| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Abner Mintz" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2005 10:57:27 PM |
| Object: |
Dembski disproves Christian God! |
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
.
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 03:23:07 AM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
Dembski is wrong precisely because he holds to the "christian" view of God
wherein God is absolutely disconnected from the world, which He created "out
of nothing" and which is not a part of Himself.
But that is not the nature of the real God, who created everything out of
His own energy (which is part of Himself), and who thus is completely
connected with everything.
Everything is designed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 04:13:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:23:07 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
Dembski is wrong precisely because he holds to the "christian" view of God
wherein God is absolutely disconnected from the world, which He created "out
of nothing" and which is not a part of Himself.
But that is not the nature of the real God, who created everything out of
His own energy (which is part of Himself), and who thus is completely
connected with everything.
Everything is designed.
Can you summarize the research that has led you to this conclusion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 03:35:32 AM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
Indeed. You could say he's walking on a beach MADE of watches. If that's the
case, what's the point of picking one out and claiming it's designed? As
opposed to WHAT?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 04:00:07 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:iKudnfei_9lmk4DeRVn-uA@io.com...
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
Indeed. You could say he's walking on a beach MADE of watches. If that's the
case, what's the point of picking one out and claiming it's designed? As
opposed to WHAT?
Are there *any* intelligent atheists on alt.atheism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 09:03:58 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:iKudnfei_9lmk4DeRVn-uA@io.com...
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
Indeed. You could say he's walking on a beach MADE of watches. If that's the
case, what's the point of picking one out and claiming it's designed? As
opposed to WHAT?
Are there *any* intelligent atheists on alt.atheism?
Yes.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 05:34:34 AM |
|
|
In article <glennsheldon-Dt8Te.94$bJ1.5008@news.uswest.net>,
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
Are there *any* intelligent atheists on alt.atheism?
If any intelligent theists were to exist, they would, of a certainty,
not be here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 09:58:09 AM |
|
|
In episode <glennsheldon-Dt8Te.94$bJ1.5008@news.uswest.net>, Glenn burst
into the room and exclaimed:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:iKudnfei_9lmk4DeRVn-uA@io.com...
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1h2fizk.nxf6e2g4qiqoN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a filter that
tells designed things from undesigned things. His filter presumably
doesn't say that *everything* is designed - if his filter gives a
positive reading no matter what it is applied to, it isn't a filter,
right? If you apply his filter to a car or a human being, it says
that thing is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed everything (and
same with the Jewish and Muslim versions) - so if Dembski's filter is
correct, the Christian God does not exist.
Indeed. You could say he's walking on a beach MADE of watches. If that's
the case, what's the point of picking one out and claiming it's
designed? As opposed to WHAT?
Are there *any* intelligent atheists on alt.atheism?
If we say "no" will you leave?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 02:55:36 AM |
|
|
Abner Mintz wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Very well done Abner.
I belive there is a flaw though.
I think the ID proponents can say this - the filter detects "Complex
specified information" or "irreducible complexity" - they do indeed
believe that *everything* is designed by the Big ***** - but the
filter is only detecting complex specified information from which
"design" is infered rather than detecting design directly.
I think a way of detecting "complex specified information" -is absurd.
I think the concept itself - "complex specified information" is absurd
- how can anyone tell its "specfified" or not?
That's a mystical/magical superpower that i dont believe anyone
posseses - certainly not humans.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 06:48:31 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Richo <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote:
I think the concept itself - "complex specified information" is absurd
- how can anyone tell its "specfified" or not?
That's easy: just ask Dembski, and he'll tell you.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Online again? When do you sleep?...
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 09:17:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:48:31 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in
<dfko9v$keh$4@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>:
In talk.origins Richo <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote:
I think the concept itself - "complex specified information" is absurd
- how can anyone tell its "specfified" or not?
That's easy: just ask Dembski, and he'll tell you.
Ah, that's why the specified information is complex.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Merrill" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 12:44:37 AM |
|
|
Abner Mintz wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
...
Would it be like a "spam filter?" :-)
Isn't everything shaped or formed by forces and relationships that are
bigger that it is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brushwork" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 09:27:06 PM |
|
|
Rick Merrill wrote:
Isn't everything shaped or formed by forces and relationships that are
bigger that it is?
I think you're having us on. In any event, to tackle this question, we
need to size up a few things:
What is a "bigger" relationship? Is sisterhood bigger than Chicago? Or
smaller? How does it compare to, say, a Nissan Sentra?
What about mother-in-law-hood? Microscopic? Midrange? Or supersize? How
would you compare it to father-in-law-hood? Or a cube of butter?
Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics bigger or smaller than the Milky
Way? Well, what about centrifugal force? Big, small or sort of
in-between? Do you think centrifugal force is bigger or smaller than
Jesus? How would you compare centrifugal force to St. Polycarp?
Keep asking those intelligent questions, Rick.
Brushwork
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phillip Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 04:46:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 +0000, Abner Mintz wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
On a related topic - does Dembski (or any idist) have anything to say
about the relationship (if any) between the i.d. and Jesus?
--
phillip brown
"***** doesn't just happen. there is always an *****-hole involved"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rossum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 07:33:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
Dembski asserts that his filter does not give false positives for
design, but that it might give false positives for chance. Something
might have been carefully designed so that it looks as if it
originated by chance.
rossum
[snip]
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 12:37:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 08:38:46 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
Null reference exception?
--
Stuart
AA #2053
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
07 Sep 2005 01:52:34 AM |
|
|
Walking on Glass wrote:
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
(Piggybacking)
The filter says somethings are so irreducable that they
cannot have come together by chance. And thus must
have been designed.
The problem is, you can never know that. For many
years, engineers dd not understand exactly how a
honeybee could fly. Later on this was figured out.
There is ALWAYS the chance that nay irreducible
thing is irreducable, you just don't know how its
done yet.
One claim is the biological motor that bacteria use
to mover their flagellum cannot be reduced to logical
steps, it must have come together all at once.
But you can never know that for sure, like our honeybee,
you may simply not understand the basic physics
that makes it possible.
So never being able to be sure, its not a filter.
All ID can do is point out problems, it cannot use the for
proof unless it can rule out that these things did not have some
way of coming tgether except for design, which it never does.
Its god of the gaps again.
We see other problems with ID. We saw last week
a report that scientists found the genes that are broken
in mice that do not allow regrowth of lost body parts.
Lizards and frogs can regrow a lost foot, mice could not.
Why would a designer design a flawed product like that?
The scientists found a way to repair these genes and make
mice capable of regrowing lost tails, feet and ears.
Why would a designer create a fiendishly complex yet simple
flagellum and ignore a broken set of genes in mammals?
The designer that designs flagellum show have been equally
clever at fixing a broken gene.
One could are the designer designer that gene to be broken
for some mysterious unknown reason, but then we have a
procrustean bed, anything can be made to fit, but its a
useless fit.
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
The filter does not work.
You can never be sure the 'unexplainable' has no
explanation.
We have the old god of the gaps again.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
Null reference exception?
The ID bunch all say its god, but never officially
for purposes of argument. The designer is never
made explicit.
Any creator must be complex and cannot have
come about by accident. What designer designed
the designer? But note, we have no reason to say "a"
designer. There might be billions of designers.
Maybe the designer of mammalian genes that are broken
are the designers' equvalent of Dilbert's Wally.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 03:51:32 AM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
Is that where whiskey comes from?
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G." |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 12:53:42 AM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
An intelligently designed smoothie without the pulp.
--
Greg G.
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why.
Drink! for you know not why you go nor where.
--Omar Khayyam, 11th - 12th century Persian astronomer
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 04:09:03 AM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2005 17:53:42 -0700, "Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
But the Christian version of God supposedly designed
everything (and same with the Jewish and Muslim
versions) - so if Dembski's filter is correct, the Christian
God does not exist.
1. If the Christian God exists, everything is designed.
2. According to Dembski's filter, some things were
not designed.
Q.E.D. Either Demski is wrong or God does not exist.
The one possible fly in this ointment, of course, is
that it is possible I have mistaken Dembski's claims
and his supposed filter really does give a positive
reading for everything. If so ... how did he test his
filter to make sure it works? If it gives a positive
reading for everything, I don't see how you could
possibly test it ...
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
An intelligently designed smoothie without the pulp.
Hey, com on you guys, I'm being serious here. Besides, to get a ID
smoothie you would have to run the god through a blender first.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rossum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
06 Sep 2005 07:30:37 PM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2005 19:37:08 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:57:27 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
[snip]
Did Dumbski say what happens when you run his god through his filter?
As far as I am aware he didn't, but I did. You can find it at
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ef.cfm
Here is my current version, which has some minor changes:
God and the Explanatory Filter
==============================
Dembski's Explanatory Filter (EF) is intended to distinguish between
regularity, chance and design. Dembski claims that the filter does
not register false positives for design, though it is susceptible to
false negatives. When we apply the EF to God we get some interesting
results. As to whether God is a suitable subject for the EF, I would
point out that one of the aims of ID is to extend the boundaries of
science to include the supernatural so it is surely legitimate from
the ID point of view to apply the EF to God.
The filter has three stages, first a check for regularity, second a
check for chance and third a check for design.
1 First Stage - Check for Regularity
If something is due to regularity then it is the outcome of the
working of the laws of the universe. Since God is the creator of the
universe it is not possible for God to be due to regularity. I am
sure that all believers would agree that God is not a product of the
laws of the universe. I assume here that by "Law" Dembski means "the
Laws of our current physical universe" and not the laws of any
meta-universe that also contains God.
2 Second Stage - Check for Chance
For something to be due to chance the probability of it happening by
chance must be greater than Dembski's Universal Probability Bound
(UPB). This is 1 in 2 ^ 500, equivalent to 1 in 10 ^ 150, or 10 ^
-150. This equates to 500 bits of information. Evaluating the
probability of God is not easy. There are two possibilities: God is
simple or God is complex.
2.1 God is Simple
If God is simple, then God does not contain a lot of information. Low
information corresponds to high probability, so a simple God would be
more probable than the UPB. In this case the EF would assign God to
chance. I do not think that there are many believers who would agree
that the existence of God is due to chance alone. This incorrect
result might indicate a problem with the assumption that God is simple
or else it might show a problem with the Explanatory Filter.
2.2 God is Complex
God is complex, but how complex relative to the UPB? This question is
dependent on how much information God contains. God is omniscient,
knowing everything; a very large amount of information indeed.
However we can put a lower limit on the information contained in God.
Given that God inspired the Bible, the minimum amount of information
is the amount contained in the Bible. God knows more than is in the
Bible; knowing less is not possible.
Looking at one of my Bibles, I find that it has about 30 characters
per line, 56 lines in a column and two columns per page. The Old
Testament contains 840 pages and the New Testament 240 pages. A total
of 1080 pages. This is 30 x 56 x 2 x 1080 = 3628800 characters. For
simplicity let us take the number of possible characters as 30, 26
letters plus space and some punctuation. Therefore by the standard
probability argument the likelihood of the Bible having arisen by
chance is 1 in 30 ^ 3628800. Remember that this is an upper bound, God
is less probable than this because he contains more information than
is in the Bible.
Working out the numbers, 1 in 30 ^ 3628800 is a probability of 1.8 x
10 ^ -3628942. This is less than the UPB of 10 ^ -150 with a good
margin for error. Hence the EF does not assign God to chance at this
stage.
This is a better result. God is not due to chance, which is in
agreement with the opinion of all believers. I will proceed on the
assumption that God is complex.
3 Third Stage - Check for Design
3.1 Look for a Specification
The third stage starts by looking for a specification. God certainly
has a specification, you can read it in scripture - creator of all
that exists, compassionate, merciful and all the rest. Given that God
is specified then God is again not a result of chance: the EF assigns
low probability non-specified events to chance. Again this is a good
result indicating that God is indeed specified. Had God not been
specified then the EF would have indicated chance which we have
already rejected in 2.1.
3.2 Design is Detected
At the third stage the EF says that if something is both complex and
specified then it is due to design. God is both complex, by 2.2, and
specified, by 3.1. Hence the EF says that God shows design. Remember
also that Dembski claims that the EF does not show false positives for
design so this result is supposed to be reliable. Of course the EF
says nothing about the nature of the designer who designed God, it
merely asserts the presence of intelligent design.
4 Conclusions
I think all believers would agree that God did not arise from either
regularity or chance. However by Dembski's definition of design only
regularity, chance and design are allowed -- Dembski defines design as
everything which is neither regularity nor chance. With this
definition of design it is inevitable that the Explanatory Filter
decides that God is designed.
Given the wider aims of the ID movement it is amusing to see that
Dembski's Explanatory Filter appears to give support to the atheist
argument that God was designed by humans. I am more inclined to think
that either the EF is flawed or that this is an example of a false
positive for the EF.
rossum
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Dembski disproves Christian God! |
05 Sep 2005 11:18:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005, (Abner Mintz) wrote:
It just occured to me - Dembski has supposedly found a
filter that tells designed things from undesigned things.
His filter presumably doesn't say that *everything* is
designed - if his filter gives a positive reading no matter
what it is applied to, it isn't a filter, right? If you apply
his filter to a car or a human being, it says that thing
is designed; if you apply it to a piece of gravel, it says
that thing is not designed ...
I don't think he claims that stuff _without_ CSI is _not_ designed.
8<
So, which is it, Oh ID Supporters:
1. The Christian God doesn't exist.
2. Dembski's filter doesn't work.
3. Dembski's filter is untestable.
Re (3), he hasn't even been able to apply rigorously it himself.
I think "unappliable" trumps "untestable"...
Of course, his filter wasn't designed to detect design, and it works
well enough at its intended task of convincing biblical literalists
that their beliefs are validated by Real Science.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
