The Anti-theist Thread

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Firstly, does 'random' really exist? Personally, I don't think it does. Evolution is not random, natural selection is not random, the big bang (or expanding/contracting) are not random. They're all parts of a complicated process, of which, could be a dream. It could be the Red King's dream. Or we could be dreaming of him....

No, I don't believe you can prove that an occurance is random.

However, what's the alternative to random?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Why bother posting... we're not really here.

The same reason I talk to myself. I usualy pick the wisest person around to talk to, and then it just confuses everyone else

[Blackheart]

Errr...

Historical accuracy is notoriously out of place when examining a collection of writings assembled by a multitude of writers over thousands of years, after having been passed through oral tradition for a comperable period of time.

It's like a big game of telephone, and what emerges likely has been distorted to varying degrees by political and cultural bias, personal bias, changes in language during transcription, and transcription errors.

It would be comperable to taking the history of the US, for example, and relying only on oral tradition for preservation until 3002, then transcribing the oral tradition, recopying it a couple of hundred times, and then translating it into Latin, Greek, and then Hebrew.

What emerges would be very interesting reading, but you might be surprised to learn that George Washington slew King George in mortal combat with his handy hatchet.... Among other things.

In short, yes there are likely some grains of truth there. But any relevant context has been lost long ago.

It's useful as a history or moral and ethical traditions, and as a source of spiritual verse, but not much else will you get from it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart

However, what's the alternative to random?

[smart-alec voice]Non-random.[/smart-alec voice]

________________________________


--Leto II, His Voice from Dar-es-Balat

Historians exercise great power and some of them know it. They recreate the past, changing it to fit their own interpretations. Thus, they change the future as well.

[Blackheart]

Non-random, very good.

Now what kinds of Non-random occurances are there?

Since it's non-random, it can't be "chance".

It's either a causal confluence of precursors, or a non-causal event. (non-causal event's can't be random, because they are "singular" and occur outside the normal set, or so I have been told)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Non-random, very good.

Now what kinds of Non-random occurances are there?

Since it's non-random, it can't be "chance".

Yep, do I get a gold star?

The process of evolution is non-random. I believe I have a diatribe about this somewhere in the earlier part of the thread.

Only about 2-3% of the processes (natural selection, genetics, etc) can really be considered to be random.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yep, do I get a gold star?

The process of evolution is non-random. I believe I have a diatribe about this somewhere in the earlier part of the thread.

Only about 2-3% of the processes (natural selection, genetics, etc) can really be considered to be random.

Actually, you can't consider them to be "random" either.

They are events directly traceable to causal precursors.

People call it random because they don't think about the concept of chaos as a recurring complex pattern.

So, now that that’s out of the way, we can piddle around with the difference between directed and non-directed events.

Both are metaphysical concepts, since you have to have free will in order to state that you have truly “directed” an action. Otherwise, you are the one being “directed”. Since free-will is at the root of an epistemological problem, it mucks everything up.

Oh, I suppose you could take a default position and state that in the absence of evidence of direction, we must assume that it is non-directed. I think it’s just a human failing to be uncomfortable with the three hardest words in the English language. “I Don’t Know”.

Oh- I almost forgot:

*Smacks a gold star on her.... forehead*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Actually, you can't consider them to be "random" either.

They are events directly traceable to causal precursors.

People call it random because they don't think about the concept of chaos as a recurring complex pattern.

Yes, yes, I know. I said as much in my earlier arguments. The concept of "random" is entirely dubious.

Directed, vs non-directed? Well, given the current evidence, I would have to say, for the theory of evolution anyway, that it is seemingly non-directed. Natural selection, etc are causative, but they aren't directive (not heading for a goal).

To elucidate further, the process of hominid evolution can be shown as an adaptative, and progressive occurance (of a sort), but the actual process is not being driven in towards a "finished product." Rather, you could probably look at it as, a series of directive actions upon an organism, towards a non-directive product, of sorts.

Hm.... I must say, I hadn't really thought about it from this point of view. I'll have to retire to my cave, and ponder it a bit more.

[Andúril]

Here is a brief review of More than A Carpenter

Ofcourse, that is just one person's opinion...

Here is another...

Here is a review of McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Josh McDowell was a strict theist who thought Christians were crazy

So which deity(ies) did McDowell believe in?

The Apostles were all eventually subjected to the cruellest forms of torture and death on the basis of two basic beliefs: 1.) the ressurection of Christ, and 2.) that they belived him to be the Son of God. John was the only Aspotle not stoned, crucified, or otherwise killed with swords, spears, and arrows, all the while their beliefs never wavered. These men would have not only died for a lie, but died knowing it was a lie. I'd have a hard time finding eleven people in history that would die for a lie knowing it was a lie...

You have a hard time? Lets see: if these people thought that the continuation of the effect of the lies was more important than their lives, they would obviously die for the cause. Look at Muslim fundementalists, who continually die for their cause. Look at the Japanese kamakazi pilots, who died for their cause. Additionally, it is not clear that they knew they were lying. They may have been suffering from mass-delusion, and believed whole-heartedly in the truth of their claims.

[Andúril]

I would like to submit another contradiction, which I will designate C2 (meaning that the first one regarding the David census becomes C1):

How did Judas die?

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Any explanations for this one?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yes, yes, I know. I said as much in my earlier arguments. The concept of "random" is entirely dubious.

Directed, vs non-directed? Well, given the current evidence, I would have to say, for the theory of evolution anyway, that it is seemingly non-directed. Natural selection, etc are causative, but they aren't directive (not heading for a goal).

To elucidate further, the process of hominid evolution can be shown as an adaptative, and progressive occurance (of a sort), but the actual process is not being driven in towards a "finished product." Rather, you could probably look at it as, a series of directive actions upon an organism, towards a non-directive product, of sorts.

The qualities attributed to "random" should really be attributed to unpredictability. For example, I know that lightning strikes during thunderstorms but until it does I will not know the exact location and time. Does this mean that the lightning is random? No. There is a causality, a chain of events leading up to the strike. One cannot monitor every possible effective cause prior to the strike in order to know when and where it will happen.

Asteroid impacts and episodes of intense volcanic activity that cause mass extinctions are "random" in that we may predict a high probability of these events but not when and where. The processes are random in effect.

The causation of events cannot be traced to any "inevitablility" because at some point one must deal with the heisenburg uncertainty and the true randomness of the behavior of matter at the atomic and sub-atomic particles.

[Cirdan]

The death of the apostles does not imbue any additional truth to the bible. They were executed for political reasons. At the time they would have been found guilty before they were aprehended. The executions would have been fairly summary and any last minute recanting would have been useless anyway. They would have known this, and yes, add to that the human nature factor, there would have been some secret pride in becoming martyred.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yes, yes, I know. I said as much in my earlier arguments. The concept of "random" is entirely dubious.

Directed, vs non-directed? Well, given the current evidence, I would have to say, for the theory of evolution anyway, that it is seemingly non-directed. Natural selection, etc are causative, but they aren't directive (not heading for a goal).

To elucidate further, the process of hominid evolution can be shown as an adaptative, and progressive occurance (of a sort), but the actual process is not being driven in towards a "finished product." Rather, you could probably look at it as, a series of directive actions upon an organism, towards a non-directive product, of sorts.

Hm.... I must say, I hadn't really thought about it from this point of view. I'll have to retire to my cave, and ponder it a bit more.

Well I don't quite equate directed vs. Non-directed with direction vs directionless.

Evolution does display a trend towards a direction. Organisms which are able to adapt more quickly to their environment, and more efficiently utilize the resources within the environment to produce more copies are favored. That's a direction.

There's also a trend towards exploiting all available resources in the environment. That's a direction.

But you can't speak towards a goal, because evolution is a process. And a process may or may not have a goal, depending on whether it is directed or non directed. A "goal" implies directed behavior, which is metaphysically thorny, because you have to deal with the problem of free will.

Anything metaphysical is unanswerable by science, since the problem impacts on the very nature of knowledge. Science concerns itself with the purely empirical. Which is as it should be. Problems arise when people get them mixed up.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


The qualities attributed to "random" should really be attributed to unpredictability. For example, I know that lightning strikes during thunderstorms but until it does I will not know the exact location and time. Does this mean that the lightning is random? No. There is a causality, a chain of events leading up to the strike. One cannot monitor every possible effective cause prior to the strike in order to know when and where it will happen.

Asteroid impacts and episodes of intense volcanic activity that cause mass extinctions are "random" in that we may predict a high probability of these events but not when and where. The processes are random in effect.

The causation of events cannot be traced to any "inevitablility" because at some point one must deal with the heisenburg uncertainty and the true randomness of the behavior of matter at the atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Unpredictable with CURRENT methods don't you mean? Soon enough, it's mostly a matter of an accurate enough model and enough computational power to run it.

Umm. particles, quarks et all aren't "truely random". They obey specific laws and behaviors also. The theorys aren't up to predicting them accurately enough yet.

All the uncertainty principle states is that you can't measure the vector and the position of a particle at the same time, therefore you can't know the vector and position of any given particle simultaneously. It's not a mystic veil, it's just a difficult problem.

[afro-elf]

the difference between "believers" and scientist are that
the former attempt to force fact into their dogma while the latter attempt to form beliefs based of the facts

[Blackheart]

Errg.

Scientists are often guilty of the latter also, when a pet theory is challenged by new evidence.

Say rather that science is supposed to operate in an unbiased fashion, but sometimes suffers from the same human failings, and you'll be on the mark.

Fortunately for science it has some self correcting mechanisms built in, and such debates generally get sorted out, after a while, though occasionally it can take a surprisingly long time.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Unpredictable with CURRENT methods don't you mean? Soon enough, it's mostly a matter of an accurate enough model and enough computational power to run it.

Umm. particles, quarks et all aren't "truely random". They obey specific laws and behaviors also. The theorys aren't up to predicting them accurately enough yet.

All the uncertainty principle states is that you can't measure the vector and the position of a particle at the same time, therefore you can't know the vector and position of any given particle simultaneously. It's not a mystic veil, it's just a difficult problem.

actually an insurmountable problem, unless you have very small eyes

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


actually an insurmountable problem, unless you have very small eyes

Hmmp. And people said we'd never walk on the moon either.

Eyes? bah. What you actually need is a sensitive field detector, coupled with an accurate enough model to simulate the actions of the particles.

Then you just need enough calculation power.

Difficult? Yes.

Insurmountable? Not really.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Errg.

Scientists are often guilty of the latter also, when a pet theory is challenged by new evidence.

Say rather that science is supposed to operate in an unbiased fashion, but sometimes suffers from the same human failings, and you'll be on the mark.

Fortunately for science it has some self correcting mechanisms built in, and such debates generally get sorted out, after a while, though occasionally it can take a surprisingly long time.

A scientist that believes despite new facts has become a believer.

[Cirdan]

...as for "random" please see chaos theory