Why its pointless trying to prove god

Originally posted by melatonin
Okie doke.

Well, the problem is that 1 is wrong, there are good examples of codes/patterns evolving using evolutionary algorithms. And so, therefore, 3 is also wrong.

For example, Ev. In this system, zero information develops into complexity that is comparable to that found in DNA.

In essence, biological information can evolve by natural selection.

Simplicity ---> complexity

Well, that's certainly interesting, the deal being able to 'create' complex specified information from a state of zero information which Schneider achieved with his simulation. But what drives the whole process in the first place? Anyway, the jury still appears to be out on the 'ev' program, see here.

I wasn't trying to argue against Darwinian theory, merely pointing towards what I thought was a new avenue of enquiry on this thread, that being the origin of information.

There are also arguments around at the moment surrounding the definition of information (which is the term I should have used in point 1. of my previous post) including types of and then there's the problem of Maxwell's demon which basically says that information cannot be destroyed so we could say, according to Maxwell, that such a state of zero information never could have existed. So even though the simulated DNA started at zero, the information on how to begin the process was already there. So, I would contest whether Schneider started with zero information or whether he started with zero simulated dna because the two are quite different.

Originally posted by kininigen

Originally posted by melatonin
Okie doke.

Well, the problem is that 1 is wrong, there are good examples of codes/patterns evolving using evolutionary algorithms. And so, therefore, 3 is also wrong.

For example, Ev. In this system, zero information develops into complexity that is comparable to that found in DNA.

In essence, biological information can evolve by natural selection.

Simplicity ---> complexity

Well, that's certainly interesting, the deal being able to 'create' complex specified information from a state of zero information which Schneider achieved with his simulation. But what drives the whole process in the first place? Anyway, the jury still appears to be out on the 'ev' program, see here.

Well biological evolution is a fact and has been declared a fact because of all the evidence behind that. Just want to make that clear. The mechanics behind it is whats theoretical. We know it happens we just don't know why. The one I know best is the reproductive cells DNA is damaged, put back together wrong and if that cell is used then the offspring has whatever changes the damage did.
Note: I'm not saying. EVOLUTION IS FACT HAHA I WIN. I'm saying so that ppl dont misinterpreting what I said then accuse me of contradicting myself later. (happens sometimes)

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Damien_Hell]

Damien_Hell you have several u2u's (private messages), please click the following link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks

Originally posted by kininigen
Well, that's certainly interesting, the deal being able to 'create' complex specified information from a state of zero information which Schneider achieved with his simulation. But what drives the whole process in the first place?

Natural selection acting on random variation.

Anyway, the jury still appears to be out on the 'ev' program, see here.

Well, I would say that the scientific jury has made its decision, but there are a few unhappy ID chappies squirming in the gallery.

ABE: Schneider's response to Truman.

according to Maxwell, that such a state of zero information never could have existed. So even though the simulated DNA started at zero, the information on how to begin the process was already there. So, I would contest whether Schneider started with zero information or whether he started with zero simulated dna because the two are quite different.

Of course, according to Shannon info theory even noise contains information. But if we go this route, then the initial problem raised is a non-issue. If you say that x is a problem, then someone shows that x is not a problem, you don't go saying 'aye, but x was not the problem because of y'.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by kinglizard
Damien_Hell you have several u2u's (private messages), please click the following link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks

huh it didn't say any where I had PMs. LOL Jedimiller thx for adding me to your foes list

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
Well biological evolution is a fact and has been declared a fact because of all the evidence behind that. Just want to make that clear. The mechanics behind it is whats theoretical. We know it happens we just don't know why. The one I know best is the reproductive cells DNA is damaged, put back together wrong and if that cell is used then the offspring has whatever changes the damage did.
Note: I'm not saying. EVOLUTION IS FACT HAHA I WIN. I'm saying so that ppl dont misinterpreting what I said then accuse me of contradicting myself later. (happens sometimes)

Yes, biological evolution I believe is fact too. But I remain open to new ideas as to what underlies the whole process and how it started amongst other things. As you rightly point out there is still some theory involved and so the research isn't over yet in my opinion. For example, Prof. Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco conducted an interesting experiment resulting in the spontaneous generation of organisms and more recently this study has come to the surface.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by kininigen
Well, that's certainly interesting, the deal being able to 'create' complex specified information from a state of zero information which Schneider achieved with his simulation. But what drives the whole process in the first place?

Natural selection acting on random variation.

It's the term 'zero information' where the problem lies for me. How does Schneider define this term? Were there not processes behind the 'natural selection'? What is the algorithm if not the intelligence required to get the whole process going?

Originally posted by kininigen
Anyway, the jury still appears to be out on the 'ev' program, see here.

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, I would say that the scientific jury has made its decision, but there are a few unhappy ID chappies squirming in the gallery.

ABE: Schneider's response to Truman.

Are you saying that's the end of it research wise so we should all just lay back and enjoy the ride? Research or the quest for absolute knowledge is an ongoing infinite process in my opinion.

Originally posted by kininigen
according to Maxwell, that such a state of zero information never could have existed. So even though the simulated DNA started at zero, the information on how to begin the process was already there. So, I would contest whether Schneider started with zero information or whether he started with zero simulated dna because the two are quite different.

Originally posted by melatonin
Of course, according to Shannon info theory even noise contains information. But if we go this route, then the initial problem raised is a non-issue. If you say that x is a problem, then someone shows that x is not a problem, you don't go saying 'aye, but x was not the problem because of y'.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The issue isn't solely based on x and the point I raise isn't specifically because x is a problem, the problem is that, in my opinion, science hasn't yet provided all the answers as to the origins of life. Indeed, scientific research is an evolutionary process in itself as is knowledge and so it could be argued is an infinite process.

Anyway, the point of this thread is that it's pointless trying to prove God, which if what is meant is that it's pointless trying to prove God exists, then with that premise we can also say it's pointless trying to prove God doesn't exist because there are countless people out there that do believe God exists in what ever form they perceive (with tangible proof to them but intangible to others) whether proven scientifically or not.

There is also the problem with how God is perceived, not every religion sees God the same way and not every religion or philosophy sees God as an exclusively external force or entity. Buddhism is one good example of this whose leader/teacher, the Dalai Lama, is one of the biggest advocates of modern science. There is no God as defined by the orthodox religions in Buddhism but there is an intangible yet intelligent force at work which can only be accessed or experienced via certain states of consciousness.

In conclusion I would say that until and unless modern science and metaphysics (which embraces modern science) converge through open & fully disclosed research there will always be this disparity between the two sides.

My final words go to Yahn and Damien_Hell who have both lost dear ones recently. May peace be with you.

Originally posted by kininigen
It's the term 'zero information' where the problem lies for me. How does Schneider define this term? Were there not processes behind the 'natural selection'? What is the algorithm if not the intelligence required to get the whole process going?

If you want to call natural selection intelligent, then cool. But it is just a simple trial and error process - good changes are likely to do well and persist, bad changes will likely be removed/minimised. It is a far from perfect process and can lead to dead ends and overspecialisation. Over 99% of its experiments (species) are now extinct.

zero information relates to the lack (or close to) of biological information content at the binding sites in the 'genome', that is, the sequences are random.

Are you saying that's the end of it research wise so we should all just lay back and enjoy the ride? Research or the quest for absolute knowledge is an ongoing infinite process in my opinion.

Not at all. Science is always on-going.

The point is that Ev shows that the original argument I outlined (which is what the link you presented relies on) is incorrect. Evolutionary mechanisms can readily produce complexity and information. You can actually ply around with Ev yourself:

Ev java applet

Dembski is still trying to pick holes in it, flailing and missing consistently. He recently had a web article which attempting to criticise it, but he removed it pretty quick when all his errors were pointed out.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The issue isn't solely based on x and the point I raise isn't specifically because x is a problem, the problem is that, in my opinion, science hasn't yet provided all the answers as to the origins of life. Indeed, scientific research is an evolutionary process in itself as is knowledge and so it could be argued is an infinite process.

That even noise is information according to certain perspectives. This is essentially the same as the argument you then fell back on.

The original issue is related to the evolution of biological information, which the article you linked to suggested must be due to mind-stuff. Well, Ev, and other evolutionary algorithms, show this is not true.

Anyway, the point of this thread is that it's pointless trying to prove God

I agree.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
zero information relates to the lack (or close to) of biological information content at the binding sites in the 'genome', that is, the sequences are random.

This implies that the Ev program relies on some information. The Ev program proves that it's possible to simulate the biological evolution of DNA but it appears to require some structured information to begin with. What do you mean by "a lack (or close to) of biological information content"?

Originally posted by melatonin
The point is that Ev shows that the original argument I outlined (which is what the link you presented relies on) is incorrect. Evolutionary mechanisms can readily produce complexity and information.

If the point I make above is true then evolutionary mechanisms require some information in order to produce complex information.

That even noise is information according to certain perspectives. This is essentially the same as the argument you then fell back on.

The original issue is related to the evolution of biological information, which the article you linked to suggested must be due to mind-stuff. Well, Ev, and other evolutionary algorithms, show this is not true.

I think that's a simplistic viewpoint of the idea being presented regarding the origins of information. Call it 'mind-stuff' if you like but it sounds a little patronising even if you didn't intend it to be. How about 'Intelligent Infinity'? It's a fascinating concept!

Originally posted by kininigen
Anyway, the point of this thread is that it's pointless trying to prove God

Originally posted by melatonin
I agree.

Please try not to quote out of context as it can be misleading. You agreed with a very small part of a sentence that you may not have agreed with in whole. Is that the science of your language and reasoning?

Originally posted by kininigen
This implies that the Ev program relies on some information. The Ev program proves that it's possible to simulate the biological evolution of DNA but it appears to require some structured information to begin with. What do you mean by "a lack (or close to) of biological information content"?

If the point I make above is true then evolutionary mechanisms require some information in order to produce complex information.

You seem to starting to squirm here, like most IDers do with this stuff.

Just read the article. The Ev program shows how evolutionary mechanisms can shape random pseudo-protein binding sites into those containing biological information through evolutionary mechanisms.

If you now want to retreat to questionning where information as in the more basic features come from, then that is not relevant to the original article you posted. That would be comparable to asking where organic chemicals come from, which is basically from inorganic chemicals, then you can keep regressing if that floats ya boat.

But you wanted an opinion on the article you raised on the issue of biological information, and you got a scientifically supported one that clearly shows how 'code' and information can evolve without true mindful intelligence.

I think that's a simplistic viewpoint of the idea being presented regarding the origins of information. Call it 'mind-stuff' if you like but it sounds a little patronising even if you didn't intend it to be. How about 'Intelligent Infinity'? It's a fascinating concept!

Yeah, and think n' poof or goddidit is not, heh. Call it intelligent infinity or invisible unicorns, all the same to me.

Please try not to quote out of context as it can be misleading. You agreed with a very small part of a sentence that you may not have agreed with in whole. Is that the science of your language and reasoning?

Well, the rest went rambling into areas I don't care about. But I do agree with the idea that it is pointless in trying to prove god, I also agree it is impossible to disprove god. It is an amorphous, vacuous, and unfalsifiable concept.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by kininigen
This implies that the Ev program relies on some information. The Ev program proves that it's possible to simulate the biological evolution of DNA but it appears to require some structured information to begin with. What do you mean by "a lack (or close to) of biological information content"?

If the point I make above is true then evolutionary mechanisms require some information in order to produce complex information.

You seem to starting to squirm here, like most IDers do with this stuff.

Not at all. I'm not what you refer to as an IDer, I'm just interested in the ideas of IDers. Presumption on your part.

Just read the article. The Ev program shows how evolutionary mechanisms can shape random pseudo-protein binding sites into those containing biological information through evolutionary mechanisms.

If you now want to retreat to questionning where information as in the more basic features come from, then that is not relevant to the original article you posted. That would be comparable to asking where organic chemicals come from, which is basically from inorganic chemicals, then you can keep regressing if that floats ya boat.

You seem to be trying to close me out of the argument somehow here rather than debate the points I've raised..

But you wanted an opinion on the article you raised on the issue of biological information, and you got a scientifically supported one that clearly shows how 'code' and information can evolve without true mindful intelligence.

So you mean that's the end of the story as far as this argument is concerned despite all the other points I've raised? I got an opinion from you and so that's the end of it?

Originally posted by kininigen
I think that's a simplistic viewpoint of the idea being presented regarding the origins of information. Call it 'mind-stuff' if you like but it sounds a little patronising even if you didn't intend it to be. How about 'Intelligent Infinity'? It's a fascinating concept!

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, and think n' poof or goddidit is not, heh. Call it intelligent infinity or invisible unicorns, all the same to me.

Now you're sounding angry or upset. Why the 'invisible unicorns' to a valid suggestion? That's sounds silly to me.

Originally posted by kininigen
Please try not to quote out of context as it can be misleading. You agreed with a very small part of a sentence that you may not have agreed with in whole. Is that the science of your language and reasoning?

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, the rest went rambling into areas I don't care about. But I do agree with the idea that it is pointless in trying to prove god, I also agree it is impossible to disprove god. It is an amorphous, vacuous, and unfalsifiable concept.

Could you tell me what's wrong with challenging your choice of extract from a sentence of my post which could be construed as for purposes of self gratification? I'm not saying that this was your motivation, I'm merely enquiring.

Even though you say it's impossible to disprove god you then have to describe the concept with 3 words:

Amorphous - I agree; lacking definite form, shapeless. This could be the shape of knowledge or information too.

Vacuous - Now that's just naughty.

Unfalsifiable - Depends what your position is on 'unfalsifiable' concepts.

Resorting to ridicule of unfalsifiable concepts, as is evident by you, serves no useful purpose here in an arena of serious debate.

You also didn't answer this question: "What do you mean by "a lack (or close to) of biological information content"?".

Originally posted by kininigen
You seem to be trying to close me out of the argument somehow here rather than debate the points I've raised..

I just get bored of repeating myself and being moved away from the main issue. You could call it shifting goalposts.

We started by discussing biological information, how DNA is a 'code' that contains biological info, with the suggestion that languages/codes and their information derives from minds/intelligence. Therefore we might assume that DNA would also have derived from a mind.

I showed that this need not be the case. Using the mechanisms of evolution, codes and information can develop from zero information (or random noise).

So you mean that's the end of the story as far as this argument is concerned despite all the other points I've raised? I got an opinion from you and so that's the end of it?

As far as the argument - all codes/languages and their info etc are from minds, DNA is code, therefore DNA is ID - yes. Evolutionary algorithms answer many of the criticisms found in creationist and ID tracts.

Now you're sounding angry or upset. Why the 'invisible unicorns' to a valid suggestion? That's sounds silly to me.

I dunno, maybe they sort of think n' poof organisms into existence from their asses. Basically, invisible unicorns makes as much sense as intelligence infintity to me.

If I sound cranky, I am. I have a very sore ankle and am doped up atm. But so what. I don't care for discussions about intelligent infinities or other theological concepts. I find it a waste of time.

Could you tell me what's wrong with challenging your choice of extract from a sentence of my post which could be construed as for purposes of self gratification? I'm not saying that this was your motivation, I'm merely enquiring.

Challenge away. But it just meant to show that I don't particularly care about proving/disproving gods/godesses/unicorns/beer elves.

Even though you say it's impossible to disprove god you then have to describe the concept with 3 words:

Amorphous - I agree; lacking definite form, shapeless. This could be the shape of knowledge or information too.

Vacuous - Now that's just naughty.

I think you misunderstand the way I was using amorphous. I meant without form as in a clear defintion or idea. After much experience, I see many vacuous definitions and explanations of the god concept. I accept it exists in language as a slippery concept, but nothing more. Some think god is energy, some a personal prayer listening, magical, bedroom watching prude who is a bit like a genocidal Santa, and hundreds of other such concepts now including an intelligent infinity, whatever that is.

But, honestly, I don't care one iota about such things. If it makes you happy to think about such stuff, fine by me. But I have better things to do.

So, in sum, I'm not interested in a 'serious' debate of intelligent infinities, or even invisible unicorns.

You also didn't answer this question: "What do you mean by "a lack (or close to) of biological information content"?".

I did, you were probably too put out by my use of words like 'mind-stuff' etc to note it. Again, if you read Schneider's article, you'll also find what you need.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by kininigen
You seem to be trying to close me out of the argument somehow here rather than debate the points I've raised..

We started by discussing biological information, how DNA is a 'code' that contains biological info, with the suggestion that languages/codes and their information derives from minds/intelligence. Therefore we might assume that DNA would also have derived from a mind.

I showed that this need not be the case. Using the mechanisms of evolution, codes and information can develop from zero information (or random noise).

The author of the web page I linked to describes DNA as being a carrier or medium for information not the information/code in and of itself.

The Ev program code assumes then that random noise = zero information. According to research by Reginald Cahill the whole of reality could be based on randomness. So, if this is the case where does order in reality come from? Something has to be responsible for bringing order to the apparent chaos of randomness but what? You call it natural selection but what are the mechanics behind it? There's been many experiments to see if consciousness affects randomness with interesting results. The Global Consciousness Project has been running experiments since 1998 with significant correlations between global events and the output of the RNGs. There was also a thesis study by Dr. Rene Peoc’h where baby chickens appeared to influence a RNG which guided a 'robot' with a light which was visible to the chicks. Until these anomalies are understood I'd say that the nature & mechanics of randomness are mysterious. So I still have some reservations about what the Ev program is actually mimicking.

Originally posted by melatonin
I dunno, maybe they sort of think n' poof organisms into existence from their asses. Basically, invisible unicorns makes as much sense as intelligence infintity to me.

There you go again.

Originally posted by melatonin
If I sound cranky, I am. I have a very sore ankle and am doped up atm. But so what. I don't care for discussions about intelligent infinities or other theological concepts. I find it a waste of time.

So that's what it is! If you want to exclude yourself from new ideas go ahead.

Originally posted by melatonin
Challenge away. But it just meant to show that I don't particularly care about proving/disproving gods/godesses/unicorns/beer elves.

Hmmm.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, honestly, I don't care one iota about such things. If it makes you happy to think about such stuff, fine by me. But I have better things to do.

So, in sum, I'm not interested in a 'serious' debate of intelligent infinities, or even invisible unicorns.

I realise you don't wish to pursue anything you consider out of your understanding or that can't be scientifically proven and so won't even entertain such ideas as I have brought up. Personally I think that's rather sad & too common a problem. Nevertheless, there are many scientists at the forefront of scientific research steadily gathering pace towards a new paradigm in thinking, reality & consciousness.

I'll leave you with this:

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious." - Einstein

I am neither anti-science nor anti-god which allows me to indulge my curiosity to my heart's content.

Originally posted by kininigen
The author of the web page I linked to describes DNA as being a carrier or medium for information not the information/code in and of itself.

The Ev program code assumes then that random noise = zero information. According to research by Reginald Cahill the whole of reality could be based on randomness.

The information that DNA conveys is not separated from itself, it is not communication like arbitrary human language/code. It is a bunch of chemicals that results in the production of further chemicals (proteins).

So, you keep shifting goalposts. We were talking about how biological information in cells could have developed, whether this was a natural or mind-based process. The Ev program shows how codes and information can be formed from randomness. Feels like deja-vu all over again. The question Schneider answers is the one raised by you originally, how a genetic code can evolve by natural selection and mutation.

Now you want to say all is information (which is true, according to Shannon info theory), and further regress into how order develops in the universe at large. If that is the case, then I feel you were being disingenuous with the orignal issue and are now tending towards obfuscation, as this was not the original question.

I would simply say it is an aspect of the universe, the natural physical laws that underpin how matter behaves etc etc. That a universe possesses physical laws.

Then I'm sure you'll attempt to regress further. Happy days.

So I still have some reservations about what the Ev program is actually mimicking.

Of course you do. Must be the great cosmic chicken.

I realise you don't wish to pursue anything you consider out of your understanding or that can't be scientifically proven and so won't even entertain such ideas as I have brought up.

Out of my understanding, and also everybody elses. People might believe they understand such stuff, but they are mistaken.

I just like to focus on questions that can be answered, that do allow an advance of understanding, rather than philosophical masturbation.

I am neither anti-science nor anti-god which allows me to indulge my curiosity to my heart's content.

Aye, some people like to play the emperor's courtier.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by melatonin]

"Why its pointless trying to prove god"


exactly...................

If god exists, may it strike me down here and now.......

c-mon god....use your thinderbolts of wrath........

you've got no balls god........pussy......


[edit on 113030p://pm3059 by andre18]

..."its pointless to try and prove GOD"

I feel like its impossible to prove or disprove...

You can kind-of disprove certain gods with logic and reasoning. But in general you can't.

As for proving god, it has to exist to be proven. Sooo you wouldn't be able to prove it as hard you try if god doesn't exist in the first place.

You see, as you are all discussing GOD, a thread was created and the topic is GOD. this in itself, proves GOD is real. If there was no GOD this thread wouldn't exist. that's the law of realism.

Jedimiller.

Originally posted by jedimiller
You see, as you are all discussing GOD, a thread was created and the topic is GOD. this in itself, proves GOD is real.
Jedimiller.

Ohhhhh myyyyy "goooooood".......lololool.......your logic is....because we are dicussing god, it must exist........hmmmm real logic there......lol, WTF....

If i was to talk on ATS about a pink elephant, a zombie, or a flying pig, they must exist if enough people talk about it.........WTF.....dude, i supose you're as smart as they come...lol........i really hope you were just joking.....c-mon, what........the......?

Originally posted by jedimiller
You see, as you are all discussing GOD, a thread was created and the topic is GOD. this in itself, proves GOD is real. If there was no GOD this thread wouldn't exist. that's the law of realism.

so as little children around the world discuss santa at this time of the year, santa exists?

if there was no santa, those discussions wouldn't exist, that's the law of realism

seems like your logic here isn't working.