Originally Posted by ItinerantLurker

Except, of course, that it does. Google "genetic algorithm".

Reality seems to disagree with your assertions. Reality > your assertions.




Lurker

Thank you for the kind reply.

I must disagree with your presumption, since a genetic algorithm is coded first by an intelligent agent. The code itself is not created or evolved - although several attempts have been made with this idea in mind. With my limited knowledge regarding programming, I would state that letting the source code get modified by a genetic process would be disastrous. In fact, I think von Neumann stated that self-modifying code is an intractable problem - much like our friendly traveling salesman problem.

Therefore, given an agent with intelligence programming genetic algorithms, obviously the conclusion that intelligence is removed from the increase in information is false.

Originally Posted by ItinerantLurker

Going back to the original gist of this thread: it's my position that saying there is "evidence" for the existence of God is simply naive. Tiny particles don't appear to require a God to simply pop into existence; energy needs no supernatural intervention to expand and settle down into matter; matter requires no deity to form stars, moons, asteroids, and planets; planets don't need a God to form atmospheres, organic molecules, or even (apparently) organic molecules that can make copies of themselves. Self-replicating molecules don't need the supernatural to make variations of themselves; and these variations require only natural processes to evolve more and more complex systems.

This is, doubtless, a history that many Christians would reject, nor is it one that I find particularly comforting, but this is the history recorded within the very fabric of our universe. The hard truth is that reality pays no heed to our preferences or the comforting fables we would rather believe about it.


Lurker

Indeed your suppositions have some truth. But the conclusion that God does not exist doesnt follow the premises. Because life is able to replicate without governance does not mean that life was not created in that fashion. It seems that because you dont observe God you deny His existence.

If I may presume, your requirement for evidence seems to be very narrow. You require scientific evidence only, and without it you deny the supernatural. (These are assumptions of mine, so please correct me if I am wrong.) I think were atheists and Christians fail to communicate is on the definition of evidence. I will agree with your premise that science will never prove Gods existence, although you must admit that it will never disprove His existence either.

Given that, we must rely on the many other forms of evidence that exists in human nature. For example, empirical evidence can be used. However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives. Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

In my opinion, science is extremely limited in what it can prove. In fact, science itself states that observations made are affected by the observer interacting in an experiment (see Heisenburg, for examples). Using science to disprove the existence of God, is analogous to spitting in the wind - you can try, but certainly the wind may have a lot more behind it then you think.

Originally Posted by David777

My comment on electricity was an attempt to assist thiscrosshurts in his previous post.

It was not an attempt by me to change the course of the discussion.

I thought that I would clear up this area that I thought was misunderstood.

Dear misesfan, I am well aware that lightning is the result of
electrostatic discharge. You may not be aware that this is
a potential difference, also that the air itself is in effect the
conductor. Lightning is a flow of electrons from the ground up
into the clouds and beyond.

Dear B-A-C, I am a Christian, it was not my idea to introduce
electricity into the debate, read above.

I must provide more information in my posts as I am too brief
at times. This causes problems.

Thank you brother for the reply - my intention was not to be pedantic, but to clarify. I appreciate your instruction.

Originally Posted by misesfan

Thank you for the kind reply.

I must disagree with your presumption, since a genetic algorithm is coded first by an intelligent agent.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. That intelligent agents set up the model is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the model we have in genetic algorithms mimics a completely natural process to produce new information.

With my limited knowledge regarding programming, I would state that letting the source code get modified by a genetic process would be disastrous.

Given that genetic algorithms actually produce results you are once again in the position of denying reality with your assertions.




Lurker

Originally Posted by ItinerantLurker

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. That intelligent agents set up the model is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the model we have in genetic algorithms mimics a completely natural process to produce new information.



Given that genetic algorithms actually produce results you are once again in the position of denying reality with your assertions.




Lurker

Thank you, sir, for the reply
An intelligent actor designing a genetic algorithm is relevant.

I think that we have now crossed the Rubicon in which any point that one makes will simply be dismissed without reason. No productive or enlightening debate can be made in that environment, since simply dismissing an argument as irrelevant without reason does nothing for anyone's enlightenment.

I appreciate the conversation, sir, but I must consider the conversation closed because of intransigence.

Originally Posted by misesfan

Thank you, sir, for the reply
An intelligent actor designing a genetic algorithm is relevant.

Only as relevant as the role of an intelligent actor designing any other model, which is to say - not at all. Someone setting up the computer program does not change the fact that the program itself models a natural process. The natural process is the relevant topic - not the set up of the model.

Of course, since we can also observe this same natural process producing new information in reality your above misunderstanding is moot anyway.

I think that we have now crossed the Rubicon in which any point that one makes will simply be dismissed without reason.

Not at all, I gave a very good reason for dismissing your point in that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. Even in genetic algorithms, the human beings setting up the programs are not causing an increase in information - the increase in information observed in genetic algorithms, as with the increase in information observed in actual genomes, is caused by the wholly natural and unintelligent forces of variation and selection. Claiming that this isn't so because intelligent actors (scientists) set up the model is like saying that an enclosed jar with hot water in it doesn't model the water cycle because an intelligent actor put the water in the jar.


Therefore your claim that "Information never increases without an intelligent agent causing it" is quite easily falsified. Enjoy.




Lurker

Originally Posted by misesfan

It seems that because you dont observe God you deny His existence.

Not at all. Rather, because I don't observe physical evidence for God I deny that there is any physical evidence for god.

However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives.

Where is this observable, empirical evidence that God exists, makes a difference, and is very active in people's lives? I truly would love to see it.

Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

How so? Every culture has stories of supernatural intervention, and every religion attributes events to their deity(s), often to the point that several gods, or versions of god, are claimed to have intervened at the same moment. How do you determine which is the correct attribution?




Lurker

Originally Posted by misesfan

If I may presume, your requirement for evidence seems to be very narrow. You require scientific evidence only, and without it you deny the supernatural. (These are assumptions of mine, so please correct me if I am wrong.) I think were atheists and Christians fail to communicate is on the definition of evidence. I will agree with your premise that science will never prove Gods existence, although you must admit that it will never disprove His existence either.

What kinds of things do you consider evidence? Anything that could actually be used to test, support, or falsify a theory could be considered scientific. I'm not really sure what else we could be talking about.

Given that, we must rely on the many other forms of evidence that exists in human nature. For example, empirical evidence can be used. However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives.

Okay, provide an example that is not explainable by natural processes and not ever ascribed to the action of any other god. There are a few medical "miracles" I've heard of, but they never extend to things like spontaneous amputee healing.

Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

Such as?

In my opinion, science is extremely limited in what it can prove. In fact, science itself states that observations made are affected by the observer interacting in an experiment (see Heisenburg, for examples). Using science to disprove the existence of God, is analogous to spitting in the wind - you can try, but certainly the wind may have a lot more behind it then you think.

Science likely cannot "disprove" the existence of a god, since it is almost impossible to disprove anything. However, science can cast strong doubt on the existence of a god with certain properties often ascribed to him. If God intervenes in the natural world, this is something that should be observed. However, we do not seem to observe this.

Originally Posted by namith

What kinds of things do you consider evidence? Anything that could actually be used to test, support, or falsify a theory could be considered scientific. I'm not really sure what else we could be talking about.

Okay, provide an example that is not explainable by natural processes and not ever ascribed to the action of any other god. There are a few medical "miracles" I've heard of, but they never extend to things like spontaneous amputee healing.

Such as?

Science likely cannot "disprove" the existence of a god, since it is almost impossible to disprove anything. However, science can cast strong doubt on the existence of a god with certain properties often ascribed to him. If God intervenes in the natural world, this is something that should be observed. However, we do not seem to observe this.

Glad to see your nice reply, Namith.
Some examples of reality that are not explainable by the scientific method (and these are pretty standard responses to an old question)-
1) Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven science, since science must assume mathematical proofs are true. You cannot use science to then prove it so.
2) Metaphysical reality - that is, there are external minds that exist outside one's one, or that past was not created when a person born.
3) Ethical beliefs - that murder is wrong, or that love exists cannot be proven with science. Any value system in society cannot be proven with science. How do you show by the scientific method that the Nazi scientists in Germany were evil?
4) Aesthetic judgements - a pretty girl, a delicious steak, a cool beer watching football are good things to many men, but prove it using the scientific method
5) Science itself has many unprovable assumptions - for example, in special relativity the speed of light is constant. Or unknown possibilities - in a given experiment, light will act as a wave or as a particle. (Also see Schrodinger's Cat). In fact physics has stated unequivocally that one cannot observe without changing the experiment in some manner.

What kind of things is evidence that is beyond scientific evidence?
1) eyewitness testimony - always used in a court of law as a legitimate evidence.
2) circumstantial evidence - i.e. something cannot be proven directly, but must deduced logically from the evidence at hand.
3) anecdotal and analogous evidence - which allow people to predict what may occur based on their experiences and other factors. Given that anecdotal or analogous evidence is not as strong as physical or testimonial evidence does not preclude its utility at certain times.

Finally you state that God does NOT intervene in the natural world. There is a ton evidence of the testimonial type that would disagree with you and state for a fact that He has. If you have millions of people state that God intervenes in their life in a real and physical manner, are you simply going to discount this evidence?

And finally, God did intervene in the most direct manner possible in incarnation of Jesus Christ. To a Christian like myself - that is as about as direct of an intervention as you will see. :) (Now, I am admittedly goading you a tad here, and I apologize. But, my undeniable reality is that this is true. Therefore, a Christian I must be.)

So we can conclude that the evidence itself is negotiable depending on the initial assumption(s).

I see the World as created by God, therefore all evidence will support this assumption.

ItinerantLurker will see no evidence for God's existence rather the evidence conforms to a natural origin.

Obviously the next question is what does "natural" mean IL?