Chance vs Intelligent design

[TagliatelliMonster]

‘Beliefs’ can be based on ‘best reasoning’ or ‘faith’.

That "reasoning" is also faith based if it doesn't rely on testable evidence.

I use ‘best reasoning’ as in ‘considering all evidence and argumentation I BELIEVE the defendant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt’.

What evidence?

 

[exchemist]

Complexity is suggestive of intelligent design versus chance (the OP question) but not proof.


Well on Consciousness some of us say more than 'we don't know' and hold it to be fundamental and not created by chance by matter. Again, that is not proof but a controversial position.

BINGO! again: the perennial false antithesis between "chance" and creationism.

As my posts on this thread have been at pains to point out, science does not claim complexity arises from just "chance". It arises from randomness, or "chance" if you like, operating within a framework of order.

If you are inclined to think there is intelligence behind the universe, it is that underlying order that you might point to as suggestive of it. But lose this notion that anyone claims "chance" explains complexity in nature.

 

[George-ananda]

That "reasoning" is also faith based if it doesn't rely on testable evidence.

So, for example, you're telling me we can't even use reason to ever judge a defendant 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'? And that judgment is 'faith and not 'reason'?

Tagliatelli??

 

[George-ananda]

BINGO! again: the perennial false antithesis between "chance" and creationism.

As my posts on this thread have been at pains to point out, science does not claim complexity arises from just "chance". It arises from randomness, or "chance" if you like, operating within a framework of order.

If you are inclined to think there is intelligence behind the universe, it is that underlying order that you might point to as suggestive of it. But lose this notion that anyone claims "chance" explains complexity in nature.

Back it up far enough in a non-thinking universe and that existing framework can only be by chance. So maybe we are in agreement? A framework that allowed this complexity of DNA and life happened by chance to the atheist-materialist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Chance or intelligent design

False alternatives.
Chance is supplemented with emergent properties
stemming from the laws of physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, for example, you're telling me we can't even use reason to ever judge a defendant 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'? And that judgment is 'faith and not 'reason'?

Tagliatelli??

Reason is the process of a mind to come to logical conclusions. From taking input and then drawing conclusions. Building logical arguments.

If that input are faith based premises that aren't based in evidence, then reason is not going to help you - regardles of how valid the reason itself is.

For example:
Undetectable pixies make grass grow.
My garden has grass that grows.
Therefor, undetectable pixies are present in my garden.

The reasoning is impeccable. Nothing wrong with it. Given the premises, the conclusion follows reasonably. But my first premise is faith based nonsense that is not in evidence.

Hence, the reasoning is faith based, and not in evidence.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Of course what I say is not any proof at all that this is true. I respect your opinion.

And I respect yours too. Barack Spinoza and Baha'u'llah were equally God-intoxicated people, seeing their own idea of divinity as themselves and their surroundings. I just side more with Spinoza's God than Baha'u'llah's God. Although I don't always think about God, I consider myself God-intoxicated too, because of how humans have developed just since the time I was alive. I respect your opinion of an intelligent God that created everything, and led to the cause of the modern person. I just believe that divinity is not just held by The Omniverse, or your idea of the Baha God, but rather, God is being developed right now as we progress as a human civilization. That's why I support the Baha'is so much, because they ultimately too also believe that humans are spiritually progressing. Humans exist to create God. God exists to be as benevolent to his creation as possible. Because of these two axioms I developed, humans that create God can thus become the most benevolent force in the entire Universe, and we will be, one day.

 

[George-ananda]

Reason is the process of a mind to come to logical conclusions. From taking input and then drawing conclusions. Building logical arguments.

If that input are faith based premises that aren't based in evidence, then reason is not going to help you - regardles of how valid the reason itself is.

For example:
Undetectable pixies make grass grow.
My garden has grass that grows.
Therefor, undetectable pixies are present in my garden.

The reasoning is impeccable. Nothing wrong with it. Given the premises, the conclusion follows reasonably. But my first premise is faith based nonsense that is not in evidence.

Hence, the reasoning is faith based, and not in evidence.

Well thankfully I don't make that mistake as shown in your pixie example.

I start with the materialist worldview as the base and ask with alleged paranormal phenomena if it can all be satisfactorily explained with the straightforward materialist paradigm. If not, then what are the frameworks proposed by those alleging clairvoyant insight into a greater reality and wisdom traditions based off such (alleged) masters. And how does their understanding make sense of paranormal things versus other models of reality. And further and further into such considerations is how I employ reason here.

Now, that is why I call 'reason' my approach and not 'faith'.

 

[Valjean]

Well thankfully I don't make that mistake as shown in your pixie example.

I start with the materialist worldview as the base and ask with alleged paranormal phenomena if it can all be satisfactorily explained with the straightforward materialist paradigm. If not, then what are the frameworks proposed by those alleging clairvoyant insight into a greater reality and wisdom traditions based off such (alleged) masters. And how does their understanding make sense of paranormal things versus other models of reality. And further and further into such considerations is how I employ reason here.

Now, that is why I call 'reason' my approach and not 'faith'.

Can be explained, or have been explained?
And what criteria constitute 'making sense of', if not the physical mechanisms involved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well thankfully I don't make that mistake as shown in your pixie example.

I start with the materialist worldview as the base and ask with alleged paranormal phenomena if it can all be satisfactorily explained with the straightforward materialist paradigm. If not, then what are the frameworks proposed by those alleging clairvoyant insight into a greater reality and wisdom traditions based off such (alleged) masters. And how does their understanding make sense of paranormal things versus other models of reality. And further and further into such considerations is how I employ reason here.

Now, that is why I call 'reason' my approach and not 'faith'.

If such phenomena cannot be explained by the naturalist paradigm that only means that we may not know enough right now to do so. It is not evidence for your beliefs. You are making the pixie error if you try to introduce the paranormal with no evidence.

What you need to do is to find someone that claims to have paranormal powers and test them appropriately. One thing that the Amazing Randi was good at was that he knew as a magician (or as he would say "an illusionist" since no actual magic was used) that people could often fool others or even themselves. So when he had people set up tests he made sure that the protocols did not allow any cheating. That was why no one ever claimed the prize.

To keep it fair the person making the claims was the one that had to set up the tests. Randi and his organization merely made sure that cheating was not allowed.

 

[George-ananda]

Can be explained, or have been explained?

I would say 'the most reasonable explanations that have been presented (IMO)'.

And what criteria constitute 'making sense of', if not the physical mechanisms involved?

The criteria is best explanatory model for the paranormal things experienced by people.

Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical understanding of reality includes etheric and astral levels that can affect the physical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say 'the most reasonable explanations that have been presented (IMO)'.
The criteria is best explanatory model for the paranormal things experienced by people.

Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical understanding of reality includes etheric and astral levels that can affect the physical.

It does not matter what is reasonable in your opinion, that would include invisible pixies for some, it matters what you can support with observations and evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

If such phenomena cannot be explained by the naturalist paradigm that only means that we may not know enough right now to do so.

Actually we agree there. I am suggesting things like etheric and astral realms are part of the naturalist paradigm that we cannot directly detect with our physical three-dimensional senses and instruments.

What you need to do is to find someone that claims to have paranormal powers and test them appropriately. One thing that the Amazing Randi was good at was that he knew as a magician (or as he would say "an illusionist" since no actual magic was used) that people could often fool others or even themselves. So when he had people set up tests he made sure that the protocols did not allow any cheating. That was why no one ever claimed the prize.

Well, I consider Randi a dishonest showman but let's not do his debate again.

But anyway, let's say 99% of the paranormal events happen unpredictably to people. How does science study anecdotal evidence? The inability to study after the event in a controlled environment does not mean the event didn't happen.

It becomes a matter of reasoned opinion on if there is something in need of further explanation at all. I believe there clearly is beyond reasonable doubt. And that's why I have taken the next step.

 

[George-ananda]

It does not matter what is reasonable in your opinion, that would include invisible pixies for some, it matters what you can support with observations and evidence.

That would be true if I was claiming proof. But I am just claiming 'the most reasonable (IMO) theoretical framework out there'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually we agree there. I am suggesting things like etheric and astral realms are part of the naturalist paradigm that we cannot directly detect with our physical three-dimensional senses and instruments. Well, I consider Randi a dishonest showman but let's not do his debate again.

But anyway, let's say 99% of the paranormal events happen unpredictably to people. How does science study anecdotal evidence? The inability to study after the event in a controlled environment does not mean the event didn't happen.

It becomes a matter of reasoned opinion on if there is something in need of further explanation at all. I believe there clearly is beyond reasonable doubt. And that's why I have taken the next step.

Randi only forced people to try to support their claims. I doubt if you can find an unfair test of his.

But lets go on to your beliefs. You seem to believe that the occurrences are fairly common. And here is the problem, "anecdotal evidence" is not evidence. There are rules to follow if one wants to have reliable evidence. You need a reliable way to demonstrate the paranormal. Take the crazy recordings that ghost hunters make. They appear to be just noise that they apply pareidolia to. One way to check those would be to mix several recordings with what everyone agrees is just white noise and see if a group of people hear anything without any prompting.

Let's say that there were three claimed ghost recordings, mix those in with seven nonghost recordings, have them in a random order with no introductions, just a "Can you listen to these ten recordings and tell us what you hear" request. Anything more than that could be seen as prompting. If when one takes away all context and if no one hears anything you can be rather sure that it was pareidolia that led people to thinking that they heard something.

If you have an example I could suggest some tests. Or you could present some suggested tests and I will point out any flaws in them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be true if I was claiming proof. But I am just claiming 'the most reasonable (IMO) theoretical framework out there'.

But your conclusion is no more "reasonable" than invisible pixies. It is more reasonable to say it is just some everyday process that we do not understand.

 

[George-ananda]

But lets go on to your beliefs. You seem to believe that the occurrences are fairly common. And here is the problem, "anecdotal evidence" is not evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence for consideration in the court of an 'all things considered' judgment. For example a court will consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing) witnesses descriptions of conversations that were not recorded.

There are rules to follow if one wants to have reliable evidence. You need a reliable way to demonstrate the paranormal. Take the crazy recordings that ghost hunters make. They appear to be just noise that they apply pareidolia to. One way to check those would be to mix several recordings with what everyone agrees is just white noise and see if a group of people hear anything without any prompting.

Let's say that there were three claimed ghost recordings, mix those in with seven nonghost recordings, have them in a random order with no introductions, just a "Can you listen to these ten recordings and tell us what you hear" request. Anything more than that could be seen as prompting. If when one takes away all context and if no one hears anything you can be rather sure that it was pareidolia that led people to thinking that they heard something.

If you have an example I could suggest some tests. Or you could present some suggested tests and I will point out any flaws in them.

I am fully on-board with giving paranormal claims the best skeptical analysis possible.

If we want to go on the tangent of Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) I agree with your methodology to separate pareidolia from real EVP. However, in my time I have heard some Class A EVP meaning something everyone hears the same independently. This influences my opinion on the genuineness of the phenomena. Most EVP is not Class A though.

 

[George-ananda]

But your conclusion is no more "reasonable" than invisible pixies. It is more reasonable to say it is just some everyday process that we do not understand.

There we disagree. If someone presents an understanding of reality that much better fits the data than another paradigm, I am going to call the former 'more reasonable'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There we disagree. If someone presents an understanding of reality that much better fits the data than another paradigm, I am going to call the former 'more reasonable'.

Then you are only reasoning irrationally and you should not be surprised when others ignore or even laugh at your claims. In fact by doing so you show that you do not really even believe this yourself. You only want to believe. It is better to want to be right.

 

[George-ananda]

Then you are only reasoning irrationally and you should not be surprised when others ignore or even laugh at your claims. In fact by doing so you show that you do not really even believe this yourself. You only want to believe. It is better to want to be right.

Not seeing how your comment follows from what you quoted from me.

Good day.