Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Actually, I have been accused of wasting precious time, time that could be spent in a bubble bath instead, and I share the same time limitations as other material beings. So rather than wait for the series of objections that is sure to come, allow me to point any open-minded DCUMers to a summary of the Infidels blog debate:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/.

This summary contains all of the objections and responses of the past several years. Of course, the first objection is that DNA is not a code.

I read the thread during a time of doubt. No one has ever believed because of an argument alone, so nonbelievers need not be afraid that faith will sneak up on them. But intellectual honesty is something believers and unbelievers can both benefit from. Enjoy!

Given that the poster you link to never bothers to link to the actual conversation it can be assumed he has no interest in intellectual honesty. I did come across this complete and total evisceration of his argument, though:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/08/atheists-riddle-oh-no-im-so-scared.html

OP, I'm still waiting for you to answer my two riddles, which have more support than your fallacious DNA guy.

I just noticed this statement, which is patently false. He provides a link to the original discussion in the same place he offers his summary:

There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:
1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can’t)
5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don’t)
6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

(Note: for brevity and because of copyright concerns I have edited and / or paraphrased most of the questions, being careful not to change the intent of the message. If you wish to read the full discussion you can do so here. Lest anyone accuse me of re-writing history here on my website, I strongly encourage you to go see the forum for yourself!)


Again, this is just an intriguing discussion I came across. My faith does not rest on it, and my reason is not quite up to understanding all of it. But to have a PP misrepresent Marshall's presentation and accuse him of intellectual dishonesty in the process--not cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cosmic fingerprints guy is a crackpot. I can't get past his page on information theory because he cites Shannon and yet he totally contradicts Shannon. This is not a matter of interpretation. He fundamentally misrepresents information theory. Given that, I don't even see why I would read the rest of his site. His argument has already failed.

Shannon may have begun information theory, but it is still just a theory, his theory. He is not the only information theorist. Why not expand your horizons and explore recent developments? I recall the video rationalist saying that rationalists love to constantly refine their understanding of reality.

I have no personal affinity for Marshall. But I do find it interesting that you deem him a crackpot. Is he a crackpot because he believes in a Designer?

This is utterly ridiculous. I defined him as a crackpot because of how completely he butchered a theory he prominently cites on his own web site. Like if someone claimed that Einstein proved that the earth was only 10,000 years old.

1. This "just a theory" was half of a two part justification for God just a day ago. Now it is "only a theory".
2. Shannon is not just any theorist. He is the inventor of information theory. He is as big as anyone gets in a field.
3. The web site you cited specifically described Shannon's information theory in a way that is the complete opposite of his theory. You might as well have said Einstein believed in a flat earth.
4. Where exactly am I supposed to expand my horizons on information theory? A Dan Brown novel? Have you ever done a single entropy calculation in your entire life? Would you know one if you saw it? If I said "entropy" would you even know that we are talking about information theory. Well some of us understand this field. Some of us have. Here is a very basic, low math introduction. When you understand this, tell me if I need to expand my horizons: http://astarte.csustan.edu/~tom/SFI-CSSS/info-theory/info-lec.pdf

[Anonymous]

^...have actually used it in our work.

[Anonymous]

OP about to sign off for the night. Wish I had the time and the intellect to address each and every point, because they are all valuable to me.

Reflecting on some of the conclusions drawn along the way...as a theist PP said, materialists face some serious consequences from their belief that the material universe is all there is, with no Designer, no intelligence, no goal, no direction. They forfeit the hope for perfect justice. They cannot state anything is objectively and universally wrong. If their evolutionary moment is thwarted, or limited, or oppressed, or hungry, or poor, or ignorant, or downtrodden, or ill, or handicapped, or isolated, or ignored, that is that. The only way they can know the truth is through the scientific method. The metaphysical aspects of the human experience are fantasy.

So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cosmic fingerprints guy is a crackpot. I can't get past his page on information theory because he cites Shannon and yet he totally contradicts Shannon. This is not a matter of interpretation. He fundamentally misrepresents information theory. Given that, I don't even see why I would read the rest of his site. His argument has already failed.

Shannon may have begun information theory, but it is still just a theory, his theory. He is not the only information theorist. Why not expand your horizons and explore recent developments? I recall the video rationalist saying that rationalists love to constantly refine their understanding of reality.

I have no personal affinity for Marshall. But I do find it interesting that you deem him a crackpot. Is he a crackpot because he believes in a Designer?

This is utterly ridiculous. I defined him as a crackpot because of how completely he butchered a theory he prominently cites on his own web site. Like if someone claimed that Einstein proved that the earth was only 10,000 years old.

1. This "just a theory" was half of a two part justification for God just a day ago. Now it is "only a theory".
2. Shannon is not just any theorist. He is the inventor of information theory. He is as big as anyone gets in a field.
3. The web site you cited specifically described Shannon's information theory in a way that is the complete opposite of his theory. You might as well have said Einstein believed in a flat earth.
4. Where exactly am I supposed to expand my horizons on information theory? A Dan Brown novel? Have you ever done a single entropy calculation in your entire life? Would you know one if you saw it? If I said "entropy" would you even know that we are talking about information theory. Well some of us understand this field. Some of us have. Here is a very basic, low math introduction. When you understand this, tell me if I need to expand my horizons: http://astarte.csustan.edu/~tom/SFI-CSSS/info-theory/info-lec.pdf

Saw your post as I posted:

WOW. That was low math? Impressive! I never even took calculus. Hated math. Odd one out in my family.

Perhaps you could apply information theory to the example I mentioned earlier? I would really like to understand these concepts (entropy redefined, double wow!) the best I can. If you can keep it low math, that would be great:

"One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information.

'The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, QX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.’"

[Anonymous]

This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cosmic fingerprints guy is a crackpot. I can't get past his page on information theory because he cites Shannon and yet he totally contradicts Shannon. This is not a matter of interpretation. He fundamentally misrepresents information theory. Given that, I don't even see why I would read the rest of his site. His argument has already failed.

Shannon may have begun information theory, but it is still just a theory, his theory. He is not the only information theorist. Why not expand your horizons and explore recent developments? I recall the video rationalist saying that rationalists love to constantly refine their understanding of reality.

I have no personal affinity for Marshall. But I do find it interesting that you deem him a crackpot. Is he a crackpot because he believes in a Designer?

This is utterly ridiculous. I defined him as a crackpot because of how completely he butchered a theory he prominently cites on his own web site. Like if someone claimed that Einstein proved that the earth was only 10,000 years old.

1. This "just a theory" was half of a two part justification for God just a day ago. Now it is "only a theory".
2. Shannon is not just any theorist. He is the inventor of information theory. He is as big as anyone gets in a field.
3. The web site you cited specifically described Shannon's information theory in a way that is the complete opposite of his theory. You might as well have said Einstein believed in a flat earth.
4. Where exactly am I supposed to expand my horizons on information theory? A Dan Brown novel? Have you ever done a single entropy calculation in your entire life? Would you know one if you saw it? If I said "entropy" would you even know that we are talking about information theory. Well some of us understand this field. Some of us have. Here is a very basic, low math introduction. When you understand this, tell me if I need to expand my horizons: http://astarte.csustan.edu/~tom/SFI-CSSS/info-theory/info-lec.pdf

Saw your post as I posted:

WOW. That was low math? Impressive! I never even took calculus. Hated math. Odd one out in my family.

Perhaps you could apply information theory to the example I mentioned earlier? I would really like to understand these concepts (entropy redefined, double wow!) the best I can. If you can keep it low math, that would be great:

"One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information.

'The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, QX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.’"

The response requires zero math.

First of all, you can't calculate the entropy rate of a hypothetical segment of DNA. I can say that the entropy rate for human chromosomes is about 1.8 bits per base pair, vs. 1.9 for the coding sequences. I can also say that the analogy to English is not a fair comparison because the entropy rate of the English language is exceedingly low. You can read Shannon's calculations at the character level or modern word-level analysis, but you already know that English has low entropy because you have watched Wheel of Fortune. However, while Q is rarely going to follow the letter W, the same cannot be said of adjacent base pairs in DNA.

Is it possible that two genes can overlap due to chance? Your author says it's absurd. In fact it is not absurd. Such a thing is likely to happen because genomes are large, even this particular bacteriophage. However, this overlapping gene pair is not unique. And scientists have asked a really good question, which is whether the frequency of such overlapping genes is random or not.

And the answer is that it is not.

Does this vindicate your creationist essay writer? No. You already read Dawkins' weasel program. So you know that selection pressure can result in non-random outcomes. In order for these overlapping genes to occur more frequently than random, all that is required is that it makes the organism more fit. Whether it makes the genome more compact and therefore less fragile, whether sometimes it results in the creation of related proteins, or whether there is some other cause, it does not matter. If it confers fitness, it will be over-represented.

[Anonymous]

"Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

It's also been pointed out that unlike the English language, every three-letter DNA codon has meaning. If every possible three letter word in English had meaning, your odds of getting a good sentence would be pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Actually there is a very interesting ngram analysis that makes that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?

[FYI, I'm not that PP.]

If your argument for belief is that one is happier with it, that's much better than your other arguments. There are several problems with it, though:
1) It's pretty hard to prove whether belief makes one happier.
2) Even if it does in general, it won't necessarily for me in particular.
3) Even if it were to make me happier, I'm skeptical that I could push myself into it.
4) Your argument doesn't suggest what particular belief one should hold. (Still waiting for your explanation of why you don't believe in faeries and you're not a Muslim, Mormon, etc..) I guess by your argument one should find the least demanding and restrictive religion that still maintains an element of divine power and justice (off the top of my head - reform Judaism?).
5) I believe that intellectual honesty does more net good for people than does religious belief. You dismiss it as "just...intellectual honesty." Intellectual honesty has been pretty important to humans. All branches of science, political philosophy, and every practical issue in life have depended upon its application.

You tell yourself that God will protect you from the bear, and I'll run away from it. You tell yourself that God will care for you and your family, and I'll get an education and a job. You tell yourself that your physical condition is God's will, and I'll watch my diet and consult with medical professionals. You tell yourself that God put the king in charge, and I'll contest that and fight for democracy. I acknowledge that at the end of the day it's possible that the devoutly religious person may remain happier as she maintains her faith even in the wreckage of her personal life and her society, but fortunately for her, many of us take the path of "just pure intellectual honesty," so she can ride our coattails.

Here's an easy (though sloppy) test of it. Below is a list of most and least religious countries and U.S. states. Where would you rather live?
http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-and-least-religious-countries-in.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?


What other choice is there? How can you believe in something that does not appear to be real to you? Would you be better off if you imagined that you were rich or famous, if those things weren't true?

[Anonymous]

"[P]olitical philosophy, and every practical issue in life have depended upon [intellectual honesty's] application."

In practice, politics and intellectual honesty are like oil and water.

[Anonymous]

Is religion now politics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?

[FYI, I'm not that PP.]

If your argument for belief is that one is happier with it, that's much better than your other arguments. There are several problems with it, though:
1) It's pretty hard to prove whether belief makes one happier.
2) Even if it does in general, it won't necessarily for me in particular.
3) Even if it were to make me happier, I'm skeptical that I could push myself into it.
4) Your argument doesn't suggest what particular belief one should hold. (Still waiting for your explanation of why you don't believe in faeries and you're not a Muslim, Mormon, etc..) I guess by your argument one should find the least demanding and restrictive religion that still maintains an element of divine power and justice (off the top of my head - reform Judaism?).
5) I believe that intellectual honesty does more net good for people than does religious belief. You dismiss it as "just...intellectual honesty." Intellectual honesty has been pretty important to humans. All branches of science, political philosophy, and every practical issue in life have depended upon its application.

You tell yourself that God will protect you from the bear, and I'll run away from it. You tell yourself that God will care for you and your family, and I'll get an education and a job. You tell yourself that your physical condition is God's will, and I'll watch my diet and consult with medical professionals. You tell yourself that God put the king in charge, and I'll contest that and fight for democracy. I acknowledge that at the end of the day it's possible that the devoutly religious person may remain happier as she maintains her faith even in the wreckage of her personal life and her society, but fortunately for her, many of us take the path of "just pure intellectual honesty," so she can ride our coattails.

Here's an easy (though sloppy) test of it. Below is a list of most and least religious countries and U.S. states. Where would you rather live?
http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-and-least-religious-countries-in.html

OP here. I was not making any argument at all. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to understand unbelievers. I had my own reasons for not believing, but that was just my story. I want to know where you are coming from.

You constructed a straw man argument, and I'm not sure if you were attributing it to me or not, but since it is not my "argument," I am not going to deconstruct it.

But you do raise an interesting distinction: the difference between seeking the God we want and the God that Is.

And does it really not trouble you that there is no such thing as perfect justice? That the "bad" guys win 99.99...% of the time? Please, I am NOT making any argument with this question!!! I am just trying to get a direct response. If you are right, and I am wrong, most human beings live a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short." What is it like to face that reality head on? Are humans really just mammals, then?

I'm just looking for a description of your perspective. I'm not asking you to practice "wishful thinking," I swear.

[Anonymous]

Yes it is troublesome that justice is not perfect. But it doesn't seem so satisfying even for theists. We all stuggle with injustice in this world, whatever happens in the afterlife.

No, most atheists do not live a life that is nasty, brutish, or short. Is it impossible to imagine that atheists can be good, appreciative and optimistic about life?

And while we may be mammals, we have the same free will you do, even more perhaps because we do not have the threat of damnation. So when we choose, we really get to choose.