Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
because He has been around forever and was never created.

Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.

Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?

I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And if 
God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the God 
didn't create those systems.

So doesn't
1) God has always existed
2) God made Man in his Image
3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't need 
to be designed?


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4bcbc364$1@news.povray.org...

> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right?

Not necessarily. If God has eyes (two, I assume, in the front of his head),
can I sneak up behind it? Wouldn't that limit his omniscience? And wouldn't
only having a couple of hundered billion neurons severely limit its
knowledge and ability?

Obviously, it doesn't make sense if one replaces the "image" with "physical
analogue". In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
physical in the sense we come to understand it, so the whole "in his image"
business needs a deeper understanding (if you are religious) or is simply
just another nonsense (if not). Either way, the premise you start with is
not valid.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
> physical in the sense we come to understand it, 

Maybe not any more. Certainly when he was walking around the Garden looking 
for Adam and Eve he was. And he wasn't omniscient or he wouldn't have been 
calling out trying to find them. :-)

> so the whole "in his image" business needs a deeper understanding 

Certainly. But then, if we aren't like him physically, and we weren't 
created in his moral image, and we are still incapable of understanding how 
he thinks, in what sense are we his image?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
> 
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
> 
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
> 
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And 
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the 
> God didn't create those systems.

Man was created in His own image, but you don't go telling eyes of 
statues are the same as yours. ;)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2010 7:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the
> God didn't create those systems.
>
> So doesn't
> 1) God has always existed
> 2) God made Man in his Image
> 3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't
> need to be designed?
>
>
Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
Basically, lets say that:

GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can have 
mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work like their 
original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What you do is 
start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a few 
different ways:
GTTsGTGs
GTTsGTTGs
GGTsGTTs

The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a working 
copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But, the GTGs 
version would be "irreducible", once other related genes become 
dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc. versions to 
"break" the system.

The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are 
inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger number 
of variations and errors than the final version. At some point though, 
you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs, or 
variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the other 
gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in the 
process produced new behaviors/functions.

Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry, limb 
formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small* number 
of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the gene 
that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and developmental 
code is different, producing a new pattern of growth. Other cases "both" 
the transcription/development code *and* the control genes differ, but 
they are still identifiably variations on existing genes, that do 
similar things. Any irreducibility seems to come from a duplicate copy 
changing, and linking up with other changes, to produce a unique result, 
then undergoing subtractions, which fail to disable the new effect, but 
which render reversal to an earlier form impossible.

Given that, they neither could have previously existed, nor is adding a 
designer anything other than adding an unnecessary complication, unless 
you can present grounds to show that one is doing it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 

Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could 
*prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to the 
necessity of a God.

After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole 
"watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is indeed 
irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from that that 
God created watches.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
> 
> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could 
> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to 
> the necessity of a God.
> 
> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole 
> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is 
> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from 
> that that God created watches.

you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1595-God-of-War-III

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
> 
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
> 
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
> 
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And 
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the 
> God didn't create those systems.

Unless making man in God's image means that man was gifted with free 
will, a very common interpretation.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
>> physical in the sense we come to understand it, 
> 
> Maybe not any more. Certainly when he was walking around the Garden 
> looking for Adam and Eve he was.

Unless that is an analogy using the words that come closest to what God 
was doing.

> And he wasn't omniscient or he wouldn't have been calling out trying
 > to find them. :-)

By that reasoning, math teachers don't know what two plus two is.

>> so the whole "in his image" business needs a deeper understanding 
> 
> Certainly. But then, if we aren't like him physically, and we weren't 
> created in his moral image, and we are still incapable of understanding 
> how he thinks, in what sense are we his image?

We *were* created in His moral image, that of sinless perfection.  But 
all of us have blown it through sin.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
> Basically, lets say that:
> 
> GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can have 
> mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work like their 
> original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What you do is 
> start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a few 
> different ways:
> GTTsGTGs
> GTTsGTTGs
> GGTsGTTs
> 
> The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a working 
> copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But, the GTGs 
> version would be "irreducible", once other related genes become 
> dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc. versions to 
> "break" the system.
> 
> The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are 
> inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger number 
> of variations and errors than the final version. At some point though, 
> you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs, or 
> variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the other 
> gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in the 
> process produced new behaviors/functions.
> 
> Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry, limb 
> formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small* number 
> of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the gene 
> that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and developmental 
> code is different, producing a new pattern of growth. Other cases "both" 
> the transcription/development code *and* the control genes differ, but 
> they are still identifiably variations on existing genes, that do 
> similar things. Any irreducibility seems to come from a duplicate copy 
> changing, and linking up with other changes, to produce a unique result, 
> then undergoing subtractions, which fail to disable the new effect, but 
> which render reversal to an earlier form impossible.

So in essence you are arguing that any irreducible complexity was 
preceded by reducible complexity.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> We *were* created in His moral image, that of sinless perfection.

Obviously not.

Clearly it was sinful to disobey God, to realize that God was lying, and to 
do both of these things without knowing they were sinful. If we were morally 
sinlessly perfect, we wouldn't have original sin, now would we?

If we were created morally, sinlessly perfect, why would ever single human 
being to ever live be sinful?  That's like saying "every single human being 
stands over three meters tall, except those who are shorter, which is all of 
them."

> all of us have blown it through sin.

Also, obviously not. Having eaten from the tree of knowledge, it is clear 
that sins are not heritable. Punishments from God, perhaps, but not sins.

 > Unless making man in God's image means that man was gifted with free
 > will, a very common interpretation.

That's clearly a bad interpretation as well, unless you are saying that the 
serpent was also gifted with free will and hence created in God's image, and 
hence also sinlessly morally perfect, which seems to be pushing the analogy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> So doesn't [that]
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't 
> need to be designed?
> 

Even if it did, I thought the problem was with irreducibly complex 
systems coming into existence without being designed?  I don't think 
many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a problem with 
irreducibly complex eternal things.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> So doesn't [that]
>> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't 
>> need to be designed?
>>
> 
> Even if it did, I thought the problem was with irreducibly complex 
> systems coming into existence without being designed? 

This is what I'm saying:

Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a straightforward 
way. If so, God didn't design the eye.  God didn't design himself - he was 
always here. And he copied his eye for use with humans. Where did the design 
of the eye come from? It has always been here. No need for a designer at 
all.  :-)

Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any 
irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without being 
designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.

Was just a silly passing thought.

> I don't think 
> many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a problem with 
> irreducibly complex eternal things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "external" there, especially w.r.t. God. Plus, 
"we know it was designed" doesn't imply "it must have been God" either.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > you guys would enjoy God of War. :)
>
> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1595-God-of-War-III

haha, very fun.  Even though I couldn't manage to get more than 50% of it.  man,
that dude should be rapping...

Yes, it's pretty much like that, except the parody review doesn't account for
the mindblowing audio-visual artwork backing up the frantic pure arcade action
with puzzles in between.  It's impact is huge in setting the mood and I'd say
this is the best take on greek mythology in mainstream entertainment in ages.
Hollywood's recent Clash of the Titans pales by comparison, not just to the
artistry, but even the lame-o script.

The theme of revenge may be quite tiresome, but they've put quite an imaginative
spin to dozens of elements of the myths, binding them together in rather amusing
ways.  I've replayed the first 2 games just now, eager to get my hands on a
PS3...

I've seen people saying they play the game in very easy mode just to
effortlessly enjoy the ride. :)

> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>    Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
>    open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

except to PS3... :))

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
 > Yes, it's pretty much like that,

I find of the games he and I have both played, I liked what he liked and 
disliked what he disliked for the same reasons. They're serious reviews, but 
he tries to tell you the bad stuff without telling you the good stuff for 
the most part.

Check out his review of Batman, or SaintsRow or Prince of Persia. There are 
a few he likes. :-)

> I've seen people saying they play the game in very easy mode just to
> effortlessly enjoy the ride. :)

I usually wind up going thru most games on easy, and even switching into 
godmode at some point, just because I find it pointless to bash my head 
against the same boss more than five or six times.  The nice thing about the 
XBox is when they don't have god mode, they do seem to tone the game down to 
where easy is beatable without being tedious.

(Most recent, trying 4 or 5 times to get thru the endgame of Batman, 
actually killing the bad guy, only to get wiped out by his giant corpse 
sliding across the floor and smashing me against the wall. :-)

I'd love to go thru Serious Sam on god mode, just to look at the levels.

The first couple of Thief games were cool because on the easy mode you 
couldn't even get to the whole level. There were walls where there would be 
doors on the harder levels, which was kind of cool when I realized that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> This is what I'm saying:
> 
> Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a 
> straightforward way. If so, God didn't design the eye.  God didn't 
> design himself - he was always here. And he copied his eye for use with 
> humans. Where did the design of the eye come from? It has always been 
> here. No need for a designer at all.  :-)
> 
> Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any 
> irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without 
> being designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.
> 
> Was just a silly passing thought.

Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of course 
even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need 
actual design.  Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how 
such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which 
lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question 
as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would 
call "design".

On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
interpretation of "made in God's image" is.  It seems pretty difficult 
to defend against even simple counter-arguments.  Not that that means 
it's necessarily unpopular though.


>> I don't think many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a 
>> problem with irreducibly complex eternal things.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "external" there, especially w.r.t. God. 
> Plus, "we know it was designed" doesn't imply "it must have been God" 
> either.

By "eternal things" I meant God, or an eternal universe or multiverse 
etc.  Mostly I was pointing out that I had thought the irreducible 
complexity argument only applied to the development of complexity and 
didn't relate to complexity that has "always been there".  At the time I 
thought you were making a different point than it appears you were.

I was never making the argument the "designed" implies "designed by 
God".  As far as I'm aware this implications isn't generally (well, 
generally publicly) endorsed by irreducible complexity proponents.  This 
was made quite explicit as part of the whole (largely unsuccessful) 
attempt to avoid the separation of church and state issues that would 
otherwise keep intelligent design out of public textbooks as I 
understand it.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of course 
> even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need 
> actual design.

Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be imperfect, 
right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections added in. ;-)

> Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how 
> such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which 
> lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question 
> as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would 
> call "design".

Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical contradictions.

> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 

I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, Angels, 
etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions where the gods 
have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often enough you'd think you'd 
notice.

> I was never making the argument the "designed" implies "designed by 
> God".  As far as I'm aware this implications isn't generally (well, 
> generally publicly) endorsed by irreducible complexity proponents.

Actually, yeah, it is, but they tried to cover it with a snow-job. :-)

I've been amused several times by pointing out that naturally-evolved aliens 
could have designed irreducibly-complex humans just as easily as God could, 
and been answered with "But there's no evidence of aliens!!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
> contradictions.

I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
that God is.  Overall though, yeah, I agree that it's generally pretty 
difficult to precisely define something like that without causing some 
logical problem or another.

I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
easier to remove.


>> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
>> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 
> 
> I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, 
> Angels, etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions 
> where the gods have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often 
> enough you'd think you'd notice.
> 

It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.  I 
mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:43:45 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,  
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And  
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the  
> God didn't create those systems.
>
> So doesn't
> 1) God has always existed
> 2) God made Man in his Image
> 3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't  
> need to be designed?
>
>

"Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather  
something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs, and  
statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes.  
Effectively an image uses less dimensions than the original. So we are 3  
or 4 dimensional images of the multidimensional Creator. We don't even  
know what other dimensions are like, scientists are still speculating  
about nth dimensions. So our DNA is not necessarily clone of God's DNA,  
but a method of reproducing and image representing only 3 dimensions of  
features of God.

BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye to  
be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)

Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we cannot  
know how the universe started because we do not have enough information.

Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the  
conclusion that humans don't exist!

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>  > Yes, it's pretty much like that,
>
> I find of the games he and I have both played, I liked what he liked and
> disliked what he disliked for the same reasons. They're serious reviews, but
> he tries to tell you the bad stuff without telling you the good stuff for
> the most part.

Truly threw away the good stuff:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054652777.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054646278.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054637903.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054725807.jpg
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/cofjnrbthc/04-colossus-of-rhodes.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/cbucjcdtpn/11-exploring-the-isle.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/lurqbwlurv/12-the-isle-of-creation.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/hptfiuchdw/18-crossing-the-lowlands.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/qzedfjrkwa/15-the-great-sword-bridge-of-athena.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/jwrqjsfzag/11-athens-rooftops-fighting.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/lbtsxmnvxc/21-the-architect-s-mysteries.mp3


In any case, my point for bringing up God of War in a kinda off-topic manner is
because it features a mortal bringing death to the Gods of Olympus and the end
of myths.  I interpret it as the ultimate allegory for atheism, nihilism and
hedonism.  Like Kratos himself puts it:  "I have lived in the shadows of the
Gods for long enough!"  And they say videogames are just mindless fun. :P

anyway, I saw it as kinda fitting here, I guess...

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 6:02, Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of 
>> course even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would 
>> need actual design.
> 
> Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
> Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be 
> imperfect, right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections 
> added in. ;-)

You mean imperfections like letting the light pass through a layer of 
vasculature and horizontal cells before reaching the photosensitive cells?

IIRC the octopus eye is much better designed than a human one and many a 
vertebrate eye is more sensitive than ours but that is probably not the 
point you are making.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Truly threw away the good stuff:

I think he focuses on gameplay and leaves media to last. But those are some 
sweet snaps. :-)

> In any case, my point for bringing up God of War in a kinda off-topic manner is
> because it features a mortal bringing death to the Gods of Olympus and the end
> of myths.  I interpret it as the ultimate allegory for atheism, nihilism and
> hedonism.  Like Kratos himself puts it:  "I have lived in the shadows of the
> Gods for long enough!"  And they say videogames are just mindless fun. :P

I suppose, yes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
>> contradictions.
> 
> I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
> is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
> comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
> that God is. 

Yet oddly enough, many will be happy to tell you exactly what this infinite 
incomprehensible entity wants from you personally. ;-)

> I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
> instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
> case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
> definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
> easier to remove.

Certainly. Plus the ability to say "We don't know yet, or maybe never."

> It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.

I'm certainly taking it to extremes, yes. :-)

> I mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
> digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
> even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
> alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

You never heard the argument over whether angels have navels and such?

I think the general idea is that God is human-like, until it became 
scientifically obvious that was absurd.  I mean, most every other God is 
human-like (certainly all the major ones), God has a face (as in, "look upon 
the face of God") and a back to be turned, etc...


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 20-4-2010 6:02, Darren New wrote:
>> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of 
>>> course even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would 
>>> need actual design.
>>
>> Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
>> Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be 
>> imperfect, right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections 
>> added in. ;-)
> 
> You mean imperfections like letting the light pass through a layer of 
> vasculature and horizontal cells before reaching the photosensitive cells?

Yes, exactly.

> IIRC the octopus eye is much better designed than a human one 

... so to speak.

> and many a 
> vertebrate eye is more sensitive than ours but that is probably not the 
> point you are making.

Right.

Altho "Mr. Deity" had a funny line...

Skeptic: "If you're trying to use intelligent design to reveal yourself, why 
would you put a blind spot in the eye?"

Deity: "Where else would I put a blind spot?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> "Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather 
> something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs, and 
> statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes. 

But God *can* see with his eyes. Perfectly, at that. So in what sense did 
God have to design our eyes, if he already has perfect ones to base things on?

> BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye 
> to be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)

It depends how many dimensions he wants to look into. :-)

> Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we 
> cannot know how the universe started because we do not have enough 
> information.

Yet, oddly enough, there are huge numbers of people who will tell you it is 
all carefully documented!  Imagine that!

> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the 
> conclusion that humans don't exist!

Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous. They 
were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions, and it 
eventually deduced that everyone is famous.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 17:21, Darren New wrote:

>> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the 
>> conclusion that humans don't exist!
> 
> Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous. 
> They were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions, 
> and it eventually deduced that everyone is famous.

Didn't know that story. I do remember the one that deduced the existence 
of rice pudding and income tax.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2010 12:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>
> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could
> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to
> the necessity of a God.
>
> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole
> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is
> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from
> that that God created watches.
>
Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that 
torpedoed that too. What is necessary is that change between versions be 
*possible*, and that the thing in question produce such *copy versions*. 
Watches need watchmakers, not because they are irreducibly complex, but 
because watches do not copy themselves, with or without modifications. 
If they did, they wouldn't need watchmakers either.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2010 3:47 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>> Basically, lets say that:
>>
>> GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can
>> have mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work
>> like their original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What
>> you do is start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a
>> few different ways:
>> GTTsGTGs
>> GTTsGTTGs
>> GGTsGTTs
>>
>> The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a
>> working copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But,
>> the GTGs version would be "irreducible", once other related genes
>> become dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc.
>> versions to "break" the system.
>>
>> The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are
>> inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger
>> number of variations and errors than the final version. At some point
>> though, you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs,
>> or variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the
>> other gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in
>> the process produced new behaviors/functions.
>>
>> Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry,
>> limb formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small*
>> number of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the
>> gene that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and
>> developmental code is different, producing a new pattern of growth.
>> Other cases "both" the transcription/development code *and* the
>> control genes differ, but they are still identifiably variations on
>> existing genes, that do similar things. Any irreducibility seems to
>> come from a duplicate copy changing, and linking up with other
>> changes, to produce a unique result, then undergoing subtractions,
>> which fail to disable the new effect, but which render reversal to an
>> earlier form impossible.
>
> So in essence you are arguing that any irreducible complexity was
> preceded by reducible complexity.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
Not my argument, its the argument of biologists, and has been both shown 
to work in simulation *and* within some cases of actual DNA, where 
identification of the genes involved show that they are modified 
versions of existing ones (and, I believe, in a few cases, new changes 
have been identified, in the state of 'reducible complexity', where its 
not to hard to see where minor changes would make it irreducible). But, 
yes. That is how it seems to work, and there is no evidence that it 
did/had to work any other way.

Oh, and, just for an odd bit, I mentioned fingers. Turns out that 
fingers grow from the middle out. There are two control genes in place, 
one determines when the pattern ends, and a second reacts to that 
deactivation by forming a "thumb". If you get an error in the code, you 
end up with more or less fingers, or not having a thumb at all, 
depending on which one changed. This is why the most common result in 
such errors is extra, or less, fingers, but the thumb is almost always 
still there. Now *most* people imagine that they all grow at once, or 
that they grow starting with the thumb, or pinkie, then run across in 
sequence.

Another odd bit is being observed in lizards. Some are in progress of 
becoming snake like. Seems that the gene involved is responsible for 
forming ribs. It doesn't shut off correctly, so just keeps making more 
and more ribs, which elongates the body. This seems to also muck up limb 
formation, reducing the structures from which those form to a point 
where they nearly disappear. But, you will still find snakes with 
vestigial limbs, under the skin.

Its really quite interesting to read about how it all works, and which 
types of genes are involved, as well as, in some cases, how small the 
changes need to be. Though, most of them are not visible stuff. Like 
having two copies of a gene to produce saliva, and having one of them 
mutate to produce venom instead. Or quirks in eyes, like the fact that 
*some* rare humans end up with an extra copy, and an error, which result 
in them seeing 4 colors, not the normal 3, a trait that birds have.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2010 8:50 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> This is what I'm saying:
>>
>> Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a
>> straightforward way. If so, God didn't design the eye. God didn't
>> design himself - he was always here. And he copied his eye for use
>> with humans. Where did the design of the eye come from? It has always
>> been here. No need for a designer at all. :-)
>>
>> Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any
>> irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without
>> being designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.
>>
>> Was just a silly passing thought.
>
> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making. Of course
> even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need
> actual design. Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how
> such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which
> lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question
> as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would
> call "design".
>

Bah. Its all quite pointless. The truth has already been presented at 
http://www.mrdeity.com/ God, you see, is a lazy, vindictive, bastards, 
and decided to go with a self-design genetic algorithm, instead of going 
into all the effort of actually designing anything. He then went on with 
his plan anyway, as though it all had been designed, only didn't bargain 
for the fact that his creations would be smart enough to come up with 
science and discover that it all worked without him having actually done 
anything to rate being worshiped. lol

I just had to by their "E=M^r.d^e'+y/d'd 1t" T-Shirt. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that 
> torpedoed that too.

Well, yes, but that's using actual science and logic. If you want to accept 
the accuracy of science, you don't need philosophy to shoot down most religions.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 22:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 12:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>>
>> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could
>> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to
>> the necessity of a God.
>>
>> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole
>> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is
>> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from
>> that that God created watches.
>>
> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that 
> torpedoed that too. 

you mean the one in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0?

> What is necessary is that change between versions be 
> *possible*, and that the thing in question produce such *copy versions*. 
> Watches need watchmakers, not because they are irreducibly complex, but 
> because watches do not copy themselves, with or without modifications. 
> If they did, they wouldn't need watchmakers either.

perhaps also good to mention is that watches, like all technology, did 
actually evolve. If you look at one of the latest mechanical watched 
made, you can not understand how someone could design that from scratch. 
In fact you would need to retrace part of the history to understand that.
Better, if you would try to make that watch or something similar from 
scratch (i.e. while you would also need to build the equipment to make 
the parts) you would probably fail.
Why I find this fascinating? because to build something so refined you 
need to make tools and you need to make the tools to make the tools. 
Etc. And for some of the technology needed, the skills have been lost 
and left no fossils. Which gives an interesting twist to the watchmaker 
argument.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:21:06 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> "Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather  
>> something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs,  
>> and statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes.
>
> But God *can* see with his eyes. Perfectly, at that. So in what sense  
> did God have to design our eyes, if he already has perfect ones to base  
> things on?
>

I am not saying He can't see with His eyes. I am saying He might have n  
dimensional eyes as well that aren't visible in our 3 dimensions.
Hmm. Well if He is omnipotent, He could look anyway he wanted to and maybe  
he just likes that specific form. Also the eyes are the most beautiful  
asexual part of the human body...


>> BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye  
>> to be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)
>
> It depends how many dimensions he wants to look into. :-)
>
>> Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we  
>> cannot know how the universe started because we do not have enough  
>> information.
>
> Yet, oddly enough, there are huge numbers of people who will tell you it  
> is all carefully documented!  Imagine that!
>

I believe that the Bible was meant for everyone. It would have been  
confusing to the people of that time if God had revealed science as well.  
Apparently today only about 10-15% of all people are interested in  
science, so it really doesn't make much sense to go into all that  
scientific stuff. From the view of a normal observer the sun rises in the  
east and sets in the west. We know it's the earth that's actually turning  
on it's own axis, but we still call it sunrise... :-)

>> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the  
>> conclusion that humans don't exist!
>
> Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous.  
> They were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions,  
> and it eventually deduced that everyone is famous.
>

Was that before or after Facebook? :)


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2010 1:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that
>> torpedoed that too.
>
> Well, yes, but that's using actual science and logic. If you want to
> accept the accuracy of science, you don't need philosophy to shoot down
> most religions.
>
Funny. Philosophy was once a branch of science, or the other way around, 
until someone came up with the unfortunate point that, "Science tends to 
reflect what seems to actually happen, while the rest of this stuff, 
well... doesn't." lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2010 1:49 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 20-4-2010 22:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/19/2010 12:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>>>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>>>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>>>
>>> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could
>>> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to
>>> the necessity of a God.
>>>
>>> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole
>>> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is
>>> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from
>>> that that God created watches.
>>>
>> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that
>> torpedoed that too.
>
> you mean the one in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0?
>
>> What is necessary is that change between versions be *possible*, and
>> that the thing in question produce such *copy versions*. Watches need
>> watchmakers, not because they are irreducibly complex, but because
>> watches do not copy themselves, with or without modifications. If they
>> did, they wouldn't need watchmakers either.
>
> perhaps also good to mention is that watches, like all technology, did
> actually evolve. If you look at one of the latest mechanical watched
> made, you can not understand how someone could design that from scratch.
> In fact you would need to retrace part of the history to understand that.
> Better, if you would try to make that watch or something similar from
> scratch (i.e. while you would also need to build the equipment to make
> the parts) you would probably fail.
> Why I find this fascinating? because to build something so refined you
> need to make tools and you need to make the tools to make the tools.
> Etc. And for some of the technology needed, the skills have been lost
> and left no fossils. Which gives an interesting twist to the watchmaker
> argument.
>

Well, that is true too. After all, it would be damn hard to find the 
"in-between" forms, i.e., fossil record, for the transition from candle 
clocks to water clocks, or water clocks to hour glasses (though that may 
be a bit easier), and its *very* unclear how you got from either of 
those to spring driven ones, never mind ones with the same gears as the 
spring driven ones, but a little battery and electric motor pushing the 
gears. So, yeah, you get some similar things happening in technology 
too, even *with* design.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message