Junk DNA means no God.

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not mind the thread going off on a tangent. After all, there is no sign of agreement, so WTF.


I would be willing to agree with your argument (and your premises) if you would provide sufficient justification for your assertions, like I asked.

It's difficult to verify the merits of your assertions until you explain why they should be accepted as worthy of agreement.

I keep asking you to do that and so far you keep avoiding doing it.

So you have no moral grounds for complaining about lack of agreement when you have repeatedly failed to give compelling reasons why anyone should agree with your assertions.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:11 am

Xouper

I have already made a major concession to meet your objections. My argument now is 100% logical, but I fear that you lack the flexibility of mind to make a similar concession and admit the logic. You appear to suffer from cerebral sclerosis, and the lack of ability to reconsider your position. So no thanks.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:17 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:VKTW: You are in need of a quality dictionary, a course in basic logic, and therapy.


See, this is what an ad-hominem looks like.


None of the definitions of "venerable" are appropriate to you, including the RC one. "Woo" fits you well, though. You should keep that part.


Image


An ad hominem attack, by definition, attacks the arguer independent of her argument. You have done that repeatedly without a great deal of intelligence.


Examples?

(Femimarxist? Dafuq is that? Someone who believes in the collective ownership of the means of sperm production? :rotfl: )


The term "femimarxist" refers to the fact that feminism is based on the same collectivist narrative format as Marxism, i.e. an historical class conflict which climaxes in a glorious revolution wherein the oppressed class overthrows and destroys the oppressor class, thereby ushering in a utopian society. In the case of feminism/femimarxism, women are assigned the role of the oppressed proletariat while men are assigned the role of the Evil Capitalist ClassTM (I do beg your pardon if it seems like I am mansplaining this to you, m'lady).

Now that you mention it though, it actually is fair to say that femimarxists also believe in the collective female ownership of the means of sperm production. Their goal is to browbeat, shame, and litigate men into servile emasculated subordination to their whims, and they are known for openly proclaiming their desire to abolish the need for men by removing their sperm delivery role from the reproductive process.

None of it has hurt my feelings,


I don't give a {!#%@} what it's done to your feelings.

since you've merely revealed your own weakness in the process. Did it start with your mother? Or some teenage girlfriend who crushed your ego?


Interesting that your first instinct is to assign blame for my "weakness" to females. I don't think The Sisterhood© would be too impressed with your internalized misogyny, young lady.


Regardless, kindly stop swinging your misogynistic dick in my face.


Ha! You should be so lucky.

All your counter arguments are based on your conflation of the particular deity you worship with the hypothetical creator in my argument, and they are not the same thing.


No, my counter argument is based on the idea that your hypothetical Creator is a Straw Man. No theistic tradition posits an omnibenevolent Creator, while the theists who do are a tiny minority whose belief contradicts their own sacred texts.

But I never specified I was referring to your deity...or anyone's...merely an artificial construct, a concept purely for the sake of argument.


Exactly, you are not referring to anyone's deity except your own irrelevant Straw Man version thereof. Simply put, no one gives a damn if your argument disproves your own particular version of God, because no theist actually believes in your version of God. You might as well be arguing against the existence of Cthulhu.

You claim that omniscience and omnipotence are necessary features of a creator, but claim that omni-benevolence is not. None of the three is a logical necessary feature.


Omniscience and omnipotence are necessary features of an almighty Creator. Omnibenevolence is not.

Greatly superior knowledge and power, both to a degree unimaginable by the human mind, would suffice, via Clarke's Third Law. Such superior knowledge and power would be perceived by the human mind to be omniscience and omnipotence, neither of which we can imagine any more than we can grasp the concept of infinity.


Even so, it simply does not follow that a being with vastly superior knowledge and power would also have vastly superior benevolence.

However, I provided my hypothetical creator with all three features, and my argument is based on the possession of those attributes. You cannot unilaterally change my premise, then attack my conclusion because the premise you changed makes the conclusion illogical. :roll: That's like changing the rules in the middle of the game.


Well it's a good thing I didn't actually do that then, isn't it. Attacking the validity of a premise is not the same as changing it.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I have already made a major concession to meet your objections.


Yes, I saw that.

Although I would prefer a different word than "concession", one that doesn't have the connotation of having lost something. This is not a contest where there are losers. It is merely a discussion intended to apply critical thinking to the issues with the implied hope that we all benefit from that. There is no shame in revising one's argument as one gains a better (or perhaps more focused) understanding of it.


Lance Kennedy wrote: My argument now is 100% logical,


Not yet it isn't. There are still some premises and assumptions in your syllogisms that need to be explained and justified. But you are going in the right direction.


Lance Kennedy wrote:but I fear that you lack the flexibility of mind to make a similar concession and admit the logic. You appear to suffer from cerebral sclerosis, and the lack of ability to reconsider your position.


Insults are uncalled for Lance. Especially unfounded insults.


A long time ago, Lance Kennedy wrote:We really will get along better and debate with more pleasure if we all refrain from insults.


Good advice. ;)

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:54 am

Lance, if you think that the presence of non-functional DNA shows a critical flaw in the design of humans, why is the absence of an exoskeleton not a similar flaw? After all, we are almost comically vulnerable to basically everything.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:09 am

EM

There is a difference between inept design and design for a purpose. Xouper has been trying to conflate them, but they are quite separate. Humans do not need an exoskeleton. We have skin and an endoskeleton. The lack of exoskeleton is not a design flaw. A back that cannot hold us without causing serious problems is a design flaw, since that back is part of the design, and it is not filling its purpose. We do not have wings or feathers, either, and that is not a design flaw. We do not need them. We do, however, need a back that supports and does not fail.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:16 am

You are contradicting yourself: invertebrates don't get back-aches, vertebrates do.
So by your own argument, having a spine at all is a design flaw.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

There is a difference between inept design and design for a purpose. Xouper has been trying to conflate them, but they are quite separate.


For the record, that is not an accurate interpretation of what I have been saying in this thread.

What I have been saying is that whether a design is inept can only be judged in relation to the intended purpose of the design, as determined by the designer/creator.

If a design meets the intended purpose of the (hypothetical) creator, then it is not inept.

So far, you have not shown that the design of human DNA fails to meet the intended purpose of the (hypothetical) creator.

In fact you have never even stated what the creator's intended purpose is for the design of human DNA.

Therefore it is not valid to judge whether the design meets that intend purpose, and thus it is not valid to declare the design to be inept.

You have merely asserted that the design is inadequate for YOUR purposes. Who are you to tell the creator how he should have designed human DNA?

That is the fundamental flaw in your entire argument, which you have never addressed, despite repeated requests to do so.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . A back that cannot hold us without causing serious problems is a design flaw, since that back is part of the design, and it is not filling its purpose. . . . We do, however, need a back that supports and does not fail.


Does not fail? Ever?

By that argument, death the ultimate failure, and thus according to your opinion, is a design flaw.

How dare the creator make humans that die! :lol:

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10256
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Pyrrho » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:29 am

Aw, all programs have junk code.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:46 am

Pyrrho wrote:Aw, all programs have junk code.


Well, programmers aren't omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent the way Admins are...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:02 am

The human back is supposed to provide support. It fails in 80% of cases. If it were a design, instead of simple evolution, that would be a design flaw. This is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human back is supposed to provide support. It fails in 80% of cases. If it were a design, instead of simple evolution, that would be a design flaw. This is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


So an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God should never have allowed vertebrates to exist, is this your point?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human back is supposed to provide support. It fails in 80% of cases. If it were a design, instead of simple evolution, that would be a design flaw. This is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

Please explain and justify your assertion that "This is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent."

I have been asking this same question (in some form or other) from the very beginning and you have repeatedly avoided answering it.

If you want people to agree with your assertion, then you will need to provide a compelling argument, not just repeated hand-waving.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human back is supposed to provide support. It fails in 80% of cases. If it were a design, instead of simple evolution, that would be a design flaw. This is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


The human design as a whole fails in 100% percent of the cases. We all die, eventually. According to your logic, that is a design defect that is not consistent with a creator supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. How do you justify that assertion?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7369
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby TJrandom » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:06 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:I'm not complaining, I just want to be clear what your point is here. So, please explain, what is your point?


A tangent - starting where you said...
When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator). ...


In practice, it doesn`t much matter what a designer had in mind if the result is insufficient to the current use, is my point.


OK.

Can I assume then that, unlike Lance, you are not using that point to making any assertions about a (hypothetical) creator?

If you are merely expressing your opinion, then I have nothing to add to that, other than to say, "OK, thanks for explaining your opinion." :D


My base presumption - long before this thread, is that it is highly unlikely that there ever was a creator. If evidence ever does suggest that I am wrong, I will gladly examine it.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:11 am

Xouper

It is not just the human back. The design for the human body fails on thousands of criteria regularly. Every genetic disease, and there are thousands of them, is a failure. Now if this is simple evolution, easy to understand. If it is a design by a deity, then we know damn well it is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In fact, if the human body is designed by a deity creator, that creator is an incompetent designer.

To EM

To your question. No ! Absolutely NO!
In fact, the existence of your question shows you lack knowledge of biology. One vertebrate is not the same as every other one. The human back evolved from creatures who lived on all fours. That 'design ' was the result of many millions of years of evolution, and worked well. It was only when a change to upright stance took place that tbe design for a strong back failed.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:28 am

TJrandom wrote:My base presumption - long before this thread, is that it is highly unlikely that there ever was a creator. If evidence ever does suggest that I am wrong, I will gladly examine it.


That is my position as well.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:33 am

Lance, have you ever talked to a veterinarian?
You really think humans are the only animals that get back-pains?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

It is not just the human back. The design for the human body fails on thousands of criteria regularly. Every genetic disease, and there are thousands of them, is a failure. Now if this is simple evolution, easy to understand. If it is a design by a deity, then we know damn well it is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In fact, if the human body is designed by a deity creator, that creator is an incompetent designer.


Still waiting for you to answer my question.

For your convenience here it is again:

What is your justification for your assertion that the creator is an incompetent designer?

It is not sufficient to merely say that (in your opinion), the design is flawed. You must also show that the design does not meet the intentions of the creator. Until you do that, your argument fails.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:03 pm

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:BTW, you know I'm an atheist, right?


I kinda suspected that. No problem.

I used to call myself an atheist until I discovered the word has two definitions and that too many people assumed I was the wrong one and it wastes my time to explain the difference. So now I just call myself an apatheist and that seems good enough to keep the pinheads from attacking me.
Am I correct in presuming that "apatheist" means you don't care whether a deity or deities exist, and that mostly you don't think about the issue except when having philosophical discussions? If so, then that's an apt description of my outlook as well.

I'm not a proselytizing atheist; It doesn't matter to me what others believe as long as don't proselytize to me, discriminate against me based on my lack of faith, or attempt to force their faith onto me through legislation.

At the same time, if I'm visiting a place of faith, I will be respectful, same as I would if visiting someone's home. My dad is from Washington, DC, so I've made multiple visits to its centers of faith (for their art and architecture). He always borrowed a skullcap when we visited a synagogue, and ensured my mom and I had scarves to cover our heads when we visited a mosque. That's no skin off my nose; it's just respectful. And totally worth it.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:51 pm

xouper wrote:It is not sufficient to merely say that (in your opinion), the design is flawed. You must also show that the design does not meet the intentions of the creator. Until you do that, your argument fails.

Thats true...........UNLESS.......... you are an apathetist....ie: don't care what the creator's intent was BECAUSE all that is needed to be known is demonstrated by the end result. Does anyone "intend" a defective/inefficient/illogical result? If so....then such a creator need not be worshipped/recognized/credited with being all so wonderful?

I once again dipped into the dictionary for anti-theist. Most of the definitions touch upon belief systems: "against the belief in god." Thats not my own flavor of the sin, but I don't want another definition: "against any worship of God whether he exists or not.".............the bedrock of freedom is to leave other people alone. I make the bedrock a requirement OF the believer, not an obligation others owe to him. Makes it active rather than passive. Makes the believer fully engaged.

Slight little differences.

Hmmm....I recall a saying that it was through gods perfection that we would come to know him. More worthless homilies I know but it shows where the common beliefs come from. Why worship god if he's not perfect??? What we see as imperfections is our lack of understanding............bwhahahahaha. One perfect tautology after another because there is no straight line from causation to effect.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:56 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Please explain how there can be "competing or contradictory requirements" when the designer is omniscient and omnipotent.
I gave one already. Can a creator make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? No. The two requirements are contradictory.
Because your question fails to take into account the creator's omnipotence. Let's split the question in two:
1. Can the omnipotent creator make an infinitely heavy rock? Yes, because he's all-powerful.
2. Can the omnipotent creator lift the infinitely heavy rock he just made? Yes, because he's all-powerful.
You imagine limits because you can NOT imagine omnipotence.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Please explain the "logical limits" of omniscience and omnipotence as they relate to designing the human body.
I made a general claim about the limits of omnipotence. My point was to show the existence of such limits (in mathematics that's called an existence proof).
Therein lies the problem. "All-knowing" and "all-powerful" are both infinite by definition, and the human mind can't comprehend anything without limits. You are, therefore, imposing limitations onto infinity.

xouper wrote:The point was to show that the creator is not in fact omnipotent.
Thereby changing my initial premise and creating an entirely different argument. My initial premise was that this hypothetical creator possessed all three attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.

xouper wrote:If you are claiming that the design of human DNA does not involve contradictory requirements, then I would like to see the justification for that.
My argument was never about DNA, genetics, mutations, or evolution. It was solely about the design of the human body in its current iteration. You keep relating it to reality when it began as and has remained a hypothetical argument that includes the existence of an impossible being.

xouper wrote:Also, and I assume this goes without saying, be careful not to argue that your argument is correct merely by virtue of my failure to provide a counter-example. That would be this fallacy.
Incorrect. You've failed to provide a counter-example of an element of my premise. Attacks on my hypothetical premise are not attacks on the conclusion I've derived from it. You're merely attempting to change the rules I've established for this game, then claiming the goal I've scored, by your new rules, is voided. Technically, this could be a straw man fallacy, since you're misrepresenting the hypothetical creator I've constructed, then attacking my conclusion on the basis of your misrepresentation.

Case in point:
xouper wrote:since it is not possible for any being to be omnipotent, that renders your claim moot. You are then left with trying to show that a mostly-potent being can create a perfect material. ;)
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:58 pm

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Unfortunately, that leaves us with an unanswerable philosophical question: Why are we here?


Bingo.

That has been my point all along.

Since no human knows what the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose was (i.e. why we are here), you have just refuted your entire argument because without that knowledge, it is not possible to evaluate the merits of the design.

You seem to be saying it is possible to deduce what our intended purpose is without knowing why we are here, so as I asked above, please justify that assertion.
And...you completely ignored the rest of my post, which nicely addressed how inadequate the human body's design is for its native planet. Which completely supports my argument.


No it doesn't. That's why I did not respond to it. None of that stuff is relevant to question of why we are here.
However, it absolutely relates to my conclusion that the human body is inadequate for the purpose of surviving long enough to reproduce and care for its genetic successors until they are old enough to reproduce.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:01 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Yes, of course, but my argument specifically excludes evolution. Just an omni-everything creator, Garden of Eden style.


Oh, so you ARE talking about Yahweh after all! In that case you might want to go read Genesis again, because the God depicted in the Garden of Eden story is definitely not omniscient or omni-benevolent.

"Style" being the operative word in that sentence.


And an omni-benevolent omniscient God is not a "Garden of Eden style" God.
*sigh* The reference was intended to mean "created the human body from scratch." Is that clear enough, or do I need to use words of one syllable?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:01 pm

Xouper is not an apatheist.

He is a cerebral sclerocist. Meaning he forms an opinion and sticks to it unchanging, regardless of data.
For example, he claims I do not answer his question, which I have answered numerous times. It is just inconvenient to his fixed opinion to recognise the answer.

EM

Re bad backs in animals.
Dogs have bad backs, often. That is because they were bred by incompetents.
Cats do not. Wild animals do not, unless it is a very rare event, due to injury. Not that it matters. Whether animals have bad backs or not does not change my argument. Any and all bad backs are due to the fact that evolution is an imperfect process. If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity created humans, it would care enough and be powerful and knowing enough, to give us decent backs.

Humans have bad backs in 80% of all cases at some stage in their life.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:02 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Unfortunately, that leaves us with an unanswerable philosophical question: Why are we here?


Bingo.

That has been my point all along.

Since no human knows what the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose was (i.e. why we are here), you have just refuted your entire argument because without that knowledge, it is not possible to evaluate the merits of the design.

You seem to be saying it is possible to deduce what our intended purpose is without knowing why we are here, so as I asked above, please justify that assertion.
And...you completely ignored the rest of my post, which nicely addressed how inadequate the human body's design is for its native planet. Which completely supports my argument.


No it doesn't. That's why I did not respond to it. None of that stuff is relevant to question of why we are here.
However, it absolutely relates to my conclusion that the human body is inadequate for the purpose of surviving long enough to reproduce and care for its genetic successors until they are old enough to reproduce.

There are more than 7,000,000,000 of us. Only r-selection strategists have a higher population. And bacteria.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:07 pm

BTW, according to Genesis, physical human frailties and aging are a punishment for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Humans were perfect before that.

So There!
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:16 pm

Oleg

Please quote chapter and verse.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:33 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:VKTW: You are in need of a quality dictionary, a course in basic logic, and therapy.
See, this is what an ad-hominem looks like.
Wrong again. My comment is solely based on the content of your posts to me, not gratuitous or superfluous to their content.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:An ad hominem attack, by definition, attacks the arguer independent of her argument. You have done that repeatedly without a great deal of intelligence.
Examples?
Feminazi. Spelling and grammar Nazi. (So, "Nazi" twice.) An accusation that I'm working toward "active extermination a religious population." An accusation of "thought-policing," whatever the {!#%@} that is. A statement that one of my remarks was "butt-hurt sanctimonious ad hominem drivel." Femimarxist.

You know what? I have the perfect solution to your repeated insecure ad hominem attacks, which you indulge in whenever you're failing in an argument, which describes just about every argument in which you involve yourself. Frankly, I feel nothing but pity for your blow-up doll, so give her a break and go {!#%@} yourself.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:03 am

To Oleg again

There is no chapter and verse because the Bibbil did not say that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Oleg again

There is no chapter and verse because the Bibbil did not say that.

Isn't that what a lot of people think it "means" regardless of what it says? I thought the pain of childbirth was directly stated?

...................No. I'm not looking up what the bibble says. That gives popular ignorance too much dignity.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Oleg again, There is no chapter and verse because the Bibbil did not say that.

I think Oleg was sort of quoting Genesis 3:16 and 3:17 concerning punishment for eating the forbidden fruit.

"To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this. :D

I am waiting for the thread's Chris Nolan reboot to get away from this early Tim Burton version so we can talk about the actual science of "Junk DNA".

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:35 am

Which, Matthew, is quite different to blaming human imperfections on original sin.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Which, Matthew, is quite different to blaming human imperfections on original sin.

Well none of this makes any sense at all anyway. I was hoping for a jolly good old chat on genetics and somehow we are now looking at verses of the old testament.

I think I mentioned this before, that when I was studying human evolution in the early 80s, we didn't have gene mapping. Most of our work was based on statistical matching of physical attributes in different populations and extinct hominids : things like sickle cell blood cells and cranial crests. It was pretty primitive. All the new technology, was coming in after I was going to graduate and I'd have to restudy again to get any job or end up in admin. That's one reason I jumped towards accounting. :D

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper is not an apatheist. He is a cerebral sclerocist.


Oh my, it seems Lance has lowered himself to flinging ad hominems.

For the record, I am indeed an apatheist and I am not a cerebral sclerocist. Lance has zero evidence for either of his personal insults.


Once Upon a Time, Lance Kennedy wrote:Once more you descend to ad hom statements. This is revealing. It has been my experience that those most likely to lower themselves in that way are those who are losing their argument.


By your own standards, you seem to be conceding that you are losing the argument.

But let's stop for a moment here.

This is not an adversarial contest to see who is wrong and then beat them over the head.

This is supposedly a civil discussion to apply critical thinking skills to a particular issue in the hope that we can all benefit.

Personal insults and argumentum ad hominems have no place in such a discussion. Unless of course one has abandoned all pretense at civility and simply wants to bully the other person.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program . . .


Lance Kennedy wrote:For example, he claims I do not answer his question, which I have answered numerous times.


Sorry, but you have not answered the questions. You merely repeat your assertions without providing the justifications I am asking for.

Here's an example:


Lance Kennedy wrote:Humans have bad backs in 80% of all cases at some stage in their life.


I am still waiting for you to answer my question about whether 100% failure is also a defect, since the human design (as a whole) eventually fails 100% of the time.

Do you consider dying to be a design defect? Yes or no.

If "yes", then please explain how you know that the creator should have designed humans to live forever.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:56 am

Since this getting a bit long, I'm going to break it into smaller pieces . . .

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Please explain how there can be "competing or contradictory requirements" when the designer is omniscient and omnipotent.
I gave one already. Can a creator make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? No. The two requirements are contradictory.
Because your question fails to take into account the creator's omnipotence. Let's split the question in two:
1. Can the omnipotent creator make an infinitely heavy rock?


Oops, you just misstated my question. I did not ask if the creator can make an infinitely heavy rock.

"Infinitely heavy rock" is not synonymous with "so heavy he cannot lift it".


Nikki Nyx wrote:You imagine limits because you can NOT imagine omnipotence.


:shock: Please do not presume to second guess my motives or to tell me what I can or cannot imagine.

Seriously, that is not at all helpful to the conversation, especially since it's unjustified.

As a mathematician, I have studied the infinite in some detail and I do indeed have experience imagining it (visualizing it) and working with it.


To be continued . . .

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:46 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Please explain the "logical limits" of omniscience and omnipotence as they relate to designing the human body.
I made a general claim about the limits of omnipotence. My point was to show the existence of such limits (in mathematics that's called an existence proof).
Therein lies the problem. "All-knowing" and "all-powerful" are both infinite by definition, and the human mind can't comprehend anything without limits. You are, therefore, imposing limitations onto infinity.


Two points:

1. The word "infinity" by definition does not always mean "includes everything". It is not a contradiction to have an infinity with limitations.

2. I am not imposing (or inventing) any limitations, I am merely pointing out a limitation that is already there.


Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . the human mind can't comprehend anything without limits.


That's factually incorrect.

I can indeed comprehend infinity. As a mathematician I do it routinely. And so do many other mathematicians. Perhaps not everyone can do that, but please do not presume to tell me I cannot.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:02 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:The point was to show that the creator is not in fact omnipotent.
Thereby changing my initial premise and creating an entirely different argument. My initial premise was that this hypothetical creator possessed all three attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.


Yes, I understand what your initial premise was. Thanks for restating it so that we are both clear about that.

My point was to show that your premise fails before it even gets started.

To evaluate the merits of a syllogism, it suffices to show that one of the premises is false. And it suffices to show it is false by pointing out the self-contradiction.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:17 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:If you are claiming that the design of human DNA does not involve contradictory requirements, then I would like to see the justification for that.
My argument was never about DNA, genetics, mutations, or evolution. It was solely about the design of the human body in its current iteration.


My question is also about the design of the human body in its current iteration.

I apologize for not making that more clear. Allow me to rephrase my question.

If you are claiming that "the design of the human body in its current iteration" did not involve contradictory requirements, then I would like to see the justification for that.

If you are not making that claim, then you agree that "the design of human body in its current iteration" did in fact have to take into account contradictory requirements, and thus the design includes compromises.

There is no middle here.

Please clarify what your claim is. Thanks.


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest