Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

With relation to which theory?

With relation to the theory which answers the question "What is necessary to get to a scientific paradigm without fudging?"

Calm down, Skepdick. I believe in sequential events purely a posteriori, having seen them happen.

Do you also believe in sequential events with no beginning; or end?

I also believe in cyclical events

Cyclical event? Now there's an oximoron. In what coordinate system are you observing a closed loop/cycle? Nothing ever returns to the same position in time.

That's time travel.

some like Earth's orbit can only be confused with circular relative to the Sun, others like the swinging of a pendulum are clearly not circular; but any cyclical event can be counted and when cyclical events are counted between sequential events, you get a number that for convenience we call time. I see no need for any definition of time beyond that.

That's a circular definition. Please give me a definition of "event" that doesn't depend on a definition of "time".

So what you believe is that there were no irreducibly complex organisms, then God caused an event which brought irreducibly complex organisms into being.

If you were a mind reader you'd know that's not even remotely close to anything I've said.

So why strawman?

[Will Bouwman]

So what you believe is that there were no irreducibly complex organisms, then God caused an event which brought irreducibly complex organisms into being.

If you were a mind reader you'd know that's not even remotely close to anything I've said.

So why strawman?

I don't have to read your mind, just what you have written. If God didn't create irreducibly complex organisms, which magician's hat did they pop out from?

[Skepdick]

I don't have to read your mind, just what you have written.

Read what I have written; or misread what I have written?

Because you sure seem to have doubled down on the dismissal pedal.

If God didn't create irreducibly complex organisms, which magician's hat did they pop out from?

Is this your way of accepting that organisms are irreducibly complex?

It's like you want to conflate lineage/origin questions with existence questions for some peculiar reason.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't have to read your mind, just what you have written.

Read what I have written; or misread what I have written?

Read. You believe in irreducible complexity and have offered no alternative to God, in a thread aimed at pissing off atheists for making you doubt God. Any reason I shouldn't think you are a creationist?

[Skepdick]

I don't have to read your mind, just what you have written.

Read what I have written; or misread what I have written?

Read. You believe in irreducible complexity and have offered no alternative to God, in a thread aimed at pissing off atheists for making you doubt God.

The fuck? I literally offered you a competing hypothesis to irreducible complexity.

The negation/falsification of irreducible complexity: Reducible complexity.

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: time-reducible complexity.

Whether you choose to label the hypothesis as God, or The Complexity; or The Simulation - I don't care. It's just a label.

Any reason I shouldn't think you are a creationist?

How about the fact my position is evidence-based?

[Will Bouwman]

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: time-reducible complexity.

That's just words. How does it work?

[Skepdick]

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: time-reducible complexity.

That's just words. How does it work?

What's confusing you about the words?

Until you successfully reduce it the complexity is presently unreduced.

The answer to the "How does it work?" question is precisely the successful reduction.

Irreducible complexity is evidence-based. Absent evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism the theory remains unfalsified.

[Will Bouwman]

Que? Evidence-based choice of time-irreducible complexity over the competing hypothesis: time-reducible complexity.

That's just words. How does it work?

What's confusing you about the words?

Until you successfully reduce it the complexity is presently unreduced.

The answer to the "How does it work?" question is precisely the successful reduction.

Irreducible complexity is evidence-based. Absent evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism the theory remains unfalsified.

You don't know then.

[Skepdick]

That's just words. How does it work?

What's confusing you about the words?

Until you successfully reduce it the complexity is presently unreduced.

The answer to the "How does it work?" question is precisely the successful reduction.

Irreducible complexity is evidence-based. Absent evidence of a successful reduction by reductionists doing reductionism the theory remains unfalsified.

You don't know then.

Que?

If I knew how it works then it would be reducible.
It's irreducible because I don't know how it works.

HOW? is an algorithmic question. The answer to "How?" is precisely the reduction process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

[Will Bouwman]

If I knew how it works then it would be reducible.
It's irreducible because I don't know how it works.

Here we go again:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

HOW? is an algorithmic question. The answer to "How?" is precisely the reduction process.

Really? How far up your own arse must you be to think you are the sole arbiter of what is irreducible?

[Skepdick]

Really? How far up your own arse must you be to think you are the sole arbiter of what is irreducible?

Informally- I am up the arse of every English speaker.

irreducible
/ˌɪrɪˈdjuːsɪbl/
adjective
not able to be reduced or simplified.

reducible
/rɪˈdjuːsɪbl/
adjective
1.
(of a subject or problem) capable of being simplified in presentation or analysis.

Formally I am right up the arse of every formal scientist.

In context of the formal sciences what are reducibility and irreducibility?

In the context of the formal sciences, reducibility and irreducibility are foundational notions that describe whether a particular concept, system, or entity can be represented or reconstructed using simpler or more basic constituents. Let's delve into each term:

Reducibility:
This pertains to the ability to express or represent a particular concept or entity in terms of another, usually simpler, concept or entity. If one system, concept, or problem (A) can be transformed or "reduced" to another (B) in such a way that solving or understanding B would imply solving or understanding A, then A is said to be reducible to B.
* In computer science, reducibility plays a key role in the theory of computational complexity. For instance, if a problem X can be reduced to a problem Y in polynomial time, and if Y is known to be solvable in polynomial time, then X is also polynomial-time solvable.

Irreducibility:
As mentioned earlier, this concept denotes that a particular entity or system cannot be simplified further without loss of its essential characteristics. It represents a foundational or elementary component in its respective domain.

* In mathematics, as previously highlighted, prime numbers are a fundamental example of irreducibility. In abstract algebra, an element in a ring is termed irreducible if it cannot be represented as a product of two non-unit elements.

* In computer science, certain problems might be deemed irreducible within a certain class of problems. For instance, NP-hard problems are problems to which all problems in NP can be reduced; if any NP-hard problem were to be polynomial-time solvable, then every problem in NP would be too.
However, certain problems within NP might be seen as "more basic" or "less reducible" than others, based on their relationships and transformations.

In general, these concepts are vital in the formal sciences as they help researchers classify, understand, and tackle problems, concepts, or entities by relating them to known quantities or by recognizing their foundational nature.

How far up your own arse are you?

[Will Bouwman]

How far up your own arse are you?

Not this much:

It's irreducible because I don't know how it works.

Nor this much:

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

And definitely not this much:

What I have found is a law of thought. A law about a methodological impossibility. A law ABOUT the method itself. And it agrees with experiment.

You didn't find it, and it isn't a law. The hard of thinking sometimes make the mistake that because 'Either God exists or he doesn't' is true, somehow everyone is committed to believing either/or.

I am up the arse of every English speaker.

Just the one.

[Skepdick]

You didn't find it, and it isn't a law.

Oh good! So you have evidence for its violation? Evidence which would falsify my hypothesis and prove it wrong?

Awesome stuff!

Produce the reduction.

The hard of thinking sometimes make the mistake that because 'Either God exists or he doesn't' is true, somehow everyone is committed to believing either/or.

You are welcome to believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster for all I care.

But in the realm of science where evidence matters either you have evidence for reducibility; or you don't.

In the absence of evidence the most plausible hypothesis remains: irreducible complexity.

[VVilliam]

P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Edit 1: Fix misspelling of "derrive" (now "derive")
Edit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.

P1 appears to assume that morals did not come through natural processes.

P2 appears to be correct, since morals are clearly derived ( from natural processes) and exist as functional concepts.

P3 appears to be incorrect/based on an incorrect assumption ( P1 ).


example "natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."

"Humankind" derives from nature/natural processes. The definition above gives the impression something can be created through natural processes which is "not natural", which is a contradiction.

Why would we want to think of things humans create as being "unnatural" and what examples can we examine which could enlighten us as to what an "unnatural" thing actually is?

[Skepdick]

P1 appears to assume that morals did not come through natural processes.

Not an assumption. Evidence-based assertion. If morals can (do?) come from natural processes - provide evidence for such assertion.

Derrive an outght from an is. Nobody in the entire history of humanity has done it. Maybe you'll be the first.

Until somebody is first it's unreasonable to believe that morals come from natural processes.

P2 appears to be correct, since morals are clearly derived ( from natural processes) and exist as functional concepts.

Evidence please. Demonstrate how to derrive a moral from a natural process.

Derrive the rightness; or wrongness of murder; homosexuality; slavery; veganism or any other moral issue from facts and natural processes.

P3 appears to be incorrect/based on an incorrect assumption ( P1 ).

Incorrect assertion of incorrectness.

"Humankind" derives from nature/natural processes.

Evidence please.

What I will accept as valid evidence is the (re)production of any self-replicating/self-assembling self-replicator starting from raw chemical materials.

Bridge the paradigm-gap between physics where self-replication is impossible (it violates conservation laws) and biology; where self-replication is an emergent phenomenon.

Why would we want to think of things humans create as being "unnatural" and what examples can we examine which could enlighten us as to what an "unnatural" thing actually is?

I don't want to think of them as natura OR unnatural.

I am merely using the English language; and the a priori categories which exist in English speakers' minds based on the Oxford definition of those words.

If you disagree with the English meaning of those words; and if you disagree with the existence of those categories in people's minds - yours is the fringe belief. You are the one using words/language idiosyncratically. Yours is the categorization schema which carries the burden of proof.