Friday, May 14, 2010

Reader's opinion of Atheist's Riddle

A reader who calls himself/herself, PG, recently made a comment on my original Atheist's Riddle post:

"Wow Perry's right! There are lots of ad hominine attacks, deflection from topic, attempts to create funny little Theist syllogisms, etc,. its an interesting strategy but then to the casual observer, it becomes painfully obvious that there is no real challenges to Perry's syllogism...

I was hoping maybe the Atheist finally found empirical evidence for that elusive naturally occurring code.

Nope. just more of the Atheists basically resorting to ignoring the current scientific convention that DNA is in fact a literal code and claiming its just semantics...

The only problem with that is that you need to completely discard the entire scientific field of "Bioinformatics" which is based on Perry's very premise that DNA IS A LITERAL CODE!

Regarding your Theist riddle,

Perry's syllogism premise #1
"DNA is a code" is based on empirical evidence.

Your premise #1 is not...

If you state that matter didnt come from a conscious mind then you must have empirical evidence that it came from nothing.

Since you dont have the empirical evidence to support your syllogism then it therefore is open to reinterpretation...

Admin's "Atheist's Riddle":

1) Physical matter is not created from nothing; there is no process known to science that creates physical matter from nothing.

2) Therefore the physical universe was not created from nothing, but from a conscious mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of physical matter being created by nothing,and not a conscious mind, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.


Hmmm, Perhaps it is best if Atheists simply provide follow the example of science and all those bioinformatics experts as they too are desperately trying to find empirical evidence of that elusive naturally occurring code..."

Argh... PG, are you familiar with the atheist saying that theists bring 2 armfuls of steaming shit, drop it in front of the atheist, and then it becomes the atheist's responsibility to sort it out?  Well, this is one of those times.  I can demonstrate that you don't understand at least one of the terms you used, that you missed the point of the post, and that you made more than one logical fallacy.

1.  "There are lots of ad hominine attacks..."

No, there aren't.  An ad hominem (you don't seem to know what this term means, or even the term itself) is the attack against the person INSTEAD of attacking the argument.  I attacked the argument AND the person.  It is not an ad hominem attack to say, "This argument is false (with explanation), therefore the person who made it is a fool."  It is however, an ad hominem attack to say, "This person is a fool, therefore his argument is false."  But I'm glad you're fond of logical fallacies, because I'm going to point out at least two of them that you made.

Seeing as you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, I'm sure that everything else you wrote must be false.  *cough*

2.  "I was hoping maybe the Atheist finally found empirical evidence for that elusive naturally occurring code."

Not trying to.  Many atheists have been suckered into trying to find one besides DNA and RNA (we'll get to that more later in this post), but that's a sucker's game.  It ignores the fact that the entire argument Perry has made is not sound.

3.  "Nope. just more of the Atheists basically resorting to ignoring the current scientific convention that DNA is in fact a literal code and claiming its just semantics...  The only problem with that is that you need to completely discard the entire scientific field of "Bioinformatics" which is based on Perry's very premise that DNA IS A LITERAL CODE!"

Did you really read my post?  Did you notice this part?  "He seems determined to define DNA as a 'code'. That's fine, he can call it whatever he wants. It doesn't make a difference." Fine, Dude, it's a code! I don't care! Whatever you want to call it is fine by me, because it's completely irrelevant to my argument!  I'm not exactly "ignoring the current scientific convention", am I?  Did I discard "the very premise that DNA IS A LITERAL CODE?"  No!  I don't give a flying fuck if it's a code or not!  It does not matter!  Can I be any clearer?

4.  "Perry's syllogism premise #1  "DNA is a code" is based on empirical evidence."

FINE!  Call DNA whatever you want, and I'll accept it!  I don't care!  I'll grant you #1 for free!  Let's get on with it!

5.  "Your premise #1 is not..."

For reference, my (shortened, to the point) premise #1 is: "1. Your god is a supernatural being; it is a spirit..."

Huh? So your god(s) is/are not supernatural?  What exactly is/are it/they then?  This is not a fair dismissal of my argument at all.  Whatever you define your god(s) as, I'll just change the words in the first premise.  You have no case here.

6.  "If you state that matter didnt come from a conscious mind then you must have empirical evidence that it came from nothing."

I didn't know that the only option besides conscious mind was that it "came from nothing".  Thanks!  Do you know what a false dichotomy is?  It's a logical fallacy and you just committed one.  I can turn this around on you (the result would be equally false), "If you state that the Universe/nature did not create matter on its own, then you must have empirical evidence that it came from a conscious mind."

7.  "Since you dont have the empirical evidence to support your syllogism then it therefore is open to reinterpretation...

Admin's "Atheist's Riddle":

1) Physical matter is not created from nothing; there is no process known to science that creates physical matter from nothing.

2) Therefore the physical universe was not created from nothing, but from a conscious mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of physical matter being created by nothing,and not a conscious mind, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one."

You committed the false dichotomy logical fallacy again in part 2, but other than that, you're right!  I didn't claim that my Theist's Riddle was a proof of anything!  It's just as false and useless as Perry's riddle!  Didn't you get that from reading my post?  Check here.  It's a proof, using the same technique (inductive reasoning, inappropriately applied), that I didn't make a clock that I know I actually did make.  I can easily turn around your new riddle in the same way I turned around Perry's.  Physical matter is not created from conscious minds, blah, blah, blah, therefore the physical universe was not created from a conscious mind, but by nature, blah, blah, blah, topple my proof, blah, blah.

8. "Hmmm, Perhaps it is best if Atheists simply provide follow the example of science and all those bioinformatics experts as they too are desperately trying to find empirical evidence of that elusive naturally occurring code..."

Do you know what a strawman argument is?  It's a logical fallacy, and you just committed (another) one.  I don't believe that there is any team of scientists anywhere in the world who are searching (desperately or not) for a "naturally occurring code", besides the 2 we know, DNA and RNA (note that there are 2, despite your claims).  Do you know of any?  But if there is such a team, and they haven't found a third example, that does nothing to strengthen Perry's riddle.  His logic is faulty, and it would be a strawman to say that their failure up until now can redeem his faulty logic.

So, there you have it, PG.  I showed that you don't know what an ad hominem is, that you made 2 logical fallacies yourself on multiple occasions, and that you missed the fact that my Theist's Riddle was false (thereby missing the point of the post).  You also accused me of dismissing something that I did not dismiss, which seems to have formed a very large part of your argument.  I'm a little upset that I wasted so much time on your steaming pile of crap.

79 comments:

Jim said...

I'm really tired of having these morons totally skip the part where they have to prove that their gods exist.

Daniel said...

My idiotometer went up so high I actually just turned off my computer in disgust.
Then I realised I hadn't commented...
This confused me:
I was hoping maybe the Atheist finally found empirical evidence for that elusive naturally occurring code.

Nope. just more of the Atheists basically resorting to ignoring the current scientific convention that DNA is in fact a literal code and claiming its just semantics...

Is PG just being an idiot or claiming that DNA was not formed naturally, and that the latter is the formally accepted scientific convention?
Sorry if I'm being an idiot, 3/4s through my first exam diet and I think I've lost most of my brain function.

Daniel said...

And I just realised that she herself (I can't remember why I think she, did you say it?) fell for the riddle, and is now defending it dogmatically.
This is how religions are made.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me...

The fact that DNA even EXISTS shows that NATURE is at work at the complicated job of maintaining and proliferating life.

If a god did it, we'd all be running on magic. No DNA required.

PG said...

Pssssst Atheists.

You seemed to have overlooked the fact that Admin himself has just admitted on the above post that DNA is a literal code as a scientific fact...

here is what he said!
...." I'm not exactly "ignoring the current scientific convention", am I? Did I discard "the very premise that DNA IS A LITERAL CODE?" No! I don't give a flying fuck if it's a code or not! It does not matter! Can I be any clearer?...


OK, So Admin finally agrees that DNA is a Literal code!

Therefore; Lets proceed:

Premise #2
All known codes are designed.
A repeatable and testable observation
Atheist get no free pass and cite their philosophy that DNA occurred naturally because there is no current empirical evidence that DNA evolved from natuaral processes.

So unless you can provide empirical evidence of a naturally occurring code then the following stands:

1) DNA is a Literal code
-Admin is in agreement

2) All known codes are designed
- a repeatable and testable observation

3) DNA is proof of design!


.

Jim said...

Well PG, YOU seem to forget something. You have yet to prove that all codes are created and cannot occur naturally.

You have the burden of proof here. So here's what you theists have to do.

1. Prove that all codes are designed.

2. Prove that a designer exists.

3. Explain how the designer came into existence, seeing as how they would have had to have been created by something.

Of course, I'm using your backwards logic that everything in existence must be created by a higher being. So tell me, who created your God?

Don't worry. I'll wait for your proof.

Admin said...

"The fact that DNA even EXISTS shows that NATURE is at work at the complicated job of maintaining and proliferating life.

If a god did it, we'd all be running on magic. No DNA required."

I agree! I've made this point before, somewhere on this site. Magically created humans wouldn't require DNA, an energy source, sleep, excrement, or anything like that. But the fact that everything seems to have a natural cause and effect, does a lot to suggest there is no magic.

Admin said...

Hey guys, check out the new comment PG made over on the other thread. I'm starting to think he's a troll. This is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Argh!

Admin said...

"You seemed to have overlooked the fact that Admin himself has just admitted on the above post that DNA is a literal code as a scientific fact..."

Holy fuck, you stupid, stupid, ignorant fool! IT DOESN'T MATTER! THEY KNOW IT! THEY DIDN'T OVERLOOK IT! STOP ACCUSING PEOPLE OF OVERLOOKING THINGS THAT THEY HAVEN'T OVERLOOKED! YOU'RE MAKING AN ABSOLUTE ASS OF YOURSELF!

Read my keyboard: "It doesn't matter! The reasoning is flawed. It's flawed because of the 2nd premise, not the first!"

"OK, So Admin finally agrees that DNA is a Literal code!"

FINALLY? FINALLY?! I agreed from the start. Not so much that I agreed, just that I agreed to let you have that for free! I don't care! What don't you understand here? Are you a troll? Is this for real?

"All known codes are designed."

Except for the 2 you're holding hostage! We do not know that they were designed! In order for Perry's "proof" to be sound, it must have the 2nd premise proven! You don't even understand how this works! You may know about Shannon (please don't ever mention it again), but you know nothing about how to prove a case!

Tell me, did you look at the clock example? Did you?

I'd also like you to acknowledge the points from my post, such as that you didn't know what ad hominem was, that you made a false dichotomy, and that you made (and are still making) a strawman argument.

Admin said...

I acknowledged every one of your points in your original comment. This is the true atheist style of diligently sorting through the theist's pile of shit in search of a valid point. You ignored mine completely. This is the true style of a theist, seen over and over again on this site.

Acknowledge my points #1-8 in the post, or I'm going to have to assume you are a coward, and are not really considering our responses.

Admin said...

From my comment on the other thread:

"NO!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Let's argue for example that there is a naturally occurring code that we'd BOTH agree on. And let's say that humans do not know of the existence of this code. Does that mean your proof is sound? Does that mean you've proven your case? No! Because such a thing exists, but we don't know of it. That's why it isn't a proof! It would then be an argument from ignorance, a third logical fallacy that you've made. I'm really sorry you don't understand this. Perry has hoodwinked you good!"

PG, inductive reasoning is not sound in this case. But I see why you're defending it so hard. It's probably the best "proof" the theists have for their case, so you can't let it fall. I suspect you know it isn't a sound proof, but just don't care, because it's all you've got.

Just in case you're not keeping track, so far you've screwed up ad hominem, made the argument from ignorance fallacy, the strawman fallacy, and the false dichotomy fallacy.

PG said...

I thought you said you didnt use ad hominin attacks. That typically happens when the Atheist is losing the debate. Therefore I read most of your arguments until the point of personal attacks, then I simply stop reading. So perhaps you can state your salient points and keep your childish remarks until the end. I choose to keep my discussions civil and on an intillectual level, perhaps you should try it sometime.

however, lets procceed...

Premise #2
All known codes are designed"

Again your rebutals neglect to account for the word "Known" in premise #2.

We know that all "known' codes are 100% designed.
We know of 0% of codes that occure naturally.

So lets play your Atheist game. I will list one code that I can prove empirically was designed by a designer,

Then, it will be your turn to list one code that occures naturally!

Designed Codes
1)Morse code
2) ?
3) ?

Naturally occurring code:
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?


OK, its your turn...




.

magnamune said...

Right... so you're saying that all man-made codes are man-made. Great job.

I have a question. What is a "code"? Can you give a definition?

Admin said...

"I have a question. What is a "code"? Can you give a definition? "

I really wish you hadn't just done that. It isn't relevant, and it's a distraction from the main point.

Magnamune said...

I know, but I'm sorry, but I'm curious. I guess I should have given my e-mail, or something, so as to not clutter the comments...

Admin said...

"I thought you said you didnt use ad hominin attacks."

I don't (at least, I'm not here). And you still can't spell ad hominem. I attack points in the argument, and I insult for good measure. Are you still unclear on what an ad hominem argument is?

"We know that all "known' codes are 100% designed.
We know of 0% of codes that occure naturally."

Argument from ignorance? Logical fallacy. Acknowledge!

Look, you just don't get it. I know of no "code" that can be absolutely proven to be naturally occurring, to your satisfaction. There! I don't deny it.

The problem that you're failing to acknowledge, along with all of the other points in my post, is that THIS IS NOT A SOUND PROOF! You don't even know what a proof is! you must PROVE premise #2 is true, in order for it to work! That's why when faced with a code of unknown origin, it doesn't work!

Look I'm getting pissed off at you now. You are CLEARLY not considering the points we are making. You're repeating yourself over and over, even though we've shown that your proof is not 'sound' (this is a real term with a real meaning, look it up!). You're not acknowledging points #1-8 that I made in my original reply, and have not even admitted that you fucked up the meaning of ad hominem. Even that would be a start. But in fact, you just accused me of using it again, demonstrating that you STILL don't know what it is!

Given all of this, why should we give you any respect or consideration? You're acting like a pure fucking troll!

Admin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Admin said...

PG posted this in the other thread, but I deleted it because he's double-posting:

"BTW, Im sure you all will only provide empirical evidence of codes that occure natually according to Shannons communication model and wont try to slip your crystals, rock patterns, clouds in the sky onto the list...

Im really anxious to read all these wonderful natually codes that you all mention exist."


You stupid fucking sack of shit! (NOT ad hominem, because I'm about to attack your argument, not that you have any idea what ad hominem is) I'm not playing this game! You're demonstrating that you're just here to repeat the same thing over and over again! We've already shown you why this is not a sound argument, and why it's not going to make any progress for you! Again, it doesn't matter whether we can name such a code or not! I'm not going to suggest crystals, nor have I EVER suggested anything like that! And I don't see anybody else here doing that either! You're just making this shit up!

You've been defeated, yet you continue to repeat the same thing over and over, without any consideration of our points, or acknowledgment that we've even made points!

Go fuck yourself, asshole! And get the fuck off of my blog until you're ready to stop being a fucking troll!

Admin said...

Not being a troll will require you to:

1. admit that you don't/didn't know what ad hominem means, nor how to spell it, but insisted on accusing me of it twice.

2. abandon this constant insistence that we name naturally occurring codes, while recognising that nobody here is taking that line of attack on your argument

3. at least acknowledge that my issue is with the soundness of your inductive reasoning, and that I suggest it is being incorrectly applied

4. admit that you are making a strawman argument, and that you have made false dichotomies and arguments from ignorance, for a total of at least 3 logical fallacies

5. read the clock example and demonstrate to me that you have read it

6. acknowledge some of the other points from my list #1-8 in the original reply

If you cannot do any of these things, I'm going to have to continue to call you:

a) a coward
b) a troll
c) a sack of shit
d) an asshole

Admin said...

PG, I'm going to give you the summation of my argument in 1 sentence, and you should consider it. Here it is:

You have failed to demonstrate that your 'proof' is in fact a real proof.

We've pretty much told you how you can do such a thing, but you probably haven't even read or considered it. You have a brain deficiency. I dutifully acknowledge all of your points, because I'm an honest debater. You are not. You have failed to address damn near everything we've posted. I'm not sure the words even have any meaning to you.

I'm heavily considering deleting all of your future posts from this blog if you are going to continue the same behaviour. I've never done that to anybody before, but you just might deserve it. And no, that wouldn't be "admitting that you've won", or whatever other garbage you might think. It is simply because you are not engaging in an honest debate. Your behaviour is 100% troll.

Magnamune said...

Well, if it looks like a troll, and acts like a troll...

Though, I feel it'd be more beneficial to use PG as an example of how NOT to debate. If even one theist sees it and decides to debate properly, or not post at all, then it would be worth it, in my opinion.

Admin said...

I have to continue posting. This just has me riled up.

Seriously PG, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you such a fucking asshole, so inconsiderate of other people, that you can't even be fucked to acknowledge the points they're making? Even if you don't agree with them, to dismiss them or avoid them, is dishonest and asshole-ish.

You are an embarrassment to theism! Yes, that's right, to theism! The belief system that has Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind as members, and YOU are an embarrassment.

Why do you think it is that you're presenting your 'proof' on this obscure, insignificant little blog, not in front of the world's great thinkers or scientists? Why do you think it's a laughable piece of shit that is advertised on Google ads? I'll tell you why. It's because, as I've been saying the whole time, the reasoning method is not sound. Therefore, the 'proof' is unusable trash.

And why can't you be fucked to look up what an ad hominem argument is?

Admin said...

Yeah Magnamune, maybe. What PG is doing is what lots of atheists merely JOKE that theists do. But PG is doing it (metaphorically). He's sticking his finger in his ears and screaming, "I'm not listening!" Then unplugs his ears and vomits the same bullshit argument again.

Trolls are not usually welcome on forums, and while I'll leave his old posts to show WHY I think he's a troll, I may delete any future posts he makes until he stops trolling.

Jim said...

You know what? I kinda want to play this game. I know I am more than a match for PG intellectually, and I have nothing to do. So I'll name two codes that form naturally.

1. DNA
2. RNA

How do I know this? Well, PG, since you want to use science to argue your points, which is a very brave move for a theist, I will also use science.

If you want to talk about empirical evidence and other fancy words, I defy you to find any evidence whatsoever that DNA and RNA are not naturally occurring.

We know several things here.

1. DNA and RNA exist.
2. No known supernatural (i.e. gods) process can create DNA and RNA.
3. Every living thing contains genetic information, thus fitting in perfectly with the Theory of Evolution.
4. The fact that DNA and RNA exist proves that codes can occur naturally.

So PG, you want someone to play your game, you got it. But remember the rules. You yourself stated that you "choose to keep my discussions civil and on an (sic) intillectual level". So you must try to keep your arguments relevant to the facts presented. If you want to say that DNA was created by some other means than natural formation, then you must present evidence. If you say there is no evolution, you must present evidence. If you want to claim that god did it all, you, again, must first prove said god exists.

We know that DNA and RNA are naturally occurring simply because they HAVE to be naturally occurring. There is no other process known to man that would explain their existence. And before you attempt to use the argument that 'we weren't there so how do we know', or 'you can't prove that it originated in a natural manner', realize that my arguments follow a logical form. Surely an intellectual such as yourself can understand logic. Simply because we weren't there does not mean we cannot logically deduce the chain of events, given parameters.

We know there was no god who created the world, because none of the evidence in the entire universe supports that theory. So based on that logical time line, we can move on to the next event. We know our solar system was created naturally, because all the evidence supports it. As we look around us in the universe, in our solar system, and on our planet, we come to find that there is evidence for everything having a natural origin. The stars, our sun, the planets, the moon, etc. Eventually you'll come to DNA.

No known supernatural process has ever been proven to exist, let alone have created something. There is no evidence of anything supernatural ever occurring, let alone existing. Based on these two facts, we can logically deduce that, although we can't 100% define the origins of DNA and RNA (because we weren't there), we can logically deduce that they must have been created naturally.

So there you go. I have given you two naturally occurring codes and have backed up my claims with logical (and empirical) scientific evidence. If you wish to challenge my points, please, feel free. But since this is an intellectual debate, I must ask that you back up any and all claims with scientific facts and logic, just as I have done. That is to say, if you wish to argue that your god has done anything, you MUST first prove that your god exists.

JayMac said...

You're still asking me to provide examples of naturally occurring codes that fit your model. I've already allowed for the fact that there might not be any that I can produce. I'm not arguing that there ARE naturally occurring codes. I'm arguing that their lack of existence doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Daniel said...

I know it's bad to do this because it defeats the point of an intellectual argument, but if I met PG I'd be hard-pressed no to punch him in the face...
You want codes?
DNA.
RNA.
Pheromones.
Hormones.
Proteins.
Electricity.
And yes, DNA/RNA occur naturally, in MITOSIS.
Pheromones and hormones are produced on a macrocellular level, but still contain very complex information.
Proteins are linked right in with DNA/RNA, and electricity is a natural occurence which we can use to transmit informaton, both in electrical and electronic systems and our nervous systems.
And since we're all so riled up about it, will anyone tell me what a LITERAL code is?
Just that I can't imagine what a figurative code would be.
And asking for a definiton of what a code is is ok by me, as when they provide a definiton, they need to justify it, and the burden of proof stays where it belongs.
May have lost my train of thought in that firewall, apologies atheists.

Jim said...

Theists like to conclude that DNA transmit information like a language. That's all fine and good, until you realize it all has underlying mathematical properties.

That is to say, all codes are based on mathematical principles, and math occurs naturally. So therefore, every code occurs naturally.

Daniel said...

"Theists like to conclude that DNA transmit information like a language."
Seriously?
Theists drive me to frigging self-harm.
Of them.

Jim said...

I wish I were joking about that. But whilst researching theists theories about DNA and how they think it forms, every site I came across (7 or so) mentioned DNA acting as a code like language. I don't know why they kept making that comparison, seeing as language isn't really a code. Code requires hidden information that must be deciphered. Languages don't unless there is a conscious effort to hide information.

Admin said...

Again, I think all of this is a distraction from the bigger problem, which is that the 'proof' is not a proof. I'd like to take 2 new angles of attack:

Nature has been making diamonds for a long time. There was a time when all diamonds were natural, but now some are man-made. Let's suppose I was part of the first team who made diamonds in the lab. I keep the process, and the fact that there even is such a process, a secret. I then argue:

1. This is a diamond.

2. All diamonds are natural. This is a repeatable, empirical observation. There is no man-made process/capability known to science which could create diamonds.

3. Therefore, this diamond is natural.

You could claim that this is a natural diamond because of this 'proof', but you'd be wrong. Inductive reasoning has been incorrectly applied and has failed.

Admin said...

Second angle of attack:

1. DNA is an absolute 'literal code', whatever you want that to mean. It's free.

2. All codes are created by conscious minds inside the bodies of animal (including human) life on Earth.

3. Therefore this is proof that animal life on Earth created DNA! You must provide an empirical example of a code which was not created by animal life on Earth to defeat my proof.

Or:

1. DNA was created by a conscious mind.

2. All conscious minds exist inside physical creatures on planet Earth.

3. DNA was therefore created by a physical creature on planet Earth.

And once again:

1. Your god is a supernatural being (or insert preferred definition here).

2. All supernatural beings (or your inserted definition) are created by human imagination.

3. Therefore, your god was created by human imagination.

Admin said...

And just for good measure, PG is a fucking twit! He'll think that's an ad hominine (sic) attack, but oh well. We can't expect him to have actually considered the words I wrote which inform him otherwise.

Daniel said...

Oh Admin, believe me, I know what your saying, read up on the Atheist's riddle here like a year ago and see all your points.
I just want to find out what kind of twisted science they're pedelling(misspelt?) so I can use it as ammunition if the time comes.
There's an RE teacher at my (catholic...) high school who retrained from biology, so I would love to shred her belief system in public.

I don't know if I'd have the balls to do it, but when they teach the bible absolutely, it's only fair.

Jim said...

Or how about this:

1. Everything in the universe relies on natural mathematical properties.

2. All codes are created by beings relying on mathematical laws.

3. Therefore all codes are natural.

ANTZILLA said...

Codes?
Aren't all "codes" the process of obtaining meaning/info from one source and converting to another.

So "codes" exsist only to who is observing/converting infoamtion.

e.g. Time is a codes, earth moving around the sun we turn this info into another and call it a "year"

Some people see/believe codes in bones thrown on the ground?

animals use codes eg. Dog wags tail tranlates to freindly.

So what creationist/ID want atheists to explain is not codes but patterns. Patterns are easly explained. However there is no one explaination for all patterns (ID theory) for individual patterns (time, DNA, RNA, dog tail wag) all have indivdual explaintions for each pattern.

1. codes are constucts of the interpeter.

2. the same set of origanal info can be coded to mean different things.

3. the code translation has to exsist or info in one form can transform into new info.

4. infomation always exsisted, translation is relitive.

--- Bit of rant sorry---

ANTZILLA said...

>>1) Physical matter is not created from nothing; there is no process known to science that creates physical matter from nothing.<<

TRUE

IN science there is no such thing as nothing. No matter where we've looked we have always found something. (energy, force, matter etc.)

Everything is created by somthing "cause and effect" over and over again. The causes and effects are individual however causes can group together and produce a single effect/s. The limit of the causes and effects is only limited by measurement. This measurement of causes can also affect/ add to the cause it is measureing. This measurement of causes and effects is Identifing NATURAL CODE (science). There never was/is nothing and there will always will be somthing.

That something is cause and effect, not a character written in a book by humans.

Jim said...

Antzilla, logical thinking will get you nowhere fast with theists. They want make-believe. Not facts.

Magnamune said...

So shall we make-believe with them? Perhaps by acting in such a way we can perhaps cause them to think twice about the things they hear. I mean, I can act like I believe in God. But I suppose going so underhanded is kinda petty.

ANTZILLA said...

I' just sick of theists telling ME what I beleive. Then agruing there points on the what THEY claim I beleive.

>>If you state that matter didnt come from a conscious mind then you must have empirical evidence that it came from nothing.<<
or "Atheists believe in nothing"

THERE NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING >:(

It's like if I said,

"If you state that new born babies didn't come from intercourse/pregnacy then you must have evidence that they come from storks"....

then list off a big arguement about how false stork baby theory is. Then because stork baby theory is wrong that means there's a god.

PG said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Admin said...

PG, you are a coward and a troll. You want intellectual dishonesty? REPEATEDLY ignoring the REAL point, which is that your proof is not a proof. You know what I think? I think you know that it doesn't matter whether or not we can name a naturally occurring code. There could be 0, or there could be 1,000,000,000. It doesn't matter. You're just too chicken-shit to address the point, and are hoping you can convince us you're right, even though you're wrong. It doesn't matter what the truth is to people like you, as long as you can convince others that you are right, it's sufficient.

"None of your examples of naturally occurring codes meet Shannon's rigourous defintion of a code. No encoder to decoder information transfer."

Trying to suck me into that game AGAIN? I'm not biting. It's an irrelevant distraction.

You're just a troll.

Admin said...

You're still too cowardly to address any of my points. How do you think other theists would feel about you if they say the performance you're putting up here?

Admin said...

PG, you are welcome back on the condition that you demonstrate you are not a troll. That means you acknowledge the 8 points in my post, which would be sufficient to show that you are now interested in an actual discussion.

You are no longer welcome here to just scream, "Shannon!!!!", over and over again, while ignoring damn near everything we are saying. I'm all for free speech, but I do not have to give you a venue to troll at.

Now, shape up or fuck off!

Admin said...

Does anybody else think it's ironic that Mr. "Shannon/encoder/decoder" has the poorest communication skills we've ever seen on this blog?

Admin said...

PG said (in deleted post):

"The simplist answer is that since we agree that 100% of all "KNOWN" codes come from a mind, Then DNA must have come from a mind,

But that would destroy Atheism"


You're asserting that this mind would destroy atheism, therefore asserting that it is a (your) god, ignoring other options. False dichotomy, logical fallacy. You'd think if an argument was correct, you wouldn't have to make any logical fallacies to defend it. You've made at least 8 instances of 3 different fallacies, by my count.

And right, the simplest answer is that it was formed by an undescribed and process by an undetected being.

You're a stupid fucking dumbass, a coward and a troll.

Daniel said...

I already gave like 7 examples of naturally occuring codes, I don't really see why that is just being ignored (by him, I know admin addressed it as feeding him, I guess it has since he just went "Shannon blahblahblah encoder et cetera).
It's making me angry now.
But just because one guy defined something once somewhere, in a lot of detail, doesn't mean it holds true for everything. Especially since Shannon, as an information scientist, worked with MANMADE codes so probably didn't take biology into consideration. That whole speel was probably just his job description.
And yes, there is plenty of fucking information transfer you (we're not allowed to say this on British TV so I'll leave it out).

Jim said...

It's amazing that he thinks atheism is the fantasy belief. Like he can babble about DNA and codes and other nonsense, and then he thinks we're all going to find god. What kind of inferiority complex must the theists have for them to convince themselves that all atheists must believe in their fantasy world?

Jim said...

Also, DNA fits his ridiculous models and rules for a natural code.

Anonymous said...

Why is DNA a "code" at all? It's just a string of chemicals. A code needs to TELL us something. What does DNA tell us? How to make an organism? So a string of trees is "code" for "how to make a forest"! A string of corals is "code" for "how to make a reef"! EVERYTHING is a code, by this definition!

Jim said...

Exactly. Which is why the point of DNA being a code is without any merit or substance. Theist tend to think that if they get us to agree with any random point they make, then they are right about everything.

Daniel said...

Jim, totally right, to a dim-witted audience, falling back on even the most useless of points, despite fallacy or just pointing out its irrelevance, this looks like a point for a theist.
And latest anon, DNA is a code because it holds all of your cellular information and is stored by, read and replicated in and by the cell nucleus to create an exact copy, and if translated even a single whole molecule can tell an incomprehensible amount of information about a person.
I'm not sure what side you're on by your relatively pointless post, but your incorrect analogies are, well, incorrect. Totally off base.
Trust me, I'm from the internet.

Admin said...

Somebody called the Atheist Experience with this argument on this week's show (May 16th, 2010). I wonder if it was PG. He got his butt kicked and banned here, so tried there? Check out the show, he didn't get anywhere with them either. The caller went on about whether or not DNA is a code, even after Matt took the approach of inductive reasoning being not a valid proof. Information, designer, blah, blah, blah. Then Matt accused him of not even listening. That sounds familiar. (I'm writing this as I'm listening) Matt got upset that the caller keeps coming back with the same thing over and over again. Wow, it was PG! What a putz!

Daniel said...

I just had a brainstorm!
Look at the ACTUAL atheist's riddle.
Go on, I'll wait.
It states that no natural process can create coded information.
Well I think I have one that breaks it:
Memory.
Surely noone can argue that it's anything but natural, and it sure as hell (irony, because I don't believe in hell, treat it as its connotation please) creates coded information.
Discuss if you like.

Admin said...

Daniel, believe it or not, I was thinking of the way the brain stores information, too. I suppose great minds code information alike ;-)

I didn't want to mention it, because as I've said before, it's a distraction, and PG was likely to just claim that his god directed the process, so it isn't natural. Completely irrelevant, but good point.

Daniel said...

I know that it's irrelevant, but I get so obsessed with impossible problems, like the way he makes his own definition then asserts that a counter is impossible.
Well, frankly, bitchslapped Perry!
I enjoyed destroying that smarmy dick.

PG said...

Daniel,

Your "memory" answer is completely wrong because memory is from a .........mind! BTW,Before you bitchslap Perry, you need to understand that his use of Shannons definition of a code is a universally accepted scientific fact!

Peace!



.

PG said...

Admin,

I destroyed your clock analogy! Go see!

I understood your clock logic but it is flawed because your premise #2 is incorrect. You are a clockmaker, you did make a clock, and that clock did not occure from natual processes! All known clocks comes from a mind.

If you rewrote your syllogism to state that all clocks occurred naturally, then you could see the flaw in your objections to Perry's syllogysm.

Could there be a naturally occurring clock out there anywhere? Its possible, but it would take alot of faith to continue to hope, believe, and maintain FAITH!

Could science one day find a naturally occurring code out there anywhere? Its possible, but it would take alot of faith to continue to hope, believe, and maintain FAITH!



.

Admin said...

I did see, and I replied. But in case you can't get the hint, can we keep all posts in this thread? It's kinda trollish to place your responses all over the site and yet still claim to be having a coherent discussion. I'm going to re-post my response here, which I can do, because I'm the blog owner.

And I'd still like you to address the other points. I'm very interested in reading you admitting that you were wrong about ad hominem.

"I notice you're still too cowardly to address the other points in my first post. You picked the one you wanted. At least it's a start.

I have another question. If you're too small a man (woman?) to admit that you screwed up the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of 'ad hominem', why would I expect you to admit when the focus of your argument has been defeated?

By the way, are you the one who called The Atheist Experience show last Sunday?

I'm a clockmaker? Prove it! That's the whole point, which you repeatedly miss! You have to PROVE that I made a clock, otherwise you have no evidence and no reason to say such a thing! You want special considerations for your argument. Go ahead, PROVE that I made the clock. You claim to have 'destroyed' my argument, yet you cannot prove that I made a clock. That's pretty lame, I have to say. I'll wait for your proof.

And what if you do find such evidence, but it takes you 2 years? Then what? Was the 'proof' a proof during those 2 years, and not afterward? You want your 'proof' to stand as a place-filler until the day we get the evidence. That's not a proof. You don't know what a proof is!

And the other ones? Like the diamond?

What about this?

1. DNA is a code.
2. All codes are created by mortal animals. This is empirically observed, over and over.
3. DNA was created by mortal animals.

If you can't see the flaw with your reasoning, then I'm really sorry for you. You're just a fool in that case."

Admin said...

"I understood your clock logic but it is flawed because your premise #2 is incorrect. You are a clockmaker, you did make a clock..."

P-R-O-V-E it! How thick are you, honestly? This is ridiculous!

Nature is a DNA maker, it did make DNA.....

"All known clocks comes from a mind."

No shit! The challenge is to prove it came from MY mind, not just any mind! This has nothing to do with anything. You just seem to like repeating it!

Admin said...

PG, if we're going to debate, we're going to do it in this thread. Please don't post in the others anymore. It's just making it hard to follow.

This thread is the playing field.

Admin said...

So there you have it gang, PG's rebuttal to my clock argument is, "You did make a clock! You are a clock-maker!"

For him to write that and not realise how stupid it sounds after the arguments he's been making this whole time..... wow. Just wow.

Admin said...

Now that you embarrassed yourself with the clock argument, I'm interested to see how you get out of the diamond argument, which is a very clear intelligence vs. nature argument. So, go ahead and respond. I hope it's better than, "You did make a diamond! You are a diamond-maker!" But somehow, I doubt it.

Admin said...

Still have more.... It's obvious that PG is not accepting my reasons WHY his 'proof' is not a proof. Let's try another approach.

PG says the Atheist's Riddle is proof of design. He is also throwing around the word 'science' a lot.

1. The scientific community disagrees that this is a proof. There are ZERO currently accepted published papers in scientific journals concluding that intelligent design has been proven.

2. The US courts disagree. In the famous Dover trial, the court decided that the ID side had not proven that their case had any merit. The judge also concluded that the ID side had been lying in order to support their case.

3. So what happens next? They try to put their proof on Google Ads, hoping that they can fool some laymen.

4. PG brings the argument to this blog, knowing that he cannot make it work in the scientific or legal arenas. He hopes to fool us, but has only stayed alive to this point by:

a) REPEATEDLY ignoring the VAST MAJORITY of counter-points made.

b) REPEATEDLY using at least 3 different types of logical fallacy.

c) REPEATEDLY using special pleading to dismiss our similar arguments, while not applying the same standard to his own.

etc, etc, etc.

Now, that tells me that something is fishy about this argument. I know PG is a fan of the "simplest explanation", so here's one for him. He's wrong. That explains all of the above. Any alternate explanation has to explain why scientists think he's wrong, why the courts think he's wrong, and why he has to use so many devious techniques to defend it here.

PG, you need to think long and hard about that, my friend.

Daniel said...

PG you fool, memory is not a manual process. It happens anyway, and sentient intervention is not required.
Id est, a NATURAL PROCESS.
Genetic memory is a good example.
I'm naturally afraid of spiders and blood and snakes because early humans have passed on the fear hereditrarily.
I'm afraid of clowns, guns and bullets from experience, but I didn't choose to be. Hence natural memory.
WTF are you talking about the definition again for?
Memory falls within your precious parameters.
Show me that it doesn't with some proof and I'll consider your point as valid.
'Memory is from a mind' has been addressed, so don't try that PoS again.
And it's fine to use Shannon's definition anyway, since the central part of his 'thesis' is a thesis all on its own.
Which has basically been rendered redundant here, so without the axiom(which is EXACTLY what it is, his point is not proved or demonstrated, but considered self-evident, which in any thesis is just not on) it falls apart. It's being an axiom that causes any problems, as you have to take a step back.
Of course in a debate you may not have time to do so, or get your full point across, so it APPEARS solid.
I may need to amend this later, got a bit lost I think.

Daniel said...

Yeah, looks like I may have used an axiom by mistake, my point on guns, knives and clowns is that I have a memory triggering an instinct, and this was not consciously decided, which means that it is a natural process.
I wouldn't consider this a false dichotomy because as far as I can fathom the only relevant facets are conscious and therefore not considered natural, and unconscious and hence natural.

Any thoughts anyone but PG?

Magnamune said...

I really wanted to come-up with a ccounter-point, and not seem like an idiot, but my mind is blank.

Seems solid, though I haven't read the definition... where would walking fit? I mean I consciously direct where I walk, but I don't consciously direct my legs to walk.

Jim said...

PG has also yet to respond to my proving that DNA is a natural code. But this does not surprise me. I have given up hope that PG has any arguments to back up his statements. He just babbles about something he read or heard about and then states that we should all just have faith.

I think that all theists who practice this sort of argumentative reasoning are forgetting where we would all be if we didn't question things or attempt to find a natural, scientific explanation for events. We would be still stuck in the Dark Ages dealing with famine and poverty.

When you attempt to ignore human and scientific advancement for the sake of 'faith', the world grinds to a halt. Anything that goes against the church doctrine is outlawed (Like, gay rights, woman's rights, civil rights, scientific discovery, etc.).

So, PG, I know you won't address this because as far as I can tell, you have yet to provide, not only an original argument for anything, but also proof for anything you are arguing for. You just spout nonsense and claim we should have faith.

So, as a chance to redeem yourself, challenge my argument that DNA is not a natural code. Provide proof that a conscious mind created it. And then, provide proof that conscious mind exists.

Jim said...

Holy shit!

I just read PG's response in the other thread.

Screw being nice. PG, you are fucking retarded.

If you think that "Everything we know about thermodynamics and the conservation of matter and energy requires a causal agent outside of space and time", then you are as dumb as a box of fucking rocks.

It was fine when you wanted to argue about DNA being a code, but to argue against the LAWS OF PHYSICS? That is the dumbest thing you have tried to do yet. The ignorance you have shown in your statements prove conclusively that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

I would love to see any, ANY, proof of your 'casual agent' outside of space and time that is REQUIRED for thermodynamics and the conservation of energy and matter.

Go ahead, I'll wait...

What's that? This stuff occurs literally every second of everyday without a 'casual agent' (by which, I assume you mean god). These are some of the best-proven laws of physics. Nothing has even come close to breaking these rules. Nothing. Ever. Not even close.

There has never, not once, been any proof that some god had anything to do with the laws of physics.

There has never been an exception to any of the laws you talk about either. Why is that, and why will this never happen? Because, and wait for it, that's what makes them laws. They are based on the scientific and physical FACT that they can never change.

Entropy will always win out. Entropy will always occur. Entropy will always be a part of everything in existence. Period.

Gravity will always be exactly what it is. I don't know how you want gravitational law to change. Maybe some things start repelling each other? Or would that be anti-gravity? Definitely not gravity.

And my favorite. The speed of light. Scientifically proven to be the speed limit of the universe. Why is that? Because light is energy. And nothing can move faster than energy because everything else requires energy to move. Sure, we can bend the rules and use warp drive, or wormholes, but we would have never moved faster than the speed of light.

PG, do us all a favor, shut your fucking mouth when it comes to things you don't know. You can spend all day trolling around and posting things you read on a ID website, but you and your kind will never grasp physics and science like we do. You want to make up stuff to fit your rules (like DNA not being natural). You have to believe that god created everything, and will ignore any and all theories that counter this idea. Even if they are true, you'll try to inject your false gods in there. You resort to weak arguments like, "well you weren't there, so how do you know?"

I know it's hard to be proven wrong over and over. (Well, I don't KNOW, but I can guess.) Everyone hates losing an argument. But what's even worse than losing, is helplessly fighting a losing battle (Proving your gods exist) with no ammunition (Basically all arguments you have put together).

Again, there is a chance to redeem yourself. And this holds true for every theist alive:

PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS BEFORE ANY ARGUMENTS THAT YOUR GOD DID ANYTHING!

Your god could not have created DNA, the Earth, humans, because, well, IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Admin said...

JayMac said...
Just because an example of a naturally occuring code cannot be found does not prove that it does not exist. There may may well hundreds, thousands or millions of naturally occuring codes found at subatomic levels or in some other form that we cannot properly observe or measure.

You can hypothesize that DNA must have had a designer; the fact that I can't prove you wrong doesn't prove you right. It simply means that your theory has yet to be disproven.

You cannot claim that a lack of naturally occuring codes proves the existence of god. At most, you can reasonably claim that atheists cannot prove there is no god. Neither side has definitive proof, merely theories.



PG Response:

In theory, yes, they could. Non-belief in God must surely rest on a sort of faith that such a subatomic code exists and will be discovered someday.

Is there such a code? All we can say is that none has ever been discovered. No known exception exists. We can say that information never comes from naturalistic process in the exact same way that we say that there are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics, or the law of gravity, or the speed of light.

Maybe someday, someone will discover an exception to thermodynamics and entropy.

Maybe someday, someone will discover an exception to the law of gravity.

Maybe someday, they'll find an exception to the speed of light.

If someone were to ever discover any of these things, he or she would surely become the Nobel Prize winner of the century.

But to say right now that there is an exception to any of these laws of physics is to make a patently unscientific statement. Everything we know about thermodynamics and the conservation of matter and energy requires a causal agent outside of space and time.

And everything that we presently know about information and DNA requires a Mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information.

Thus we have airtight inductive inference that DNA originated from a superintelligence:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions

2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

3. Therefore DNA came from a mind.


BTW, Thanks for the civil discussion jaymac.

Admin said...

PG, you are a coward! You came back here and STILL ignored my counter-points. By my count, you have only addressed 1 or 2 of the original 8 points in my post.

"In theory, yes, they could. Non-belief in God must surely rest on a sort of faith that such a subatomic code exists and will be discovered someday."

No, it does not depend on that. You STILL don't realise that your 'proof' is not a proof at all. The logic is "horribly flawed", as it was put to me by one of the crew of The Atheist Experience.

"If someone were to ever discover any of these things, he or she would surely become the Nobel Prize winner of the century."

Yet it has never occurred to YOU to claim a Nobel for your *cough* 'proof' of design? Why not? Why haven't you published this in a journal and become one of the world's great thinkers?

"Thus we have airtight inductive inference..."

AIRTIGHT? Which is why you need logical fallacies to defend it? Which is why we've come up with numerous other nonsense, but similarly 'airtight proofs'?

"BTW, Thanks for the civil discussion jaymac."

The funny thing is that you think you are DESERVING of respect or civility, when you are ignoring nearly everything that has been said and STILL can't admit that you screwed up ad hominem. You deserve no civility or respect at this point.

Admin said...

Perhaps I should ask PG direct questions one by one and delete any comment he makes which does not include the answer to that question, and ONLY the answer to that question. Then we might get somewhere. This is ridiculous. At least on The Atheist Experience, they have a 'hang-up' button and can lose the caller when he's doing this kind of thing. I don't have a hang-up button, but I do have a 'delete comment' button.

Admin said...

Question #1 for PG:

Did you screw up the meaning, pronunciation and spelling of "ad hominem"?

ANTZILLA said...

1.Chemicals (DNA) tells other chemicals how to grow. Right?

2. this process of infomation exchange is call a "code" Right?

3.Chemicals are found in nature. Right?

4. Then DNA is a natural code!

5. The code wasn't designed by anything. It's interpeted (one chemical to another). The translation (cause of one chemical to affect another) however is AGAIN natural selection based on Gene strengh etc.

--------GAME OVER next topic-------

Magnamune said...

Hey! Can I troll post and be an attention whore too? *ahem*

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

...wait... I fucked that up, didn't I.

Seriously though, It's always fun when something like this happens. Annoying as a bitch, but still fun. Hopefully s/he'll stfu, and gtfo now. His/her argument has been quite conclusivly disproven... Before they made it...

Admin said...

Comment moderation is enabled until PG has the balls to answer the question above. This conversation is getting way out of hand because of PG's trolling. The coward even has it going on 3 different threads.

Admin said...

I can't believe I had to enable comment moderation, but this fucker is so all-over-the-place, so willing to ignore the counters we've provided, and too cowardly to admit he was wrong about ad hominem, that I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I've never had to do that before, even with Nathan! But PG is clearly out to confuse people and is trolling.

Daniel said...

Aww Magnamune I just want to hug you^^
Sick of these posts all across the site, however hopeful that this will basically be the end of this debacle.

Admin said...

Hey PG, you're the star of another post. Congratulations, you have well and truly embarrassed yourself!

Admin said...

Oops, here's the link:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2010/05/what-happens-when-you-force-theist-to.html