Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Information Theory Argument

2010-10-11T22:55:01Z

Deimossaturn: extra thoughts in responses added

The Information Theory Argument is often claimed to be a scientific [[argument for the existence of a god]] that combines the [[Fine tuning argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The argument is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind.

== Argument ==

As presented on CosmicFingerprints.com

:Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – sn:owflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

:Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

::(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

::(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind (inductive reasoning).

::(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

=== Counter Apologetics ===
==== Objection to DNA as Code ====
===== Information is a Label =====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

===== Rocks Contain Information =====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

===== Static vs. Signal =====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Objection to codes by minds ====

===== Evolution =====
If one considers DNA a code full of information, then we know how that information got there. It got there through a process of evolution by natural selection. Which has not only been shown to produce useful information but to be the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and the DNA configuration of that life. Therefore we have a counterexample to the premise that "there is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner" because we have a complete explanation for DNA that is a purely natural phenomenon.

===== Self Refuting =====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

== Cosmicfingerprints ==

=== Definition of "Information" from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ===

The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

{{Response|Actually, no consciousness or intention would be required in providing the DNA with the structure it possesses. The specific pattern of nucleotides on the ladder are attained by random mutation and natural selection. Mutations are introduced by a variety of means demonstrated in labs and observed in nature including gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

{{Response|In certain scenarios where linguistic shortcuts are necessary, it is definitely useful to speak of structure of DNA as containing a "code", but beyond that, it is objectively nothing more than a piece of matter descended from a piece of matter that was able to make copies of itself. In the process of copying itself, it acquired mutations which were beneficial to the function of copying itself. In that sense, the code in DNA is in fact a naturally occurring one.}}

=== "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ===

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

{{Response|This is hardly proof of anything other than the aforementioned necessity for linguistic short cuts. Scientists assigned meaning to the pattern of nucleotides that the current organisms have acquired through random mutation and natural selection and understand which sequence produces which protein, but DNA is just that, a piece of matter that copies itself by a variety of means. To attempt to use quotes such as this is tantamount to claiming Einstein for certain believed in god just because he said "God doesn't play dice."}}

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

{{Response|Again, this does not make any case that DNA requires a mind to have initially created it. It only shows that our capacity to communicate is limited by a listener's/reader's tolerance for long-winded descriptions of every individual phenomenon.}}

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

{{Response|In actuality, there is an abundant quantity of empirical, testable, falsifiable explanations for the origin of the length and complexity of the pattern of nucleotides in the DNA of organisms that produces the phenomenon we call Life. As mentioned earlier, these include: gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

No naturally occurring molecule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

{{Response|What they are basically saying is "because this thing wasn't created, it wasn't created" which is a tautology. "No naturally occurring molecule (something not designed) possesses the properties of information (something that is designed).}}

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

== Variations ==

* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.

{{Response|Although there is no doubt the vast majority of scientists will use "storage system of coded information" as a tidy way of describing what DNA is like, there is no indication that the vast majority of scientists believe some supreme being put the information there, rather, most biologists and geneticists understand that the "information" got there as a result of gene duplication, transposition, and retroviral insertion. To put is very simply, DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties that causes it to build proteins. It is no more special or magical than any other molecule.}}

*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the [[pattern]]. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

{{Response|Information Theory is a legitimate field of Mathematics and Engineering ONLY and has never been used by any legitimate biologist or geneticists to understand anything about DNA. Instead, Information Theory is ONLY applied in espionage and analysis of signals received by the SETI program. There is a field of computing called Bioinformatics that is used to analyze genetic code and simplify the big picture processes of protein production and function but there is no larger inference at the foundation of this field that a supreme being must have programmed all the "information" into the DNA}}

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

===External links===
* [http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm If you can read this, I can prove God exists] - Cosmicfingerprints.com

Talk:Information Theory Argument

2010-10-11T22:50:20Z

Deimossaturn: reply to tatarize

Minor and Major Edits

Noticed some apologetics for the case of the information theory argument added that were begging for responses in boxes. I didn't change anything the Creepsdark (the person who made the additions) except a few spelling errors. I feel that the apologetics being added do not seem to grasp the concept of random mutation and natural selection or perhaps I'm just missing something fundamental in what they are saying. If any apologist could spell it out for me I'll change my responses or remove them. Otherwise, their primary argument seems to be the old "there is never any new information added" argument which is easily remedied by understanding the wide variety of ways that new nucleotides are added which have been observed in nature and in the lab.

: --[[User:Deimossaturn|Deimossaturn]] 16:39 8 July 2010 (EST)

:: The problem is the argument is a version of the watchmaker argument, and we can simply point out the evolution is a natural process that encodes DNA and therefore the premise is clearly false. Having a good background in information theory, I'm always somewhat stunned by the terrible "information" counter arguments. DNA is perfectly fine to qualify for being a "code", but most codes are made and produced by computer programs nowadays so there's like a trillion errors in the argument. Going around failing to grasp information qua Shannon does not a counter argument make. The counter argument is that the premises are false because DNA is the result of evolution and evolution is generally not considered a mind. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 18:03, 30 September 2010 (CDT)

== Awful ==

Having read this article several times in the process of restructuring it. I'm really not sure there's a lot that can be salvaged. A lot of the counterargument tries to undercut evolution and has a terrible understanding of actual information theory.

From Wikipedia:

:Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on signal processing operations such as compressing data and on reliably storing and communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography generally, networks other than communication networks — as in neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection[4] in ecology, thermal physics,[5] quantum computing, plagiarism detection[6] and other forms of data analysis.[7]

And it's not wrong. It really does do all those things. You really can consider DNA a code. The genetic code. It really does transfer information from one place to another, it really does have functional descriptions. I think arguing against DNA as a code is a pretty clear mistake. And much of the counter-argument seems dedicated towards that end. Giving the reader a good understanding of information theory is rather vital but the most obviously wrong premise is saying that minds are needed to make codes. That's clearly false because if DNA is a code, then a code was made by evolution. And there's a lot of other good examples. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 18:39, 30 September 2010 (CDT)

::The only real argument you have to support the idea that DNA is a code that was coded is nothing more than a semantics argument. The simple fact is is that DNA is a molecule that has properties. These properties cause it to react in a way that is dependent upon its structure. It's no more special or magical than any other molecule. Is it useful/convenient to think of it as a "code" or as "information"? Sure! But you then can't use the linguistic shortcut to sneak in an argument that "well, since it's a code, it needs a coder". But it's not ''really'' a "code" in the very strictest definition. It's just a molecule.
: --[[User:Deimossaturn|Deimossaturn]] 18:49 11 October 2010 (EST)

Information Theory Argument

2010-07-08T21:03:41Z

Deimossaturn: responses added

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the [[Fine tuning argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of [[evolution]] as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

== Cosmicfingerprints ==
----
As mentioned in Cosmicfingerprints.com:

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind (inductive reasoning).

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

{{Response|"Chaos can produce patterns but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols" Though the process of random mutation and natural selection is not chaotic, it is a self-correcting mechanism that generates brute force solutions to problems by trial and error. Natural selection is what makes the pattern in the dna useful to achieve its basic characteristic property being self replication}}

== Definition of "Information" from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

{{Response|Actually, no consciousness or intention would be required in providing the DNA with the structure it possesses. The specific pattern of nucleotides on the ladder are attained by random mutation and natural selection. Mutations are introduced by a variety of means demonstrated in labs and observed in nature including gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

{{Response|In certain scenarios where linguistic shortcuts are necessary, it is definitely useful to speak of structure of DNA as containing a "code", but beyond that, it is objectively nothing more than a piece of matter descended from a piece of matter that was able to make copies of itself. In the process of copying itself, it acquired mutations which were beneficial to the function of copying itself. In that sense, the code in DNA is in fact a naturally occurring one.}}

== "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

{{Response|This is hardly proof of anything other than the aforementioned necessity for linguistic short cuts. Scientists assigned meaning to the pattern of nucleotides that the current organisms have acquired through random mutation and natural selection and understand which sequence produces which protein, but DNA is just that, a piece of matter that copies itself by a variety of means. To attempt to use quotes such as this is tantamount to claiming Einstein for certain believed in god just because he said "God doesn't play dice."}}

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

{{Response|Again, this does not make any case that DNA requires a mind to have initially created it. It only shows that our capacity to communicate is limited by a listener's/reader's tolerance for long-winded descriptions of every individual phenomenon.}}

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

{{Response|In actuality, there is an abundant quantity of empirical, testable, falsifiable explanations for the origin of the length and complexity of the pattern of nucleotides in the DNA of organisms that produces the phenomenon we call Life. As mentioned earlier, these include: gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

No naturally occurring molecule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

{{Response|What they are basically saying is "because this thing wasn't created, it wasn't created" which is a tautology. "No naturally occurring molecule (something not designed) possesses the properties of information (something that is designed).}}

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.

{{Response|Although there is no doubt the vast majority of scientists will use "storage system of coded information" as a tidy way of describing what DNA is like, there is no indication that the vast majority of scientists believe some supreme being put the information there, rather, most biologists and geneticists understand that the "information" got there as a result of gene duplication, transposition, and retroviral insertion.}}

*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the [[pattern]]. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

{{Response|Information Theory is a legitimate field of Mathematics and Engineering ONLY and has never been used by any legitimate biologist or geneticists to understand anything about DNA. Instead, Information Theory is ONLY applied in espionage and analysis of signals received by the SETI program. There is a field of computing called Bioinformatics that it used to analyze genetic code and simplify the big picture processes of protein production and function but there is no larger inference at the foundation of this field that a supreme being must have programmed all the "information" into the DNA}}

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a [[tautology]] rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no [[experiment]] which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to [[falsify]] it. It is not scientific.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

==== Static vs. Signal ====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

==== Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic ====
To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental. We associate a property of the molecule to the perceived phenomenon that is resultant from all its interactions with other molecules, but this property was no ordered from some mysterious giver of order, it just is what it is by pure random chance. For example, a rock found in a stream has a particular shape to it, not because it was ordered to, but because of entirely random and causal forces. Humans tend to perceive intentional purposeful value to an incidental characteristic of the molecule, Adenine, only because it is an essential part of life. To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

===External links===
* [http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm If you can read this, I can prove God exists] - Cosmicfingerprints.com

Talk:Information Theory Argument

2010-07-08T20:49:03Z

Deimossaturn: minor and major edits

Information Theory Argument

2010-07-08T20:34:44Z

Deimossaturn: /* "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: */

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the [[Fine tuning argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of [[evolution]] as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

== Cosmicfingerprints ==
----
As mentioned in Cosmicfingerprints.com:

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind (inductive reasoning).

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

{{Response|"Chaos can produce patterns but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols" Though the process of random mutation and natural selection is not chaotic, it is a self-correcting mechanism that generates brute force solutions to problems by trial and error. Natural selection is what makes the pattern in the dna useful to achieve its basic characteristic property being self replication}}

== Definition of "Information" from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

{{Response|Actually, no consciousness or intention would be required in providing the DNA with the structure it possesses. The specific pattern of nucleotides on the ladder are attained by random mutation and natural selection. Mutations are introduced by a variety of means demonstrated in labs and observed in nature including gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

{{Response|In certain scenarios where linguistic shortcuts are necessary, it is definitely useful to speak of structure of DNA as containing a "code", but beyond that, it is objectively nothing more than a piece of matter descended from a piece of matter that was able to make copies of itself. In the process of copying itself, it acquired mutations which were beneficial to the function of copying itself. In that sense, the code in DNA is in fact a naturally occurring one.}}

== "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

{{Response|This is hardly proof of anything other than the aforementioned necessity for linguistic short cuts. Scientists assigned meaning to the pattern of nucleotides that the current organisms have acquired through random mutation and natural selection and understand which sequence produces which protein, but DNA is just that, a piece of matter that copies itself by a variety of means. To attempt to use quotes such as this is tantamount to claiming Einstein for certain believed in god just because he said "God doesn't play dice."}}

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

{{Response|Again, this does not make any case that DNA requires a mind to have initially created it. It only shows that our capacity to communicate is limited by a listener's/reader's tolerance for long-winded descriptions of every individual phenomenon.}}

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

{{Response|In actuality, there is an abundant quantity of empirical, testable, falsifiable explanations for the origin of the length and complexity of the pattern of nucleotides in the DNA of organisms that produces the phenomenon we call Life. As mentioned earlier, these include: gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

No naturally occurring molecule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

{{Response|What they are basically saying is "because this thing wasn't created, it wasn't created" which is a tautology. "No naturally occurring molecule (something not designed) possesses the properties of information (something that is designed).}}

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the [[pattern]]. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a [[tautology]] rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no [[experiment]] which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to [[falsify]] it. It is not scientific.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

==== Static vs. Signal ====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

==== Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic ====
To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental. We associate a property of the molecule to the perceived phenomenon that is resultant from all its interactions with other molecules, but this property was no ordered from some mysterious giver of order, it just is what it is by pure random chance. For example, a rock found in a stream has a particular shape to it, not because it was ordered to, but because of entirely random and causal forces. Humans tend to perceive intentional purposeful value to an incidental characteristic of the molecule, Adenine, only because it is an essential part of life. To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

===External links===
* [http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm If you can read this, I can prove God exists] - Cosmicfingerprints.com

Information Theory Argument

2010-07-08T20:13:13Z

Deimossaturn: adding responses to apologetics

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the [[Fine tuning argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of [[evolution]] as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

== Cosmicfingerprints ==
----
As mentioned in Cosmicfingerprints.com:

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind (inductive reasoning).

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

{{Response|"Chaos can produce patterns but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols" Though the process of random mutation and natural selection is not chaotic, it is a self-correcting mechanism that generates brute force solutions to problems by trial and error. Natural selection is what makes the pattern in the dna useful to achieve its basic characteristic property being self replication}}

== Definition of "Information" from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

{{Response|Actually, no consciousness or intention would be required in providing the DNA with the structure it possesses. The specific pattern of nucleotides on the ladder are attained by random mutation and natural selection. Mutations are introduced by a variety of means demonstrated in labs and observed in nature including gene duplication, gene deletion, radiation, retroviral insertion, etc.}}

Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

{{Response|In certain scenarios where linguistic shortcuts are necessary, it is definitely useful to speak of structure of DNA as containing a "code", but beyond that, it is objectively nothing more than a piece of matter descended from a piece of matter that was able to make copies of itself. In the process of copying itself, it acquired mutations which were beneficial to the function of copying itself. In that sense, the code in DNA is in fact a naturally occurring one.}}

== "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the [[pattern]]. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a [[tautology]] rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no [[experiment]] which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to [[falsify]] it. It is not scientific.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

==== Static vs. Signal ====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

==== Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic ====
To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental. We associate a property of the molecule to the perceived phenomenon that is resultant from all its interactions with other molecules, but this property was no ordered from some mysterious giver of order, it just is what it is by pure random chance. For example, a rock found in a stream has a particular shape to it, not because it was ordered to, but because of entirely random and causal forces. Humans tend to perceive intentional purposeful value to an incidental characteristic of the molecule, Adenine, only because it is an essential part of life. To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

===External links===
* [http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm If you can read this, I can prove God exists] - Cosmicfingerprints.com

Information Theory Argument

2010-07-08T19:48:02Z

Deimossaturn: /* Cosmicfingerprints */

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the [[Fine tuning argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is something that can only be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of [[evolution]] as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

== Cosmicfingerprints ==
----
As mentioned in Cosmicfingerprints.com:

Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind (inductive reasoning).

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

{{Response|"Chaos can produce patterns but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols" Though the process of random mutation and natural selection is not chaotic, it is a self-correcting mechanism that generates brute force solutions to problems by trial and error. Natural selection is what makes the pattern in the dna useful to achieve its basic characteristic property being self replication}}

== Definition of "Information" from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

== "Proof" that DNA is a code from Cosmicfingerprints.com: ==

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the [[pattern]]. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a [[tautology]] rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no [[experiment]] which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to [[falsify]] it. It is not scientific.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

==== Static vs. Signal ====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

==== Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic ====
To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental. We associate a property of the molecule to the perceived phenomenon that is resultant from all its interactions with other molecules, but this property was no ordered from some mysterious giver of order, it just is what it is by pure random chance. For example, a rock found in a stream has a particular shape to it, not because it was ordered to, but because of entirely random and causal forces. Humans tend to perceive intentional purposeful value to an incidental characteristic of the molecule, Adenine, only because it is an essential part of life. To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

===External links===
* [http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm If you can read this, I can prove God exists] - Cosmicfingerprints.com

Talk:Argument from locality

2009-12-10T04:51:39Z

Deimossaturn:

I'm sorry atheist, but this is the worst exceuse I have ever read against religion >.< You deny 100% of the Bible in a way that hasn't any kind of reason (as normally you try to do), but simply by "just doing it". \o/

Sorry, but there are better arguments that this one... Could you improve it?

[[User:Momergil|Momergil]] 09:04, 9 December 2009 (CST)

It's not meant to be a strong argument against religions. It's more something to think about. Why would God allow conditions or establish conditions that make it especially difficult for the beings God needs to worship him to get a clue regarding their eternal salvation? Sure you can make a bunch of excuses for why god takes such a round about way of doing things or just do some hand waving and say "god works in mysterious ways" (and by the way, you've made no specific criticism of the arguments in the article, you merely said is ignores the bible) which is what most Christians do whenever a doubter poses questions regarding the coherency of god's actions.

User:Deimossaturn

2009-10-29T06:57:27Z

Deimossaturn: /* Politics and Philosophy */

Deimos Saturn is a male human in his early twenties born on Earth in the 1980's ACE. He is an artist, writer, philosopher, and eccentric. Most consider him a nice guy though he does have megalomaniac fantasies and is an uncompromising sort of personality who has been known to stop talking to someone he has known for years if he suddenly realizes that someone is a bad person in his eyes. His artwork focuses primarily on science and engineering and is mostly illustrative of a fictional time line of events that take place beyond the year 2020 to as far as 300 million years in the future. He accepts the label [[atheist]] though feels it is pragmatically inappropriate since he has yet been provided with a positive [[ontological]] description of a God so he doesn't know what he does not believe in. He is also an [[anarchist]], a weak [[nihilist]], an [[empiricist]], [[determinist]], active [[anti-theist]], and [[transhumanist]].

== Politics and Philosophy ==
=== Anarchy ===
As bizarre, unsavory, and psychotic as it may seem to most people, Deimos believes that any society that has attained stability within its boarders as a democratic republic founded upon a constitution that protects each individual's inalienable rights for 100 years can do without any official, tax collecting, militarized government. According to his hypothesis, most, if not all of the basic functions of government can be performed by private companies, including police, public education, military, prison, public health, environmental protection, public transportation, road and bridge construction and maintenance, and so on. All that is required is that the majority of individuals within that country have a working comprehension of the philosophy of anarchy and rugged individualism. With that said, the following is a list of philosophies and ideas for policies with the most tolerable amount of compromise in existing under a hypothetically "necessary" government.

=== Police ===
# There's too fucking many of them.
# Every department and every precinct has quotas no matter what they say on the news.
# Tazers and CS gas are torture devices.
# The old adage that "there are just a few bad cops that make the rest of them look bad" is backwards. The reality is, the majority of cops are crooked, it's just a tiny minority that make them look good on television.
# The attitude with most police towards civilians is "guilty until proven innocent".
# Usually, the people who seriously pursue a job as a patrolman are the same people who were the Jocks who bullied their peers in high school and are likely born sociopaths.
# The Police is a business that believes it is owed profit, and when they can't make enough profit, they just make more laws so that more crime can occur, such as setting absurd and petty traffic laws to bust honest citizens with insane fines.
# There is no competition and therefore there will inevitably be corruption.
# Police will consider refusal to consent to search without warrant as reasonable suspicion to search every single time, without fail.
# There's never one around when you need one, not that anyone in a well-armed populace would, but there are plenty standing around itching to fine you.
# Police constantly break the law, make moving violations, park illegally, run red lights, drive without seat belts, yet see no hypocrisy in fining someone 400 dollars for forgetting to put a quarter in the meter.

=== Drugs ===
All drugs should be decriminalized. All people in prison for non-violent drug offenses should be released. The United States should allow its citizens to grow Cannabis and Hemp for use in textiles, food, fuel, and drugs without any red tape or paper work but the growth of Poppy and Coca for opium and cocaine should be regulated as any other pharmaceutical. Also, all organic psychedelic drugs should be legal to use and grow for human consumption without red tape or paper work. I personally am not a druggie. I do not drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes nor do I smoke Marijuana. I have zero interest in using any recreational drugs for recreational purposes. I am more interested in experimenting with altered states of consciousness for exploration purposes.

=== Prostitution ===
Anyone over the age of 21 should be allowed to sell their bodies for sex in a licensed brothel that is regularly inspected by the health department to insure safety of the general population. Anyone 18 and older should be allowed to patron these brothels. It increases tourism and instead of being taxed heavily, the brothels can opt to donate money to the community for youth development, enrichment centers for the elderly, low cost baby sitting services, nursing homes, and hospitals.

=== Gambling ===
Gambling should be legal but only games with at worst 20:1 odds, thus, lotteries will be made illegal but even if they were legal, they wouldn't be able to compete with casinos. Casinos will shrink from being huge hotels to tiny hole-in-the-wall establishments like corner grocery stores. Owners can opt to donate money to their community rather than pay taxes.

=== Censorship ===
The FCC and MPAA should be abolished. Hardcore porn, cursing, racism, drug use, should be allowed on television any time of the day. As long as it is fictional, extreme depictions of gore and death should also be allowed on television at least from 10 pm to 3 am. The age for viewing pornography should be lowered to 13 (though the minimum age for performers should remain 18).

=== Education ===
America ought to simply try to mimic the methods and systems of education used Sweden. They have the most graduates, the highest rates of literacy, social stability and health, economic health, gender and race equality, and the lowest rates of violence, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and abortion. It's an astoundingly peaceful, clean, happy, healthy, and intelligent society. Simply putting more money into the education system in the US does not work and has been proven to not work. The entire foundation of the philosophy of education is wrong. There needs to be research and development. Experimentation. Focus on the goal of perpetuating a stable society. The idea that all children can do with the same kind of instruction is psychotic. A balanced and well-rounded education is unnecessary and inefficient. Some brains are not built for math and others are no built for literature. Of course at the earliest stages, instruction in all facets of human functionality are necessary, but at high school levels it is more of a schizophrenic distraction. Teens need to be identified for their desires and capabilities then trained accordingly, otherwise, only teens with the desire for tedium will excel. There is also an abysmally lacking support for the arts in the US education system. Artistic children are forced to learn that being happy doing what they desire is implausible from an early age. They are told horror stories of great artists who lived and died in poverty and suffering from day one. Instruction in the arts is biased towards music and literature but almost no attention is given towards cultivating children in the plastic arts such as painting or sculpture. Children in US public schools are shunned for day dreaming or doodling. Art is the closest thing to giving life any objective purpose or value. Art justifies the human experience, otherwise we're just here to replicate our genes.

=== Private Prison Industry ===
Since decriminalizing drugs has drastically reduced the prison population in America, obviously there is less money to be made from subsidies and prison labor since violent criminals tend to be more expensive to imprison and less likely to do honest work. Neurophysiological evaluations of violent criminals, as opposed to psychological evaluations, should be used to determine the viability of releasing prisoners since psychiatry is not a science. Private corporations should also be rewarded for their ability to rehabilitate criminals rather than their ability to warehouse more and more of them as is the current paradigm.

=== Gun Control ===
People are guaranteed the right to bare arms so that in the event that the government becomes too powerful, the populace can overthrow the government and re-establish the democratic republic as it should be based on the constitution. People ought to also have the right to carry hand guns concealed on their person in any public place without paper work. People ought to also be allowed to possess any kind of weapon imaginable, from b-b guns to bazookas, artillery guns to plasma lasers.

User:Deimossaturn

2009-10-29T06:28:13Z

Deimossaturn: /* Drugs */

User:Deimossaturn

2009-10-29T06:18:50Z

Deimossaturn:

User:Deimossaturn

2009-05-16T04:41:29Z

Deimossaturn:

Deimos Saturn is a male human in his early twenties born on Earth in the 1980's ACE. He is an artist, writer, philosopher, and eccentric. Most consider him a nice guy though he does have megalomaniac fantasies and is an uncompromising sort of personality who has been known to stop talking to someone he has known for years if he suddenly realizes that someone is a bad person in his eyes. His artwork focuses primarily on science and engineering and is mostly illustrative of a fictional time line of events that take place beyond the year 2020 to as far as 300 million years in the future. He accepts the label [[atheist]] though feels it is pragmatically inappropriate since he has yet been provided with a positive [[ontological]] description of a God so he doesn't know what he does not believe in. He is also an [[anarchist]], a weak [[nihilist]], an [[empiricist]], [[determinist]], active [[anti-theist]], and [[transhumanist]].

== Early Life ==
Born in Brooklyn New York in the 1980's, Deimos went to public school in neighborhoods densely populated with Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Arabs, Saudis, and Eastern Europeans. Being of a mixed race himself it was not difficult for him to make friends in this melting pot of cultures and ethnicities. This upbringing resulted in a man who understands the differences between ethnicities but also the commonalities.

== School Life ==
Deimos was held back in the third grade. Most of his school life from kindergarten to the end of middle school he was in a haze of following orders. The frustration of the monotony, the strangulation of his creativity, the tyrannical attitude of his teachers made him resent school and bred within him a deep seeded resentment of authority. There was also trouble will bullies and teasing. Never a delinquent but never a model student either, he mostly attended school for the social aspect, seeking a lot of praise from adults by demonstrating his artistic talent which was remarkably advanced for his age.

=== High School ===
Attended a high school geared towards the arts. Still able to make friends easily though refrained from many social interaction outside the boundaries of the school. Abstained from drug use, drinking, and partying, he was what some could consider an ideal teenager who just went to school and then straight home. Always in deep thought, he rediscovered many basic epistemological arguments about the nature of reality and at time seriously entertained the concept of trying to reach god-hood though an epiphany or superhuman status through contemplative meditation. You could not label him an atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, because if you asked him what he believed in, he would likely tell you that the universe didn't exist. He had many friends and a smaller number of very close friends of varying religious backgrounds whom he attempted to engage in discussion with about philosophy and the nature of reality and they all entertained him deeply in that regard, especially his stoner friends in the technical/stage department.

=== Girls ===
Deimos had 5 major crushes on girls through his life from 3rd grade to 12th grade. His taste in women are of the tom-boyish variety, perhaps an indication of latent homosexuality, tall, slim or sporty, rough, and never slutty or girly. Never asked a girl on a date until about the 10th grade and was rejected. The second girl he ever asked out was in the 11th grade and was accepted though no relationship ever formed. As it turns out, this second girl eventually came out as a homosexual and later a trans gender. In 12th grade, a girl asked him out but by this time was no longer interested in seeking a relationship any time in the near future. He did go out with her a few times but ended it before graduation. There were more girls who clearly showed interest in him throughout high school who he would definitely have considered attractive but was either too awkward to respond or simply ignored the obvious advances being made toward him because of a desire to remain single. In art college, he decided he would remain single until after graduation. He did become infatuated with one girl though when he pursued her he learned she was already in a relationship and instead just remained friends.

=== Art College ===
If you were to ask him today, he would tell you it was an enormous waste of money. He is extraordinarily talented and considers himself a genius in this regard but was only able to confirm this when seeing the work of his fellow pupils and the novice level of instruction given by all but 2 of his professors. There were more academic literature courses he was required to take but was so unenthusiastic he almost failed all of them. His history courses were easier but he had the most difficulty in his art history courses. It is entirely possible that Deimos Saturn suffers from [[Asperger's Syndrome]], manic depression, anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder, and various other kinds of neurosis or psychosis. In his third year of college, he was often so lethargic and unable to get regular sleep, because he was working part time in a fast food restaurant, he was absent at least 3 times in each of his classes save for 2. In one class, he was absent almost half of the semester but still managed to hand in all his work in time though only because the instructor gave very few assignments. One of his classes he stopped attending all together because he simply felt stupid. He had lost the reading agenda and was continually missing the necessary books, falling behind in reading, and was told point blank by the professor that he was failing miserably. At the end of the 3rd year, he did not sign up for the next year's classes and dropped out.

== Living At Home ==
Back home with his parents after quitting school, he continued training and honing his skill on his own. Unable to find gainful employment, he is working as a freelance illustrator for several graphic design companies though could not possibly support himself, he simply supplements his parent's income.

== Future ==
By his mid twenties he hopes to be on his own supporting himself as an illustrator and wants to be active in his community and join an atheist group that participates in church/state separation activism.

== Politics and Philosophy ==
=== Anarchy ===
As bizarre, unsavory, and psychotic as it may seem to most people, Deimos believes that any society that has attained stability within its boarders as a democratic republic founded upon a constitution that protects each individual's inalienable rights for 100 years can do without any official, tax collecting, militarized government. According to his hypothesis, most, if not all of the basic functions of government can be performed by private insurance companies, including police, public education, military, prison, public health, environmental protection, public transportation, road and bridge construction and maintenance, and so on. All that is required is that the majority of individuals within that country have a working comprehension of the philosophy of anarchy and rugged individualism.

=== Police ===
# There's too fucking many of them.
# Every department and every precinct has quotas no matter what they say on the news.
# Tazers and CS gas are torture devices.
# The old adage that "there are just a few bad cops that make the rest of them look bad" is backwards. The reality is, the majority of cops are crooked, it's just a tiny minority that make them look good on television.
# The attitude with most police towards civilians is "guilty until proven innocent".
# Usually, the people who seriously pursue a job as a patrolman are the same people who were the Jocks who bullied their peers in high school and are likely born sociopaths.
# The Police is a business that believes it is owed profit, and when they can't make enough profit, they just make more laws so that more crime can occur, such as setting absurd and petty traffic laws to bust honest citizens with insane fines.
# There is no competition and therefore there will inevitably be corruption.
# Police will consider refusal to consent to search without warrant as reasonable suspicion to search every single time, without fail.
# There's never one around when you need one, not that anyone in a well-armed populace would, but there are plenty standing around itching to fine you.
# Police constantly break the law, make moving violations, park illegally, run red lights, drive without seat belts, yet see no hypocrisy in fining someone 400 dollars for forgetting to put a quarter in the meter.

=== Drugs ===
All drugs should be decriminalized. All people in prison for non-violent drug offenses should be released. The United States should grow Cannabis and Hemp for use in textiles, food, fuel, and drugs but the growth of Poppy and Coca for opium and cocaine should be regulated as any other pharmaceutical.

=== Prostitution ===
Anyone over the age of 21 should be allowed to sell their bodies for sex in a licensed brothel that is regularly inspected by the health department to insure safety of the general population. Anyone 18 and older should be allowed to patron these brothels. It increases tourism and instead of being taxed heavily, the brothels can opt to donate money to the community for youth development, enrichment centers for the elderly, low cost baby sitting services, nursing homes, and hospitals.

=== Gambling ===
Gambling should be legal but only games with at worst 20:1 odds, thus, lotteries will be made illegal but even if they were legal, they wouldn't be able to compete with casinos. Casinos will shrink from being huge hotels to tiny hole-in-the-wall establishments like corner grocery stores. Owners can opt to donate money to their community rather than pay taxes.

=== Censorship ===
The FCC and MPAA should be abolished. Hardcore porn, violence, gore, cursing, racism, drug use, as long as it is fictional, should be allowed on television any time of the day. The age for viewing pornography should be lowered to 13 (though the minimum age for performers should remain 18).

=== Education ===
America ought to simply try to mimic the methods and systems of education used Sweden. They have the most graduates, the highest rates of literacy, social stability and health, economic health, gender and race equality, and the lowest rates of violence, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and abortion. It's an astoundingly peaceful, clean, happy, and healthy, and intelligent society.

=== Private Prison Industry ===
Since decriminalizing drugs has drastically reduced the prison population in America, obviously there is less money to be made from subsidies and prison labor since violent criminals tend to be more expensive to imprison and less likely to do honest work. Neurophysiological evaluations of violent criminals, as opposed to psychological evaluations, should be used determine the viability of releasing prisoners since psychiatry is not a science.

=== Gun Control ===
People are guaranteed the right to bare arms so that in the event that the government becomes too powerful, the populace can overthrow the government and re-establish the democratic republic as it should be based on the constitution. People ought to also have the right to carry hand guns concealed on their person in any public place.

Information Theory Argument

2009-05-16T04:05:45Z

Deimossaturn:

Information

2009-05-16T03:50:16Z

Deimossaturn:

Information in the context of scientific discussion is often used by apologists to mean data, instruction, knowledge, or as having inherent meaning. A more pragmatic usage of the word would be to use it as a label for things that will have a relevant meaning to all minds that are aware of what the values represent in the real world. A naturally occurring pattern has information in it if its basic units are assigned values by a mind, however, without minds, all phenomenon are without meaning. Phenomenon are only granted meaning by minds, but just because phenomenon exist does not indicate the existence of a mind that has granted it meaning. A designed information storage device (such as a vinyl record or compact disc) contains information since its units are assigned values and reader devices (such as a record player or CD player) is built to recognize the form and composition of these bits to be translated to a form relevant to that mind.

===See Also===
----
*[[Information Theory Argument]]

Transhumanism

2009-04-01T14:55:47Z

Deimossaturn: transhumanism

Transhumanism (also referred to as "posthumanism") is the idea that in the distant future, science and technology will allow human beings to gain one or more of the following qualities:
*Immortality except in the most severe and rare circumstances (such as falling into a star)
*Invulnerability to sickness, injury, or rapid ability to heal and regenerate except in the most severe and rare circumstances (such as being trapped in orbit around a star)
*The ability to adapt to almost all environments that could possibly exist in the universe without any protection (e.g. being able to live in the hard vacuum of deep space without a space suit or space craft)
*Super strength
*Super speed
*Powered flight within a gaseous or liquid medium or even hard vacuum
*Ability to absorb, store, and utilize a wide range of possible energy sources from ambient heat to cosmic rays (this would also entail the ability to perceive these energies)
*Enormous raw processing power and speed of thought relative to a modern human brain
*Thought transference with any species
*The ability to manipulate matter at the molecular or even atomic level with total precision which would entail
**the ability to change shape and color and resemble any object of equal mass perfectly
**the ability to move through dense solid objects
**the ability to replicate any object given sufficient available raw mass with all necessary constituent elements
**the ability to clone one's self and merge with one's clones to form back into a single being
**the ability to merge with other life forms into one being

== Secular Objections ==
Some argue that a technological state where such things are possible will never be achieved while others says such power should never be allowed for anyone to possess even if it was possible. There are also sentimental reasons for why people object to the idea of transhumanism ranging from the prospect that sex will become obsolete to the idea that transhumans will be cold and indifferent to what we would call "humanity" in a way similar to the character Dr. Manhattan, from the graphic novel "The Watchmen", behaved. Some fear that the concept of a transhuman is so alien in relation to the modern human that it would be analogous to an ant that becomes a human who still wants to have normal interaction with their ant society, however, the reality of the transition from modern human to transhuman will be gradual and come in stages, with the gradual replacement of tissues and organs with cybernetic tissues and organs over many decades.

Transhuman

2009-04-01T14:20:34Z

Deimossaturn:

#REDIRECT [[Transhumanism]]

Death

2009-04-01T14:10:39Z

Deimossaturn: biological vs legal and transhumanism

{{wikipedia}}
'''Death''' is the natural state of an organism following [[life]], at which time all life processes (such as breathing, brain activity, etc.) cease.

Many people find the thought of their own death, or that of their loved ones, to be extremely troubling. This might be one reason certain aspects of [[religion]], such as certain [[burial]] traditions and belief in an [[afterlife]], began in early [[human]]s in the first place.

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

== Biological Versus Legal ==
Death is currently known as an irreversible reaction in all organisms, however, there are many known cases where people their hearts had stopped beating but were revived by a defibrillator. For this reason, the definition of permanent death in the legal and biological sense does not entirely rest on the activity of the heart. Absolute unrecoverable death entails the irreparable destruction of the brain which can be caused by oxygen deprivation, bleeding of the brain, incineration, or high impact trauma. In the distant future, when the entire physical state of a brain can be copied at the necessary resolution to preserve fidelity to the original, the definition of death may change. The ability of nanotechnology to reconstitute the brain after it is destroyed to the exact state it was before the destruction may also make true death more difficult to establish.

== Transhumanism ==
[[Homeostasis]] is a phenomenon that is what defines living organisms. If humans or their descendants attain non-biological physical forms that only act as platforms for the continued operation of the mind, then according to modern definitions of life, these [[transhuman]]s/posthumans would not be considered living since their cells (or the nanotech equivelents) will not necessarily have to exhibit homeostasis in order to facilitate the primary function of simply acting as a platform for consciousness.

User:Deimossaturn

2009-04-01T07:44:53Z

Deimossaturn:

Deimos Saturn is a male human in his early twenties born on Earth in the 1980's ACE. He is an artist, writer, philosopher, and eccentric. Most consider him a nice guy though he does have megalomaniac fantasies and is an uncompromising sort of personality who has been known to stop talking to someone he has known for years if he suddenly realizes that someone is a bad person in his eyes. His artwork focuses primarily on science and engineering and is mostly illustrative of a fictional time line of events that take place beyond the year 2020 to as far as 300 million years in the future. He accepts the label [[atheist]] though feels it is pragmatically inappropriate since he has yet been provided with a positive [[ontological]] description of a God so he doesn't know what he does not believe in. He is also a weak [[nihilist]], an [[empiricist]], [[determinist]], active [[anti-theist]], and [[transhumanist]].

== Early Life ==
Born in Brooklyn New York in the 1980's, Deimos went to public school in neighborhoods densely populated with Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Arabs, Saudis, and Eastern Europeans. Being of a mixed race himself it was not difficult for him to make friends in this melting pot of cultures and ethnicities. This upbringing resulted in a man who understands the differences between ethnicities but also the commonalities.

== School Life ==
Deimos was held back in the third grade. Most of his school life from kindergarten to the end of middle school he was in a haze of following orders. The frustration of the monotony, the strangulation of his creativity, the tyrannical attitude of his teachers made him resent school and bred within him a deep seeded resentment of authority. There was also trouble will bullies and teasing. Never a delinquent but never a model student either, he mostly attended school for the social aspect, seeking a lot of praise from adults by demonstrating his artistic talent which was remarkably advanced for his age.

=== High School ===
Attended a high school geared towards the arts. Still able to make friends easily though refrained from many social interaction outside the boundaries of the school. Abstained from drug use, drinking, and partying, he was what some could consider an ideal teenager who just went to school and then straight home. Always in deep thought, he rediscovered many basic epistemological arguments about the nature of reality and at time seriously entertained the concept of trying to reach god-hood though an epiphany or superhuman status through contemplative meditation. You could not label him an atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, because if you asked him what he believed in, he would likely tell you that the universe didn't exist. He had many friends and a smaller number of very close friends of varying religious backgrounds whom he attempted to engage in discussion with about philosophy and the nature of reality and they all entertained him deeply in that regard, especially his stoner friends in the technical/stage department.

=== Girls ===
Deimos had 5 major crushes on girls through his life from 3rd grade to 12th grade. His taste in women are of the tom-boyish variety, perhaps an indication of latent homosexuality, tall, slim or sporty, rough, and never slutty or girly. Never asked a girl on a date until about the 10th grade and was rejected. The second girl he ever asked out was in the 11th grade and was accepted though no relationship ever formed. As it turns out, this second girl eventually came out as a homosexual and later a trans gender. In 12th grade, a girl asked him out but by this time was no longer interested in seeking a relationship any time in the near future. He did go out with her a few times but ended it before graduation. There were more girls who clearly showed interest in him throughout high school who he would definitely have considered attractive but was either too awkward to respond or simply ignored the obvious advances being made toward him because of a desire to remain single. In art college, he decided he would remain single until after graduation. He did become infatuated with one girl though when he pursued her he learned she was already in a relationship and instead just remained friends.

=== Art College ===
If you were to ask him today, he would tell you it was an enormous waste of money. He is extraordinarily talented and considers himself a genius in this regard but was only able to confirm this when seeing the work of his fellow pupils and the novice level of instruction given by all but 2 of his professors. There were more academic literature courses he was required to take but was so unenthusiastic he almost failed all of them. His history courses were easier but he had the most difficulty in his art history courses. It is entirely possible that Deimos Saturn suffers from [[Asperger's Syndrome]], manic depression, anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder, and various other kinds of neurosis or psychosis. In his third year of college, he was often so lethargic and unable to get regular sleep, because he was working part time in a fast food restaurant, he was absent at least 3 times in each of his classes save for 2. In one class, he was absent almost half of the semester but still managed to hand in all his work in time though only because the instructor gave very few assignments. One of his classes he stopped attending all together because he simply felt stupid. He had lost the reading agenda and was continually missing the necessary books, falling behind in reading, and was told point blank by the professor that he was failing miserably. At the end of the 3rd year, he did not sign up for the next year's classes and dropped out.

== Living At Home ==
Back home with his parents after quitting school, he continued training and honing his skill on his own. Unable to find gainful employment, he is working as a freelance illustrator for several graphic design companies though could not possibly support himself, he simply supplements his parent's income.

== Future ==
By his mid twenties he hopes to be on his own supporting himself as an illustrator and wants to be active in his community and join an atheist group that participates in church/state separation activism.

== Politics and Philosophy ==
=== Drugs ===
All drugs should be decriminalized. All people in prison for non-violent drug offenses should be released. The United States should grow Cannabis and Hemp for use in textiles, food, fuel, and drugs but the growth of Poppy and Coca for opium and cocaine should be regulated as any other pharmaceutical.

=== Prostitution ===
Anyone over the age of 21 should be allowed to sell their bodies for sex in a licensed brothel that is regularly inspected by the health department to insure safety of the general population. Anyone 18 and older should be allowed to patron these brothels. It increases tourism and instead of being taxed heavily, the brothels can opt to donate money to the community for youth development, enrichment centers for the elderly, low cost baby sitting services, nursing homes, and hospitals.

=== Gambling ===
Gambling should be legal but only games with at worst 20:1 odds, thus, lotteries will be made illegal but even if they were legal, they wouldn't be able to compete with casinos. Casinos will shrink from being huge hotels to tiny hole-in-the-wall establishments like corner grocery stores. Owners can opt to donate money to their community rather than pay taxes.

=== Censorship ===
The FCC and MPAA should be abolished. Hardcore porn, violence, gore, cursing, racism, drug use, as long as it is fictional, should be allowed on television any time of the day. The age for viewing pornography should be lowered to 13 (though the minimum age for performers should remain 18).

=== Education ===
America ought to simply try to mimic the methods and systems of education used Sweden. They have the most graduates, the highest rates of literacy, social stability and health, economic health, gender and race equality, and the lowest rates of violence, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and abortion. It's an astoundingly peaceful, clean, happy, and healthy, and intelligent society.

=== Private Prison Industry ===
Since decriminalizing drugs has drastically reduced the prison population in America, obviously there is less money to be made from subsidies and prison labor since violent criminals tend to be more expensive to imprison and less likely to do honest work. Neurophysiological evaluations of violent criminals, as opposed to psychological evaluations, should be used determine the viability of releasing prisoners since psychiatry is not a science.

=== Gun Control ===
People are guaranteed the right to bare arms so that in the event that the government becomes too powerful, the populace can overthrow the government and re-establish the democratic republic as it should be based on the constitution. People ought to also have the right to carry hand guns concealed on their person in any public place.

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T12:50:32Z

Deimossaturn:

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T12:44:29Z

Deimossaturn: /* Self Refuting */

File:Creationistcritic.jpg

2009-03-31T12:42:37Z

Deimossaturn: A cartoon illustrating the shallowness of the "if there's a painting, there must be a painting, so if there's a living organism, there must be a god who created it" argument.

A cartoon illustrating the shallowness of the "if there's a painting, there must be a painting, so if there's a living organism, there must be a god who created it" argument.

Infinite regress

2009-03-31T11:43:37Z

Deimossaturn:

#REDIRECT [[Uncaused cause]]

Infinite regress

2009-03-31T11:43:02Z

Deimossaturn:

#REDIRECT [[Uncaused caused]]

Phenomenon

2009-03-31T11:40:44Z

Deimossaturn:

A phenomenon is any observable occurrence.

Falsify

2009-03-31T11:37:31Z

Deimossaturn:

#REDIRECT [[Falsification]]

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T11:34:59Z

Deimossaturn:

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T11:34:16Z

Deimossaturn:

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T11:33:07Z

Deimossaturn:

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T11:32:36Z

Deimossaturn:

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T11:30:16Z

Deimossaturn: final touches

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the [[Fine Tuning Argument]] with the [[Watchmaker]] Argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that [[DNA]] has "[[information]]" within it and information is only something that can be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the [[theory of evolution]] as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the [[theory of abiogenesis]] as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the pattern. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific [[theory]] that is used to find [[Intelligent Design]].

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a [[tautology]] rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no [[experiment]] which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to [[falsify it]]. It is not scientific.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called "[[phenomenon]]". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''"the composition and form of an entity."'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

==== Static vs. Signal ====
A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by [[pulsars]] was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and the only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an [[infinite regress]]?

===See Also===
*[[Information]]
*[[SETI]]

Information

2009-03-31T11:09:03Z

Deimossaturn: information

Information in the context of scientific discussion is often used by apologists to mean data, instruction, knowledge, or as having inherent meaning. A more pragmatic usage of the word would be to use it as a label for things that will have a relevant meaning to all minds that are aware of what the values represent in the real world. A naturally occurring pattern has information in it if its basic units are assigned values by a mind. A designed information storage device (such as a vinyl record or compact disc) contains information since its units are assigned values and reader devices (such as a record player or CD player) is built to recognize the form and composition of these bits to be translated to a form relevant to that mind.

===See Also===
----
*[[Information Theory Argument]]

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T10:53:45Z

Deimossaturn:

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the fine tuning argument with the watchmaker argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that DNA has "information" within it and information is only something that can be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
----
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

==== Variations ====
----
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the pattern. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific theory that is used to find Intelligent Design.

=== Counter Apologetics ===
----
==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a tautology rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no experiment which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to falsify it. It is not a scientific argument.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella catagory of being called "phenomenon". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality to DNA because it is expressed a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''the composition and form of an entity.'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble, inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful. Another example would be to tune your radio dial between stations.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and the only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

===See Also===
*[[Information]]

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T10:49:39Z

Deimossaturn: Information Theory used as an Intelligent Design apologetic

The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the fine tuning argument with the watchmaker argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that DNA has "information" within it and information is only something that can be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life. It's a particularly clever apologetic because of the difficulty in defining "information".

=== Apologetic ===
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA, which contains information, in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent manner that results in the expression of proteins precisely correlated to the DNA that form living organisms.

==== Variations ====
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.
*There is a possibility that what sounds like random static could be signals from an alien civilization being sent to earth and the encryption is so complex that no computer built by humans can detect the pattern. Information Theory is a legitimate scientific theory that is used to find Intelligent Design.

=== Counter Apologetics ===

==== The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a tautology rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no experiment which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to falsify it. It is not a scientific argument.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella catagory of being called "phenomenon". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word "information" is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

==== Rocks Contain Information ====
If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality to DNA because it is expressed a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as ''the composition and form of an entity.'' The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. ''Give me the information'', ''the information we received was inaccurate''). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble, inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful. Another example would be to tune your radio dial between stations.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and the only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T10:02:27Z

Deimossaturn:

Information

2009-03-31T10:01:54Z

Deimossaturn: Information moved to Information Theory Argument: I thought I created a new page linked to the Information page when I was actually putting the article directly in the Information page.

#REDIRECT [[Information Theory Argument]]

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T10:01:54Z

Deimossaturn: Information moved to Information Theory Argument: I thought I created a new page linked to the Information page when I was actually putting the article directly in the Information page.

== Information Theory Argument ==
The Information Theory Argument is a type of semantics argument often claimed to be a scientific argument for the existence of a god that combines the fine tuning argument with the watchmaker argument. The apologetic is usually structured around the premise that DNA has "information" within it and information is only something that can be created by a mind. Often, the main point of contention between atheists and theists who present this apologetic is the usage of the word "information" to describe what DNA contains. This apologetic is usually used by theists who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of species but reject the theory of abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life.

=== Apologetic ===
Since information can only be generated by conscious minds, then it is obvious that DNA in all life was created by a god or god-like being. There is no natural phenomenon which can generate information in such a coherent and relevant manner.

==== Variations ====
* The vast majority of scientist agree that DNA is a storage system of coded information. Since all known codes are known to have been created by intelligent minds and there are no known codes which are created by natural processes, the rational conclusion to draw is that an intelligent designer created DNA.

=== Counter Apologetics ===

==== Information Theory Argument Is Tautological ====
If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a tautology rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no experiment which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to falsify it. It is not a scientific argument.

==== Information Is A Label ====
Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella catagory of "phenomenon". There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule can emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances.

==== Self Refuting ====
If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and the only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god's mind? Doesn't god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

Information Theory Argument

2009-03-31T09:59:59Z

Deimossaturn: Information Theory Argument

Fine-tuning argument

2009-01-09T22:51:19Z

Deimossaturn: /* Affirming the consequent */

In [[cosmology]], '''fine tuning''' refers to the precise balance of [[cosmological constant]]s that allow the [[observable universe]] to exist as it does. These constants include the speed of light, the rate of expansion of the universe, the force of gravity, the nuclear strong force, the electromagnetic force, and many other parameters of the observable universe. These constants exist in such a state of precise equilibrium that any variation to their values would have resulted in a drastically different universe. The '''fine tuning argument''' states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth.

== Background ==

The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only came to be in the last eight to ten years with recent observations about the observable universe and cosmological constants. Cosmologists have theorized that even minute variations in the values of these constants would have resulted in a radically different universe or one altogether unsuitable for supporting life as we know it.

* ''Example 1:'' The rate of expansion of matter after the [[Big Bang]] had to occur at precisely the right rate to allow our universe to form as it has. If it had expanded any faster, matter would have dissipated too quickly for stars and solar systems to form. If it had occurred any slower, the universe would have collapsed upon itself shortly after the Big Bang, resulting in what is known as a [[Big Crunch]].

* ''Example 2:'' The strong nuclear force is the force which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. Scientists have calculated that variations in the strong force of as little as ±1% would have drastically affected the breakdown of naturally occurring elements in the universe, prohibiting the formation of stars, black holes, and other natural occurring phenomena.

There are studies of numerous other constants with similar results.

== Apologetics ==

Deists cite this remarkable balance of cosmological constants as evidence of a creator, being a far too unlikely set of circumstances to have occurred naturally. This is quickly becoming the argument of choice of [[creationism]] proponents like [[Lee Strobel]]. Strobel presents this concept as incontrovertible empirical evidence of God in his book [[The Case For A Creator]].

== Counter-apologetics ==

# Essentially this argument is just a variation on the [[argument from design]]. The key difference here is that it misrepresents actual scientific evidence in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning". See below.
# Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the [[multiverse theory]]. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
# Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not he case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
# The Earth's total mass is [[wikipedia:Earth|5.9736×10^24 KG]] while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around [[wikipedia:Biomass_(ecology)|7×10^13 KG]]. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has [http://books.google.com/books?id=Bd0vzY1x2fYC&pg=PA39&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0 created and tested] much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
# In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
# If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
# If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is ''not'' an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.

== Affirming the consequent ==

The Fine Tuning argument presupposes that the phenomenon of life and it being ''presumably'' only possible in a universe with physical constants exactly like the ones in ours is what qualifies this as special or sublime, however, this is based entirely on nothing other than the entities that determine what qualifies this universe as special or sublime are living (humans). This is an [[affirming the consequent]] fallacy. It could also bee seen as a [[confirmation bias]] fallacy. In a hypothetical universe with different physical constants, there may be an emergent natural phenomenon that is vastly more complex than the emergence of life, the evolution of life, and the ecology of life. This phenomenon, we will label "phenomenon x", would be impossible in our universe because our physical constants may not permit phenomenon x to occur. There is no objective reason why the possibility of life demands a fine tuner more than phenomenon x. There is also no objective reason why any natural phenomenon, no matter the complexity, should demand a fine tuner any more than another. Hypothetically, if it were shown that life of some kind is possible in most possible universes, but the phenomenon of lightning is only possible in this one, then an apologist might assert that because we occupy the only possible universe with lightning, this universe must have been finely tuned.

== See also ==
*[[Anthropic principle]]
*[[Habitable zone]]

== External links ==

* [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html Cosmology 101] at NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisortopy Probe website — This is an outstanding resource for understanding cosmological theory.
* ''[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12282 Fine-Tuned Deception]: Say hello to the new stealth creationism'' by [[Sahotra Sarkar]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Cosmological arguments]]

Kalam

2009-01-09T22:46:54Z

Deimossaturn: /* Counter-apologetics */

The '''Kalam''' argument is an altered form of the [[cosmological argument]]. It is an argument that intends to circumvent the infinite regress problem contained within the traditional version by altering the premises.

==Apologetics==

[[William Lane Craig]]'s version:

# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
# The [[universe]] began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

The distinction between this and the traditional cosmological argument is that it distinguishes effects in general from those that have a beginning. This qualification leaves open an interesting possibility that some things in the universe might exist that never began to exist. But Craig is not that sloppy, so before we jump on this observation we need to address the kalam argument's second premise and its support.

The kalam argument's second premise—"The universe began to exist"—is a claim that seems more of a presupposition than a fact, but watch how it is supported:
# An actual infinite cannot exist.
# A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
# Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginingless series of events.

The important term here is, of course, "actual infinite." [[Wikipedia:Actual infinite|Wikipedia]] has the following to say about actual infinities:
:''Actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in any sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set together. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity is the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an arbitrary sequence of rational numbers, as given objects.''

The mathematical meaning of the term 'actual' in 'actual infinity' is synonymous with 'definite', not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist actually in nature.

==Counter-apologetics==

===Counter-argument===
====Definitions====
In order to say something "comes" into existence, then we must be able to distinguish between two sets of affairs in which that something exists, and a state of affairs in which it does not exist.

X = The universe

S1 = not X, or a state of affairs in which the Universe does not exist

S2 = X, or a state of affairs in which the Universe exists

We also must show that there must be a distinction made between these two states, as if there was no difference (x & not x) then there would be a logical contradiction (Law of non-contradiction)
====Frame of reference and causality====
If we use time as a frame of reference, where Moment 1 would be S1, and Moment 2 is S2, we can meaningfully say that they are true at different moments. The problem with this is the objective of Hawking that there was no "before" the universe - that the big bang brought into existence time and space. Thus, time cannot be a meaningful way to distinguish between S1 and S2. The only other causality is atemporal causality, if there is such a thing, where cause and effect are simultaneous. However, this leads to a straight contradiction as both S1 and S2 are true at the same time.

===Problems with actual infinites===

Mathematicians such as Georg Cantor and Michael Dummett have argued that actual infinites can, in fact, exist. This is a problem within mathematics, not a solved problem that the kalam argument can use without protest. As Arnold T. Guminski has elsewhere argued, the application of [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/kalam2.shtml "Cantorian set theory to the real world…does not generate counterintuitive absurdities."] In the mathematical sense, Craig's premise that an "actual infinite cannot exist" does not appear to be the case unequivocally. The question is whether it is in this sense that Craig really intends to use it or not.

In this sense, the entity in question seems to be time, or more correctly space-time, which the following:
# An actual infinite cannot exist.
# A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
designed to support the kalam argument's second premise;
:2. The universe began to exist.
seems designed to support. So the real question is whether time itself is infinite, which seems to be what Craig and other proponents of the kalam argument seem to be answering as "no."

One of Craig's examples of an actual infinite is a bookshelf with no end, but the same point is made. The idea is that there must be a point where the books end, otherwise they would fall, either over or down (to where, I wonder).

Scientific research about the universe's origins seem to point to a beginning to the universe in its current form, but not necessarily to the beginning of matter itself, and thus not of time either. Considerable debate exists over this question among scientists, so it is premature to declare that space-time is, by default, a thing with a beginning. The events at the singularity itself, as predicted by the big bang theory, are not understood by current cosmologists. Before a certain point, we cannot say what happened, let alone any possible events that took place before the singularity. This having been admitted, ignorance is not a justification for an insertion of supernatural causation.

Our inability to comprehend the nature of this enigma, however mind-boggling it is, is not sufficient to insert an answer that would require the same explanation. This [[god of the gaps]] argument—that because we don't know some supernatural deus ex machine must intervene—is not reasonable. There is no reason to reject, out of hand, that the universe can't be an actual infinite (or, for that matter, that it is incapable of self-cause) no matter how non-sensible it sounds. Without a conclusion as to why an actual infinite can't exist or why time cannot be infinite we cannot accept kalam's second premise.

Furthermore, the disputed fact that an "actual infinite cannot exist" does not prove that there was time before the Universe in which God created the universe. It just proves that there could not be an infinite amount of time between the first moment of the Universe and now.
===Special pleading===

The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes. The kalam arguer will simply state that [[God]] didn't begin, and so no regress occurs and no Creator of God is necessary.

However, this answer seems flawed. The essential criticism can be pin-pointed in an arbitrary choice, a form of the fallacy of [[special pleading]], that must be made. As [[Richard Dawkins]] put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything (or at least things that begin) must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice, as in either case the rule must be violated, but with the proposition of God, we have to add something to the theory that adds nothing else to it.

If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe? To answer this, we must look at a further problem. This problem concerns the definition of god used in both arguments. A theologian might reply this counter argument and insist that the decision is not arbitrary, and that god must be allowed to have these attributes that the kalam argument seems to imply. He may say that the argument is an attempt to show the need for there to be a God that has the attributes that we cannot find in the universe. He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is non-sense, there must be this being with these unique attributes. That is, there must be this being that does not begin, has no creator, and is thus able to create the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem from, and is in fact the same as, the [[ontological argument]].

The ontological argument strives to define a god into existence. Essentially, it asks us to imagine the most perfect of all beings, and says that it must exist because existence is better than non-existence, and if this being is truly perfect it must have this attribute as well. The problems with this argument are two-fold; merely thinking or imagining some being does not imply the being has actual existence outside of it being conjured in the imagination.

This choice is not only unnecessary, it is not [[parsimonious]]. In order to explain something apparently designed and which cannot create itself, a being is conjured into existence which would require even more unlikely explanation.

The Kalam argument attempts to circumvent the problem of infinite regress but steps right into the problem of special pleading so is no better off.

==="Comparing apples and oranges"===

In the first premise, Craig declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

In an article titled [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity], [[Dan Barker]] writes:

<blockquote>The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.</blockquote>

See [[Russell's paradox]] for issues that arise from allowing a set to be a member of itself.

===False dichotomy===
The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause.

===So what===
Although some other variation of the Kalam argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalam argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.
[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Cosmological arguments]]