Complexity? Really?

Debate Room
93

Do you really not understand logic? You are confusing two sides of a delima at the same time. Either the universe has a natural cause or a supernatural cause. (This may be a false dichotomy, but let’s go with it for now.) There are two different propositions.

  1. The universe had a natural cause. All evidence to date supports this assumption. The natural world exists and we can explore it. That is what science does.

  2. The universe had a supernatural cause. A separate assertion. Distinct and separate from the first and requiring evidence. The fact that the first assertion has not explained something does not mean this one, the second, is accepted automatically.

The number of stars in the sky is either odd or even. If I tell you that their number is even, and you say you do not believe me. Have you asserted they are odd? No. You just do not believe they are even. Both proposals said, "The number is even.’ ‘The number is odd.’ requires evidence. You cannot assert that because the first has not been proved, the second is automatically true.

You are posing nothing but a ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy. In your case, a ‘creative force of the gaps.’ Your assertion is inane.

4 Likes
94

Oh me me me, I know this over here me me me!

Corrreccttttt…as that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

1 Like
95

I’m bowing out now, Mr. Sheldon. It this **** (Insert Favorite Explative) **** does not get it after such a clear explanation, I have no time for him. It is my day off. Korean Independence Day. I’m doing a bit of work and then I am going to enjoy my day. Cheers!

3 Likes
96

Can you demonstrate that formally? I’m not willing to just take your word on this.

For what it is worth that is false; if for no other reason: you can do reverse time evolution (make predictions about the past).

Can you please provide this proof explicitly; I seemed to have missed this one too.

4 Likes
97

Not so far, indeed he either doesn’t know the difference between unevidenced subjective assertion, and demonstrating objective evidence, or doesn’t care. Same with arguments, he has claimed to be happy with demonstrably irrational arguments, that contain both fallacies and unevidenced assumptions.

It’s all the usual stuff theists trot out. The main thrust is a god of the gaps polemic using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, we have no natural material explanation for x therefore the only alternative is goddidit. Note the unevidenced assumption that supernatural explanations are even possible. Pointing out the fallacy was met with naught but hand waving.

2 Likes
98

Ah, so an another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then, when you claimed “There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.” it was pure assumption based on us not currently having one. Again this rationale is based on a known common logical fallacy, ipso facto it is demonstrably irrational.

Not at all, my argument I suppose could be classified as a reductio ad absurdum argument though. Once again I am most certainly not assuming there’s no material explanation, rather I’m inferring there is none, because logically - considering what constitutes an “explanation” - a mechanism cannot be used to explain said mechanism.

All materialist explanations - true explanations - are reductionist, they explain A in terms of B and C, this is true of all scientific explanations. Its rather obvious then that in order to proffer a materialist explanation for something we must - absolutely must - presuppose the existence of material laws/quantities.

To suggest that the presence of the universe can be scientifically explained is therefore absurd because one must assume the existence of a universe in order to construct an explanation for the presence of the universe, so it is you Sir who is making assumptions.

99

And that in no way opens the door for a supernatural cause. You are attempting to use two different sides of a proposition at the same time. Either the world was caused by natural means or supernatural means. Never mind that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

Well this boils down to what we mean by evidence. I most certainly do not claim we have proof. To my mind evidence is what provides a reasonable basis for making an inference, it is observational data that is consistent with some hypothesis.

Let me stress once more too, that I am not talking about an explanation “for the universe”, I’ve been very clear in saying an explanation for the presence of the universe, it’s very presence is what we seek to explain not simply its internal machinations.

One can argue that infinite regress serves to explain but I regard that as insincere, an abuse of the term “explanation”, so we are left only with some agency that is not laws or matter or energy, it gave rise to laws, matter and energy.

Furthermore in the absence of determinism, laws - as we understand them in physics - one can only infer intent, will, an agency possessing self directing intent and intellect, for without laws we must face the fact that nothing material could happen - but something very obviously did.

In this vacuum of knowledge, you are inserting ‘supernatural.’ You are doing so with no warrant whatsoever. You cannot demonstrate that ‘supernatural’ even exists. It is not even among the possibilities until you can demonstrate there is something actually there. Your claim,‘Supernatural is an explanation.’ is vapid. It leads us nowhere, gets us nowhere, explains nothing.

We can’t demonstrate many things yet we regard them as true. Instead, what we actually do is infer, we make inferences, we associate X with Y. We can’t demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old, we infer that based on various assumptions and beliefs. It might have been created a thousand years ago with exactly the structure and appearance it has that we choose to interpret as evidence for great age.

I regard a supernatural agency as the creator of the universe because it is the most satisfying alternative to infinite regress and there are no other options.

100

One need ‘assume’ nothing of the sort. Pretending the universe is not there or nonexistent has no effect at all on the virus that invades your body and kills you. It does not affect the hot days of summer or the freezing winter. Step outside on a cold Arctic winter in your birthday suit, and you are going to last 10 minutes at most. Your utter ignorance in a nonexistent universe is inane in your posts. Whether you undrstand it or not, the real universe has real consequences. Your imaginary bullshit has none.

2 Likes
101

One need ‘assume’ nothing of the sort.

Show me a scientific theory, explanation that makes no assumptions, has no axioms, can you do that?

102

No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.

I just showed the reason! The reason is that if we must assume the universe exists in order to develop and explanation for the presence of the universe, then we are not explaining anything. An explanation must begin with the thing we seek to explain not being there, assuming it is already there is rather insincere.

103

Was it a prebiotic relevant synthesis?
Was it a relay synthesis?

104

Yes. It’s called the Null Hypothesis. You sould learn something about it. The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated and not before. Your inane assumptions are vapid and utterly useless.

2 Likes
105

was responding to Cognostic “How do we know the universe is complex?”

Point: If it is not complex why are really well educated people not able to make the building blocks of life in a lab?

106

If the universe is not complex wouldnt we know what gravity is?

107

The device used to send you this message does not even begin to compare to DNA. Yet if someone asked me to use a computer that was assembled through mindless processes I would never use even if i tried.

108

Well, that’s a bit egocentric! Complex compared to what? Complex for whom?

1 Like
109

Does not compare for whom? You seem to think that your opinions carry the weight of the day. Perhaps to a biologist, DNA is far easier to understand than a computer.

1 Like
110

What gave rise to this agency?

1 Like
111

Correct. A computer is far more complex than DNA. DNA is a simple storage mechanism for genetic information and has no intelligence at all.

2 Likes
112

Hmm, since you plainly claimed there cannot be a material explanation, you may want to decide which claim you’re going to move forward with? Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?

Or we can admit we don’t know, and disbelieve claims that are based on logical fallacies like the false dichotomies and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies you are using. We do know natural phenomena are possible, and we do know the material universe exists, so using pure assumptions and fallacious argument to tack on things like supernatural and inexplicable magic there is no objective evidence is even possible, quite clearly violates Occam’s razor.

I made no such claim? You seem to be trying to set a record for straw men fallacies, I suggest you read more carefully.

So not uncorroborated anonymous hearsay then one imagines, and certainly not for appeals to mystery and supernatural magic, some of which deny known scientific facts.

Odd then that the entire scientific world don’t agree, flip on any news channel, and link the breaking story that science has evidenced a deity? I think we can imagine the global reaction if that were remotely the case. In fact atheism is far higher among scientists than in the general population , highest in elite bodies of scientists, which rather destroys your claim. Now if you think your arguments demonstrate that science evidence a deity, then publish your work, and we will all take a look at the response. At a bare minimum I’d expect theism to skyrocket among physicists.