The Fatal Flaw in This Slogan
Exploring Reality | 14.IV.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDknbZN14Yk
I'm very happy to use the slogan against certain talking points of atheism.
1) Talking point ... they pretend human talk developed from the communications of monkeys. Given the fact that among monkeys one sound (or accent of usually a vowel sound, intensity of repeats etc) has one global meaning, usually emotive or pragmatic, able to communicate as much as traffic signs or emoticons, while human speech deals with sounds where one is typically meaningless by itself ("i" in Latin, as "go!" is exceptional), two, three or more in a specific order define a morpheme (indeclinable word, word-stem, ending or other affix, derivational morphemes, grammatical morphemes outside lexical words, like "no" or "not" ...), and that morpheme gives a well defined meaning which is however incomplete, and a combination of two or more morphemes again can give a complete meaning, uusually notional rather than (but those also exist) pragmatic and emotive), the prior likelihood of the one developing into the other is like resewing and resewing a pair of pants and hoping it will end up as a house, or rebuilding and rebuilding a house and hoping it will end up as pants.
2) When Miller Urey conditions (which could have existed in the "primitive atmosphere") produce some amino acids (I think something like 4 out of 21 are missing in Miller Urey results), that's still a mile from a living cell and a yard from their own destruction by the same conditions. Again, prior probabilities are too low.
3) Atheism needs Heliocentrism and ideally a more chaotic one than the Copernican-Galilean one. Earth immobile centre, universe turning around it one turn per day, several celestial objects performing regular and even intricate dances even apart from that daily motion and interacting with it (like Sun going from Pisces in March to Virgo in September, to name a relatively simple one), for that one would need God and angels as involved by willed manipulation of the universe and of celestial bodies. However, Heliocentrism involves the proposition that what we see is the inverse of what really happens, the daily motion seen as the universe moving around earth is really earth rotating, the other motions, like the year, when we see the Sun going from Pisces to Virgo, it's really Earth that goes from Virgo to Pisces. While this is possible in the sense of compatible with what we see, it has no higher prior probability than "what you see is what you get" and therefore should be put on hold until conclusive evidence for it be forthcoming.
Should.
You have given a brilliant sample of how a communication that should happen isn't happening, how it is shouted down by a communication that takes logical illicit shortcuts and "sounds good" ... namely applying the slogan to miracle claims.
There have been illogical communications shouting down more logical ones about the Geo-Helio issue as well. How about these, from Euler to a Prussian Princess:
i) Newton who is an extremely brilliant physicist has conclusively proven that physical necessity dictates that Heliocentrism is true, even if you can't understand the details of the argument;
ij) and you shouldn't take your view of things as anything like conclusive, since someone observing things from Jupiter would have an equal reason to believe Jupiter was the centre of the Universe, and these reasons cancel out.
The former is an appeal, partial, but certainly there, to a physicalist and necessitist or deterministic view of the world, a denial of God's freedom.
The latter is an appeal to unknown observers, to imaginary friends that no theology apart from the one of UFO-logists has pretended to be real friends.
- Lasse Aukio
- @lasseaukio626
- I think you are confused as to what atheism is. Or how your talking points relate to there not being gods. I'll still address them.
1) "Talking point ... they pretend human talk developed from the communications of monkeys. Given the fact that among monkeys one sound (or accent of usually a vowel sound, intensity of repeats etc) has one global meaning, usually emotive or pragmatic..."
This doesn't seem to be a fact. Animal calls and animal communication tends to be learned as much as instinctive, whether it be monkeys or other animals. Some animal species (social ones, obviously) can have sophisticated communications.
Shockingly, human communication is more developed, but is that meant to mean anything other than the fact itself?
2) "When Miller Urey conditions (which could have existed in the "primitive atmosphere") produce some amino acids (I think something like 4 out of 21 are missing in Miller Urey results), that's still a mile from a living cell and a yard from their own destruction by the same conditions. Again, prior probabilities are too low."
Considering that, to my knowledge, nobody has attempted to create a living cell under prebiotic conditions, this isn't surprising. And considering that the sample still had amino acids left when it was reanalyzed over 50 years later (when they found more types of amino acids since we have better detection methods) I don't think the conditions are all that destructive.
Of course, plenty of amino acids used by modern life are still unaccounted for. And our understanding of early earth conditions is likewise still tentative at best.
(Prior probabilities of any physical process that can be demonstrated to occur AT ALL is, of course, higher than supernatural creation that can't be demonstrated to occur. Such probability is unavailable)
3) "Atheism needs Heliocentrism and ideally a more chaotic one than the Copernican-Galilean one."
What in the world for? Seeing as we have physics that bears out the current model, I don't really see what there is to address.
These claims might be extraordinary, but as it happens, all the data is in support of my position. (Tautologically, since I'll switch my position to whatever the data bears out.) If results come out to suggest a deity or other supernatural is involved, I'll believe that too. There have been countless opportunities for this to occur in the history of science and it's predecessor, natural philosophy, but it hasn't come up as an explanation to anything so far.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @lasseaukio626 Since I used Arabic numerals in one of the questions, I'll number them in Roman numerals instead. Here we go.
I) "Animal calls and animal communication tends to be learned as much as instinctive, whether it be monkeys or other animals."
The vocal communications are calls and songs. Songs exist in birds, whales, dolphins, but not all other animals.
Apes, the supposed closest kin, the standin for supposed ancestors, do not have songs. The calls are, precisely as I described, one sound or accent for a sound (an ape could have several different "eek eek" in different rhythms or intensities) corresponding to one global message.
What you do most certainly not find is a sound being meaningless by itself, two sounds giving a definable meaning that's not a global message, and two words giving a global message from definable but non-global meanings.
"Some animal species (social ones, obviously) can have sophisticated communications."
All kinds of sophistication are not equivalent.
"human communication is more developed,"
Not even remotely the point. A house can get more and more developed as it is rebuilt without ever becoming a trouser, and a trouser can get more and more developed as it is resewn without ever becoming a house. That's how different ape communications are from human ones.
II) "nobody has attempted to create a living cell under prebiotic conditions, this isn't surprising"
Perhaps there is a reason why this is not surprising at all.
"the sample still had amino acids left when it was reanalyzed over 50 years later (when they found more types of amino acids since we have better detection methods)"
1) The exact same sample as produced by Miller and Urey?
Were all of the amino acids produced by them back then still there, even if in smaller quantities?
2) Was the sample stored under Miller Urey conditions? I highly doubt it.
"Prior probabilities of any physical process that can be demonstrated to occur AT ALL is, of course, higher than supernatural creation that can't be demonstrated to occur."
Naturalistic bias, totally worthless for logic.
III) "Seeing as we have physics that bears out the current model, I don't really see what there is to address."
You only have physics that "bear it out" if you can guarantee absence of any being with mind and will big or mighty enough to override physical factors that affect celestial bodies.
IV) "If results come out to suggest a deity or other supernatural is involved, I'll believe that too."
Your source of communication would not communicate that.
"and it's predecessor, natural philosophy, but it hasn't come up as an explanation to anything so far."
Natural philosophy from Aristotle to Riccioli counted God and immortal beings (various considered "gods" or "angels" by Pagans and Christians) as causing astronomic movements. Did you miss the memo?
- Lasse Aukio
- @hglundahl I'll stick to the roman numerals to keep it simple?
I) I'm not seeing the point. The fact that we humans have the requisite anatomy to produce a greater variety of noises naturally lends itself to more diverse vocalization than other apes or monkeys.
"Not even remotely the point. A house can get more and more developed as it is rebuilt without ever becoming a trouser, and a trouser can get more and more developed as it is resewn without ever becoming a house. That's how different ape communications are from human ones."
It really doesn't seem to be.
They can convey small packets of information based on learned vocalizations.
We can convey large packets of information using a more sophisticated set of learned vocalizations.
I would posit that any "difference in kind" of communication, such as it is, is due to our anatomy and the ability it gives to produce a greater variety of sounds to which ascribe meaning.
I think we can also see the way that written languages evolved over time to be able to convey more complicated ideas as time went on. It's more difficult to tell with spoken communication because it doesn't leave a mark, as it were.
II "Perhaps there is a reason why this is not surprising at all."
Why would anyone try the whole when not all parts are understood in full? Yes, entirely unsurprising until further understanding is obtained. So far, everything bears out the possibility.
II:1) "The exact same sample as produced by Miller and Urey?
Were all of the amino acids produced by them back then still there, even if in smaller quantities?"
Yes. And unless the reaction somehow restarted or changed after the fact, they would have been there 50 years earlier.
And even if they weren't, they would have been produced by the materials present in the sample, so the result remains.
II:2 " Was the sample stored under Miller Urey conditions? I highly doubt it."
Since the reactions in the original experiment were stopped before the sample was first extracted and analyzed, I think this is a moot point.
III "You only have physics that "bear it out" if you can guarantee absence of any being with mind and will big or mighty enough to override physical factors that affect celestial bodies."
I don't need to guarantee it. Their presence or absence will be apparent, and accepted.
IV IV) "Your source of communication would not communicate that."
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Natural philosophy from Aristotle to Riccioli counted God and immortal beings (various considered "gods" or "angels" by Pagans and Christians) as causing astronomic movements. Did you miss the memo?"
Present data bears that assumption wrong. Later natural philosophers like Galileo Galilei or Pierre-Simon Laplace.
Argument from authority has ever held the sciences back. My own knowledge relates more to Aristotle's forays into anatomy and the errors therein.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @lasseaukio626 I) "I'm not seeing the point."
I believe you. Missing the point is a speciality with Atheists!
"The fact that we humans have the requisite anatomy to produce a greater variety of noises naturally lends itself to more diverse vocalization than other apes or monkeys."
a) requisite anatomy to produce more varied noises, perhaps (lack of air bags on the hyoids helps to make different vowels stand out more, mouth cavity allows for low vowels)
b) to hear more varied noises definitely (consonants are generally too shrill for ape ears
c) Broca's area and Wernicke's area
d) human version of FOXP2 makes them work for learning grammar
e) and on each of these, fossil skulls have a complete break with all available evidence on the human or ape side.
Apart from that, the greater variety of noises would lend itself to extending calls with songs.
"They can convey small packets of information based on learned vocalizations. / We can convey large packets of information using a more sophisticated set of learned vocalizations."
It's precisely the other way round. We subdivide large packages into small ones. They don't. They only have big packages.
"I would posit that any "difference in kind" of communication, such as it is, is due to our anatomy and the ability it gives to produce a greater variety of sounds to which ascribe meaning."
Sorry, but you are null in linguistics.
"I think we can also see the way that written languages evolved over time to be able to convey more complicated ideas as time went on."
You are dreaming. You have fever.
"It's more difficult to tell with spoken communication because it doesn't leave a mark, as it were."
There is no process in written languages analogues to the one you implicitly propose between ape and human.
II "Why would anyone try the whole when not all parts are understood in full?"
All parts are however succifiently understood to show why they can't come into existence together.
"Yes, entirely unsurprising until further understanding is obtained."
More like until a total deal breaker occurs. After ruling out creation as the relevant deal breaker.
II:1) Noted.
II:2) "Since the reactions in the original experiment were stopped before the sample was first extracted and analyzed, I think this is a moot point."
I think you just answered it. They could not have been preserved unless the Miller Urey conditions had been stopped. This is the reason why Miller Urey is a no no for Abiogenesis.
III) "I don't need to guarantee it. Their presence or absence will be apparent, and accepted."
Not the least. Their presence or absence is part of the debate we have.
IV getting back to III) "I'm not sure what you mean."
Your source of data about science related evidence is a source priorising an Atheist interpretation or Atheist compatible interpretations.
A scientific observation giving a logic implication for God would either not be reported in the journals you rely on, or the implication would be twisted.
"Present data bears that assumption wrong."
There is no present observation that bears it wrong. It's your atheist interpretation.
"Later natural philosophers like Galileo Galilei or Pierre-Simon Laplace."
Neither of whom was an ace in celestial mechanics. Laplace didn't see the problem Newton was about.
"Argument from authority has ever held the sciences back."
I wasn't giving one. YOU pretended that no natural philosophy or science implication gave divine implications, I showed you wrong.
You are basically asking me to take on the authority of Laplace that Newton didn't understand the many body problem.
Plus, geocentrism gives so well ordered complex movements that unintentional causes are ruled out. The choice is between taking what we see as proof of spirits, or taking lack of spirits as proof we see the inverse of what happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment