| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2004 09:12:48 PM |
| Object: |
organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
Insight into possible problems with the above arguments might appear
in the thread "Sickness & cancer against creation hypothesis?," one
post therein being
1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil
http://tinyurl.com/2aw4k
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 06:08:22 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
You're making them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kristy B." |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 12:31:13 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
One of many things that I see wrong with your argument is that you are
assuming that God thinks like you do. You are trying to guess what an
infinite being would or would not do according to your standards.... I see a
major flaw in that thinking. As humans, trying to reason God in that way
doesn't make sense to me. For myself, I find it arrogant that people think
that humans are the supreme beings of the universe, capable of understanding
EVERYTHING.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dissident" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 08:34:11 AM |
|
|
Kristy B. wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
One of many things that I see wrong with your argument is that you are
assuming that God thinks like you do. You are trying to guess what an
infinite being would or would not do according to your standards.... I see a
major flaw in that thinking. As humans, trying to reason God in that way
doesn't make sense to me. For myself, I find it arrogant that people think
that humans are the supreme beings of the universe, capable of understanding
EVERYTHING.
So by a reductio argument, creationists appear to claim humans
are incapable of understanding anything, at least anything that
requires they think for themselves. So they take the contradictory
word of a large, ancient book at face value.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 11:31:42 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com>...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
Insight into possible problems with the above arguments might appear
in the thread "Sickness & cancer against creation hypothesis?," one
post therein being
1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil
http://tinyurl.com/2aw4k
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com
the natuer of an unkowable superantural entity is, well, unknowable.
so there is no way to say if anything is wrong with any of these
statements at all. what, if anything, is wrong with posting pointless
questions?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 01:26:23 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com>...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
How about the reverse argument:
If an organism M evolved, it wouldn't possess feature F.
Organism M does possess feature F.
Therefore, God did create organism M.
Arguments of that form are the basis for the entire ID idea.
Is it more valid than your version? If so, why?
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
All of these arguments assume that the god in question has
certain properties. Therefore they are not valid as arguments
about a generic god with unspecified properties. They are,
however, valid arguments in a debate with proponents of
specific gods who are postulated to have the relevant properties.
One pertinent example of such a god is the god postulated by
many creationists. For example, it is commonly postulated that
their god created a world without sin or death, and that death
didn't enter the picture until Eve ate the wrong fruit. From
that postulate, it is resonable to infer that such a god wouldn't
have created killers.
It is also commonly postulated that their god made Noah save all
kinds of animals on the Ark. From that postulate, it is reasonable
to infer that there would be no pre- or peri-Flood extinctions.
[snip]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neepy" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 04:27:33 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com>...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
They all contain the term "God", which renders them all meaningless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bogdan" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 03:40:25 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
God is a myth. Myths aren't bound by reality. That's what's wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 07:39:08 AM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:12:48 +0000 didst david ford speak thusly:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
Mostly that you rarely make any sense.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 12:38:55 AM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401271911.260d5ed8@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism
As opposed to a Judeo-Christian God of something else? The
"theism" is surplus here.
(hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
You need to specify what attributes of the Judeo-Christian God of
whatever would lead to that conclusion. Perhaps an argument based on
his alleged omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence? You need to
make a case for your premise.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
The argument is in correct logical form, but you need to explain
your first premise.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
The same problem. The conclusion follows from the "premise", but the
premise needs explaining.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Depends perhaps on some attributes attributed to this Judeo-Christian
God of whatever. Are there any that would support such a statement?
Benevolence, perhaps, or sensible non-wastefulness? Omniscience, that
may eliminate the argument that the extinct organisms could have been
experiments, or made just for practice?
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
Again, it does follow from your premise, which you now need to
support.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
That's something that some creationists do argue. They
blame it on the Fall of A. & E.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
Lots of creationists argue so. They think the killer aspects are all
"degeneration" after the Fall, and that the original creation plan
called for no death. Amusingly, many of the special predatory or
defensive adaptations of organisms will come under the category of
things the will simultaneously claim "could never have evolved
naturally".
[snip]
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 10:28:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) posted in alt.atheism:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
They're all merely your assertions.
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Why not?
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Why?
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Why not?
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Why not?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 10:45:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian god:" there is the Jewish
god and the Christian gods.
The rest of your arguments were equally ill-phrased.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 09:39:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:45:39 +0000 (UTC), (Rev.
Desertphile) wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian god:" there is the Jewish
god and the Christian gods.
The rest of your arguments were equally ill-phrased.
Along with Allah all are claimed to be the god of Abraham.
Christianity and Islam are sects, from Judaism. same mickey mouse
gods with different names.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Squiggles" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 09:01:19 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
OK let me take a crack at it:
P1: G created O if and only if O has quality H;
(it's been long time, but i think this is
existential logic);
P2: O exists and has quality H;
C: Therefore G did not create O.
___________
I think the argument is valid and the conclusion True.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
P1: G created M if and only if M has the quality F.
P2: M does not posess F.
C: Therefore G did ot create M.
As the argument above;
_________________________
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
P1: G created life only if it is immortal.
P2: Life if not immortal.
C: G did not create life as we know it.
____________
As above;
etc.
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 03:56:21 PM |
|
|
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4017CE97.39728244@sympatico.ca>...
david ford wrote:
snip
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
When dealing with easy and fully defined systems (e.g. mathematical
problems), we are often able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex but still fully defined systems (e.g.
chess), we are usually not able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex and not completely defined systems (e.g. the
universe), we will not be able to provide a proof.
The only way to solve the problem (i.e. to show how it really is), is
to mentally rebuild the system inside our brains. When the chosen
system does not show contradictions, then we have practically proven
the system.
The tricky part is that our brain is quite a ***** - it will never
admit that it did an error.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
--- What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find
out, which is the exact opposite. Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical_Essays"
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Squiggles" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 04:32:49 PM |
|
|
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4017CE97.39728244@sympatico.ca>...
david ford wrote:
snip
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
When dealing with easy and fully defined systems (e.g. mathematical
problems), we are often able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex but still fully defined systems (e.g.
chess), we are usually not able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex and not completely defined systems (e.g. the
universe), we will not be able to provide a proof.
The only way to solve the problem (i.e. to show how it really is), is
to mentally rebuild the system inside our brains. When the chosen
system does not show contradictions, then we have practically proven
the system.
The tricky part is that our brain is quite a ***** - it will never
admit that it did an error.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
Hi Arndt,
Thanks for replying -- are we dealing with
systems or propositions here - i'm not sure
i understand your point.
Squiggles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 11:28:19 AM |
|
|
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4018387A.9F8AD9A0@sympatico.ca>...
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4017CE97.39728244@sympatico.ca>...
david ford wrote:
snip
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
When dealing with easy and fully defined systems (e.g. mathematical
problems), we are often able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex but still fully defined systems (e.g.
chess), we are usually not able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex and not completely defined systems (e.g. the
universe), we will not be able to provide a proof.
The only way to solve the problem (i.e. to show how it really is), is
to mentally rebuild the system inside our brains. When the chosen
system does not show contradictions, then we have practically proven
the system.
The tricky part is that our brain is quite a ***** - it will never
admit that it did an error.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
Hi Arndt,
Thanks for replying -- are we dealing with
systems or propositions here - i'm not sure
i understand your point.
Squiggles
Hi,
I have been researching for more than 20 years how to deal with
complex systems. I have defined different classes of systems.
NOTE: I actually did some more things during those 20 years ;-)
The result of this classification showed that most systems are
impossible to calculate, predict, solve, prove, etc.
Therefore, any question we ask regarding those systems will never be a
precise answer. We need to consider that the asnwer can only be given
with a certain acuracy.
The simulation of a system is often the best way to get a result for
many questions. However we also see that the computers we have to run
the simulations are not powerful enough.
The good thing is that our brain is by far the best "simulation
computer" there is. However, we need to "feed" and "program" it well.
To do this we need to understand how the brain works.
Otherwise the brain will fool us. The design goal for the brain has
never been "realistic simulation", but successful survival.
I need to run ... My TaeBo class starts in 30 minutes
Cheers
Arndt --- www.BraiTrix.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Keighley" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
30 Jan 2004 06:48:42 AM |
|
|
(Arndt) wrote in message news:<bd920fe3.0401290927.23a408b9@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
The simulation of a system is often the best way to get a result for
many questions. However we also see that the computers we have to run
the simulations are not powerful enough.
The good thing is that our brain is by far the best "simulation
computer" there is.
this is why engineers do all their modelling in their heads and never use
computers...
[...] However, we need to "feed" and "program" it well.
To do this we need to understand how the brain works.
Otherwise the brain will fool us. The design goal for the brain has
never been "realistic simulation", but successful survival.
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Squiggles" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 08:21:17 PM |
|
|
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4018387A.9F8AD9A0@sympatico.ca>...
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4017CE97.39728244@sympatico.ca>...
david ford wrote:
snip
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
When dealing with easy and fully defined systems (e.g. mathematical
problems), we are often able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex but still fully defined systems (e.g.
chess), we are usually not able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex and not completely defined systems (e.g. the
universe), we will not be able to provide a proof.
The only way to solve the problem (i.e. to show how it really is), is
to mentally rebuild the system inside our brains. When the chosen
system does not show contradictions, then we have practically proven
the system.
The tricky part is that our brain is quite a ***** - it will never
admit that it did an error.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
Hi Arndt,
Thanks for replying -- are we dealing with
systems or propositions here - i'm not sure
i understand your point.
Squiggles
Hi,
I have been researching for more than 20 years how to deal with
complex systems. I have defined different classes of systems.
NOTE: I actually did some more things during those 20 years ;-)
The result of this classification showed that most systems are
impossible to calculate, predict, solve, prove, etc.
Therefore, any question we ask regarding those systems will never be a
precise answer. We need to consider that the asnwer can only be given
with a certain acuracy.
The simulation of a system is often the best way to get a result for
many questions. However we also see that the computers we have to run
the simulations are not powerful enough.
The good thing is that our brain is by far the best "simulation
computer" there is. However, we need to "feed" and "program" it well.
To do this we need to understand how the brain works.
Otherwise the brain will fool us. The design goal for the brain has
never been "realistic simulation", but successful survival.
I need to run ... My TaeBo class starts in 30 minutes
Cheers
Arndt --- www.BraiTrix.com
You use MICROSOFT don't you?
:-)
Squiggles
--
"The rich are different from me and you:
they have more money."
-- Anonymous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
31 Jan 2004 10:03:14 PM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:21:17 +0000 didst Squiggles speak thusly:
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4018387A.9F8AD9A0@sympatico.ca>...
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4017CE97.39728244@sympatico.ca>...
david ford wrote:
snip
All the arguments are SOUND, the premises
are true or false, and the conclusion follows
from the premises -- if i remember my
really bad logic.
When dealing with easy and fully defined systems (e.g. mathematical
problems), we are often able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex but still fully defined systems (e.g.
chess), we are usually not able to provide a proof.
When dealing with complex and not completely defined systems (e.g. the
universe), we will not be able to provide a proof.
The only way to solve the problem (i.e. to show how it really is), is
to mentally rebuild the system inside our brains. When the chosen
system does not show contradictions, then we have practically proven
the system.
The tricky part is that our brain is quite a ***** - it will never
admit that it did an error.
Cheers
Arndt - www.BraiTrix.com
Hi Arndt,
Thanks for replying -- are we dealing with
systems or propositions here - i'm not sure
i understand your point.
Squiggles
Hi,
I have been researching for more than 20 years how to deal with
complex systems. I have defined different classes of systems.
NOTE: I actually did some more things during those 20 years ;-)
The result of this classification showed that most systems are
impossible to calculate, predict, solve, prove, etc.
Therefore, any question we ask regarding those systems will never be a
precise answer. We need to consider that the asnwer can only be given
with a certain acuracy.
The simulation of a system is often the best way to get a result for
many questions. However we also see that the computers we have to run
the simulations are not powerful enough.
The good thing is that our brain is by far the best "simulation
computer" there is. However, we need to "feed" and "program" it well.
To do this we need to understand how the brain works.
Otherwise the brain will fool us. The design goal for the brain has
never been "realistic simulation", but successful survival.
I need to run ... My TaeBo class starts in 30 minutes
Cheers
Arndt --- www.BraiTrix.com
You use MICROSOFT don't you?
One does not use Microsoft. One is used *by Microsoft...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
30 Jan 2004 02:29:50 PM |
|
|
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4019BF92.1269D1BF@sympatico.ca>...
Arndt wrote:
Squiggles <squiggle@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4018387A.9F8AD9A0@sympatico.ca>...
Arndt --- www.BraiTrix.com
You use MICROSOFT don't you?
:-)
Squiggles
I use my computer to post a message to a news group. What has MS to do
with it?
What a strange question.
Arndt
PS: My personal operating system, I mean the one my brain is running,
is somehow purpose-built and self-modifying ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
27 Jan 2004 09:46:43 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
How do you propose that these arguments be tested? Specifically, how
do you prove (o even support) the assumption that any god exists and
has these hypothetical properties? You cannot use an unsupported
hypothetical god as evidence for any other argument. This is just
piling up hypotheticals.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
31 Jan 2004 02:31:15 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
The omni everything christian god was invented by monks in medieval
times. It did not exist before that. I don't know if Jews ever adopted
that theology. FWIW: None of the variants upon christianity have ever
formally declared the ideas of the medieval monks to be true.
The idea of some god creating everything or even designing everything
is not yet a thousand years old.
--
OK, everyone agrees there were no weapons in Iraq.
Can we put it back the way it was and come home?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3021
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
31 Jan 2004 01:07:04 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
The idea of some god creating everything or even designing everything
is not yet a thousand years old.
Hmm, let's see: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Gen 1:1.
Even the most liberal scholars would date that text to several hundred
years BCE, at the latest around the time Cyrus conquered Babylon.
Looks like at least 2500 years old to me.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
31 Jan 2004 12:14:02 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
The omni everything christian god was invented by monks in medieval
times.
No. Its a Greek invention.
Epicurus posed the problem of evil problem,
an omnipotent god cannot destroy evil, in which case he is not omnipotent,
or he will not, in which case an omnibenevolent god is not omnibenevolent.
This sort of theological perfect god, from which all other perfections
could be derived was adopted by Christian theologians via neo-Platonism.
There are other ancient puzzles, Lucretius posed the rock paradox,
and then there was the puzzler that if god is perfect, he cannot change
since any change must be from perfection to imperfection.
Thus, why would a god create the universe, since that would imply change
and thus imperfection?
--
"Socialist!" A name thrown at a moderate by a
reactionary who has run out of relevant argumemnts
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan Baum" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
29 Jan 2004 01:08:33 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
You didn't define F.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
You didn't define F.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
Why wouldn't God have allowed extinction?
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
Why wouldn't God allow creatures to kill other creatures?
Why does the Bible that defines the "Judeo-Christian God of theism" contain
a great many examples of animals killing other animals.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucas Bachmann" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
27 Jan 2004 11:52:02 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
1. Saying what the Judeo Christian God can and cannot do without basis.
In which case your if-then scenarios are only as good as your "god
wouldn't have" axioms. Axioms which are probably all pre-falsified,
therefore all your examples will naturally end with "Therefore God
didn't." Essentially all that is being done is restating the axiom a
little differently and making it look like a logical conclusion.
Also even though your post didn't conclude this - keep it in mind lurkers.
2. If accurately assessing what the Judeo Christian God would do -
assuming the disproof of this god is a disproof of any other god.
Lucas
If the Judeo-Christian God of theism (hereinafter "God") were to
create something like organism O, then God wouldn't have created
something like organism O possessing feature F.
Organism O has feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism O.
If God were to create something like organism M, then God would have
created something like organism M to possess feature F.
Organism M doesn't possess feature F.
Therefore, God didn't create organism M.
If God were to go about creating a realm of biology, then God wouldn't
have allowed any of his creatures to undergo extinction.
Throughout the course of the earth's history numerous creatures have
undergone extinction.
Therefore, God didn't create the realm of biology of which we are
aware.
If God were to create creatures, then God wouldn't have allowed any of
his creatures to be violently killed by or kill other creatures.
Throughout the course of the earth's history, numerous creatures have
violently killed other creatures.
Therefore, God didn't create the killer creatures of which we are
aware.
Insight into possible problems with the above arguments might appear
in the thread "Sickness & cancer against creation hypothesis?," one
post therein being
1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil
http://tinyurl.com/2aw4k
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: organism features, extinction, killing vs. a creator God? |
28 Jan 2004 06:18:32 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with these arguments?:
The idiot making them.
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation/intellgient design?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
