God is not intelligent

The problems are: 1) I believe a mathematician, with a good knowledge of genetics, could very easily show, along the same lines of my arguments, how preposterous is the supposition, that random chance could have accounted for anything like what we have witnessed, in the relatively brief history of life, as we know it, here on Earth. While you will doubtless disagree with that first statement, you will have no grounding, if you try to contest the second: 2) nor has the belief, that mutations are random, ever been proven. This, in fact, was my argument, from the start, that I have never heard that theory defended mathematically, nor do I ever expect to, because it cannot be. If you cannot even see a hint of this, after all of the examples I have given, then it would seem to me, you are not an open minded thinker. Make no mistake, I do not require, to deem a person to be open minded, that they agree with me; but you have offered no counter argument of your own thought, on the matter. Your retorts always seem to come down to, "that's what mainstream science accepts, and that's good enough for me (until they change their mind)." And this may well be good enough for you; but it is not the attitude of a free thinker (i.e., is not a very "philosophical," perspective, unless your philosophy is Confucianism, in which going along with the crowd, is the highest good).

 

No, math will prove the opposite, as the equation works like this:

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

 

Just a quick fact- check, for all the Jr. Scientists, out there: the evidence that mutations are a purely "random," phenomenon, is nonexistent; there has never been even a shred of proof offered, to support this notion. Darwin simply did not know what caused them, so he assumed they were random. To this day-- though certain mutations have been tied to certain carcinogens, for example, and mutations in frog sex, to atrazine pesticides-- we are still only making the assumption that most mutations are a random occurrence, in lieu of having anything else to go by. There is zero supporting fact, however, that this is the case. IOW, almost literally anything I suggest, as the reason for mutations, has exactly as much proof behind it, as the scientific assumption, of randomness. But here is the funny part: scientists, and others, will expect me to prove any speculations I may have; but the assumption of it being "random," is not seen as anything, which need be proven-- it is considered as the "neutral" position, until some other theory proves itself. This is obviously a fraud, however, because the true "neutral" theory, is we don't know what drives mutation, as an evolutionary force. Asserting that something is random, without proof of such, is anything but neutral: it is expressing a theory of the case, but one which is not subject to the necessity of offering proof. Though it may be how science operates, in this case, it is anything but scientific.

 

This is frankly a ridiculous statement, you try to pass off as scientific, despite the fact that science stipulates a very finite amount of time, since life began, on this planet-- did you not know that? So your "scientific," view, is to accept the unproven assumption, of mutations being random, because that's what science thinks, but throw Science's opinion of life's timeline out the window, just because you feel like it?

There is another word, besides "philosophy," that describes your view of existence: rationalization. It is an argument to yourself, to avoid needing to feel awed by Creation, or by the reality of your own consciousness. Instead, your dry, specious argument, allows you to pretend, as you've said, that everything "just is."

 

I think it would be better to go to biology rather than mathematics. Biology can use math as a descriptive language, of course. But assuming that biology actually conforms to math is a significant assumption.

Also, science doesn't prove theories like mutations being random. Science progresses by proving falsity.

I think there is work in biology that shows that mutations are not as totally random as might be described by math.

In a lab, isolated populations of fruit flies can be watched for mutations. When this is done, many of the same mutations occur in each of the separate populations. I think that shows that mutation and evolution aren't as cut and dried as a mathematical equation.

 

You logic wanes.

Life is randomity. That is what the eyes see. Randomity is the default position. One doesn't have to assume it. Do I have to assume the clouds are moving at random? No, I don't have to assume it, I can see it. I don't see a 'god' or any 'intelligence' driving the clouds, so why should I make such a claim (unless I were a christian or muslim) ? to conclude the clouds are not happening at random, now THAT would be an assumption one would have to prove.

Look anywhere, animals in the woods, sand in the sea, clouds in the sky, everywhere the eyes see the eyes see randomity. To conclude otherwise IS the assumption and that assumption is a claim contrary to what is plainly observable, and as such, that claim is what requires proof, because, on it's face, it's not even logical, it defies observation.

Mutation is but one aspect of life, you can't single that out, whatever assumption you apply to mutation you have to apply to everything, because it's all energy and life doing it's thing in all of its diversity and all in the sphere of randomity. It cannot be any other way. If it could be any other way it would that other way and it just isn't. To claim otherwise is the claim that requires 'proof', not the default.

If you are claiming there is an 'intelligence' causing life, driving the wind, driving evolution, etc., the onus is on YOU to prove it.

In the context of randomity, patterns may emerge in varying degrees in different regions and areas of life, but that doesn't alter the fundamental principle that life is, on the whole, randomity.

Energy drives the universe and no one knows from where it comes. Oh, there are some theories, such as string theory and what not, but no one really knows for absolute certain. I posit there is a spiritual basis to life, but it is not an intelligence and it doesn't conflict with the randomity of the universe and that, I take on faith. I do not make the mistake of claiming faith as fact, it's just a belief and I limit it as that, a belief, nothing more, nothing less. If science proves it to be false, I will discard the belief.

 

Inference ain't proof..

 

You might want to do some research on one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, Blaise Pascal.

 

Could you be a bit more forthcoming? You are not saying, are you, that he did do these calculations?

 

What you mean, but do not bring yourself to say, for whatever reason, is that it proves that mutation, in evolution, is not random (therefore, nor can one claim that evolution, is solely a random process). This is very strong evidence for my postulated argument, that there is some unseen force-- and I do not give it a name, because I cannot say what it is, with any certainty-- influencing a process, around which science had developed its well- accepted "theory," without scientists being aware of it, or taking it into account. This must force any real, rational thinker to admit at least the possibility, that the same might be true of other scientific theories-- as about how the universe came to be, as it is. Again, I am not claiming that the difference, if it could be discovered, would be more than this discovery, about evolution: that while it had proceeded, along the path which we had thought, it has not been due to merely natural principals, and random chance.


*When the subject at issue is, whether or not, a thing is completely random, as Patricio has maintained, there is no way to leave math out of the equation, so to speak, because of what the word "random," means. This can really only truly be determined, through probability analysis (and hard number crunching). How else could such a verdict be made?

So, then, you would seem to believe that scientists, by & large, do not think of the mutations, behind evolution, as necessarily having been random?

 

Your command of the language, wanes. Your merely stating that something is obvious (to you) does not prove your point (other than, to you). In fact, your example, right off the block, depicts something-- the movement of clouds-- which is anything but random. If it were actually random, it would impossible to ever forecast the weather-- don't you realize this? The movement of clouds are driven by numerous things, most notably wind, which is, in turn, driven by temperature and atmospheric pressure variations, most prominently.

So the opening of your reply suggests that you do not understand the meaning of the word, representative one of the concepts, most consequential in determining your view: randomness (or, as you like to say, "randomity").

This is not, in the least, a logical argument, you are offering. It sounds like you are the one who thinks of himself as a religious leader, whose words are all taken for pearls of wisdom. Your examples, above, could fall to a child's counterarguments. You believe that the "animals in the woods," in any part of the world, are there randomly, and not because they have very specifically adapted to be suited to that particular environment? And I thought that you were supposed to be the big supporter of evolution theory.

By "the sand in the sea," you are not being clear, as to whether you mean that silt, on the sea bottom, the sand along the shoreline, or the actual saline, dispersed within the water, itself. Whichever one you had meant, there is a very definite reason that it is there-- it is not by random chance, at all, that sandy strands of beach tend to crop up along sea coastlines, and not much, at landlocked, inland locations. Shall I go on?

And, in your last paragraph, you turn desperate, saying that absolutely everything must be random because...well, because you say so. Let me ask you something. If everything were random, then complex molecules, which were the basis for life, would be more or less evenly distributed around the planet, after the many, many millions, if not billions of years, they were forming, right?

Then why was this not the case? As I understand it, these compounds developed at all, because of the striated structure of clay. Hence, where there was more clay, there was far richer, organic chemistry-- this is the antithesis of "random distribution." Therefore, by your own argument, since, "whatever assumption you apply to mutation you have to apply to everything," I guess you have to accept that nothing at all, in the world, has been random.

 

Let's get something straight, I'm not making a claim.

That life's happenings are occurring in randomity is not a claim, it's a self-evident fact. I don't have to 'prove' it, either you can see, or you cannot.

It's just like the sky is blue. That is not a claim, that is a self-evident fact.

If you cannot see that the sky is blue or that life's happenings are occurring in the context of randomity, then I cannot help you. Both of these self-evident facts exist on the same plane, which is why I can assert that randomity is self-evident just as the sky is blue.

YOU, on the other hand, are making a claim which is NOT a self-evident fact, that God is an intelligence which is the cause of all things.

When I posit that 'god is not an intelligence', that is not a claim, either, it is a belief. I do not hold facts as beliefs or beliefs as facts, I make the distinction.

Now, if you want to reclassify your assert that God is an intelligence, as a belief, I will accept that belief, but not as a fact, because if you claim it as fact, the onus is on YOU to prove it.

The onus is on YOU to prove your claim.

 

Because you recognize that the sky is blue, does not prove that everything being random, is a self-evident fact. This is nothing but either extreme hubris, or childish bluster, on your part. I think it should be noted, to use your own example, if anyone were to question a "self- evident," truth, one very strong sign of it being that, would be a person's ability to prove it. Are you claiming that it cannot be proven, that blue is the predominant wavelength of light, which registers in the human brain, when looking at the sky? IOW, if this randomness were so obvious, one would think anyone would be able to do an eminently better job, than your utterly failed examples, from your last post. They do not come close to my own arguments, strongly suggesting non randomness, in mutations; in fact, have you been reading the other posts? Will Readmore posted about experiments with fruit flies, in captivity, in which instead of finding their mutations to occur to all parts of the fly DNA-- that is, being random-- they found the same mutations, occurring in different populations.

WillReadmore said: ↑
...

Also, science doesn't prove theories like mutations being random. Science progresses by proving falsity.

I think there is work in biology that shows that mutations are not as totally random as might be described by math.

In a lab, isolated populations of fruit flies can be watched for mutations. When this is done, many of the same mutations occur in each of the separate populations. I think that shows that mutation and evolution aren't as cut and dried as a mathematical equation.

[End]

Do you understand how this experiment, alone, disproves your religiously accepted "randomity (sic)" theory?

So spare me your sermonizing, devoid of rational argument, that everyone just knows that you are correct. According to Will Readmore, not even scientists support your contention. But I tend to disagree-- I think there are plenty of pompous scientists who accept what is no better than a baseless assumption, as a de facto truth, like yourself. That does not change, that it is still just as baseless and presumptive of an idea.

And no, that nothing unknown is having any affect on the MUTATIONAL process, is not
safely assumed as true. An example of your method of thought, gave rise to the concept of spontaneous generation, since it was self-evident to all, that dead meat gave rise to live maggots.

Let me ask you, if we have a box that we can't see into, and inside is our beloved peanut butter & jelly sandwich, is the most logical assumption, that there are no flies, inside, touching that sandwich? If the answer is no, how is it not likewise erroneous, if the basis of the proclivity towards one or another mutation, is something that we cannot see?

 

Not sure whether that was intended for me, Patricio, or both of us. I know, though, that inference is not, in itself, proof. I presume,however, that you know that using inference, is an essential part of scientific reasoning, right?

 

At this point, all I am saying is that everything did not develop, out of pure randomness, combined with the known, basic forces of the universe. The odds are too prohibitively high, against it. I was using evolution, as one example of this. I was going to do a simple calculation, to prove my point, once more, but when I checked to make sure I was using an accurate number of genes, I found out that, even 9 years after the human genome project was completed, we are a long way from being able to say how many genes are in the human genome-- which is not to say that the internet won't spit out all sorts of answers to you, ranging from 20k, to 80k, to even more than a100k.

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0564-x

So science can't tell us that...
But it can know for sure, just from the "self-evident" truth of it, that all those genes, which we haven't even identified, or agreed upon, yet, mutate in a completely random pattern.

Good story.
Enjoy fantasyland.

 

Self evident truths do not have to be proven. I do not have to prove the sky is blue, it is self evident. I do not have to prove that life is rife with randomity, it is self evident.

To utter 'self evident must be proven', as you have done, is oxymoronic logic.

Which is why I asserted, "your logic wanes'.

My command of the English language, good or bad, has nothing to do with it, noting that your attempting to bolster your point of view by indicating such, whether it is true or it is not, bolsters my point that your logic wanes, for the very reason that to indicate that which is irrelevant to an argument is, more accurately, to weaken your argument, not strengthen it. If you are poor there, you are likely to be poor elsewhere, in your arguments.

Either you can grasp this fundamental point, or you cannot.

If you cannot, there is nothing else to discuss, I cannot help you.

You are the one making a claim, not I, and the onus is on YOU, to prove it.

You believe in a supreme being? If you assert that is a belief, i accept your belief. However, if you claim it is fact, then you must prove it.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/god-is-not-intelligent.600071/page-10#post-1073616911

 

It was a comment for anyone.

When it's time to get serious, inference is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

I prefer the vigorous obligation and orderliness of Jesus Christs Gospel of repentance, to the bliss of eastern mysticism. I know that God is real, and that he is a living, divine personage. And rather than to say this for the cause of dominance, I say it in sharing that to which I am beholden to give honor and glory. If we tell the worrisome to be patient, it is not to consign them to ignorance and want, but to point to hope and to the grace of the seasons of life. Or in other words, to let God prevail. So if we jostle the shoulder of one who slumbers, it is not to disturb their peace, but to wake them to life and duty, and to the knowledge that there is more to life than life.

 

Okay, you are entitled to your beliefs, thanks for offering them, and thanks for reading mine.

 

Not necessarily. His fact is fact to him. He doesn't have to prove it to another. If God proves it to him, then so be it to him. The most he can do is to state/share it with another. Those who hear his testimony can reject it, ignore it, or take it under advisement and explore the matter for ones own self. For instance, I know that God is real. But that knowledge is for my own salvation. However, such a truth, in owing to its importance, is difficult to not repeat especially on a forum topic such as this one. When I discovered personally that God lives, I was astonished. I thought it should be shouted from the rooftops. How could I have lived 26 years and not known that God is real. I wondered why it wasn't on every news cast. Newflash: The mighty God lives. You all have amnesia and are asleep. Wake up to life in the living God. But the world chugs along, and Gods holy work runs concurrently, unknown and unseen. It is perplexing to me. But I accept it. I no longer search for or explore philosophies to find my way or for a sense of direction and purpose. I am reconciled to the truth that God lives and I am beholden to him.

 

What I would suggest is that the concept of "random" in mathematics may not really be the same as the concept of "random" in biological evolution of life forms, because in biology it has to do with the set of all possible mutations.

The fact that the two groups of fruit flies exhibited some of the same mutations would seem to mean that those mutations were some degree more likely. Why were they more likely?

Perhaps this is slightly similar to poker, where the next card will be chosen randomly, but the set of all cards available to be chosen is not the full set of 52 cards. I'm sure this is a bad analogy. But, it's a case where "random" is present, but has be be considered judiciously.

Anyway, I think this question of "random" is one to be answered by biology rather than math. Biologists may know something about what is available to happen.

 

Anyone is entitled to a belief, but not entitled to their own set of facts.

If they claim Supreme Being is fact, then the onus is on that person to prove it.

Otherwise, do not make the claim, just say it's one's faith and let it alone there.

 

Your constant ad hom, such as stating that Da Silva "exhibits extreme hubris, or childish bluster" detracts from anything you have to say.

Besides, this entire board KNOWS you are WRONG about that poster.


Beyond that, what I said doesn't disagree with what Da Silva said.

I simply gave a reason for correcting how "random" is used.

Plus, biologists study how evolution works, how speciation occurs, etc. They are the ones who did that fruit fly experiment. They are the ones with the super microscopes that can study what happened. Your comment about flies in a box seems to indicate that you think this can't be studied, and I just see no justification for your opinion on that.

 

No. I know that God lives and I don't have to prove it. I know what I had for breakfast this morning as well, and I don't have to prove that either. You don't have to believe what I say. And I don't need your belief to know what I know. You can trust your soul to a belief. I trust mine to a certainty, not of mine or of anyone else's construct, but from God himself. Call me a lunatic or a fanatic. But I tell you the truth.