes as well, the surf blindly creates the shapes this way, it orders and arranges them by shape, size and density, it does it ever day of every week of every year from dust sized particles to boulders, 24/7/365 the surf never stops the processes it drives. I could take you to any beach any place on the planet and show you examples of this process. You need to read Freeman Dyson's book Origins of Life, short sweet and to the point, your objections not only fail they make no sense at all...

But what you observe on the beach is not a reduction in the configuration probability because the changes in discrete states that increase your personal perception of order are deterministic based on gravity, density, material hardness, etc.. Over time, the entropy of the beach is increasing as it must.

Exactly what do you mean by deterministic processes? It seems to mean anything you want so far in this discussion.

Deterministic processes result in outcomes that are certain. The probability of an outcome given a deterministic process or cause is 1

You are using the concept of information entropy totally out of context, you have not even established the reality of information entropy, in the context you are suggesting.

My equations for Information entropy are consistent with statistical forms of entropy and follow the formulas based on probability theory and information theory. Your complaint rings hollow unless you can demonstrate with specific formulas and examples how my use is out of context. Describe precisely my error, be specific.

order can arise out of disorder by the input of energy, this applies to both shells on the beach and complex chemicals. Your constant obfuscation of the issue does not change the facts.

In probability theory and entropy, order has a very precise meaning but I suspect you are using a different meaning. In a system with large numbers of discrete states, order is said to be maximized when the configuration of all the discrete states is such that that particular configuration has the lowest overall probability of all possible permutations. Entropy is a proxy for order and is a constant times the sum of -PilnPi for each i discrete state. Thermal energy is based on the discrete energy states of molecules and atoms and thus entropy applies thermal energy and heat transfer. Prescriptive information is based on the combinations of characters in discrete positions of the message and thus entropy and order applies to prescriptive information.

You seem to be claim that positive energy alone as the sole input into a system (such as the contents of a beach) can change the configuration of the discrete states such that over time the the probability of the configuration is steadily reduced. When I speak of the order observed in biological information this is what I am speaking of. I don't think this is what you mean by increasing order, and if it is not then you're example is a straw man , but if you do mean this, then let's dig into the details of your example so we can determine if the outcomes are becoming progressively less probable.

I think the one advocating the radical counter intuitive interpretation of the evidence is the one responsible for defending it. By this logic I can attack anyone's legitimate physical argument for anything just by suggesting that it might all be an illusion.

You have raised many interesting and challenging points.

Remember though he is not making an argument that relies on physical evidence to support it. His argument provides a philosophical solution to explain physical evidence. He is not fighting fair. You though are also not fighting fair to insist on physical evidence for a philosophical construct.

Not all hypotheses are born equal, claiming that all the evidence is an illusion whether that person accepts the evidence as empirical or not is, to put it mildly, a bold claim an should require bold evidence.

Well it requires a strong argument but instead needsimprovement switched the playing field and covered it with a metaphysical approach.

If this argument is valid then I should quit school and all these scientists here in the forums should quit there jobs because there is no way of proving that any scientific data gathered isn't just an illusion.

The debate is not over the evidence, rather it is about what the evidence means. It is about how and why the world came to be the way it is, and on these questions the materialist does not have any advantage. The atheistic materialist thus far has failed to offer a causally adequate explanation for the physical facts we observe and even a logically coherent explanation for thought, self awareness and indeed the very tools that allow this debate. Rather than giving up, I would suggest that the materialist either focus on these shortcomings or relax the bold claims being made.

I don't like to evoke Occam's razor because it is overused but which explanation do you think fits the evidence and is simpler; the earth being as old as it appears, or the earth happening to appear several billion years old by multiple methods and actually being only a few thousand?

It seems simpler that the earth has been through the cycles it appears to have been through, but again this does not help us answer how it got this way and on that point Occam's razor does not seem to offer much help.

I don't see what part of unexplained phenomena pushes one to conclude that some infinite yet still anthropomorphic ghost did it. Science fights fair because it presents all the evidence available in support of or against the claims being made.

Science done right does but the dogmatic materialists don't follow this pattern. They overreach with the claims being made. The atheistic materialist claims the universe has a material cause, that life has a material only cause and that thought is an emergent property of matter. These are not scientific claims, they are based on prior commitments but science is misused to push them and science is loser when these claims are oversold.

Religion doesn't fight fair because when it comes to things like age of the Earth and evolution they can never seem to get enough proof or experimental evidence despite the plethora that is available.

I agree many theists don't fight fair when they deny even the obvious. But the materialists often oversell what is established or use evidence that established a particular fact and overextend it to support conjecture of a different sort and that does not help their case.

Then religion refuses to conduct peer reviewed research to support it's counter claim and asks that people just take it on the fact that someone said it.

Yes, theists often use and even switch to historical and philosophical proofs rather than scientific proofs. But I am sure you would agree that science is not the only source of truth.

Either the scientific method works and is theoretically applicable in all scenarios or it is total BS and we are wasting our time because there is no way to tell under which circumstances it applies.

Agreed. Science done right works, but science does not show that a creator is not necessary. The evidence of today seems instead to indicate more strongly that one is.

Someone must provide some testable or predictable, or observable, or repeatable mechanism by which a god could have faked the age of the Earth or that argument will not and should not be accepted by anyone with any objectivity at all. Wild speculation and rigorously analyzed theories that have stood the test of peer review attack are not on equal footing by anyone's measure.

It is not a valid scientific argument for sure. But as a philosophical argument it seems to have some merit. You already know the theist is not fighting fair, but because the atheist is unable to show how and why the old earth model came about without a creator, you seem to be at an impasse.