Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

1. Inference to the only "known" cause is not empirical truth. I explained how inferences work and you ignored it / denied it.

2. You still have not explained how the logic in my inference is any different from the logic in yours. Flat out denial of my points is not good enough. I didn't post it to be accurate or prove anything, I posted it to show the flaws in the logic, as it follows the same exact logic as yours, and you perfectly demonstrated my point by bringing up the same exact arguments I originally used on your inference.

3. You still have not posted objective evidence for ID or demonstrated a mechanism for ID that has evidence to back it.

4. You still have not defined what is considered digital information as per your hypothesis. This request has been ignored 3 times now.

5. You don't understand that burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the person who asks you to prove your claim. I don't have to prove materialism or naturalism to debunk ID when there is no objective evidence for it. ID is debunked by default until actual evidence exists beyond appeals to ignorance and incredulity.

Please respond to these 5 points, thoroughly. Don't just deny them, explain why they are wrong or show me the evidence I asked for.

You aren't arguing anything about ID, you are asking me to prove naturalism, which I have never once argued for aside from the comparison of inferences (both are not empirical). If I told you I was agnostic, leaning toward some kind of "god" / higher power, you'd probably fall out of your chair in shock. The thing is, we're not arguing personal opinions, you are claiming empirical truth when it's clearly not.

You claim I'm acting defensive, yes I am defending science and logic. I enjoy debating, it was one of the things I did in college in my spare time and academically. This is why I am such a stickler when it comes to logic and logical fallacies. I am very familiar with it. These arguments would get laughed out of any serious debate, especially when you say 'empirical truth'. I'm not trying to diss you or anything like that, I'm trying to show the folks in here how your logic is not valid. When your argument gets reduced to flat out denial and semantics, that's when the smiley faces start laughing at you. I appreciate what you are trying to do. You feel very strongly about ID, believe it to be empirical truth, and want others to share your belief. I understand all that, but beliefs are not empirical truth.

The bottom line of my argument is in but six simple words and is the only point that is required. None of the above is important. It is just pure obfuscation. You just wish to cloud the issue. But it is really as simple as this.

Inference to the only known cause.

The empirical fact is that there is only one known cause. There is no logical fallacies here, science does this all the time.

You have not addressed this. The inference still stands I am afraid. You are simply being evasive.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation

The observation is that there is only one known cause.

If you are agnostic, why are you behaving like this? I have not claimed proof only inference.

reply to post by Barcs


How can man state; There is no intelligent design in the universe. The only thing that can intelligently design is man.

Why does the universe get no credit for designing man? Where would mans intelligence be without the design methods of the universe?

reply to post by Barcs


I'm going to further get into logical inferences and reasoning. I think you are confusing deductive and inductive reasoning, and their validity when it comes to proof. Here's a good link that explains the difference. It also explains that they are both not good enough to be considered scientific proof. You are using deductive reasoning to form your conclusion.

www.psych.utah.edu...

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption. You can begin by assuming that if you think, then you must exist, and work from there. In mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable, they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.

It clearly says the premise must be accepted on face value or by faith. Since you can't prove anything about statement #1, your conclusion cannot be considered empirical truth.

Induction: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.

With induction you begin with data or facts and go from there. You did not begin with any facts, you appealed to "known" info, that isn't technically known because we do not have complete knowledge of the situation and the origin of DNA has not yet been determined. You claimed DNA is a known code, and at the same time claimed all codes come from a mind. Obviously that is not true unless DNA came from a mind, and since nobody can determine that for sure, it's not a logical conclusion.

Deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world, there is no place for observation or experimentation, no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. The development of the scientific method involved a gradual synthesis of these two logical approaches.

See where I'm coming from? Deductive reasoning gives proof of something ASSUMING premise is true. It's not empirical. Inductive reasoning is more grounded in tangibility than deductive, however neither are considered objective or empirical evidence of anything. Inferences do not work as proofs or valid objective conclusions. They are based on assumptions of the premise. IF the premise is true, then the conclusion is true, but if you can't prove it, it is speculative until experiments can be done to confirm or debunk.

Your inference does not stand on its own, as you haven't addressed ANY of the 5 points I posted above. You just keep denying and ignoring.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation

The problem is your observation is wrong. To say "all known" codes come from a mind is invalid because DNA is a known code, and we do not know where it came from. You've only proved that intelligent design is POSSIBLE, not that it is empirical fact or objectively proven.

If you are agnostic, why are you behaving like this? I have not claimed proof only inference.

Behaving like what? All I'm doing is thoroughly explaining how logic and facts are deduced. I have personal opinions as well, but the difference is that I understand how to separate them from proven facts.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs

 

How can man state; There is no intelligent design in the universe. The only thing that can intelligently design is man.

Why does the universe get no credit for designing man? Where would mans intelligence be without the design methods of the universe?

Yep, it's really interesting when you think about it, although evolution was the technical "designer", not a conscious entity with goals in mind. I was only arguing that nothing in the universe has ever been proven to have arisen via ID aside from human creations, so to make that leap in logic is not valid. We're talking empiricism here, not really opinions. I haven't stated that there isn't intelligent design. I have stated that there is no tangible objective evidence of it. There's a big difference.

reply to post by Barcs



I am not using deductive reasoning there are no premises leading to a conclusion. I have simplified it to one line and I am not claiming proof as in inductive reasoning. You keep refering to proof but that is not what I am claiming. That is a strawman of your construction. I am not claiming all codes come from a mind. This is another strawman.

Inference to the only known cause. There are no fallacies here. Science does this all the time.

The empirical observation is that there is only one known cause.

Your response is based on strawman arguments.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

I am not using deductive reasoning there are no premises leading to a conclusion and I am not claiming proof as in inductive reasoning. You keep refering to proof but that is not what I am claiming. That is a strawman of your construction.

Inference to the only known cause. There are no fallacies here. Science does this all the time.

The empirical observation is that there is only one known cause.

But that observation is FALSE because DNA is a known code and we don't know the origin. "All known" is false. You could say "All known codes come from a mind except DNA". That would be a valid statement. But that's not what you have argued and the inference does not prove anything other than IF the "all codes" assumption is true, THEN the conclusion would be true. THAT'S how inferences work, and my link explained it. Unfortunately you can't prove the premise, and you still have not addressed any of my 5 points. Why are you so afraid to address them? You've been dodging and avoiding my counterpoints since my first post in this thread. Science does NOT do that all the time. Read the website I posted! It clearly says that neither type of logic is considered scientific valid. Philosophical 'proofs' do not count as objective tangible evidence.

There is no straw man at all, again you just argue semantics. I say proof, you say empirical positive evidence. I'm referring to your claims, please stop with the semantic arguments. You know perfectly well what I was talking about.

Less dodging, less denial and more addressing of points, please. I have been extremely thorough in responding to your posts, I don't omit parts of it that go against my points and just pretend it didn't happen. Please show me the same courtesy. Thank you.

Originally posted by Barcs

Yep, it's really interesting when you think about it, although evolution was the technical "designer", not a conscious entity with goals in mind.

Speaking of deduction

So to borrow your own words, this premise must be accepted on face value or by faith. Since you can't prove anything about this statement, your conclusion cannot be considered empirical truth.

Originally posted by Barcs

But that observation is FALSE because DNA is a known code and we don't know the origin. "All known" is false.

It is not false because the origin is unknown. All known does not exist in this statement "inference to the only known cause". That is another strawman.

Therefor the inference does not prove anything other than IF the "all codes" assumption is true, THEN the conclusion would be true. THAT'S how inferences work, and my link explained it.

I am not using the term "All codes". Another strawman.

Unfortunately you can't prove the premise,

I am not claiming proof, only the empirical observation regarding the only known cause. Another strawman.

and you still have not addressed any of my 5 points. Why are you so afraid to address them?

Because they evade the central question, as in obfuscation. Why are you afraid to admit there is only one known cause?

You've been dodging and avoiding my counterpoints since my first post in this thread.

You are dodging to admit there is only one known cause. Your counter points are based on your own constructed stawmen and twisting of my words.

Science does NOT do that all the time. Read the website I posted! It clearly says that neither type of logic is considered scientific valid. There is no straw man at all, again you just argue semantics. I say proof, you say empirical positive evidence. I'm referring to your claims, please stop with the semantic arguments. You know perfectly well what I was talking about.

positive evidence is not proof. Your other post and this statement is yet snother strawman.

Less dodging, less denial and more addressing of points, please.

There is only one point, the central point that you are dodging and have been dodging all the time.

The only known cause for semiosis is mind. True or false?

Here is another inference.

Random mutation and natural selection accumulate to create new organs, tissue types and body plans.

You can apply your inductive and deductive arguments to these as well. This is not an empirical conclusion.

Yet you say science does not do this all the time.

In science, an inference refers to reasonable conclusions or possible hypotheses drawn from a small sampling of data. The adjectivet “small” can be interpreted as far less than all the possible data that can be collected on a specific subject. Scientists make such conclusions all the time, which may prove correlations, but don’t prove cause. In fact most “known” scientific facts, are hypotheses since it would be impossible to fully gather all material on a subject.

www.wisegeek.org...

Inferences can be called educated guesses based on known facts. As I have been saying science does not deal in absolutes. Proof is not an appropiate term. The theory of evolution is also an inference.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Barcs

Yep, it's really interesting when you think about it, although evolution was the technical "designer", not a conscious entity with goals in mind.

Speaking of deduction

So to borrow your own words, this premise must be accepted on face value or by faith. Since you can't prove anything about this statement, your conclusion cannot be considered empirical truth.

Problem is there is evidence that evolution occurs it obviously creates code as well so no its not the same proof can be provided to prove this statement.Now if he said evolution created the first cell well that's a belief. Problem is evolution was not meant to describe how life was created only how DNA responds one its here.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Nice try, but your quote is flawed

Fair enough, I can see where such observations could be considered incomplete.....dare I ask why you think so?

Sure. Here's the quote again.

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

John W Loftus

For starters, those percentages to appear to be inaccurate, at least based on current estimates. He gives a % for "all material" then gives the same % for "other material". The "other material" should be part of "all material"

Current estimates put the percentage of ordinary matter in the universe anywhere in the 3-10% range depending on the source, and everything else is comprised of dark matter, dark energy, which we can't even see or detect. So how can we make assumptions on what may or may not be hospitable amongst that huge portion of the universe?

But please let me know if I'm incorrect on any of this.

Originally posted by Barcs


Yep, it's really interesting when you think about it, although evolution was the technical "designer", not a conscious entity with goals in mind. I was only arguing that nothing in the universe has ever been proven to have arisen via ID aside from human creations, so to make that leap in logic is not valid. We're talking empiricism here, not really opinions. I haven't stated that there isn't intelligent design. I have stated that there is no tangible objective evidence of it. There's a big difference.

Can evolution itself be considered intelligent? Or since evolution is not a 'thing', it is the result of 'things' occurring, can you really say that 'evolution' is a designer?

Can the only thing the word intelligence equals is, "a conscious entity with goals in mind'? Can I be considered intelligent, and design something with no goal in mind? Can I be considered intelligent and design something with no goal in mind, yet I design something intelligently? Can I be not intelligent, and have no goal in mind, and design something intelligent and intelligently (this is what you are saying the universe did right?)?

The only tangible objective evidence that exists is everything that exists. Thats a proponent of ID is going off of, that is what a denier of ID is going off of. This is why earlier I asked questions about how it can be known if one exists in an intelligently designed universe if one does, I asked is it theoretically possible to intelligently design a universe? Can you imagine this universe being designed less intelligently, then compared to that version, would this universe be relatively intelligently designed? Is everything that will ever exist only compared relatively to everything else that will ever exist, and so we are both right and both wrong, all that exists are degrees of order and degrees of disorder, and intelligence in man is just a very compact, fast working, bundle of order creator. So compared to the entirety of slow moving macro order making the universe does, one can view the entirety as a very dumb process, just as one views a 'slow' mans mind as a dumb process. Intelligence is a product of extreme order and complexity being possible, and the miraculously sophisticated qualities of atoms.

We do not know objectively and empirically if there is only one universe (what are the leading scientists theories about that?). If this is the only universe and it is all that exists, then that helps your argument, because you are basically saying, its sooo big and soo much that noone could ever control this and be in charge of this. To me it would be just as bizarre (as anything else really) if this was the only universe and all that existed, because then the mystery still remains as to; Why the heck!!!! can this be possible!!! what the heckk is this, that it can do all this cool stuff, this stuff has always been here, if this universe has just been changing forms for eternity, and lets say the million universes this stuff took on the form of before this one, is it not possible over this set of universal reincarnations, that the universe/reality evolved? Grew more then just physically, grew/advanced in the sense how our computers and cars and homes advance?

One of the most interesting thing to me about the universe is the elegance of the quantom/ subatomic level. Its bits of information, hardly physical, yet it makes up everything. and they pair together so proportionally to make atoms, and then the atoms pair together to make stuff. But the stuff those little bits make is so interesting. Big rocks and planets like earth. Very interesting something so subtle and distant such as subatomic particles, can create such macro, physical, crude, archaic aesthetics and instances such as is seen at this macro scale. Space is also very mysterious and ingraspable to understand, as is gravity. What is this realm that these physical mechanisms work as they do. How can something be constructed on purpose or by accident that utilizes the mechanism of gravity.

Even if you dont believe in ID (I dont believe in anything that I cant know I know, only that truth exists and I want to know it) I think it could only be an advantage for you or any scientist or physicist especially, to view the universe from the perspective of a designer. Regardless if it was intelligently designed, science is the reverse engineering of the universe. I think if physicists asked how they could possibly make nature, what they would have to do to end up with this product (which I know they do in simulations and such)I think they can become enlightened in areas that are currently blurry, regarding how nature made nature.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I'm not sure what you mean are you saying there are dark matter planets with dark matter life? The very nature of where dark matter exists makes it inhospitable to life. Now in the entire universe there is only 1 place proven to have life and I don't think that's going to change for a while.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Problem is there is evidence that evolution occurs it obviously creates code as well so no its not the same proof can be provided to prove this statement.Now if he said evolution created the first cell well that's a belief. Problem is evolution was not meant to describe how life was created only how DNA responds one its here.

Maybe we can try to understand this by asking how humans created code. Well thats easy, since they already had sensory apparatuses they could point to a tree, and then draw a T in the sand, then point to the tree, and then to the T. Tree=T. We also see how this code (although made by intelligent man) had to start off a simple as possible, and after evolving for 50,000 years or so we have Shakespeare.

So how is it thought biology accomplished that same event using the materials that compose DNA? there was something that could use the components of DNA, there was something that produced DNA, and then once they contacted, they grew more dependent upon one another because there was some how a mutually beneficial system, and then eventually the order of proteins in the DNA code, caused the receiver to build certain mathematically proportional structures that could better allow the bearer of DNA to navigate the macro world?

Dont man made codes evolve as well (not to mention man inventing code/language was an evolutionary plus, as it changed the scope of mans existence, and allowed him to cooperate with other men and all of them could then survive better) as the competition increases, in programming, the consumers demand more efficient and higher quality programs, and the programs that cant evolve to meet the standards become extinct? Laissaz faire supply and demand hidden hand of the market capitalism is pretty much survival of the fittest, natural selection, evolution. If a fruit tree was mutated and grew fruit that tasted like feces, it probably would become extinct, while the fruit that tastes better to the greater numbers of those in demand of fruit, would be competing through natural selection to produce ever better tasting fruit.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


The obvious problem with that logic, being the most of the visible matter in the universe is made of inhospitable elements such as stars and plasma is that without them we would not be here.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I'm not sure what you mean are you saying there are dark matter planets with dark matter life? The very nature of where dark matter exists makes it inhospitable to life. Now in the entire universe there is only 1 place proven to have life and I don't think that's going to change for a while.

Non empirically, there is proof that the universe is full of life. Empirically hundreds of years ago the world was flat, and a star was the size as my pinky nail. Some times logic, reason, deduction, inference, probability, and statistics, can give one glimpses of truth.

And the argument of the universe being inhospitable is a silly one(give an inch they want a mile eh God?)... How big is your neighborhood, your town, your city, your state, your country, your hemisphere, etc. How much has been accomplished between the space of a mans ears. How much has been accomplished in a town a state or a country, and with time. If the universe was 100% hospitable im sure there would still be infinite ways to change it, improve it, and explore the meaning and possibility of perfection. and infinity.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

We'll not really appropriate for here but when the universe was first created matter should have been annihilated by anti mater literally a big bang then a poof its gone.However there was a slight fluctuation that allowed matter to survive was bound to happen eventually in the vastness of space time more universes would shrink into nothingness then would actually start acceleration.

Your statement seems to be suggesting that this happened a few times before and failed. There's absolutely no proof either way of that. As far as we know there is only one universe, OURS, and it got it right on the very first try. So that should eliminate any discussion about probabilities. The fact remains, it happened. And there's no evidence to suggest that it was accidental or that it tried a few times before.

However we are here by accident a perfectly balanced universe can't create matter.

Sorry no proof of accidental cause. Do you believe in Yin and Yang?

As far as the universe if it wasn't trying to kill us then how come in the vastness of the universe we can't survive in 99.9999 percent of it.

What makes up that other .00001%? Is there a part of space that is not a radiation filled vacuum?

To make matters worse 75 percent of our planet is water again limiting our space. And even on land areas such as desserts which is inhospitable. We are consantly be bombarded with radiation which is slowly killing us. And if that's not bad enough Eventually even the sun we depend on to sustain life will eventually destroy are home. Doesn't sound to me the universe wants us here since we will eventually be evicted. Oh and one more thing we went off into beliefs for a moment no one stated it as fact so relax its called having fun

Lighten up. I know you're trying to make a point, but if it was impossible for life to exist then it wouldn't exist. And as another member so astutely pointed out, who are we to say that there aren't other forms of life, perhaps even intelligent, that can't survive in some of these harsh conditions.

It's okay to have beliefs. It's part of the human experience.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Problem is there is evidence that evolution occurs it obviously creates code as well so no its not the same proof can be provided to prove this statement.Now if he said evolution created the first cell well that's a belief. Problem is evolution was not meant to describe how life was created only how DNA responds one its here.

Evolution "creates" code? Like genetically?