What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

a reply to: neoholographic

You're conveniently leaving out what exactly it was I said was completely plausible. The only evidence I need is whether you've ever been wrong in your life, or ever had a problem you thought had no solution, only to find one later. As the ability for you to be lacking information, or have just not figured out the solution to your problem is the ONLY thing I said was plausible. Are you an infallible all knowing god, or a fallible meat brained human being? If the answer is fallible meat brained human being, then my statement that it's completely plausible either you're missing the information to fix your issue, or have yet to figure one out is completely accurate, as it is a pretty safe assumption that as you are a fallible meat brained human, this is all true.

Your question is a trick question, because there's no good way to answer it, because it's breaking things down to the point it becomes circular. It's basically the very last question in the why/how game before there stops being a reasonable answer without more information. Not saying there is no answer, in fact, pretty sure there is, but it sounds like an absurdly complex one that would require the knowledge of how the process began all the way through to where it is now. Which no one has the answer to at the moment. It would require knowing the finite mechanics of all life from beginning to end.

a reply to: Puppylove

Now you're just lying.

The question was, how is it possible for materialism to explain these things and you said it's plausible in every way. You realize how silly you sound and now you try to come up with some convoluted answer that makes no sense.

Now you're saying it's plausible for me to be lacking in information. Yeah, that's plausible but not in this specific situation.

You said it's plausible for materialism to explain these things and it's not possible.

Let me repeat:

There's no way a medium can encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that information.

The medium would have to have intelligent agency and now we're talking about panpsychism not strict materialism.

Here's another example:

I have 2 packs of gum in front of me. One is big red and the other is spearmint.

I can encode information in the medium(2 packs of gum). I can say if the big red is opened and the spearmint isn't then turn to ESPN on th TV. If the spearmint is open and the big red isn't then turn to HBO.

My intelligence encoded the sequence of the medium(2 packs of gum) with information. This information can be decoded by another intelligent being or I can build a machine to decode it.

The medium doesn't contain any of the information encoded in it's sequence. That would be saying the packs of gum know about HBO and ESPN.

It's impossible, let me repeat, impossible for a medium to encode it's sequence with information. A natural interpretation of evolution is a materialist fantasy.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not lying. The only thing I said was plausible was the very things I said. But fine let's play your game.

I have no idea, you hit the point where my only "answer" is "because that's how things evolved to work, because that's what works" see a circular answer.

What's your solution non materialistically. *Puts on child beanie hat to get on your level and play the why/how game.* When we're done, if you play the game, you'll end up just as circular answering my questions non materialistically btw. It's a pointless exercise.

a reply to: Puppylove

You asked:

First, a recent paper showed that the wave funcrion is real yet non physical.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

This was realized in an experiment where information traveled between points A and B without a physical medium.

Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect

Intuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Secondly, quantum Field Theory tells us there are no particles. What we call subatomic particles is just excitations of underlying quantum fields.

There are no particles, there are only fields

aapt.scitation.org...

Third, Hoffman's theory of Conscious Agents.

Conscious agent networks: 2 Formal analysis and application to cognition

cogsci.uci.edu...

I can go on and on but the point is this, there's no evidence than an objective material reality exist. We live in a non local and non physical reality that can exhibit particle like behavior.

Only intelligence can encode the sequence of a medium with information. We do it everyday with computers and other mediums. We've built civilization because we can encode sequence with information and build machinery to decode that sequence. I can quote scientist and papers as I have earlier about scientist moving towards panpsychism. It's because they have to. Materialism is dead.

I provide evidence to support my assertions. I don't obfuscate like you.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The gaps are a reference to the historical pattern where every divine event turned out to have a natural explanation and no discernible cosmic influence at all, suggesting miracles are just science we haven't puzzled out yet and god is a lazy answer.

I wouldn't call jumps (gaps) occurring on the FALSE evolution time line 'miracles'. They are what they are, timely interference with the experiment. Someone Somewhere (creator manager of the garden) made major changes to our DNA in order to hurry us along. Nothing evolved by deliberate design, more just an unexpected outcome developed by natural processes over millions of years.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oh the information dump tactic using copy/paste and having others argue for you. Yeah fine, you win. Too depressed and too drunk to respond to that. Was hoping for more concise thoughts in your own words.

So why does this godly agency that designed and orchestrated reality as we know it, because it's so unbelievably smart, need you to post a thread about mathematical probability instead of just delivering its own message in person? This thread seems a little try hard for something that so blatantly exists in proximity to our society. You are literally comparing this creature to a deck of cards to prove its existence because that's all you can give us.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Oh the information dump tactic using copy/paste and having others argue for you. Yeah fine, you win. Too depressed and too drunk to respond to that. Was hoping for more concise thoughts in your own words.

LOL, it's called providing evidence. If I just provided my own words, you would say where's the evidence. I explained it to you in my own words with example after example then provided the evidence to support what I'm saying.

You didn't provide any evidence or information to support your asserion that it's plausible in every way.

You're just stuck in Plato's Cave

The true believers are materialist who say materialism will give us the impossible one day!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So why does this godly agency that designed and orchestrated reality as we know it, because it's so unbelievably smart, need you to post a thread about mathematical probability instead of just delivering its own message in person? This thread seems a little try hard for something that so blatantly exists in proximity to our society. You are literally comparing this creature to a deck of cards to prove its existence because that's all you can give us.

What? Pure nonsense.

When did I say the intelligence that encodes the sequence of a medium with information is the same as the medium it's encoding? Have you even read the thread?

a reply to: neoholographic

Bah, If intelligence is required to create intelligence what intelligence created the intelligence which created intelligence.

There's my now now drunk as a skunk retort

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So why does this godly agency that designed and orchestrated reality as we know it, because it's so unbelievably smart, need you to post a thread about mathematical probability instead of just delivering its own message in person? This thread seems a little try hard for something that so blatantly exists in proximity to our society. You are literally comparing this creature to a deck of cards to prove its existence because that's all you can give us.

What? Pure nonsense.

When did I say the intelligence that encodes the sequence of a medium with information is the same as the medium it's encoding? Have you even read the thread?

Why does the distinction between author and literature make any difference? You asked why God of the gaps was such a commonly employed expression and you are ironically using god to substitute your ignorance.

originally posted by: neoholographic
How is it possible that a medium can encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

I don't think it is possible.
Isn't it sort of like asking if you can be your own father?

A medium cannot encode their own sequence. And a medium is the machinery to decode information so its a bit of a tautology perhaps.

But you are correct even if the phrase is essentially meaningless.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: neoholographic
How is it possible that a medium can encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

I don't think it is possible.
Isn't it sort of like asking if you can be your own father?

A medium cannot encode their own sequence. And a medium is the machinery to decode information so its a bit of a tautology perhaps.

But you are correct even if the phrase is essentially meaningless.

Which begs the question of who made the watchmaker, and who made the maker of the watchmaker, and who made...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Bah, If intelligence is required to create intelligence what intelligence created the intelligence which created intelligence.

There's my now now drunk as a skunk retort

Who said intelligence had to be created? Intelligence is required to create observers who experience of local world but non local, non physical intelligence doesn't need to be created. We already know that local realism is dead.

Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

www.nature.com...

There's a reason scientist are starting to look outside of materialism to explain consciousness.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious? Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

www.nbcnews.com...

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

www.scientificamerican.com...

The universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists

A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states.

bigthink.com...

Is the universe conscious? It seems impossible until you do the maths

www.newscientist.com...

Again, materialism is a fantasy!

a reply to: TzarChasm
Does it even go that far?

All it seems to say to me is every medium has parents who gave them their sequence and the machinery to make it work.

Is that so hard to agree with?
It fits perfectly with evolution.

It gets tricky when it comes to abiogenesis, but every theory does.

" Satan made the rose, God made the thorns."
- sorry cant remember

Evolution a hypothesis, although a very good one with plenty more questions. Thing is from what I gather from evolution own gaps, is that they cant explain life transformation from smaller to more elaborate creatures.

Chicken and the egg.

According to the mono believes, man hasn't changed at all, and was made from clay.

When you start a thread by insulting your audience in the title, you know it's not going anywhere. Neoholographic just wanted someone to argue with so s/he can look really clever.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

when it is in every way plausible

Tell me how it's plausible.

How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Waiting........

How can it not? Saying some magical being created it really isnt an answer is it? And thats the problem your arguing that god exists because we cant explain something.

Well they used to now be able to explain lightening thought that was god. Anytime your trying to prove something exists by assuming something isnt posible you all ready lost the debate.

To say something isnt possible how can you prove this?

Ok let’s imagine there is no God, I am happy with that
Then

“How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information”

The question remains, God or naught,
You just insert “God” to deny facing the question, just an excuse so you don’t have to admit that science and you don’t have an answer

You can’t admit you have no answer so just say

“You think God did it , nah nah” and that’s not an answer, that’s deflection, that’s trolling

Who are you to say a medium cant encode its sequence odds are a funny thing. Given enough time anything can happen. For example, a royal flush in poker its probability is 0.000154% yet we have so many players and so many play poker it happens. During this 'prebiotic' stage, we believe the first polymeric molecules capable of storing information and reproducing themselves were randomly assembled from organic precursors that were available on the early Earth. These organic precursors have already been found even in asteroids.

Meaning we now know the early solar system had everything it needed to develop life. Id argue however that proves nothing more than it might be possible. With a number large enough and time who is to say what could happen. You can no more rule out chance than I can rule out the hand of God. But I'm not trying to prove chance exists by making false claims.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

when it is in every way plausible

Tell me how it's plausible.

How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Waiting........

How can it not? Saying some magical being created it really isnt an answer is it? And thats the problem your arguing that god exists because we cant explain something.

Well they used to now be able to explain lightening thought that was god. Anytime your trying to prove something exists by assuming something isnt posible you all ready lost the debate.

To say something isnt possible how can you prove this?

Ok let’s imagine there is no God, I am happy with that
Then

“How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information”

The question remains, God or naught,
You just insert “God” to deny facing the question, just an excuse so you don’t have to admit that science and you don’t have an answer

You can’t admit you have no answer so just say

“You think God did it , nah nah” and that’s not an answer, that’s deflection, that’s trolling

Who are you to say a medium cant encode its sequence odds are a funny thing. Given enough time anything can happen. For example, a royal flush in poker its probability is 0.000154% yet we have so many players and so many play poker it happens. During this 'prebiotic' stage, we believe the first polymeric molecules capable of storing information and reproducing themselves were randomly assembled from organic precursors that were available on the early Earth. These organic precursors have already been found even in asteroids.

Meaning we now know the early solar system had everything it needed to develop life. Id argue however that proves nothing more than it might be possible. With a number large enough and time who is to say what could happen. You can no more rule out chance than I can rule out the hand of God. But I'm not trying to prove chance exists by making false claims.

You guys keep proving my point.

I'm glad you mentioned Poker. The reason you have low probability for a royal flush, is because the deck of cards were designed by intelligence and the rules of poker were designed by intelligence.

So these are not random events. When a particular poker hand might occur is random but the outcomes that can occur isn't random. There's 2,598,960 possible 5 card combinations that can occur. You can deal these cards ad infinitum and you will only get 1 of the 2,598,960. So in a poker universe that infinitely expands, you would get an infinite set of royal flush universes. There's infinities within infinities.

The same with dice. Each roll can be randon but what outcomes that can occur isn't random. It's designed by intelligence. You can roll a pair of dice until you're blue in the face and you will only get a 2-12. So anything can't occur with enough time. You can't roll an 18 or a 25.

The old "given enough time anything can happen" trope is the worst argument and shows the weakness of your position when you have to trot it out. It's a way of saying, I know what I'm saying is impossible and it can't happen but given enough time anything can happen. No it can't.

The universe has been around over 13 billion years and you get a lot of the same stuff like stars, planets, moons, galaxies, life not anything that can happen. Anything can happen as long as it's allowed by the fine tuning of the universe and our growing non physical reality.

So a medium can't encode it's sequence with information and that's why you had to bring out the old with enough time argument.

DNA is a storage medium. A medium can't encode it's sequence with information. The information stored has nothing to do with the medium itself. Intelligence just chooses the best medium for the purpose of encoding instructions, archives or a message.

For instance, I talked about the piece of typing paper. That's just the medium. My intelligence encodes it's sequence with information. I can encode a lot of information on a piece of typing paper. The only limit is how small of a piece i can cut the paper into.

I can say if the paper is cut in 2 pieces meet me at Subway on 4th street. If the paper is cut in 4 pieces meet me at Chipolte on Market street. If the paper is cut into 20 pieces then x. If the paper is cut into 100 pieces then x.

You can see how my intelligence can encode the sequence of a piece of typing paper with a lot of information that has nothing to do with the piece of typing paper. The piece of typing paper is just the medium.

DNA is the same as the piece of typing paper. It's a storage medium and we have used it already to store books and music.

DNA could store all of the world's data in one room

Humanity has a data storage problem: More data were created in the past 2 years than in all of preceding history. And that torrent of information may soon outstrip the ability of hard drives to capture it. Now, researchers report that they’ve come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks.

Scientists have been storing digital data in DNA since 2012. That was when Harvard University geneticists George Church, Sri Kosuri, and colleagues encoded a 52,000-word book in thousands of snippets of DNA, using strands of DNA’s four-letter alphabet of A, G, T, and C to encode the 0s and 1s of the digitized file. Their particular encoding scheme was relatively inefficient, however, and could store only 1.28 petabytes per gram of DNA. Other approaches have done better. But none has been able to store more than half of what researchers think DNA can actually handle, about 1.8 bits of data per nucleotide of DNA. (The number isn’t 2 bits because of rare, but inevitable, DNA writing and reading errors.)

www.sciencemag.org...

This shows the Intelligent Designer is very Intelligent. It picked a durable and efficient storage medium to encode the instruction for organisms to exist. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy!

a reply to: neoholographic
If we accept all that...

We have lived for 0.0000008% of the existence of the universe.

The creator predates that by who knows how long.

But let's say time didn't exist prior to God making it.

Did he spend 99.9999992% of the time planning?

Edit to add...
In your defence, JC was a carpenter.
Measure twice, cut once.