[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[BCS]

Reply to Gregor,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 

> Abiogenesis is life forming naturally from constituent matter, not
> existence forming from nothing. These are two completely unrelated
> arguments, and the existence-from-nothing one is one I've chosen not
> to touch at all since it cannot be reasoned about.
> 
> However, since you brought it up, sure, I'll argue.
> 
> The reason that scientists explain things in a naturalist way (that
> is, without assuming or questioning a creator) is because we cannot
> reason about a creator, we cannot make conjectures about a creator,
> and so we cannot make theories about a creator based on anything but
> imagination.
> 

Going back the "book" model. If the world was entirely created by a single 
inelegance, would you not expect to be able to learn something about it by 
examining the world? Can you not tell something about the people who write 
programs by examining the programs they write? In all human tasks, the "thumb 
print" of the maker is stamped on the work. I would find it more of a stretch 
for this to NOT be true of a created universe.

> So, to counter some specific arguments:
> 
>> is it better to suppose
>> something came from nothing, [...]  Or is it more ludicrous to believe 
in a
>> spritiual sphere of existance outside of time that is not subject to
>> the
>> physical law, a God that created all things for his Own purpose.
>
[...]
> So, to answer your fundamental question of
> whether it's better to suppose one or the other, the answer is no.
> It's illogical to believe either, because we cannot argue about
> either.

it is not illogical to believe without evidence or argument. That in fact 
is faith. At least in the canonical way, illogical asserts that something 
is opposed to logic. By your own assertion, logic can't prove either conclusion 
so neither can be counter to logic. You might have a case for unlogical (the 
neutral assertion) but that is unavoidable

> This piece of knowledge is forever beyond human understanding,
> and any arguments you make to answer it are no better than the foolish
> gibbering of a child.

I will agree with part of what you claim, It is my belief that it is fundamentally 
impossible to prove this question one way or the other, and that this is 
intentional. However I also belive that anyone willing to accept the existence 
of a higher power will eventually conclude that one exists, as a mater of 
faith.

> The usual response to this is "don't you want to
> know, doesn't your innate drive of curiosity cause you to try to
> know?" Sure, but not at the cost of reason: I will never sacrifice
> reason and accept faith.
> 

Belief at the expense of reason is stupidity. Faith is belief beyond reason, 
belief where reason is mute.

>> Interestingly, the bizarre and unnatural is often pursued
>> relentlessly even to those that aspire to "realism" and reject the
>> existance of a God:  a look at modern physics theorists and science
>> fiction to see the yearning they have for an existance that, while
>> relentlessly circumventing the spiritual (accusing it of not being
>> observable), still doggedly pursue ideas and existances that amount
>> to the same.
>> 
> Scientists seek knowledge. Ultimately science seeks to have all
> knowledge, although that is of course impossible. The fact that you
> have a convenient and unprovable answer is not useful: Science seeks
> knowledge which is testable and repeatable.
> 

Evolution is convenient and not provably wrong (short of some sort of second 
coming or the like)

>> absolute Creator, nor is there any basis for social, ethical, or
>> ideological constraints, nor is there any meaning to existance, no
>> motivation to hope in a future, no meaning or reality to respect
>> life, no subjection to conscience, rules or authority, no existance
>> of right or wrong beyond a rapidly changing social definition of
>> morality; such an existance is one without laws and rules,
>> self-perpetuated by survival of the fittest; no room for mercy, care,
>> or gentleness in the ever "evolving" pursuit to the be the most
>> evolved.
>> 
> And yet, atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons.

[[citation needed]]

> The
> fact that you find such a universe to be distressing is irrelevant,
> the evidence should not be weighed against opinions. In all
> probability there is no purpose to life that we can discern by any
> means other than ludicrous faith. Boo-hoo, get the hell over it.
> 
>> The existance of a
>> person who perceives himself only subject to what is "real" is
>> forever
>> without hope describing what is real or what real means, or if what
>> he
>> observes through science is really "real".
>
> Our understanding of the universe is and will always be subjective.
> This is a fact.

You contradict your self in that statement.

> I do not claim that the universe I perceive and act
> upon is a true, shared universe, I only act within it because I have
> no other option.
> 
>> Instead, he is finally
>> dominated only by a will to self-indulge and self-satisfy -- an
>> entirely
>> empty existance for anyone who has pursued that mode for any amount
>> of
>> time (most of us know what that feels like).
>
> This has not happened to me. I do not believe in your bizarrely
> personified deity, nor do I believe that it is possible to reason
> about the existence of an omnipotent being, and I think that the
> concept of an omnipotent being who gives a damn about us is silly. And
> yet, I go through life without this problem you believe that I must
> have. This worldview is based on extremist individualism, not atheism.

That is not necessarily a counter argument. The fact that the bulk of the 
world does /not/ act like that might be taken to be evidence that there /is/ 
a higher power because, if there were not, why would people not act like 
that?

> 
> And more importantly, again, the fact that you find it distressing is
> irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that one should believe in a higher
> being out of fear. Fear subsumes reason, and then you choose to
> believe that you have some higher purpose determined by a grand and
> powerful entity. As I've already said, I will /never/ allow reason to
> be overcome by faith. (To read the previous statement, you must
> realize that I consider faith to be a flaw, and so I spit the last
> word). It's possible that faith in general is a result of fear, but
> that's a whole argument I'm not getting into.
> 

You have a point, but only if you equate fear and terror or phobias. A (reonable) 
fear of hights is not a bad thing. A fear of danger (again within reason) 
is a *good* thing. A well behaved dog fears displeasing you (this is distinct 
from fearing your reaction to it) more than anything else, otherwhise they 
would disobey you the first time somthing scares them.

> 
> We can,
> however, explain things that happen in the physical world, and we know
> evolution to happen in the physical world (the evidence is
> overwhelming).

IIRC there is a $10K prize for the first person to prove evolution. The juges 
are secular and last I heard, no one had clamed it.

> Evolution is based on overwhelming amounts of evidence, and yes, I'll
> say it: Anyone who does not believe in evolution when presented with
> the evidence is irreparably incompetent. I have no respect for these
> people. Evolution is repeatable, and evolution has been observed
> numerous times and in numerous situations, not just in the fossil
> record but in current times. That includes speciation, although these
> idiots generally choose to ignore all the examples of speciation.
> 

The only reasons that evolution can claim "overwhelming amounts of evidence" 
is because the counter evidence is considered one piece at a time and discarded. 
If you look at all the evidence that has been discarded a flukes and anomalous 
data, evolution begins to seem no more persuasive than the alternative. I 
wont even bother stating any of it as Google should find more links than 
you have time to read.

> 
> - Gregor Richards
>