[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jan 7 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

barmar, on Jan 7 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

You are stating the same thing twice and simply rewording it. When you ask what must be assumed 'for a supreme being', you are really asking what must be assumed for a supreme being to exist. I agree with you that all that's required for it to exist is for it to exist. And along similar lines, all that's required for the Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen is for Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen. However I do not consider a discussion along those lines to be very useful.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 17 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

You are stating the same thing twice and simply rewording it. When you ask what must be assumed 'for a supreme being', you are really asking what must be assumed for a supreme being to exist. I agree with you that all that's required for it to exist is for it to exist. And along similar lines, all that's required for the Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen is for Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen. However I do not consider a discussion along those lines to be very useful.

no i'm not, i'm asking for clarification... a statement was made concerning a 'large number of things' and i was asking for examples... your analogy is not apt imo

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 7 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 7 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

barmar, on Jan 7 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

While I do not disagree with Josh, I would reframe the issue about the existence of a Supreme Being by suggesting that the assumption that such a being exists begs a lot of questions, including:

1. When did this being come into existence

2. Was the supreme being created by something else (and we can see that if the answer is affirmative, we get to ask all these questions again)

3. into what environment was this being first created?

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

I appreciate that the simplistic answer to these questions will no doubt be that supreme beings by definition operate outside of such petty concerns... but if that is your answer, then you have indeed shut your mind off at the boundary of the issue. A refusal to consider these questions is a closing of the intellect, and no amount of self-sustaining bullshit can hide that fact, except from oneself..

If, otoh, you try to answer these questions, then you are engaged in making all kinds of assumptions or speculations or theories which are far more than one need make about the origins of life if you study science. I know you find the conclusions suggested by science to be repugnant to your world view.. but the truth remains whether you accept it or not.

Of course, so far scince has been unable to answer questions about what, if anything, preceded the origins of our universe, but they are getting ever closer...and certainly science has been able to show how our current universe has unfolded, since tiny fractions of a second after its initiation, without needing to resort to a supreme being. If a supreme being existed ALL the real evidence suggests that it has done nothing to evidence its involvement since the universe was set in motion. So the notion of a supreme being still playing a role in the universe is completely unnecessary. And the whole idea of a supreme being to whom we can and should pray is based on the notion that it continues to play a role. Thus to assume the ongoing existence of a active supreme being is idiotic.

If the only people hurt by your sort of belief structure were your fellow religionists, then it would merely be amusing. But the sad thing is that unthinking belief in supreme beings underlies much of large scale human suffering throughout history.

[Codo]

Mikeh,

you asked some questions.

But why?

If you belive in a supernatural being, why should you bother to answer these questions?
You can simply accept that the work and "life" of this being are still beyond your and mine understanding- and will ever be.

If you cannot accept that there are areas which we will never understand (in religion and in science), you have a view, which is quite common but which I do not share. I belive that our knowledge is still very limited. It is increasing with lightning speed, but it is still small.

And if you are an atheist, why do you care about these questions? You don`t belive, so why ask about´something you don`t belive in?

So the questions are quite pointless in my view.

[Codo]

hrothgar, on Jan 18 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

Well, to start with...

What we (meaning humanity) is attempting to do is to create a working hypothesis about how we all got here. This is in no way equivalent to making assumptions about how God works.

You yourself are admitting that Occam's Razor is a useful tool to build hypotheses. It seems strange that you are so opposed to applying it in this specific case.

As to your example about stars...

Bodies with a large amout of mass rarely move at relativistic speeds.
You're confusing stars and photons...
Very different things...

As is lightning (Blitz) and light

Sorry, I read some posts like:

"There cannot be a superantural being which gifted us with life, because according to "Occams Razor" there is an easier possibility, so the possibility that a God exists must be wrong."


I tried to say that Occams Razor is no profe for or against anything, it is just a way to built a hypothesis which you can use till it is proved or disproved.

And by no way Occams razor says that just the easiest hypothesis is right.

So we can use this tool and check whether or not a supernatural being is the easiest way to explain many things we cannot explain yet. Maybe sometimes it is, maybe sometimes it is not. But this make a supernatural being not more or less likely to exist.

[luke warm]

[quote name='PassedOut' date='Jan 18 2009, 10:52 AM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM'] [quote name='PassedOut' date='Jan 7 2009, 09:43 AM']I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.[/quote]
i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you? [/quote]
It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.[/quote]
then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?
[quote name='mikeh' date='Jan 18 2009, 11:10 AM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 17 2009, 10:27 PM'][quote name='PassedOut' date='Jan 7 2009, 09:43 AM']I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.[/quote]
i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?
[quote name='barmar' date='Jan 7 2009, 11:44 AM']Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.[/quote]
i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?[/quote]
I appreciate that the simplistic answer to these questions will no doubt be that supreme beings by definition operate outside of such petty concerns... but if that is your answer, then you have indeed shut your mind off at the boundary of the issue. A refusal to consider these questions is a closing of the intellect, and no amount of self-sustaining bullshit can hide that fact, except from oneself.. [/quote]
maybe you and i have different definitions of 'God'... i've yet to find a definition better than anselm's ".. something than which nothing greater can be thought ..." what is your definition?
[quote]While I do not disagree with Josh, I would reframe the issue about the existence of a Supreme Being by suggesting that the assumption that such a being exists begs a lot of questions, including:

1. When did this being come into existence[/quote]
he has always existed
[quote]2. Was the supreme being created by something else (and we can see that if the answer is affirmative, we get to ask all these questions again)[/quote]
no
[quote]3. into what environment was this being first created?[/quote]
see 1 & 2 above
[quote]4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe[/quote]
his will
[quote]5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made[/quote]
he exists as spirit
[quote]6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself[/quote]
he is (i am)

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Quote

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

Quote

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

Quote

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Quote

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

Quote

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

Quote

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

which explains why one must have some idea of what one means by the word "God"

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?

You have a chain of slightly different populations, all of which interbreed with the adjacent populations, with one exception: the beginning and the ending of the chain. At the ends of the chain, the differences are great enough that the populations are of a different species.

The accumulation of many small changes eventually produces a new species, just as stirring drops of red paint into a bucket of yellow eventually produces orange. The precise boundary lines between species are indistinct and somewhat arbitrary, as is the boundary line between yellow and orange.

In most cases, the effects of time and competition have eliminated the links between species, so the gradations are no longer apparent. But with ring species, the links remain.

Because new species are created by many small changes, the boundaries between species are not clear-cut. That is just what evolution, micro- or macro-, predicts.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jan 19 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?

You have a chain of slightly different populations, all of which interbreed with the adjacent populations, with one exception: the beginning and the ending of the chain. At the ends of the chain, the differences are great enough that the populations are of a different species.

The accumulation of many small changes eventually produces a new species, just as stirring drops of red paint into a bucket of yellow eventually produces orange. The precise boundary lines between species are indistinct and somewhat arbitrary, as is the boundary line between yellow and orange.

In most cases, the effects of time and competition have eliminated the links between species, so the gradations are no longer apparent. But with ring species, the links remain.

Because new species are created by many small changes, the boundaries between species are not clear-cut. That is just what evolution, micro- or macro-, predicts.

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

[matmat]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Quote

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

hmm.. what proof of ethanol is that?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

No, the article does not say "things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be." It says:

Quote

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

(You can look it up.)

Some folks promote a clear-cut distinction between species, leading others to a false understanding of the concept. The goal of the deception is to promote the notion that "macro-evolution" differs from so-called "micro-evolution."

The reality is that the boundaries between different species are not clear-cut. That fact is consistent with evolution, and inconsistent with the notion of "macro-evolution." Ring species provide a perfect illustration.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jan 19 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

No, the article does not say "things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be." It says:

Quote

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

(You can look it up.)

Some folks promote a clear-cut distinction between species, leading others to a false understanding of the concept. The goal of the deception is to promote the notion that "macro-evolution" differs from so-called "micro-evolution."

The reality is that the boundaries between different species are not clear-cut. That fact is consistent with evolution, and inconsistent with the notion of "macro-evolution." Ring species provide a perfect illustration.

ok, maybe there is a semantical difference between "thought to be" and "understood to be"... in any case you and i read the same thing differently

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Quote

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

Quote

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

Quote

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

which explains why one must have some idea of what one means by the word "God"

This is funny

Jimmy, you consistently allege that I am wrong in saying that true believers, such as you, shut off your intelligence, your sense of curiosity, at the boundaries of your 'god' entity... and then you come up with drivel as your answer to legitimate questions about your god entity!

let's start with gender gender arose through recognized (by people with genuine intellectual curiosity, that is) evolutionary mechanisms.... uni-cellular life doesn't have gender.. the earliest life lacked gender, and the vast majority of life-forms on and in the earth today lack gender. Yet christians and muslims are absolutely fixated on the masculine nature of their god entity.

Gender arises from the advantage that gender affords in a reproductive sense. I asume that your god doesn't reproduce sexually So why a gender?

Then we get to 'will' as an 'explanation'. Telekinesis? Does your god entity have a body of any sort? How does he effect his will? What is the mechanism? Does it require the expenditure of energy? If so, how does it generate the energy?

What does 'will' mean? I mean, I have 'will'.. I have willpower... some say I am very strong willed. But I can stare at an object, willing it with all my power to move or change colour, and it ignores me. I push it, and it moves... I have applied force to it. I have caused electro-chemical forces to actuate muscles and have physically suppled kinetic energy to the object of my will.

I appreciate that 'god' doesn't use muscles.. he uses 'will'.. but clearly he uses a different, and more effective, 'will' than the 'will' that makes up human willpower. So what is it? How does it work? Where does it come from?

The reality is that you are utterly unable to answer these questions in a meaningful, intelligible sense.. all you can do is to parrot meaningless words or phrases... because, for you, the questions have no meaning... and the questions have no meaning precisely because you cannot seriously consider them and retain your superstitions about god... cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

When I say that answers such as 'will' or 'spirit' are meaningless, I do so because you use words that have meaning in other contexts but are devoid of content in the context in which you use them.

BTW, let me backtrack a little from the harsh sentiments set out above.

I have always conceded that so far science cannot yet explain the ultimate 'why' of the universe or the ultimate 'how'. It may be that these concepts, which are thought of by meat-brains evolved to think of issues in this way, are meaningless.. it may be that brains evolved as ours have are incapable of even considering the 'true' concepts underlying the universe. And for as long as there are gaps in our scientifically derived, and testable, theories there remains room for the existence of some force, entity, what-have-you that is beyond science. Thus there remains some basis upon which to entertain, as a speculative idea, the existence of a god entity.. but the god entity of which I speak has taken no role in the universe since its beginning, and certainly is not the god entity worshipped by so many deluded believers since man or his ancestors began looking for answers to questions beyond their-then capacity to resolve scientifically. I do not 'deny' such a god entity... I have no need of it but I cannot rule it out... but I do deny the god of religion.

[jdonn]

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

[Winstonm]

Quote

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be...

Quote

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

Quote

ok, maybe there is a semantical difference between "thought to be" and "understood to be"... in any case you and i read the same thing differently

Jimmy,

Don't take this as a personal insult, but now you are simply being pigheaded and you are too intelligent to use hardheadedness as an excuse to disagree.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

Jimmy,

Don't take this as a personal insult, but now you are simply being pigheaded and you are too intelligent to use hardheadedness as an excuse to disagree.

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

[Winstonm]

Quote

cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Mike,

You speak from a perspective that sounds to me like you have been on both sides of this issue. I know I have been. And if you haven't, then I can substantiate your claims from my personal experience that these questions cannot be tolerated within the believing mind - cognitive dissonance, indeed.