Your Best Argument for God's Existence

[Baroodi]

You learned this in high school, didn't you?
I assume you've has some basic biology courses.

No, I am talking a bout a point in time when the biology curriculum was unrevealed to humans.

 

[Jollybear]

This atheist is an ex-Christian.

Why you an ex christian?

 

[Jollybear]

Did you decide if chupacabre is real?

Havent decided on that one. But, aliens, definately real. My mom saw the triangle UFO.

 

[Audie]

The first to speak Greek was descendant from Noah the son of Adam
The first Poodle and Adam were God Creation (Be and it will be) God Almighty, the omnipotent, The creator of this amazing universe
(The Sun should not overtake the Moon, Nor the night should overrun the day. each is swimming in an orbit) Quran; Chapter Yaseen; verse 40.

Right.

 

[Jollybear]

This is not a viable definition. It is wishy washy and basically meaningless. Not enough information, I guess, lol. For instance it does not tell you how to measure information. For information is physical, it can be measured in bits or in energy/temperature.

Ok....we can measure information by letters, symbols, numbers, codes, pictures. Or if something is reading or communicating it. Thats what happens with the DNA. The cell reads the information from DNA and goes to work doing the instructions.

Information is, as a first approximation, the minimum amount of bits that would totally specify the state of a system, or message.

For instance, a structured string, like for instance the string composed of all the lines of a book, contains vastly less information than a string of the same length whose characters are completely random and uncorrelated.

I dont understand?

And this is because, ceteris paribus, structure requires less bits to be specified than randomness, in general. For instance, lossless compression of a book takes much less space than compression of a random string of the same initial size.

I dont understand?

Are we on the same page? If not, please tell me what definition of information you are using.

Ciao

- viole

Ok, from my simple understanding, theres two kinds of information, communicated or read and gathered.

If i wanna know if a rabbit is in my yard, i gather that information by going to look. If i see a rabit, then i have gathered the information there is one. If theres not, then ive gathered the information theres not. Its not the type of information thats read or communicated. Its gathered.

In the case of our dialogue on the forum, its information to and fro thats read and communicated.

The DNA appears to he a communicative type of information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why you an ex christian?

Because I was once a Christian, and now I'm not.

Actually, I decided one day that I was going to read the Bible in it's entirety. Which I did. That's when I started moving away from Christianity because I didn't find it particularly moral, and in fact, found large parts of it quite repulsive and terrible. Also, I didn't think it made much sense.

 

[viole]

Ok....we can measure information by letters, symbols, numbers, codes, pictures. Or if something is reading or communicating it. Thats what happens with the DNA. The cell reads the information from DNA and goes to work doing the instructions.



I dont understand?



I dont understand?



Ok, from my simple understanding, theres two kinds of information, communicated or read and gathered.

If i wanna know if a rabbit is in my yard, i gather that information by going to look. If i see a rabit, then i have gathered the information there is one. If theres not, then ive gathered the information theres not. Its not the type of information thats read or communicated. Its gathered.

In the case of our dialogue on the forum, its information to and fro thats read and communicated.

The DNA appears to he a communicative type of information.

Ok, I assume you have no background in information theory.

So, I try to understand what you mean with information. It sounds more like complexity, or the inverse of entropy, or something intuitive that you have. I assume you mean the inverse of total chaos, or something like that. Something that has structure and so on.

You say: can random errors produce information (your version)?

Yes and no.

Let’s make a small gedanken experiment.

Consider a string of 1000 bits. The bits are totally random and there is no correlation between them. Total entropy.

Now suppose that errors act on this string like this

1) a random position on the string is chosen
2) 1 or 0 is randomly chosen
2) the bit at that position is replaced with that random choice

So, a bit at a random position is either flipped or overwritten with itself (no change), randomly.

Now what happens if zillions of such errors act on that initial string? Simple, the string will remain, with extremely high probability, totally random. Still total entropy.

But now suppose that the string blindly follows the following algorithm:

1) if an error flips a 1 into a 0, the error is discarted
2) if an error flips a 0 into a 1, the new error is accepted
3) if an error leaves that bit unchanged than it does not matter

What do you think it will happen to that string after zillion of totally random errors (with extremely high probability)?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jollybear]

Because I was once a Christian, and now I'm not.

Actually, I decided one day that I was going to read the Bible in it's entirety. Which I did. That's when I started moving away from Christianity because I didn't find it particularly moral, and in fact, found large parts of it quite repulsive and terrible. Also, I didn't think it made much sense.

Sounds like you wer NOT a christian at all.

I was not a christian before reading the bible. I BECAME one AFTER reading it. So, for us, it was the complete opposite.

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, I assume you have no background in information theory.

So, I try to understand what you mean with information. It sounds more like complexity, or the inverse of entropy, or something intuitive that you have. I assume you mean the inverse of total chaos, or something like that. Something that has structure and so on.

You say: can random errors produce information (your version)?

Yes and no.

Let’s make a small gedanken experiment.

Consider a string of 1000 bits. The bits are totally random and there is no correlation between them. Total entropy.

Now suppose that errors act on this string like this

1) a random position on the string is chosen
2) 1 or 0 is randomly chosen
2) the bit at that position is replaced with that random choice

So, a bit at a random position is either flipped or overwritten with itself (no change), randomly.

Now what happens if zillions of such errors act on that initial string? Simple, the string will remain, with extremely high probability, totally random. Still total entropy.

But now suppose that the string blindly follows the following algorithm:

1) if an error flips a 1 into a 0, the error is discarted
2) if an error flips a 0 into a 1, the new error is accepted
3) if an error leaves that bit unchanged than it does not matter

What do you think it will happen to that string after zillion of totally random errors (with extremely high probability)?

Ciao

- viole

I have to apologize, but i still dont understand.

Like, my sentence above here ^ its communicated information. It has a meaning. Each word has a definition and the whole sentence has a purpose.

 

[viole]

I have to apologize, but i still dont understand.

Like, my sentence above here ^ its communicated information. It has a meaning. Each word has a definition and the whole sentence has a purpose.

Information is communicated information? That is a circular definition.

First you have to define the terms precisely before you can even talk about them. Particulary, you have first to define information precisely before you can talk of communicated information.

There is a precise definition of information. For instance Shannon definition. But I doubt it corresponds to what you have in mind, whatever that is.

So, first question, how do you measure it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps DNA could be better understood as code.

 

[Jollybear]

Information is communicated information? That is a circular definition.

First you have to define the terms precisely before you can even talk about them. Particulary, you have first to define information precisely before you can talk of communicated information.

There is a precise definition of information. For instance Shannon definition. But I doubt it corresponds to what you have in mind, whatever that is.

So, first question, how do you measure it?

Ciao

- viole

Definition of INFORMATION

What about that definition?

 

[Jollybear]

Perhaps DNA could be better understood as code.

Code, ok, thats fine. Codes still imply intelligence.

 

[Valjean]

Code, ok, thats fine. Codes still imply intelligence.

Definition 2, yes, not 1, the commonly understood meaning.

 

[Jollybear]

Definition 2, yes, not 1, the commonly understood meaning.

?

 

[Valjean]

?

OK, make it "b" then. See link, post 152.

 

[viole]

Definition of INFORMATION

What about that definition?

Definitions. Which one do you want to use?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Firemorphic]

Actually, I decided one day that I was going to read the Bible in it's entirety. Which I did. That's when I started moving away from Christianity because I didn't find it particularly moral, and in fact, found large parts of it quite repulsive and terrible. Also, I didn't think it made much sense.

I'm not a Christian but I find it utterly confusing that people like you exist (not as a pejorative). The least thing a scripture-based religious person can do is learn their scripture well, I know it's not the case for the less-educated types or those with really short attention spans but it's quite standard practice.
You practice a religion = You learn the scripture.

Did you ever read any commentaries by early Church fathers or later Christian philosophers to gain a wider understanding as to how the Bible (within Christianity) has been interpreted over the last 2000 years?
This stuff baffles me quite honestly.
Certainly in my atheist years I strongly detested the Bible and thought it was immoral and all other manner of nonsense but once I later on got a whiff of understanding (both exoteric and esoteric) of the contents of the Bible, I was simply not able to hold that position anymore. Regardless of not being a Christian (this was before I became a Muslim too).
Or even taking the "old" testament (the Tanakh) and looking at it through the lens of Jewish theology, tradition and esotericism. There are lots of active things a person can get to understand a text. One man may have an opinion but there will always be more else to see, both around it's inception and in the history since.

I think your case though does highlight a thing I see in all religions and cultures (secularly) is that there are just so many 'yesmen' that once they ask what they're saying 'yes' to, they jump out all confused and agitated. It's a problem that could be cleared up quite simply if people were more easy to assess the multi-factors of any given topic instead of initial impressions or forcefed dogmas.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not a Christian but I find it utterly confusing that people like you exist (not as a pejorative). The least thing a scripture-based religious person can do is learn their scripture well, I know it's not the case for the less-educated types or those with really short attention spans but it's quite standard practice.
You practice a religion = You learn the scripture.

Did you ever read any commentaries by early Church fathers or later Christian philosophers to gain a wider understanding as to how the Bible (within Christianity) has been interpreted over the last 2000 years?
This stuff baffles me quite honestly.
Certainly in my atheist years I strongly detested the Bible and thought it was immoral and all other manner of nonsense but once I later on got a whiff of understanding (both exoteric and esoteric) of the contents of the Bible, I was simply not able to hold that position anymore. Regardless of not being a Christian (this was before I became a Muslim too).
Or even taking the "old" testament (the Tanakh) and looking at it through the lens of Jewish theology, tradition and esotericism. There are lots of active things a person can get to understand a text. One man may have an opinion but there will always be more else to see, both around it's inception and in the history since.

I think your case though does highlight a thing I see in all religions and cultures (secularly) is that there are just so many 'yesmen' that once they ask what they're saying 'yes' to, they jump out all confused and agitated. It's a problem that could be cleared up quite simply if people were more easy to assess the multi-factors of any given topic instead of initial impressions or forcefed dogmas.

Yes, I have done these things, though I don't think they're required. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, none of this should be required. It should stand alone as the most moral, insightful, intelligent compilation of books that ever existed. That is simply not the case at all. To me, it's clearly written for and by a specific group of people in a specific time period in our distant past before we knew most of things things about our world that we currently know.

And I cannot reconcile my views on morality with the slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. that I find when I read the Bible. Nor do I think it could be the words of any gods.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds like you wer NOT a christian at all.

I was not a christian before reading the bible. I BECAME one AFTER reading it. So, for us, it was the complete opposite.

Oh but I was ... once. And actually, I've spoken to many atheists who drifted toward atheism after taking the time to read the Bible.