How human language refutes atheism

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:21 pm

spinoza99 wrote:]Let me ask you this:
Either: all movement of bodies is caused by the movement of other bodies or the properties of the body itself
Or: not all movement of bodies is caused by the movement of other bodies or the properties of the body itself
All movement of bodies is caused by the application of a force.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:22 pm

spinoza99 wrote:how does choice come into the picture?
The structure and functioning of the brain.

Other things, like enzymes and nucleic acids don't make choices.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:24 pm

spinoza99 wrote:You have stated that we are not punch card machines and that we do not have a random word generator in our head, therefore, using that analogy we must choose what cards to punch and what words to use. But if all bodies operate according to physical laws, how can those same bodies choose?
The brain chooses. The enzymes and nucleic acids do not. The brain chooses. Atoms and molecules do not.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:27 pm

spinoza99 wrote:You have repeatedly stated that I have no evidence for the mind.
You don't
spinoza99 wrote:
The evidence lies in the fact that it is illogical to believe that choice exists in a world where all movement is caused by movement of other bodies.
1. a logical argument is not "evidence."
2. your logic is based on faulty premises - all movement is not caused by the movement of other bodies. All movement is caused by forces.
spinoza99 wrote:
If the origin of choice is not material then it must be the opposite of material, ie, immaterial.
[/quote][/quote]

The origin of choice is material - the brain has structures that function in a way as to allow judgments and choices to be made, using matter and energy. But, of course, that is NOT the same as saying that atoms, molecules, enzymes nucleotides, nucleic acids or ribonucleic acids...or deoxyribonucleic acids...make choices. They don't.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:33 pm

spinoza99 wrote:Either coordination can arise through completely material means, or it can't. If material cannot coordinate other material, then what is that thing which is not material? It is the immaterial. My argument is based on observation: I've observed the properties of material and find it unlikely that they are capable of coordinating, given their properties. I have stated why elsewhere in this post.
Enzymes and ribonucleic acids do what they do without any "immaterial" influence. It's all in an organic chemistry textbook, my friend. It's nothing magical, or in need of magic.

Whatever you are describing as "coordination" can in fact arise through completely "material" means (read, natural - matter and energy).

Enzymes are material - you cited them as an example of things that are coordinated and "choose" what to catalyze - well, they do what they do based only on material concepts - natural science - chemistry. Undetectable minds and immaterial intentions are not required.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:10 pm

spinoza99 wrote:how does choice come into the picture?
Coito ergo sum wrote:

The structure and functioning of the brain. ... enzymes and nucleic acids don't make "choices." What's the problem? ... Other things, like enzymes and nucleic acids don't make choices. The brain chooses. The enzymes and nucleic acids do not. The brain chooses. Atoms and molecules do not. Enzymes and ribonucleic acids do what they do without any "immaterial" influence. It's all in an organic chemistry textbook, my friend. It's nothing magical, or in need of magic. Whatever you are describing as "coordination" can in fact arise through completely "material" means (read, natural - matter and energy). Enzymes are material - you cited them as an example of things that are coordinated and "choose" what to catalyze - well, they do what they do based only on material concepts - natural science - chemistry. Undetectable minds and immaterial intentions are not required.
You're not addressing this point:

DNA only attaches to the sugar and phosphate base according to physical laws. It can attach itself in any order it wants, TTCA is just as good as CCGA. One T cannot know the order for forming the first cell in existence.

I'd like to know if you think it's a property or a law of T C G A that they know the sequence necessary to build a cell from scratch.




****
A few side issues:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gravity, for example, is not material. Material bodies do operate according to laws and properties.
Gravity is not material, that's true, but surely you don't believe that gravity chooses.
spinoza99 wrote: 2. if indeed there is no satisfactory account for choice, how coordination arises.
Your definition of coordination is circular, since you require coordination to be a result of "choice." All the examples of "coordination" that you gave - like enzyme reactions - do NOT involve choice - they are chemical reactions.[/quote]
No, it's not.

A. Coordination exists
B. All Coordination requires choices
C. Choices can not originate in the material
D. Therefore the immaterial exists

You've admitted to A, but you deny B, since you believe only some coordination requires choices. But even if you did believe B, you certainly deny C. If you believe A, B and C then you have to believe D. Our whole argument is about whether B and C are true.


Coito ergo sum wrote:
All movement of bodies is caused by the application of a force.
Surely, you don't believe that there can be movement without a body? Force is just a measurement of how massive and how fast a body is moving.

all movement is not caused by the movement of other bodies. All movement is caused by forces.
Let's just say that all movement is caused by forces as you say, even though force is just part of the equation. Can one choose to cause a force?
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:30 pm

Get back to two threads ago when your first cell nonsense was decimated, including empirical demonstrations of self replicating systems that do not need any enzymes and come back. You are clearly going to be the first awardee of the Josh Timonen Award for Suppurating Nonsense TM

Also go and read about the evolution of irreducible complexity and why that shows that the ludicrous false dichotomies that you keep coming up with are precisely that.

1) RNA polymerisation has been documented upto a certain chain length in water, guided by nothing more than simple chemistry, the sequences produced are random.
2) Some of these random sequences are capable of self replication, since said sequences fall extremely well within the remit of documented spontaenous polymerisation reactions.
3) Self replication + mutability ---> unique sequences (including ribozymes)
4) ribozymes et cetera add functionality including protein synthesis.
5) template directed synthesis also has a basis in 4) and complementary base pairing.
6) mutagenic processes produce a wide range of genomes, and consequently, proteomes.
7) Proteins interact by chemistry, interactions affect survival and replication, bring in natural selection.
8) Mutant proteins can have mutant interactions, this again is elementary biochemistry, and in cases such as the flagellum, adding mutant proteins to T3SS (or the Type 3 Secretory System) results in the formation of , and the consequent natural selection of, flagella, but when one of those components is removed it stops working.

In other words, Mullerian two-step processes account for that.

I am not going to expend effort again and again to deal with your errant nonsense, the papers are there in the previous threads for everyone to see.

As for yourself if you continue to indulge in wilful dishonesty you can screw yourself randomly.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:35 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
spinoza99 wrote:how does choice come into the picture?
Coito ergo sum wrote:

The structure and functioning of the brain. ... enzymes and nucleic acids don't make "choices." What's the problem? ... Other things, like enzymes and nucleic acids don't make choices. The brain chooses. The enzymes and nucleic acids do not. The brain chooses. Atoms and molecules do not. Enzymes and ribonucleic acids do what they do without any "immaterial" influence. It's all in an organic chemistry textbook, my friend. It's nothing magical, or in need of magic. Whatever you are describing as "coordination" can in fact arise through completely "material" means (read, natural - matter and energy). Enzymes are material - you cited them as an example of things that are coordinated and "choose" what to catalyze - well, they do what they do based only on material concepts - natural science - chemistry. Undetectable minds and immaterial intentions are not required.
You're not addressing this point:

DNA only attaches to the sugar and phosphate base according to physical laws. It can attach itself in any order it wants,
It doesn't "want" anything.
spinoza99 wrote:
TTCA is just as good as CCGA. One T cannot know the order for forming the first cell in existence.
It doesn't "know."
spinoza99 wrote:
I'd like to know if you think it's a property or a law of T C G A that they know the sequence necessary to build a cell from scratch.
I think you don't know how DNA works.


spinoza99 wrote:

****
A few side issues:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gravity, for example, is not material. Material bodies do operate according to laws and properties.
Gravity is not material, that's true, but surely you don't believe that gravity chooses.
I don't. You're the one who keeps saying, "if you believe in only material...." -- I DON'T!!!!!!!! GRAVITY IS NOT MATERIAL. You're the only one who claims that things other than brains have to "choose" stuff. They don't. Gravity doesn't choose. Deoxyribonucleic acid DOES NOT CHOOSE! It reacts.


spinoza99 wrote: 2. if indeed there is no satisfactory account for choice, how coordination arises.
Your definition of coordination is circular, since you require coordination to be a result of "choice." All the examples of "coordination" that you gave - like enzyme reactions - do NOT involve choice - they are chemical reactions.[/quote]
No, it's not. [/quote]

Is. Enzymes catalyze reactions.
spinoza99 wrote:
A. Coordination exists
O.k. - things coordinate - like protons/neutrons/electrons...like atoms into molecules...like monomers and polymers....which combine to form bigger molecules, such as nucleotides and amino acids...and nucleic acids....--- and molecules coordinate to form still larger structures....
spinoza99 wrote: B. All Coordination requires choices
Not all. Some.
spinoza99 wrote: C. Choices can not originate in the material
Does. Brain.
spinoza99 wrote: D. Therefore the immaterial exists
Doesn't. Premises false.

spinoza99 wrote: You've admitted to A,
I've admitted to A as stated - atoms, molecules, monomers, polymers, nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids, cells....on up. I admit to the existence of structures such as that and I am willing to call them "coordinated" because the parts of those structures "coordinate" (operate together).
spinoza99 wrote:
but you deny B,
Because CO2 doesn't require a choice and neither does cell division.

spinoza99 wrote: since you believe only some coordination requires choices.
I know that the human brain can choose and that if I build a house, I am coordinating the parts of the house to make a house, and I do it by choice.
spinoza99 wrote:
But even if you did believe B, you certainly deny C.
Of course - choices are made by brains. Brains are made of matter and energy, which is what you call "material." So, yes, choices can come from the material.
spinoza99 wrote:
If you believe A, B and C then you have to believe D.

Our whole argument is about whether B and C are true.
And, B is demonstrably not true, by way of example. You said enzymes "choose" - they don't. There is no evidence that they choose.

spinoza99 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
All movement of bodies is caused by the application of a force.
Surely, you don't believe that there can be movement without a body?
Energy moves.
spinoza99 wrote:
Force is just a measurement of how massive and how fast a body is moving.
Force is mass times acceleration, not mass times speed.
spinoza99 wrote:
all movement is not caused by the movement of other bodies. All movement is caused by forces.
Let's just say that all movement is caused by forces as you say, even though force is just part of the equation. Can one choose to cause a force?
Yes. My brain does that, by using electrical energy.

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:37 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP ... sponse_rev[/youtube]

One for the laymen, or the wilfully dishonest. :banghead:

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Feck » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:38 pm

All movement is caused by Forces F=M A ,not F+invisible woo =M A
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:01 pm

Does whoever gets to the maximum word count first win? :pop:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Clinton Huxley » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:02 pm

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Does whoever gets to the maximum word count first win? :pop:
That's immaterial.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:13 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
You're not addressing this point:

DNA only attaches to the sugar and phosphate base according to physical laws. It can attach itself in any order. TTCA is just as good as CCGA. One T cannot know the order for forming the first cell in existence.
I'd like to know if you think it's a property or a law of T C G A that they know the sequence necessary to build a cell from scratch.
I think you don't know how DNA works.
You can't expect me to consider that a satisfactory answer. Clearly you do, please explain.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:15 pm

GenesForLife wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP ... sponse_rev[/youtube]

One for the laymen, or the wilfully dishonest. :banghead:
What a bummer, I really wanted to watch that video but it contains sony music which is not available in my country. If you know of a similar video, I'd be happy to watch it.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:32 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
spinoza99 wrote:
You're not addressing this point:

DNA only attaches to the sugar and phosphate base according to physical laws. It can attach itself in any order. TTCA is just as good as CCGA. One T cannot know the order for forming the first cell in existence.
I'd like to know if you think it's a property or a law of T C G A that they know the sequence necessary to build a cell from scratch.
I think you don't know how DNA works.
You can't expect me to consider that a satisfactory answer. Clearly you do, please explain.
It's too long of a topic even for me to post, and I'm not going to post scads of text. Suffice to say that your summary of DNA as being able to arrange itself with sugars and phosphates "in any order" is wrong. Deoxyribose are just flippin' sugars which are joined at both the 3'-hydroxyl and 5'-hydroxyl groups to phosphate groups in what are called "esther links."

Look - DNA is just a big fucking molecule that "bonds" like any other fucking molecule.

DNA is a polymer (big long molecule). The monomer units (smaller molecules that can form polymers) of DNA are nucleotides (groups of molecules that form the specific polymer DNA), and the polymer is known as a "polynucleotide" (a sequence of nucleotides). Each nucleotide consists of a 5-carbon sugar (deoxyribose), a nitrogen containing base attached to the sugar, and a phosphate group. There are four different types of nucleotides found in DNA, differing only in the nitrogenous base.

See.... a "five carbon sugar" - a regular, run of the mill sugar molecule with five carbon atoms in it, bonds the way all molecules do, to a base with nitrogen in it, and with a group of phosphate molecules. Walla - nucleotides. No magic, they just fucking bond like regular molecules because that's what they are. There are no "choices" - they do it because of the forces involved.

Image

Nucleotides bond together covalently - by sharing electrons they stick the fuck together.
Image

So, like any other molecule, DNA forms because nucleotides (a group of smaller molecules, mostly carbon, hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.) linkup covalently with a kind of sugar - deoxyribose....and the long chain is a "nucleic acid." The specific kind of nucleic acid is "deoxyribonucleic acid" from "deoxyribose" and "nucleic acid." And, that's abbreviated DNA.

It's just chemistry. That's all it is. Beyond that, you'll have to open a textbook.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests