What would NOT count as evidence of God?

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe save a couple of steps, provide some examples of piddle-poor arguments the goddists have used.

I'll start with frightening math.
If your argument centers around really big numbers, like 'It's a million zillion buh-lillion to one against DNA self-organizing,' that's cute.
But you're going to have to show that it's good math, not just a big scary number you pulled out of your arse. Describe the theoretical method by which the origin of life (or whatever) is speculated to have happened, and show the measurements used to determine the chances you quote.

Otherwise, I'm just going to assume that you found that the million-to-one argument wasn't working, so you incremented to a billion, and then a trillion, and so on. Or that you read Ray Comfort's bullshit.

 

[Elixir]

I would posit that just as (I am assured by theists) the existence of atheists is evidence for god, the existence of theists does not count as evidence of god.
There are lots of other things that don't count as evidence of god, but that one jumps out at me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your anger.

If you're upset by the thought of life, the universe, language, or subjective beauty existing without a divine sponsor, you may be more comfortable with an invisible friend. More power to you.

Don't pretend your fear of facing oblivion at your death has any significance in our evaluation of the universe.

 

[Angry Floof]

Anything that already has a natural answer and needs no supernatural elements to be as it is.

Anything for which "we don't know for sure" applies. I know "we don't know for sure" seems to be persuasive evidence enough for theists, and they love spouting it from their need for absolute certainty and the conditioned belief that religion offers absolute certainty. But if we don't know something, history and science have proven time and again that inserting "magic" as the answer never turns out to be certain at all.

"We don't know" means we should question and explore if we're curious about what we don't know.

"Our indoctrinated god myths that reflect the human experience of authoritarian father figures are absolutely the true and certain answer to all questions and you shut your filthy infidel mouth or else" is how the path to knowledge comes to a screeching halt at a cliff's edge. Some people choose to keep going anyway.

Sooo... the whole universe does not count as evidence of god?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Existence doesn't prove god. I'm quite comfortable accepting that the origin of the universe makes absolutely no sense, but creating a miracle to solve the nonsense that is existence is nothing short of CHEATING.

Complexity doesn't prove god. Snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes each exhibit order and apparently complexity despite there being nothing but natural forces in their design. Just because something appears to show complexity, when you have billions of years to develop, stuff happens.

For crying out loud, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution... in fact, entropy is the basis for evolution!

 

[excreationist]

Complexity doesn't prove god. Snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes each exhibit order and apparently complexity despite there being nothing but natural forces in their design. Just because something appears to show complexity, when you have billions of years to develop, stuff happens.

What about "information"? If snowflakes or tornados were changed a lot there wouldn't be much of a meaningful difference (assuming the snowflake was still symmetrical).... but if you randomly changed a lot of some DNA it would probably stop working.... same with a play by Shakespeare - there are a lot of valid English plays but if you randomly changed the letters most of them would be meaningless.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Complexity doesn't prove god. Snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes each exhibit order and apparently complexity despite there being nothing but natural forces in their design. Just because something appears to show complexity, when you have billions of years to develop, stuff happens.

What about "information"? If snowflakes or tornados were changed a lot there wouldn't be much of a meaningful difference.... but if you randomly changed a lot of some DNA it would probably stop working.... same with a play by Shakespeare - there are a lot of valid English plays but if you randomly changed the letters most of them would be meaningless.

How do you define 'information'?
Is this just a way to be picky about 'complexity' to support an argument from sone complexity but not all?

 

[excreationist]

How do you define 'information'?

Is this just a way to be picky about 'complexity' to support an argument from sone complexity but not all?

It involves symbols - in a book the letters make up words which correspond to patterns like objects in the world. In DNA the bases correspond to proteins or something. So they have a "meaning".

 

[Keith&Co.]

How do you define 'information'?

Is this just a way to be picky about 'complexity' to support an argument from sone complexity but not all?

It involves symbols - in a book the letters make up words which correspond to patterns like objects in the world. In DNA the bases correspond to proteins or something. So they have a "meaning".

Pushing the definition back a step. What do you mean by "meaning"? Can you DEFINE information, rather than list examples?
And, what makes DNA "symbolic"? It's chemicals that cause chemical changes. Calling it information, involving symbols, seems to be stacking the deck.



Oooh! Completely aside from this, add 'logical fallacies. If your evidence involves a logical fallacy, it's not evidence.

 

[excreationist]

How do you define 'information'?

Is this just a way to be picky about 'complexity' to support an argument from sone complexity but not all?

It involves symbols - in a book the letters make up words which correspond to patterns like objects in the world. In DNA the bases correspond to proteins or something. So they have a "meaning".

Pushing the definition back a step. What do you mean by "meaning"? Can you DEFINE information, rather than list examples?

"Meaning" is where something means something else.... e.g. the characters "cat" can "mean" a feline. "cat" can also be a Linux command. Information involves something that is meaningful. A pile of random dirt has little information. A drawing of a circle in the dirt contains information involving a circle which might also mean something else such as the letter "O" or the number zero.

And, what makes DNA "symbolic"? It's chemicals that cause chemical changes. Calling it information, involving symbols, seems to be stacking the deck.

DNA is symbolic because the triplets of base pairs "mean" or symbolize other things like amino acids. e.g. UUU apparently means phenylalanine. BTW DNA involving meaning doesn't mean that a God had to have designed it. But I think it still has meaning, information and symbols.

Oooh! Completely aside from this, add 'logical fallacies. If your evidence involves a logical fallacy, it's not evidence.

What logical fallacies do my thoughts about meaning, information and symbols involve?

BTW the thing about symbols is that they're often arbitrary.... but they have to agree about the meaning of symbols during "translation".

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Meaning" is where something means something else.... e.g. the characters "cat" can "mean" a feline. "cat" can also be a Linux command.

Can you define 'meaning' instead of giving an example?
Hint, using 'mean' to define 'meaning' isn't advancing the conversation if i do not know what you mean. See what i mean?

Information involves something that is meaningful.

And how is that different from snowflakes?

A pile of random dirt has little information.

...to you, maybe. That lab tech on Bones found a LOT of information from the dirt in a murder victim's shoes.
Seems subjective.

This us why we need a definition, not examples. Measurabld would be nice.

A drawing of a circle in the dirt contains information involving a circle which might also mean something else such as the letter "O" or the number zero.

So...it MIGHT be information? It might be a lot of information.
If i find a circle drawn in the dirt at a construction site, that has little significance.
If the Mars Lander finds the exact same circle drawn in the dirt 226 million miles away, that's drastically different. But this significance is not imparted by the circle itself, is it?
So, again, what is the information, where is it actually coming from?

And, what makes DNA "symbolic"? It's chemicals that cause chemical changes. Calling it information, involving symbols, seems to be stacking the deck.

DNA is symbolic because the triplets of base pairs "mean" or symbolize other things like amino acids. e.g. UUU apparently means phenylalanine.

No. They do not symbolize shit. Symbols are arbitrary. We can program a robot to react to a "<" command by turning left, turning right, stopping, or singing 'Daisy.' DNA chemicals are not arbitrary.
Pulling on the steering cable of a robot's wheel directly cause a left turn. Not symbolically. DNA does not symbolically initiate cell actions.

But I think it still has meaning, information and symbols.

The meaning and information, certainly the symbols, seem, to me, to be your reaction to the DNA. Not the DNA. Or the snowflake.

Oooh! Completely aside from this, add 'logical fallacies. If your evidence involves a logical fallacy, it's not evidence.

What logical fallacies do my thoughts about meaning, information and symbols involve?

I don't know, yet. You haven't defined info in a wsy that distinguishes snowflakes from artifacts.

BTW the thing about symbols is that they're often arbitrary.... but they have to agree about the meaning of symbols during "translation".

You used 'they' to refer to two different things in one sentence. At least i hope you did.

Symbols are indeed arbitrary. Words, too. But THE SYMBOLS don't have to agree with their meaning. I can use CAT to refer to canines. As a code, as a joke, as an acronym for Canines Assisting Talkers, whatever.
The symbol won't care. The person (or device) that i am talking to needs to understand the meaning attached to the symbol in context.

 

[excreationist]

"Meaning" is where something means something else.... e.g. the characters "cat" can "mean" a feline. "cat" can also be a Linux command.

Can you define 'meaning' instead of giving an example?

Off hand I'd say that the meaning roughly refers to the implications. e.g. an astrologer would say that certain configurations of stars and planets can be used to find information about a person's life. The kind of "meaning" I'm talking about is a consistent connection between a symbol (such as a shape, sound, DNA base, computer code) within a certain tradition or "language" and something else usually not inherently related - e.g. machine code (1s and 0s) can correspond to the operation like "jump" and "increment" - depending on the CPU. As far as the astrology example goes, scientists would say that it is actually "meaningless" in the context of people's lives.... BTW I like giving examples and I think it is a good way of trying to explain meanings.

Information involves something that is meaningful.

And how is that different from snowflakes?

Finding symbolic information within snowflakes could be called "Apophenia"

Apophenia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genuine information like DNA objectively involves information.

A pile of random dirt has little information.

...to you, maybe. That lab tech on Bones found a LOT of information from the dirt in a murder victim's shoes.
Seems subjective.

Detective work isn't the kind of information I'm talking about...

The definitions of "information":

1. facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"

2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

I'm talking about definition 2....

A drawing of a circle in the dirt contains information involving a circle which might also mean something else such as the letter "O" or the number zero.

So...it MIGHT be information? It might be a lot of information.
If i find a circle drawn in the dirt at a construction site, that has little significance.
If the Mars Lander finds the exact same circle drawn in the dirt 226 million miles away, that's drastically different. But this significance is not imparted by the circle itself, is it?
So, again, what is the information, where is it actually coming from?

I'm talking about the 2nd definition.... the information comes from there being a meaning for the elements. If DNA wasn't in a cell with no other context it would seem quite meaningless.

No. They do not symbolize shit. Symbols are arbitrary. We can program a robot to react to a "<" command by turning left, turning right, stopping, or singing 'Daisy.' DNA chemicals are not arbitrary.
Pulling on the steering cable of a robot's sheel directly cause a left turn. Not symbolically.

So are you saying that it would be impossible for UUU to mean valine in a parallel universe? Is the table of DNA correspondence I quoted the only possible way it could have been - even if the early history of the universe had changed?

But I think it still has meaning, information and symbols.

The meaning and information, certainly the symbols, seem, to me, to be your reaction to the DNA. Not the DNA. Or the snowflake.

In DNA there is machinery that translates triplets into amino acids. Is there a similar mechanism that translates the structure of a snowflake into something very different? (DNA base pairs are very different to amino acids).

Oooh! Completely aside from this, add 'logical fallacies. If your evidence involves a logical fallacy, it's not evidence.

What logical fallacies do my thoughts about meaning, information and symbols involve?

I don't know, yet. You haven't defined info in a way that distinguishes snowflakes from artifacts.

Well let me know if you find some logical fallacies.

BTW the thing about symbols is that they're often arbitrary.... but they have to agree about the meaning of symbols during "translation".

You used 'they' to refer to two different things in one sentence. At least i hope you did.

Symbols are indeed arbitrary. Words, too.

I'd say that words are symbols. And yes symbols like the word "they" can have multiple meanings depending on context.

But THE SYMBOLS don't have to agree with their meaning. I can use CAT to refer to canines.

In a particular language they have consistent meanings - unless it is a case of ambiguity.... then context can help...

As a code, as a joke, as an acronym for Canines Assisting Talkers, whatever.
The symbol won't care. The person (or device) that i am talking to needs to understand the meaning attached to the symbol in context.

Yes - it is about language including computer languages - and they can be partially compatible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Off hand I'd say that the meaning roughly refers to the implications.

But the implications are in your head. If you see meaning in the stars, that's you. That's not the stars. So such 'evidence' is the viewer's subjective reaction. See above: complexity.

I'm talking about is a consistent connection between a symbol (such as a shape, sound, DNA base,

[Fail]

computer code) within a certain tradition or "language" and something else usually not inherently related - e.g. machine code (1s and 0s) can correspond to the operation like "jump" and "increment" - depending on the CPU.

These connections are not consistent, though. I have two brass objects on my desk. If i tell a sailor to go get my 'screw' he will return with the propeller shape.
If i tell a person with no Navy experience and little mechanical experience, they will bring the other object. But that is a bolt, not a screw. These connections remain in the interpreter's head. Not intrinsic to the shape or object.
And completely unlike DNA.

Finding symbolic information within snowflakes could be called "Apophenia"

wait you said information IS symbols.
Now symbolic is a type of information?
And you started this by a response to information found in snowflakes. You said not much, not that it wasn't there.

[Genuine information like DNA objectively involves information.

Please, either define information or stop using the word to define information. And if you are using 'information' to indicate a code with symbolic elements, DNA is objectively not that kind of information.

Detective work isn't the kind of information I'm talking about...

How the fuck are we supposed to know?

The definitions of "information":

1. facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"

I can learn about snowflakes. But learning is contained in my head, not the snowflakes.

2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

I'm talking about definition 2....

Which doesn't really help show that DNA has more information than a pile of dirt. How do you measure information?

I'm talking about the 2nd definition....

So am i. If we find a hand-drawn circle in the dirt on Mars, that conveys LOTS of information, by the arrangement of an artifact where no one could possibly be. Thst's loads more info from that piece of dirt than from the DNA in the snot i just blew out my nose.
It shakes up everything ewe think we know about a whole planet! The snot likely has no surprises, will inspire no papers, no fights sst seminars, no careers made or broken.

the information comes from there being a meaning for the elements. If DNA wasn't in a cell with no other context it would seem quite meaningless.

So, you assume there is meaning to the chemical arrangements that are not arbitrary, nor symbolic.
What is 'meaning?'

So are you saying that it would be impossible for UUU to mean valine in a parallel universe?

Nope. Not what i am saying. And the UUU is our attempt to label the DNA. Do not confuse it for an actual language.

Is the table of DNA correspondence I quoted the only possible way it could have been - even if the early history of the universe had changed?

Nope. Not what i am saying.

In DNA there is machinery that translates triplets into amino acids. Is there a similar mechanism that translates the structure of a snowflake into something very different? (DNA base pairs are very different to amino acids).

That's not what i asked.
But, clearly you're prosecuting your argument from complexity...

Well let me know if you find some logical fallacies.

Why? Do your own homework. I check my own spelling.

I'd say that words are symbols. And yes symbols like the word "they" can have multiple meanings depending on context.

Yep.

In a particular language they have consistent meanings - unless it is a case of ambiguity.... then context can help...

"Buxom" used to mean "cooperative, compliant."
Servants sent to get a buxom wench were after a willing sex partner for the boss.
It has inconsistently come to mean "big boobies."

See also, gay.

Pulling the steering cable on the axle suffers no such inconsistency. The wheels do not interpret the meaning of the cable, they move as directed because they have no choice in the matter.

Yes - it is about language including computer languages - and they can be partially compatible.

You are seriously underserved by people referring to DNA as a code.

 

[excreationist]

@Keith&Co.

Here is the definition of information that I will use:

2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.​

"genetically transmitted information"​

Not:

1. facts provided or learned about something or someone.​

"a vital piece of information"​

Let's look at DNA.... consider U, C, and G.... depending on their arrangement or sequence they can mean very different things: (edit: this is actually RNA)

UCG - Ser
UGC - Cys
CUG - Leu
CGU - Arg
GUC - Val
GCU - Ala

The dictionary's example of "genetically transmitted information" seems to be talking about DNA.

Like DNA, English, computer data and computer code are based on the arrangement or sequence.

The physics changes if you change a snowflake or random pile of dirt but that is different to changing some base pairs in DNA and resulting in an albino or something. Do you see how becoming an albino is a big jump and that is possible due to DNA base pairs meaning something other than their regular physics? DNA can also have fatal mutations... due to problems with the resulting amino acids. Computers can crash due to errors. Human speech can be meaningless. Can snowflakes or random piles of dirt have a similar problem?

So are you saying that it would be impossible for UUU to mean valine in a parallel universe?

Nope. Not what i am saying. And the UUU is our attempt to label the DNA. Do not confuse it for an actual language.

Is the table of DNA correspondence I quoted the only possible way it could have been - even if the early history of the universe had changed?

Nope. Not what i am saying.

You said "DNA chemicals are not arbitrary".

DNA and RNA codon tables - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apparently DNA involves AGCT while RNA involves AGCU.... it seems arbitrary whether you use T or U....
But the corresponding amino acids seem to be consistent....

And, what makes DNA "symbolic"? It's chemicals that cause chemical changes. Calling it information, involving symbols, seems to be stacking

Computers translating between types of information is just physics.... so is a human brain translating between symbols and associations. I think every example of information and symbol processing involves mechanistic machinery.... even maths on a blackboard (involving a brain) - rather than having some kind of non-physical mind like Christians think God has.

Nope. Not what i am saying. And the UUU is our attempt to label the DNA. Do not confuse it for an actual language.

Uracil ("U") refers to a pattern of molecules.... surely UUU is showing that there are three of these molecules in a row.... it is just short hand. Like a person's name.

 

[excreationist]

@Keith&Co.

I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_a...lternative_codons_in_other_translation_tables

It shows that the translation between DNA/RNA and amino acids can change in some species.... so they are partly arbitrary....

 

[bilby]

Complexity doesn't prove god. Snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes each exhibit order and apparently complexity despite there being nothing but natural forces in their design. Just because something appears to show complexity, when you have billions of years to develop, stuff happens.

What about "information"? If snowflakes or tornados were changed a lot there wouldn't be much of a meaningful difference (assuming the snowflake was still symmetrical).... but if you randomly changed a lot of some DNA it would probably stop working.... same with a play by Shakespeare - there are a lot of valid English plays but if you randomly changed the letters most of them would be meaningless.

'Entropy' is the precise antonym of 'information'; The one is the opposite of the other.

And as you (apparently without understanding that it was directly and specifically relevant to your response) snipped:

For crying out loud, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution... in fact, entropy is the basis for evolution!

So, what about information? It's just the same question as 'what about entropy?' looked at from the opposite direction.

Information is what evolution does. Local increases in information (reductions in entropy), driven by global reductions in information (increases in entropy).

Your "insight" has been to identify that evolution is just like evolution!! (gasps in amazement).

It's the kind of revelation that can only arise in a person who totally failed to understand the phenomenon they are discussing.

 

[excreationist]

Complexity doesn't prove god. Snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes each exhibit order and apparently complexity despite there being nothing but natural forces in their design. Just because something appears to show complexity, when you have billions of years to develop, stuff happens.

What about "information"? If snowflakes or tornados were changed a lot there wouldn't be much of a meaningful difference (assuming the snowflake was still symmetrical).... but if you randomly changed a lot of some DNA it would probably stop working.... same with a play by Shakespeare - there are a lot of valid English plays but if you randomly changed the letters most of them would be meaningless.

'Entropy' is the precise antonym of 'information'; The one is the opposite of the other.

Yeah I thought I heard something like that.... perhaps it is like my example of a pile of random dirt. But I didn't know enough about entropy to talk on the topic...

And as you (apparently without understanding that it was directly and specifically relevant to your response) snipped:

For crying out loud, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution... in fact, entropy is the basis for evolution!

So, what about information? It's just the same question as 'what about entropy?' looked at from the opposite direction.

Information is what evolution does. Local increases in information (reductions in entropy), driven by global reductions in information (increases in entropy).

Your "insight" has been to identify that evolution is just like evolution!! (gasps in amazement).

It's the kind of revelation that can only arise in a person who totally failed to understand the phenomenon they are discussing.

My point wasn't about proving whether evolution is guided or not, it is about the difference between the "order and apparent complexity" of snowflakes and tornados vs information systems or whatever you'd call the systems of DNA replication and translation....
I assume that a tornado is an example of entropy... though I don't really understand entropy. BTW I thought entropy can be measured - does that mean that the information content can also be measured? Like a snowflake vs some DNA? Though perhaps this measure of information content is different to the amount of meaningful information (that is encoded/symbolic information)

Entropy (information theory) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[excreationist]

Perhaps another feature of information is that it can be replicated.... Like DNA, RNA, computer information, names and words, and books. If the symbols can be replicated then the information is completely and faithfully copied. (Assuming the decoding system still exists to make sense of the information)

 

[Keith&Co.]

@Keith&Co.

I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_a...lternative_codons_in_other_translation_tables

It shows that the translation between DNA/RNA and amino acids can change in some species.... so they are partly arbitrary....

Think of music. Notes on a sheet symbolize actions taken with an instrument. The musician sees the songwriter's intent, with accompanying notations, and tries to reproduce it.

Think of a music box. Bumps on the drum strike keys and produce notes. The action of the drum is mechanical. A bump in a certain position will make a certain note.
There's no ''symbol' involved in the box'soperation,. The keys do not interpret the bumps. If some debris gets stuck to the drum, it will produce a note just like the official bumps.

DNA is chemicals that initiate chemicals in dependable ways. Researchers use symbols to map it, but UUU could have been AAA. No need for an alternate universe, just different researchers. But the chemical reactions would bd the same.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Perhaps another feature of information is that it can be replicated.... Like DNA, RNA, computer information, names and words, and books. If the symbols can be replicated then the information is completely and faithfully copied. (Assuming the decoding system still exists to make sense of the information)

But now you've lost your distinction. We can model snowflakes.
Mathematically map out all the possibilities in any flake's formation as compared to the way each one actually formed.