Assumptions, Part 5

Thanks for joining the continuing saga of Nick Rogers, responding to my post, over at the Religious Dispatches article “Atheist Monument: Proof of Unintelligent Design!”

Here’s my response (his post quoted in italics):

“Many of your links don’t work, so many of your arguments simply amount to blind assertions that I am making a blind assertion.”

I have corrected the links. Take a look at them.

However, when you say “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god,” pointing out you making a blind assertion WHEN YOU ADMIT TO IT IN THE TEXT OF THE ARGUMENT YOU MAKE is not a blind assertion.

Please take some time to educate yourself on the definition of blind assertion.

“I’m not a creationist in the contemporary meaning of the word, nor am I an advocate of “intelligent design” theory as it is currently.”

So sorry that I mistook you for a creationist, it’s only that your actual content of your argument is the same as every other creationist.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

“Neither am I inclined to trust the objectivity of a website solely devoted to challenging creationist claims. Seems like an open invitation to skeleton man arguments.”

You are a creationist. You believe that your god created the universe and everything in it. Of course you won’t be honest enough to trust the objectivity of a website devoted to challenging creationist claims.

“I concede the point. Does this deal with the problem of inanimate matter spontaneously organizing itself into a code? No.”

But you have no problem with inanimate matter spontaneously organizing itself into the parts to make a code.

“Its ridiculous to talk in these terms beacuse this assumes a false dichotomy between what is natural and super natural.”

Since you failed to demonstrate that your god, or for that matter, the supernatural, exists, it is ridiculous to take you seriously.

You said “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.” That is an Argument from Ignorance. You might want to familiarize yourself with that.

“I think genetic material and life itself came into being through probably quite natural mechanisms which are still miraculous in the sense that they cannot possibly be explained simply through the deterministic interactions of inanimate matter.”

Then you lied to me when you claimed that your god created DNA. If DNA came into being by natural mechanisms, then why did you claim that DNA proved your god?

“In a sense, DNA developed on its own beacuse of God.”

No, you can’t have it both ways. You failed to provide evidence for your god or the supernatural and you stated above that “genetic material and life itself came into being through probably quite natural mechanisms”

No god is necessary for “quite natural mechanisms,” while at the same time you felt free to state “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.” Which is it?

“The fact that the entire Universe was configured in such a way so as to give rise to animate matter implies that there was something “animate” about the root of the universe itself.”

Sorry, but we only agreed that the universe exists and you failed to provide evidence that your god exists.

“Something cannot come from nothing”

If that is true, then where did your god come from?

“1 cannot come from 0”

If that is true, then where did your god come from?

“animate consciousness cannot come from inanimate matter.”

If that is true, then where did your god come from?

“This may seem like a blind assertion to you but I challenge you to demonstrate exactly how it is.”

If that is true, then where did your god come from?

Why don’t these three arguments also apply to your god?

“This is not the spontaneous organization of inanimate matter into animate matter. This is animate matter taking in inanimate matter and making it animate. Since your link about life (or in this case, animate beings) not being required to make life doesn’t work, I have no idea what your argument is.”

If that is true, then where did your god come from?

Again, I’m forced to conclude, by your own writings, that the reason you believe “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god” is one great big Argument from Personal Incredulity and another big Argument from Ignorance.

“For one thing, this displays a common misperception about the natural universe. There is no such thing as randomness.”

Really? You’re going to go with that?

Science and mathematics recognize that randomness exists. Please, please, please, get some education.

“Inanimate matter and its interactions are completely deterministic; I would argue that the biological world is the same up to a point.”

When then you are also arguing that animate matter and it’s interactions are completely deterministic.

“We simply lack the ability to comprehend all of it; that does not make it “random”. Indeed, Randommess is at its core a construct of the human mind.”

Bullshit. BULLSHIT. Randomness is not a construct of the human mind. Again, by your writings, I conclude that your beliefs are a big pile of Argument from Ignorance.

“Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is simply a matter of our own flawed perceptions, not things as they actually are.”

BULLSHIT. You know nothing about quantum mechanics if you say that.

“Moreover, the formation of driftwood on the beach is simply a reconfiguration of inanimate matter through inanimate deterministic processes. And it also simply leads to an infinite causal chain. Driftwood got here beacuse wave did this beacuse moon orbits this way and wind went that way and the water got there beacuse…blank blank blank.”

Even though it may be deterministic, it is never the same. Take 100 pieces of driftwood and reset to the same initial conditions 100 times and you’d get 100 different complex patterns of driftwood on the beach.

“First of all, it created the chemical components of life.”

Thanks for admitting that. If it is possible in the laboratory, then why should I believe it when you say “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

“At the root of my material being, //snip//”

Blah, blah, blah. By your writings, I see just another Argument from Personal Incredulity. Why should I believe you when you say “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

“Moreover, the creation of basic organic compounds in a laboratory amounts to intelligent rational creatures manipulating inanimate matter in such a way as to create the desired result, organic compounds.”

Feel free to read the experiment. I have. At no point do they manipulate the matter. They simply set up the experiment to run and collect the results.

“Do you realize how that exactly proves my point?”

No it doesn’t. Remember, your point was “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“If Scientists replicate early earth conditions and then do something to create organic compounds, the essential problem with this being an argument for pure materialism is that the scientists did not exist in the early earth.”

Yeah, you’re wrong. You do realize that experiments are used to test hypotheses and that the methodology used means that creating initial conditions and then letting the experiment go is how we find stuff out, right?

Are those scientists actually in the experiment? No, they are not. They are observing the results of the experiment. Any reasonable person can see that setting up a box that contains the initial conditions of an early earth is equivalent to the initial conditions of an early earth.

“This is a misrepresentation of my two “explanations”. I am not offering an explanation here, I am saying what had to take place.”

True, you aren’t making an explanation or saying what takes place. You said “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

You have failed to provide the evidence that your god exists. You point blank asserted it did. Argument from Ignorance.

“Life/Genetic material could either have existed from the git go or been created later.”

Or could have developed later via, as you stated in the text above, “through probably quite natural mechanisms”

Creation is not necessary. You said it yourself.

“I offered no explanation,”

True, no explanation, just “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“I am simply looking at those two necessary options and arriving at certain conclusions.”

Yeah, and your conclusion turns out to be “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“Your argument depends on the blind assertion that my argument is a blind assertion. Please elaborate.”

You said “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.” By reading your very own words, I see that your position is an Argument from Ignorance.
Wojtek_the_bear_037

Advertisements