So I read selfish gene and was sold that we are indeed machines hard wired by our DNA...

So I read selfish gene and was sold that we are indeed machines hard wired by our DNA. Then I read the Blind Watchmaker and I'm thinking of getting confirmed as a Catholic. It just seems like the unpredictability of life stems from our lack of higher understanding. Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/god-necessary-or-noncontingent.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_differentiation
youtu.be/ir5Q0-kswmU
vocaroo.com/i/s1OL5casF67P
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

thats a pretty vague statement. no doubt any appearantly unpredictable event ceases to be so once you understand it, because the ability to predict what will happen in a certain scenario is generally an important part of understanding.

Probably. Im about to take breeding and genetics so I think in the next year or so I'll start to develop a clearer image on how DNA replication works

Read The Extended Phenotype.

Dawkins was once guud. Then he wrote The God Delusion.

Read The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics

There are many flaws in Selfish Gene. You'll pick them out over time.

There can be two completely valid yet different reasons as to why life on Earth exists.

So he wrote shit books? He also wrote good ones, even after that.

>So I read selfish gene

>>>/reddit/

Sometimes yes

>hard wired by DNA
Nah. DNA determines what we look like, but environment for sure determines what we do. We wouldn't have anything to react to, form memories with, and make decisions about without it.

What are some flaws?

>confirmed as a Catholic
stop going backwards

you can only go forward towards God user

*tips fedora*

You have no clue what that means, do you?

waste of quads for your deluded preaching

The gene-centric view of organisms gives agency to genes which runs counter to known evidence. By anthropomorphizing genes, we come to think that they are actors on the level of organisms but this is plainly not true.

Gene-gene interactions are another factor that weren't considered but play a significant role as genes not only turn each other on/off but also interact in non-linear ways.

Don't get me started on memes as replicators. That's just terrible horseshit.

Dawkins is a forceful writer and speaker. Genes are very important, of course. But he overstates the case, quite convincingly, I might add.

You have to look at the bigger picture to get a sense of how things work. Genes work in a collaborative network that is far more complex than simply trying to ensure their own survival. Epigenetic changes occur that have significant impact and can be passed down for generations as well. If you locate genes within networks and those networks within organisms and locate those organisms within a physical and social environment and adequately account for each factor, you'll have a more complete picture.

Without doing so you risk committing the mereological fallacy.

Yaneer Bar Yam also had some critique on the selfish gene concept.

Bar Yam is a cool guy. He was doing serious work on chaos and dynamical systems long before it was vogue. I had the pleasure of listening to his presentations and talking to him.

He does have a formal critique of the selfish gene as a mathematical model.

Theologian: Dawkins takes a very naive approach to actual dilemmas in my field...

Dawkins: It's made up bullshit. A person or persons made it up.

Theologian: No, no. You see, it's a little more complicated than that. You see...

Dawkins: It's MADE UP. They didn't have science, so they MADE SHIT UP.

Theologian: Really, you're being rude and insensitive to billions of believers. If you'd only...

Dawkins: IT'S TOTALLY MADE UP BULLSHIT.

Theologian: OKAY. It's MADE UP, all right? But...uh...what's the harm in people believing in fantastic bullshit?

I mean, really?

Right?

>implying this is how Dawkin's argues

What I find interesting about religion is that it seems to connect people around what we call consciousness ergo "God" so I believe there to be some validity to the feelings but the stories are mostly fables

naw, what we do is also determined by dna. we've got decisions coded in and what interaction with environment causes expressions of the code.

>naw, what we do is also determined by dna. we've got decisions coded in and what interaction with environment causes expressions of the code.

Oh, so there's a DNA for English, and a DNA for Japanese. T-thank you, senpai.

>my field

Wow.

Please state one inductive logical premise for believing in the existence of God.

I've never heard one.

I'm also ignoring falsifiability in asking this, therefore I'm going out on a limb.

You have no idea what dubs, trips and quads mean do you?

It's really not that far off.

I mean, they are kind of both right. Dawkins tends to oversimplify religious beliefs, but it is totally made up bullshit nevertheless.

in a sense yes. what language you learn would be environment but would cause epigenetic expressions. we've got the capacities for things like language wired in but environment determines what and how it's expressed within those capacities.

>I've never heard one.
I suspect you are lying here and this is some straw man bullshit you've created in your head. But I too am going to go out on a limb and take the b8, as it were;

>the unnaturalness of nature (the fine-tuning cosmological argument)
>the logical and consistent failure of the many worlds hypothesis to counter the above statement
>the mystery of the origins of life on Earth (i.e. the lack of any transitional fossils in the lead up to the Cambrian explosion etc. despite extensive searching)
>the principal of morality, which can't be adequately explained by evolution and only a fool would think it could be.
>the complexity of DNA and the lack of any body plans in the genetic code (not proof of a God, just proof that you, Dawkins and most of the atheist plus evolutionists down even know or understand their own field, which is tantamount to being wrong overall)

Multiple theological arguments including Aquinas's prime mover theory, which in some ways is a precursor to string theory (which Kaku says is much like God), also the God is either necessary or non-contingent argument, which is very good and I'm sure you won't like at all;

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/god-necessary-or-noncontingent.html

These are only a small few...

>>the unnaturalness of nature
Lol.
>(the fine-tuning cosmological argument)
Models have changed, and will change again. Never take a model as a literal description of nature. Irrelevant.
>>the logical and consistent failure of the many worlds hypothesis to counter the above statement
Many worlds is bullshit, Copenhagen is bullshit, information-based is king.
>>the mystery of the origins of life on Earth
What if it wasn't on Earth?
>>the principal of morality, which can't be adequately explained by evolution and only a fool would think it could be.
That's some bullshit.
>>the complexity of DNA
Are you serious?
>>and the lack of any body plans in the genetic code
READ A FUCKING BOOK, HOLY SHIT. Your misunderstanding here of how DNA works is a complete fucking embarrassment. Recommendation: The Art of Genes by Enrico Coen.

>>the principal of morality, which can't be adequately explained by evolution and only a fool would think it could be.
Are you talking about the actual principles of ethics or the question of why humans created ethics? Because evolution can explain the latter, although the explanation starts to border on (gasp) sociology. However I often see arguments along the lines of
>if there is no God then there is no absolute moral authority
>there is an absolute moral authority because my feels tell me so
>therefore there is a God and if you disagree you are probably a murderer or something and therefore not worth listening to

>Lol
Not an argument (Cern scientists and all cosmologists have been struggling with the concept of unnatural nature for a while now. Look it up.)
>Models have changed, and will change again. Never take a model as a literal description of nature. Irrelevant.
Models? What models? And why is this important at all. Fuck your lack of content is disturbing.
>Many worlds is bullshit, Copenhagen is bullshit, information-based is king.
That's sort of what I'm saying. Glad you agree with me.
>What if it wasn't on Earth?
Again my point.
>That's some bullshit.
Not an argument. You really suck at this don't you?
>Are you serious?
Are you retarded?
>READ A FUCKING BOOK, HOLY SHIT. Your misunderstanding here of how DNA works is a complete fucking embarrassment. Recommendation: The Art of Genes by Enrico Coen.
Do you have a better and more succint source, like a scientific study? If what you say is true and we understood how DNA influenced the body plans of animals then I think that would he a major revolutionary, which should be all over the newspapers or at least accessible without reading your shitty book. Thanks.

Yeah, I agree that the moralistic argument is a hard one to get your head around. It was actually the last one I looked into, and for percisely the reasons you stated that it didn't sound too convincing. It is late now, and I'm tired. So I hope you will understand that I can't get into such a complex subject here. However, I think that any attempt at a scientific explanation, or anything approaching one in this instance has been really poor and not at all convincing in my opinion on a broader philosophical level and certainly not from a water tight scientifical level. That's how I see it, anyway.

>Not an argument
I wonder why I responded to the next half separately...
>Models? What models? And why is this important at all.
??? How can you complain about fine-tuning without understanding how physics WORKS?
>That's sort of what I'm saying.
Except that you seemed to portray it as the only option.
>Again my point.
Your point seems to be that it was supernatural. Mine is not.
>Not an argument.
Neither was yours. It was rhetoric.
>Are you retarded?
Complexity of DNA does not imply it did not arise naturally. This is completely non sequitir.
>Do you have a better and more succint source, like a scientific study?
I thought you might appreciate something understandable to someone who is uneducated in biology.
>If what you say is true and we understood how DNA influenced the body plans of animals then I think that would he a major revolutionary, which should be all over the newspapers or at least accessible without reading your shitty book.
My shitty book explains the sources of its reasoning. Many historic experiments with gene mutations and their effect on cellular development in both plants and animals. Try reading before you proclaim that it's an unexplainable fucking mystery. There is no study that conglomerates many other studies into a theory. I'll just say that it has to do with chemical concentrations activating gene sequences, and their dispersion throughout cellular division, influenced by both internal and external factors. This allows differentiation in many different regards, from orientation to layering and pattern formation. Entirely formed by the combination of DNA and the environment.

Actually I do recall something about them growing human ears on mice and such. That doesn't really fit into body plans necessarily, but it is close and something worth looking into in order to continue to falsify hypotheses, like what is or at least should be normal in the sciences.

Stop jumping around looking for group identity, and investigate what the problem actually is and what we really know.

For what it's worth, there isn't actually any inherent conflict between evolution and creationism. It might well be a species that came before advanced to a point where it was capable of genetic manipulation and screwed around a bit, or aliens. Then the cooling period receded and many of their cities sunk into the newly marsh-like terrain, eg Death Valley in Siberia.

Etc. Just investigate the matter and look at the full spectrum of possibilities. That evolution occurs is pretty much a base truth though, don't get the wrong idea.

>Do you have a better and more succint source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_differentiation

This isn't it at all, the DNA determines where and what initial neurons are formed, but a soon as you start using those neurons they get moved around and reattached in order to represent your new situation.

What your talking about are called "phantom," or "ancestor memories" of what we call them when talking about non-human animals "instincts"

Christian science assumed humans don't have instincts because they were made by God, but we're learning now that anyone with the dna of ancient ape species most definitely do have instincts

We're also learning that the race put here by (ayylmaos) God is almost blended out, and even if you appear to be that race, you still have ape DNA in you

I'm not complaining anout fine-tuning I think it is just as worthy as any other hypthesis given the data. And doesn't proclude physics from working or figuring out how it works. Why would it?
>Except that you seemed to portray it as the only option.
I'm not portraying anything as the only option, read the above and Why do you only promote materialism and not consider other options in a frank and respectful way?
>Your point seems to be that it was supernatural.
Again with the assumptions. What about what I said implied the supernatural? And how does your theory of pan-spermia or aylmaos solve anything without simply pushing the boat out further.
>Neither was yours. It was rhetoric.
See >Complexity of DNA does not imply it did not arise naturally. This is completely non sequitir.
False premice. You asked for inductive reasoning. There is a good case to be made that DNA is far too complex to have originate on its own. Not the only argument, obviously, but a strong one. One of its discoverers, who was an atheist, could only explain it by resorting to aliens again, which as I have pointed out is a weak argument. But God is also an alien in a sense, just none material.
Thank you good, sir. I will read this with interest.

A giant collaberation of chain reactions of molecules gained chaotic motion, and therefore sentience while manifesting through space and therefore time. It realized it itself moving was the result of space and time and began articulating itself accordingly. After becoming mesmerized with itself, it broke into what it assumed were individuals in order to further drive the illusion of not being alone. Now it has been too long, and it forgot it did that. Here we are now.

>And how does your theory of pan-spermia or aylmaos solve anything without simply pushing the boat out further.
Pseudo-panspermia at best is my suggestion, not ayylmaos and probably not full-blown panspermia. Sometimes a likely explanation raises more questions. Just how it is. Perhaps we'll find evidence for abiogenesis on Earth instead.

The whole morals argument is stupid in my opinion as it seems the majority of the planet can't wrap their minds around the fact that morals are not objective. People think that because we generally agree murdering our own kind is bad, we have a full set of morals embedded in us. Some of it is sympathy/empathy (which has evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole), most of it is societal.

>You asked for inductive reasoning.
I've made two longer posts and the one wiki link post when I was unsatisfied with the latter, I did not ask for inductive reasoning but perhaps someone earlier did.

>There is a good case to be made that DNA is far too complex to have originate on its own.
I'd like to see that in modern times, without a massive bias.

>One of its discoverers, who was an atheist, could only explain it by resorting to aliens again
A massive discovery leads to some shock. There are plenty of reputable scientists who have thrown up their hands and proclaimed some bullshit when faced with something they did not have an explanation for. It's taken us a while to really even get started on DNA. I would suggest that most know better by now.

Anyway, I'm quite tired and that's probably the extent of my input here.

Not sure if this really produces enough information to prove the idea that DNA alone determines body plans, especially not the range of body plans seen over all of the phila. were all to have originated within a single DNA prototype then something else would be needed to determine that. Natural selection alone is not strong enough, neither is random mutation. There are of course other alternatives, but they aren't well understood.
DNA, as far as I'm aware, deals with the production of proteins. These proteins go off and interact with the cells in different ways, but not all of those ways are determined by their DNA either. It is a more complicated issue clearly than you can possibly portray by any glib link. In order for your statement to be true, it requires extraordinary volumes of data, and I don't really see them on that page. Also an example of how this system has been successfully and repeatedly manipulated to create new body plans would also go a long way to giving what is suggested in the article a practical basis in reality.

>I'd like to see that in modern times, without a massive bias.
Modern day evolutionary science is massively biased though, so don't expect that from them any time soon. It is simply too un-PC to talk about those things in biology, I would say you'd get your funding cut, if you didn't loose your job outright.

I think that it is just obvious by looking at what DNA does that it is mindblowingly complex and requires something quite extraordinary to explain how that might have come about. That and the fact that I don't believe that DNA is the whole story to live and evolution just makes things more interesting and fun to think about for me.

This is great.

>and requires something quite extraordinary to explain how that might have come about.
It really doesn't. The universe is a big machine full of stuff that does stuff. But not any stuff, stuff will only do certain stuff it can do in accordance with its nature and immediate environment. Once you get a base particle system behaving a certain way, it can readily expand itself. Because that's how it works. It doesn't have a choice anymore than a fire (incomplete combustion / oxidation) has a choice to burn until completion.

It's really not that big a deal. The complexity you're seeing took billions of iterations layered on top of each other. Nature has no requirements for existence beyond working. It only has to work. And it does.

There are some unsolved matters about exactly how and why, but the base philosophy has no real issues. It's about as natural and coherent as it comes. Think of the universe as a grand finite state machine, fully of patterns and clusters.

>the unnaturalness of nature (the fine-tuning cosmological argument)


Evolution via natural selection has relieved biology of such a quandary and the many worlds hypothesis (which will be indirectly confirmed if inflation proves to be accurate) has lifted this burden off of the shoulders of cosmology.


>the logical and consistent failure of the many worlds hypothesis to counter the above statement.


The various interpretations of the many worlds hypothesis imply an infinite number of universes arising from quantum energy density fluctuations, which would give rise to a natural selection of sorts pertinent to universes.


Those which have the necessary conditions for matter to form will go on to form stars, planets, organisms and eventually conscious observers.


This is an extension of the anthropic principle.


>the mystery of the origins of life on Earth


This is an argument from ignorance and therefore a logical fallacy, as well as a ‘god of the gaps’ argument, which sophisticated theologians flatly reject.


>(i.e. the lack of any transitional fossils in the lead up to the Cambrian explosion etc. despite extensive searching)


We are lucky to have any fossils at all.


Fossils are rare, as certain conditions must be met in order to preserve an organism through fossilisation and these conditions are actually rather rare themselves.


For example, whatever is being fossilized must first not be eaten or destroyed and most carcasses are scavenged by other animals or face decomposition; an organism needs to undergo rapid burial in order to fossilise, which is extremely rare in nature.

>the principal of morality, which can't be adequately explained by evolution


The subjective experience of morality can be explained by the presence of psychological mechanisms, governing an array of behavioural programs, which developed in response to the adaptive problems humans faced throughout their evolutionary history.


That is to say that, emotions relating to morality such as guilt may be explained as mechanisms complimentary to social and sexual strategies, i.e. in order to reinforce reciprocal altruism or a long term mating strategy.


An underlying infrastructure of objective morality has been probed by variants of the trolley experiment, which has shown that transcultural moral absolutes exist.


For example, bringing a previously uninvolved third party into a potentially dangerous situation is considered universally immoral.


However, research on morality is limited and therefore we still have much to learn.


> and only a fool would think it could be.


This is an appeal to ridicule which is logically fallacious and a little immature, user.


>the complexity of DNA and the lack of any body plans in the genetic code (not proof of a God, just proof that you, Dawkins and most of the atheist plus evolutionists down even know or understand their own field, which is tantamount to being wrong overall)


This can be rephrased as: we do not understand exactly how genetic and epigenetic coding translates into a living organism.


Again: a fallacious argument from ignorance and a ‘god of the gaps’ argument.


Furthermore, the theory of evolution deals with the development of complex lifeforms following on from simpler predecessors.


It does not deal with the biochemistry of abiogenesis or microbiology of the cell.

that's what i'm saying but i said it a bit bluntly. what i mean by coded in is that response to a situation is predictable given knowledge of the initial state of the genes. disregarding the extent of heritability, there are some behaviours that are specifically hard-coded in from predecessors which would be "instinct". epigenetic expressions and the degree of freedom with which these neurons get to move around is also determined by genetics.
this guy said "environment for sure determines what we do" and they do in the sense that an outcome is created in response to environment but the response itself is determined by DNA. nurture can only express outcomes within the limits of nature

>maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/god-necessary-or-noncontingent.html
>But if God is a necessary being, then he cannot not exist
>if


That’s a deductive argument, which lacks an inductive premise.


I specifically asked for an inductive premise.


>Aquinas's prime mover theory


The notion of a first cause dissipates when one considers that the dimensions of our universe came into existence after the Big Bang, including time; the entire notion of causality breaks down.


However, even if we ignore that and accept causality and the dimension of time as a constant (we have no reason to do so, therefore I am engaging in deduction for your sake), there is no logical reason to suggest that any form of conceivable God would terminate the infinite regress implied by causality.


>a precursor to string theory (which Kaku says is much like God.


Kaku’s surmising on the back of string theory has no reflection on string theory itself.


That’s his personal interpretation, which again lacks an inductive premise.


user, I didn’t expect you to reject evolution as the majority of professional theologians accept it, including the Catholic Church.


Anyway, not one inductive premise has been provided, nor has any logically viable argument in favour of theism, which disappoints me as I am genuinely interested to know if there are any.


I have yet to discover one logically viable argument in favour of theism.

>I have yet to discover one logically viable argument in favour of theism.
The existence of the universe.

I'm not religious nor a theist, and you might not like it, but there ya go. It's one point on a greater spectrum of possibility that has not, and maybe cannot, be ruled out.

>The existence of the universe is a logically viable argument in favour of theism.

'The existence of the universe' is not an argument, user.

Formulate an argument concerning the existence of the universe and theism, then post it here and I will consider it.

Everything we know of requires a means to exist and function, logically, the universe can be viewed as being no exception. Likewise the laws it's composed of do not yet seem to be defined in a way that is self contained within the universe. Therefore it could be said that the universe is being generated by something else, maybe some sort of machinery. Perhaps it has something we would know as a creator, perhaps not. Perhaps we lack the means and mental faculty to even generate thoughts or models that would be correct.

I don't care to converse about it. But there it is such that you may consider.

Well, you clearly didn't read my posts:

>Aquinas's prime mover theory

>The notion of a first cause dissipates when one considers that the dimensions of our universe came into existence after the Big Bang, including time; the entire notion of causality breaks down.

>However, even if we ignore that and accept causality and the dimension of time as a constant (we have no reason to do so, therefore I am engaging in deduction for your sake), there is no logical reason to suggest that any form of conceivable God would terminate the infinite regress implied by causality.

Therefore:

>I have yet to discover one logically viable argument in favour of theism.

Why does the notion of the first cause dissipate?

>Well, you clearly didn't read my posts:
No, I didn't read your obnoxiously formatted posts. Given that you're so confident, I might pick through it later and figure if there's anything worth harvesting.

Also:
>I don't care to converse about it. But there it is such that you may consider.

>Why does the notion of the first cause dissipate?

The dimensions of our universe came into existence at the big bang; these dimensions consist of three spatial dimensions and one time.

If time breaks down at the big bang, then causality must break down and therefore the notion of a first cause becomes erroneous.


>I don't care to converse about it. But there it is such that you may consider.

I both considered and refuted it.

It doesn't have to be. That's kinda the point. The idea of a specific deity is fucking retarded. It doesn't require a real hard amount of thought. You can't say we wouldn't be better off without religion.

>I both considered and refuted it.
You did neither.

>Everything we know of requires a means to exist and function, logically, the universe can be viewed as being no exception

This argument is based on causality and is a variant of Aquinas’ prime mover.

This has been addressed twice now:

>No, no. You see, it's a little more complicated than that

Seems more like you get heavily influenced by whatever swings through your transom, old boy.

Trash explanation. Lmao. I thought you'd have a far better explanation.

And not one refutation was made.

This guy loves men. Stay away unless you want AIDS.

The religious mind, ladies and gentlemen.

Notice how he doesn't deny he loves men. I can hear the cum dripping from his ass from here.

Solid argument.

The interesting thing about anonymous image boards is that people tend to assume they have very little power, but it's actually quite the opposite. A single individual's behavior, if done consistently and over time, can completely shift the dynamic of a given board. I've done this unintentionally, drove me a bit mad. Eventually people can recognize you solely by your language patterns, and it's not actually as easy to mask it as you might expect. That's when it's time to leave and stop ignoring problems in your life.

Either way. The difference is obvious after you start posting, and do so consistently. A single individual does have wide, branching impact. You are being controlled, and you are controlling.

I've noticed this effect on Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, and /g/. Someone even recognized me on lainchan.

>DNA alone
No, it also depends on the environment. For an easy example, mammalian species depend on the environment of the womb in order to begin the very earliest stages of development from single cell to complex organism.

>especially not the range of body plans seen over all of the phila.
In a lot of ways, it LOOKS like more variation than it is. The same overarching patterns find themselves repeated in different places where they take on new uses.

>These proteins go off and interact with the cells in different ways, but not all of those ways are determined by their DNA either.
Those ways are determined by the concentration in a particular cell (which is controlled by other proteins activating the gene sequences associated with the protein), the shape of the protein, and the shape of the other things the protein could interact with.

>It is a more complicated issue clearly than you can possibly portray
Yes.

>glib link.
It's a start. I suggest you READ, not just this article, but many.

>it requires extraordinary volumes of data
DNA HAS extraordinary volumes of data. Not to mention that the complementary structure of the DNA doubles the amount of data, and that codons are not "aligned" in any set way which further triples the amount of data.

>Also an example of how this system has been successfully and repeatedly manipulated to create new body plans
This comes from studying a massive array of mutations across both plants and animals of many species as well as damaged embryos, over decades, to find what makes the difference between a feature developing or not.

Two arguments against the Prime Mover.

God came before the Big Bang.
Time (and therefore causality) do not exist before the Big Bang.
The Prime Mover argument can't be used in this scenario since it relies on causality.

God was the first thing to exist after the big bang.
The Prime Mover argument holds, but the essence of God is corrupted since he is no longer the creator of the universe.

Not sure where to go from here but there's no way your fairytale bearded man exists.

You're making false (semantic) dilemmas here.

The Creator does not meaningfully come "before" anything, it exists apart from the universe or our notion of time and space. You don't put it on the timeline, it exists in a greater scope and is likely in no way slave to the logic afforded by our universe and its laws.

If the universe is being generated by something, obviously our notion of anything and everything is completely irrelevant. Which is the real reason people don't like the argument, it hinges on a valid piece of logic that makes it apparent there may be things we simply cannot have access to, and can't find means to reason about. It just is.

I wouldn't bother arguing with him. Lol. How can you use logic to convince someone when they don't use logic?

>I assume premises, come to a conclusion.
>lel he doesn't use logic

Right.

No the user you're replying to, but just to clarify:

So you agree that, there's no logically viable reason to accept the belief in God(s)?

He just needs to become comfortable with the idea of something being "outside of" or "not universe", and that all of the logical axioms that appear to apply here might not apply "there". If it can be described like a location. Without the means to think a thought, a mind will not think it. The means might not exist for machines in this universe to generate thoughts approximating how it works "out there".

I'm not religious. If someone put me into the theist - atheist framework, they'd probably say I'm an agnostic or an atheist. In reality functionally I'm less than either.

I don't think there's any reason to have "faith" in the notion of mono/polytheisms, but don't generally think about it much in those terms. Logically the probability any religion is correct and meaningful is extremely low. Their ideas must be chewed up, reduced to base elements, and expanded to a spectrum of other possibilities. Like polytheistic religions describing several advanced AIs controlling the weather, growing people in tanks and precisely controlling their development to fit certain roles in society, controlling their communications to lead them through contexts that will control the data in their head they have access to. Etc. And these cities that hadn't already began to crumble sank into the Earth when the glaciation cycle began to fade. Etc.

A lot of my answer is irrelevant to your question. The answer is yes, knowing much of anything about anything makes rigid belief in a given religious framework nonsensical.

>No, it also depends on the environment
The environment must be a factor, but the environment is even less like a directed process than DNA itself, which is highly complex and directed. The environment is a factor on why you decide to wear a coat to work, but it is not a rational logical factor, and so cannot be said to contribute either to your decision making process or the manufacturing of the coat itself. This is basic.
>In a lot of ways, it LOOKS like more variation than it is.
In a lot of ways, the life currently existing on Earth is only 4% of the total species that existed at the Cambrian explosion, so you argument is as irrelevant now, as it was back then.
>the shape of the protein, and the shape of the other things the protein could interact with.
All you have in DNA is protein coding. There is no information there which can be identified as how to construct a body plan, unless it resides in the remaining junk dna, which all thought says it doesn't. This means that in some respects the body plan and the interrelation of the cells is an emergent factor going on above the level of the cells and possibly above the level of the organism. It isn't logical to deduce otherwise, so why do it?????

>It's a start. I suggest you READ, not just this article, but many.
I agree with this, but I actually think that you MISUNDERSTAND what we're discussing here, what I wrote above will give you pointers.

>DNA HAS extraordinary volumes of data.
Again misunderstanding. I've said this already, I'll say it again. Nowhere in the codons is there the body plan information to get all of these tiny molecules working together on such a massive task, let alone giving it the extra 'OS' needed to generate a completely new lifeform like macroevolution requires. It simply doesn't exist. It reminds me of the idea of a computer being incapable of running a simulation that includes itself, if you know what I mean. It would be huge amounts of stuctural data.

You do realize that it's more than than kind of dumb to assume you can reasonably say anything about a God with logic, right?

In celebration
> massive array of mutations across both plants and animals of many species as well as damaged embryos, over decades, to find what makes the difference between a feature developing or not.
Oh I don't doubt it is a monumental task, just as was digging in the ground all over the planet for more than a century looking for proto-transitional fossils. A negative result is still a result. It tells you something; like maybe your assumptions were bullshit in the first place. Same goes for DNA body plans. When I first suggested it you were like "HOLY SHIT read a book" as if it had all been worked out and was sitting there on a shelf in black and white, just no one knew about it. And now you are still saying the same thing, I think (?) with the addition of ; Yeah they figured all this stuff out, but they still don't know how any of it works yet, and it will take a long time before they figure any of it out". Is this what passes for arguments in highschool these days, or even college? Or perhaps you mispoke.

This fundamentally misunderstands the concept of the primer mover. The prime mover argument does not alone encompass the big bang, but all phenomena. Let me rephrase, all phenomena occurring right now. The prime mover is responsible for the occurence of the events happening right this second, in an ongoing, directed process, just as string theory does.
Also the first cause on an infinite time scale would break causality, because how can there be a first cause without something else having occurred it? This is not an argument against God however, because the premise of God is that he is causless and eternal, therefore he is the only candidate for a prime mover. As such he wouldn't have a beard or live in a fairtale, but I know how much you want to be beat off to your big rainbow daddy bear fantasy. So don't let me stop you.

Is the lay public going to do that thing they like to do where they latch onto an outdated scientific concept and refuse to let go of it for like three decades. Kind of like they did with blank slate in sociology or right/left brain in psychology. Why does physics never have this problem? Why no people obsessed with the aether?

Anyone who believed in tabula rasa, ever, unless they were very young, was unsalvageably moronic. This is an omnipresent fixed constant within the human species. Tabula rasa + >=~20 = retarded.

Physics has the same problem. Most physicists are half braindead morons so overspecialized they couldn't figure a realistic perspective of the inside of a paper bag. They don't care, they just want to get their degree and do their thing. Which is why they sponge up irrational nonsense like the Copenagen interpretation of QM, and just stick with it. And don't even get me started on a physics phd's delusion when it comes to biological systems. They don't know shit but convince themselves they do.

Fuck people. Planck is, always was, and may always remain right. Progress is a series of funerals.

>it's more than than kind of dumb to assume you can reasonably say anything about a God with logic

>rejoicing in ignorance

So does God have a beard or not

>Why no people obsessed with the aether?
youtu.be/ir5Q0-kswmU

vocaroo.com/i/s1OL5casF67P

lulz

Why would one assume an all powerful being would be constrained by logic? The only reason I can think of is so they can then use logic to play with the idea, but that isn't a inherently reasonable approach.

I don't believe in God(s), but this assumption is useless at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Unironically agree.
Also, God is always in us and we in Him.
Amen.

> God is always in us and we in Him.
Only if you're gay.

Why would one assume an all powerful being in the first place?

What is power?

Why don't you ask these questions, user?

>Why would one assume an all powerful being in the first place?

Because human mind is shaped by authority since birth. Once we transcend our parents we need something to fill the hole of meeting your heroes and seeing them not better than you.

God might be totally different entity than what we thought of Him in religion. Not authoritarian figure at all.

>Power is freedom.

>Why don't you ask these questions, user?

I am answering them now.

Thoughts?

>Why would one assume an all powerful being would be constrained by logic?

Why would someone assume that an all-powerful being even exists in the first place?

>The only reason I can think of is so they can then use logic to play with the idea, but that isn't a inherently reasonable approach.

This is exactly what theologians do; they use logical reasoning to contemplate the nature of a being whose accepted existence has absolutely no logical grounding.

>intellectually dishonest at worst


Intellect: the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters.


Why would you speak of intellect, while rejecting the use of logic when contemplating absurd and irrational a priori arguments?

You’re so fucking dense.

You're an idiot, user.

You truly are an idiot.

Not an argument, and I do not intend to even touch the content of your post.

But seriously, you are a moron.

>Once we transcend our parents we need something to fill the hole of meeting your heroes and seeing them not better than you.

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>Then I read the Blind Watchmaker and I'm thinking of getting confirmed as a Catholic

>God might be totally different entity than what we thought of Him in religion.

What is the basis for accepting a belief in a God(s) in the first place?

wat?

Can u rephrase?