if Bill’s posts were written by a random word generator, they would be hardly less coherent.
3 Likes
With Apologies to @colewd, Bill often asks questions that are ill-defined, then others eagerly jump in to answer as if the question is well-defined, and discussion often goes downhill from there. This is not entirely Bill’s fault. It would help to ask for clarification of the question before responding.
I’ll start. 
Bill, what probability calculation do you mean, because I see no calculation here. Do you mean some atheistic counter to (something like) Dembski’s CSI?
Also “the assertion”. That a negative can never be proven? That there is no evidence? It would really help if you could make your questions more than just one-liners.
1 Like
They’re not?
I recommend this site, which I’ve just used to generate this:
What facts are you referring to? That certain proteins can be found through a random search? Can we explain the dynamic changes to make unique populations?
But this is silly isn’t it? The recent scientist in Japan wrote a paper that found the same protein was in many forms and that a gene fragment was used. We have been claiming this for quite some time.
That every kingdom is unique? No. So if you have certain parts of the genome associated with certain organisms, do you then take that and use that information to determine the structure of a complex…
6 Likes
What probability problem? It is the theists who have a probability problem.
2 Likes
Pretty much all of them.
Certain proteins aren’t needed. The objective falsehood of your assumption is illustrated by some obvious evidence you resist embracing–the polymorphism of human MYH7, the main protein causing your heart to beat and keep you alive while reading this.
Yes, the evidence does.
2 Likes
Disagree. It’s entirely Bill’s fault, and it never helps to ask for clarification, because he never clarifies. But good luck to you.
6 Likes
Spookily accurate.
1 Like
And, as you predicted, more coherent. The Prophet Speaks!
And don’t forget to write if you find work! Paid work, that is…
Can you support this claim beyond personal opinion?
I mean supporting the claim that God or a creator is a low probability. Any attempt could start a conversation.
So far the claim is there and the discussion has not moved past personal opinion.
The appropriate probability here is the conditional probability. That is, the probability that life arose via X, given that life is known to exist.
As far as I know, the three plausible explanations (i.e. options for X) are: natural abiogenesis, panspermia, magic poofing.
There has never been an observed instance of magic poofing. So, no matter how you look at it, that one comes out with a conditional probability of zero.
5 Likes
This requires that there be observable consequences of God or creation. Neither is a well-formed hypothesis, so it’s hard to find any evidence. I make the unfortunately vague assumption that God/creation would have visible consequences. For example, if fiat creation were a thing, we ought to occasionally see stuff poofing into existence. If God were active in the world, we ought to see some evidence of his actions. But that may not fit your conception of God. It’s a problem.
5 Likes
What probability problem, and how does “the ID argument” solve it? What’s the probability that a designer created X? If you’re going to say one thing A is a more likely explanation than another thing B, then you’re going to need to show me two probabilities so that I can compare the two. And while on the topic of that, show your work. How do you get the numbers?
But remember Bill, on the topic of probabilities, you say:
So I think it would be reasonable of us to expect you to show how you calculate the probability that X was designed and created. Right? I mean, it’s pretty clear that you think claims about probabilities should be put to paper, otherwise they’re “just a swag”.
3 Likes
We know of a mechanism that can create functional complexity de novo and that is a mind. We know human minds have this capability. We can observe the creation of functional complexity by human minds so the prior probability of the cause being a mechanism as powerful as a mind is almost certain.
Just because we cannot directly observe the event does not mean we cannot infer cause. The abiogenesis hypothesis has not established any viable probability of being true and panspermia only kicks the can down the road.
Abiogenesis which is the only alternative is nowhere because there is not an identified mechanism that has a reasonably probability of being the cause.
Beyond the origin of matter and the origin of life we have all living innovation (sight, flight thought etc) to explain. Ultimately intelligence being a primary cause is a logical known alternative.
This offers very strong support for the viability of theological alternatives.
2 Likes
That doesn’t matter. The probability of magic poofing is still zero.
It allows for the possibility that the cosmos always contained life, in which case there need not be an event where life came into existence.
Evolution seems to explain that very well.
1 Like
Hi Rum
Probability problems occur when the proposed mechanism is not powerful enough to explain the observation.
Minds can create functional information leading to complex structures. The mechanism is powerful enough and removes the probabilistic barrier.
1 Like
How do you define “magic roofing”?
This is the claim that the universe and life is a brute fact. I hope you can see that reasonable people will try to understand more and not just settle for a brute fact being the explanation.
It does not explain it well at the molecular level. The origin of the genetic information to build an eye, flight, etc is at best an incomplete speculation. The origin of the genetic information to build these structures is again speculation without a complete model.
There is also no clear path from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell beyond incomplete speculation including endosymbiosis as a partial explaination.
1 Like
Provide a single example of a mind alone creating functional information. Or creating anything.
3 Likes