The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by OregonJim I would define "ordered information" as something arranged in a sequence or pattern that can be "transmitted" from one thing and "understood" by another. An example would be DNA. To further define "understood", I mean that the receiving end 'decodes' the information and uses it for a specific purpose defined by the information itself.

How can the information define its own purpose? Doesn't the very idea of "purpose" already presuppose an intelligent agent?

"Intelligence" is much harder to define in a terse way, but a loose definition would be "A source of thinking and reasoning".

That's too fuzzy; I doubt a sufficiently precise definition can even be given.

Originally Posted by ntubski How can the information define its own purpose? Doesn't the very idea of "purpose" already presuppose an intelligent agent?

Very good! Now if only you could convice a few more scientists of that...

They are finally recognizing that the addition of information (increased complexity) requires an intelligent agent. Some day, it will dawn on them that the very existence of information also requires intelligence.

Petrified trees show rings which record how many years the tree existed and if many are available a modicum of weather information, insect infestation, drought, etc can be deduced yet trees are not intelligent at least in a way that humans define it. Even non-organic things record/contain information like rocks, stars, WMAP, and black holes. There is no intrinsic purpose except to the intelligence attempting to extract the information.

However it looks to me that some here, the faithful, use what is called "circular logic" often an accomplice to "proving the book by the book". This all just goes to show that a person that adheres to strict rules of evidence and logic cannot converse intelligently when deductive reasoning and critical thought are required since at the very least we don't really speak the same language and since "faith" essentially equals 'unassailable knowing" to the faithful, much like The Borg Prime Directive, "You will be assimilated (or made to wish you did comply) Resistance is Futile. Sigh. That's why they're called "Sacred Cows" and not "Scientific Cows". Witness the above twist on "purpose" implying "intelligence" is not seen as "poisoning the well" but instead as proof.

Originally Posted by Merriam_Webster_Dictionary Definition of sacred cow : one that is often unreasonably immune from criticism or opposition

I think that it's more appropriate to say that one is a philosophical approach, while the other is an analytical approach to the same problem mystery.

When framed in those words, I think that: (a) neither one exists at the exclusion of the other. (This is not Harry Potter.) And, (b), both are valid. We can't escape the fact that "science only goes so far," and that "it does not go nearly far enough."

"Religion," "faith," and "philosophy" are not "scientific," nor were they meant to be. They're meant to go places that science cannot go.

There will always be "that gap," and people who prefer one side or the other tend (IMHO) to mis-construe that gap. There is no "scientific evidence" for a religious interpretation of that evidence. But, neither is there place for adhering to science "to a 'religious' degree." You're just not gonna find a "unified field theory" of science-plus-religion. We humans think about the same problems in different ways. Sometimes we "look up at the stars" and see quasars, neutron stars, and black holes. Sometimes we "look up at the stars" and see God.

Sometimes, it's the same "we."

Originally Posted by enorbet Petrified trees show rings which record how many years the tree existed and if many are available a modicum of weather information, insect infestation, drought, etc can be deduced...

OregonJim has already shown that his "ordered information" can't be defined without reference to intelligence, so any example of information you present that doesn't involve intelligence will obviously be rejected as "not ordered".

Are magnets smart or did a fairy tail make them act that way?

We define life, art and stupidity -- enjoy...

Crystals have such ordered to them that must mean something,,, ya your *!

Originally Posted by enorbet Petrified trees show rings which record how many years the tree existed and if many are available a modicum of weather information, insect infestation, drought, etc can be deduced yet trees are not intelligent at least in a way that humans define it. Even non-organic things record/contain information like rocks, stars, WMAP, and black holes. There is no intrinsic purpose except to the intelligence attempting to extract the information.

That is an example of historical data, not the transmission and reception of information within and among living organisms. I will agree with you that there is 'information' contained within organic and in-organic materials, but recorded information has no 'function' or 'purpose' in and of itself (yet it still requires intelligence to 'decode' it). We were discussing ordered information that has a 'purpose'. In other words, information that is integral or beneficial to the functioning of the thing using it.

Originally Posted by enorbet However it looks to me that some here, the faithful, use what is called "circular logic" often an accomplice to "proving the book by the book". This all just goes to show that a person that adheres to strict rules of evidence and logic cannot converse intelligently when deductive reasoning and critical thought are required since at the very least we don't really speak the same language and since "faith" essentially equals 'unassailable knowing" to the faithful, much like The Borg Prime Directive, "You will be assimilated (or made to wish you did comply) Resistance is Futile. Sigh. That's why they're called "Sacred Cows" and not "Scientific Cows". Witness the above twist on "purpose" implying "intelligence" is not seen as "poisoning the well" but instead as proof.

In one breath, you mention Christianity (living by the 'book'), in the next breath you compare it to Star Trek, and finally you draw a conclusion from Hinduism for both. Is that an example of proper deductive reasoning to you? Sadly, I think it is.

Originally Posted by ntubski OregonJim has already shown that his "ordered information" can't be defined without reference to intelligence, so any example of information you present that doesn't involve intelligence will obviously be rejected as "not ordered".

And obviously you were wrong - see above. I did not reject it because it was not 'ordered'. If you have trouble with what I mean by 'ordered information', cite a few of the 30 or so references I gave from scientific journals.

Recorded historical data is nothing more than that. You know as well as I do that we were talking about information that is useful (has a 'purpose') to the things actually carrying the information, not 'useful' to some outside observer (who must also posess intelligence to decode the information).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhg785L8s5I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfUX...&nohtml5=False

I remember as a kid trying to wrap my head around something or one always existing... what a stupid waste of thought.
The IT Crowd. Best Scenes 1- Denholm's- War!
https://youtu.be/JBmN_tisl9M

Originally Posted by OregonJim And obviously you were wrong - see above. I did not reject it because it was not 'ordered'. If you have trouble with what I mean by 'ordered information', cite a few of the 30 or so references I gave from scientific journals.

A quick google of the first five names cited show them all to be advocates of Intelligent Design. Couldn't be bothered to check the rest.

Move along folks, nothing to be seen here.

Originally Posted by netcrawl A quick google of the first five names cited show them all to be advocates of Intelligent Design. Couldn't be bothered to check the rest. Move along folks, nothing to be seen here.

Hmm, a large percentage of the scientific community advocates intelligent design. That was kinda the point.

So, rather than go beyond 'google' and actually check out some science, you choose to remain in a self-centered world of 'this-doesn't-interest-me-so-it-must-be-wrong'. That should be thought provoking to you...

Originally Posted by OregonJim Hmm, a large percentage of the scientific community advocates intelligent design. That was kinda the point. So, rather than go beyond 'google' and actually check out some science, you choose to remain in a self-centered world of 'this-doesn't-interest-me-so-it-must-be-wrong'. That should be thought provoking to you...

Intelligent Design is at best pseudo-science, and indeed does not interest me.

As H. Allen Orr wrote in an article in The New Yorker in 2005, "As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics.".

OregonJim if you actually think that list constitutes "a large percentage" on a planet with nearly 8 BILLION people on it and it is estimated that there are 30,000 professional scientists working in the USA alone, then seriously you need a deep rethink. Sp-called "Intelligent Design" is just rebranded Creationism that suffered defeat around the time of the Scopes Trial in 1925, just shy of 100 years ago.

In 2007 proof of this rebranding (which had been denied by The Discovery Institute (the main organization behind the push to legalize "Intelligent Design Science" <that term turns my stomach> and it's publishing subsidiary) occurred when a researcher looking through manuscripts being readied for publishing by the Discovery Institute's publisher, discovered earlier versions containing the word "Creation" and in each and every subsequent case "Creation" was literally crossed out (in an interim version this was literally true! they crossed out "Creation" and wrote along the top instead, "Intelligent Design"! all the while denying it! Not since the Jesuits of Guy Fawkes time have religious zealots utilized outright, baldfaced lies and deception defended even in the case of sworn testimony in court in both cases. Needless to say Delaware Court Officers were frustrated and angry when the truth came out about such blatant perjury, though I don't recall that even one of them was ever incarcerated, unlike the Jesuits of Guy Fawkes time.

Forgive me if I have zero respect or interest in such hypocritical liars <sarc> other than working to stop them cold whenever they try to break the Separation of Church and State while corrupting our children's education in Public School, or worse as in this case, in textbooks themselves and actually pushing for an altered definition of Science to justify teaching Creationism alongside Science and elevating mere zealotry to somehow be legitimized as real Science.



BTW it is not merely data but information which is exactly the reason for the heated controversy over Stephen Hawking's claim that Information was lost in Black Holes. He later revised his claim when jets thrust out of the poles of what are thought to be examples of Black Holes were photographed at near relativistic velocities. Additionally he rethought the idea that just because humans had no way of retrieving that data that "disappeared" once past the event horizon meant that it was Lost in a broader sense. I may be off the mark some on how Stephen arrived at his revision but the point is that both sides of the argument were arguing about Information Loss, not Data Loss. So again, when it comes to actual Science, you are sadly mistaken. Honestly you might consider coming to terms with the fact that you are a man of Faith and decidedly NOT a man of Science, since you really don't comprehend the difference.

See Black Hole Information Paradox

Also I used those various quotes each as an adjective for illustrative purposes to describe what you did as specific kinds of false logic and improper argument. They were not part of a syllogism and the fact that they were from such a wide variety of sources only has a "between the lines" story to a theist since I have no problem using language from any source. The evidence for your disingenuous twisted circular logic lie in what you did and wrote. No deduction was required beyond pattern recognition. You were obvious. I just called you on it as did the one you tried to twist, ntubski, who also "has your number". Don't you see the hole you're digging for yourself?

Originally Posted by enorbet OregonJim if you actually think that list constitutes "a large percentage" on a planet with nearly 8 BILLION people on it and it is estimated that there are 30,000 professional scientists working in the USA alone, then seriously you need a deep rethink. [snip]

The list was merely a tiny representative example, but you knew that. Your only goal in any of your responses is a deceitful attempt to make me out a 'fool'.

Originally Posted by enorbet [snip] Don't you see the hole you're digging for yourself?

I see it clearly - the difference is, I already know where it leads.