"The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted

[Immediacracy]

Things which are impossible. For example, drawing a card that is missing from the deck, getting a grade above the max etc

What determines what things are impossible?
Couldn't they be working through and around randomness?

[One Above All]

To those who don't seem to understand my point:

If the odds of something happening are greater than 0, it CAN happen. That's all. No need for jebus' will or god's will or whatever

[One Above All]

What determines what things are impossible?
Couldn't they be working through and around randomness?

Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?

[Immediacracy]

Where did you come across the idea to which you objected in that post?  Does it exists strictly in your mind, or was it presented to you from elsewhere?

Gee, I don't know. The title of the post is "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted.

You're desperate to make me wrong in any way possible to divert attention from the fact that what I'm saying refutes the refutation successfully. Desperation tends to lead people into semantic nitpicking and gotcha strategies. Yawn. Ask me something about what what you or I or the thread is about and I'm happy to discuss. As for anyone's opinions of how I communicate or 'make claims' or debate, I really have no interest. No high horse, I just don't see the point of argumentative d*** measuring.

[Str82Hell]

The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1.

Corrected your typo.

[Immediacracy]

Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?

Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?

[One Above All]

Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?

Whether it exists or not determines where there is one or not >_>. We humans do not yet possess the technology to determine that, if that's what you were asking
As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed

[Azdgari]

Gee, I don't know. The title of the post is "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted.

That doesn't present the idea to which you objected.  Nor is such an idea put forth in the OP.  This is disingenuous of you.

You're desperate to make me wrong in any way possible to divert attention from the fact that what I'm saying refutes the refutation successfully.

It only refutes the strawman you constructed, which is why I object to it.

Desperation tends to lead people into semantic nitpicking and gotcha strategies. Yawn. Ask me something about what what you or I or the thread is about and I'm happy to discuss. As for anyone's opinions of how I communicate or 'make claims' or debate, I really have no interest. No high horse, I just don't see the point of argumentative d*** measuring.

How is it a matter of semantics, Immediacracy?  The reason I'm pressing this is because in that response to Blaziken, you engaged in a the kind of strawman-construction so prevalent among creationist literature.  It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.

[Str82Hell]

As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed

Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.

[One Above All]

Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.

Is there any point to the bold part? Silicon is still not carbon. It's silicon

[Str82Hell]

Yes, because that means that silicon can take over a lot of the functions carbon has in our bodies. And silicon life forms cannot be ruled out (at least not that I'm aware of).

[Azdgari]

Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.

^^ Relevant:

... As an example: Carbon is probably the most important element in life. If it did not exist, life as we know it could not exist
...

[One Above All]

Yes, because that means that silicon can take over a lot of the functions carbon has in our bodies. And silicon life forms cannot be ruled out (at least not that I'm aware of).

A lot=Not all
So once again, life as we know it would not have existed

[Str82Hell]

Excuse me for not reading the entire topic. I responded to your post where you claimed that life would not have existed in that case. I'm sorry.

[Azdgari]

I'm not blaming you here, Str82Hell - it was buried on a previous page in an unlinked-to post.  I was just clarifying that one of the points which you were driving home to Blaziken is one with which he is already familiar, and with which he agrees.

[Str82Hell]

I know. I thought an apology for not reading the entire thread would be in place.

[One Above All]

I know. I thought an apology for not reading the entire thread would be in place.

Nah. It's okay

[relativetruth]

How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?

Yes.

So you agree with me that nobody can use a mathematical argument to state that the odds of life are too low to occur naturally.

Do you also agree with me that randomness may not actually occur in the physical world but these are mathematical approximations.

If you take all the dice ever made in the world it may be that the side with one spot scooped out is slightly heavier than the side with six spots which may give a slight bias for some numbers over millions and billions of throws.

Given the right initial conditions and enough events at the subatomic level maybe abiogenesis is inevitable and is nothing to do with randomness

[Immediacracy]

Whether it exists or not determines where there is one or not >_>. We humans do not yet possess the technology to determine that, if that's what you were asking

But you see where I'm going with this.. The potential for life to exist is the deciding factor, not the randomness. You need to shuffle cards to play the game, but the game has to have cards which can be shuffled to begin with. The shuffling is kind of a 'who cares' compared to this all-important set of ordered pre-existing possibilities.

As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed

Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.

[Omen]

Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos

Ok, sorta.

Oh.. here's the woo.

is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.

Non-sequitir, nothing logically follows in necessity or explanation.  The statement doesn't inform, doesn't explain, and isn't reliant on any previous information.

Here is something that briefly covers what we can know.. followed by  ,"SMURFS EXIST IN MY EARS!"

"as far as we know" know what? From what? Where? How?

Logos what?

Creation what?

Notice that the effort is not to explain yourself and instead the effort is to combine your woo claim with an earlier admission of 'a little' scientific merit.

[Dragnet]

Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.

So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.

Nice try but your logic is still not working.

You are jumping off to a supernatural. Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?

Cosmological argument re-packaged...

[Immediacracy]

So you agree with me that nobody can use a mathematical argument to state that the odds of life are too low to occur naturally.

Yes, it's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of conditions. The odds aren't too low, they just don't exist at all, unless you take the fact that life does exist now and reverse engineer it's origin to exclude all other possibilities but long odds.

Do you also agree with me that randomness may not actually occur in the physical world but these are mathematical approximations.

randomness is just a word. it stands for a category of ideas. which are also just words, categories, and ideas. if you want randomness not to occur in the physical world, you can demonstrate that, if you want to describe some of what occurs in the physical world as random, you can support that as well.

Given the right initial conditions and enough events at the subatomic level maybe abiogenesis is inevitable and is nothing to do with randomness

It doesn't even have to be inevitable. I'd be happy with just possible. Initial conditions are everything. Their consequences can be random, inevitable, or a combination thereof (and since we are talking about the UNIVERSE afterall, I would put my money on all three) and it doesn't really matter.

[Immediacracy]

So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.

No, Hydrogen is an expression of the laws of physics. 'Laws'/order is 'god' in the sense of supreme executive authority, but not in the sense of consolidating teleology into a single unified narrative.

Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?

You can call them the laws of physics if you want, but that limits them to a physical ordering. I don't see why that's needed.

[Omen]

If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.

[Omen]

So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.

No, Hydrogen is an expression of the laws of physics. 'Laws'/order is 'god' in the sense of supreme executive authority, but not in the sense of consolidating teleology into a single unified narrative.

Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?

You can call them the laws of physics if you want, but that limits them to a physical ordering. I don't see why that's needed.

You obfuscated and dodged the question.

What physical ordering?

Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?

You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.

[Immediacracy]

It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.

Who's a creationist? I'm just saying that life has nothing to do with randomness. It's an irreducible phenomenon which, although composed of subordinate elements, is not a random synergy of those elements. The elements have to be inherently synergistic beforehand. Not saying that someone created them to do that, just that it's a built in potential of this universe.

[Omen]

It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.

Who's a creationist? I'm just saying that life has nothing to do with randomness. It's an irreducible phenomenon which,

Any kind of matter can be reduced to its component atoms, sub atomic particles, etc.

"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?

[Immediacracy]

If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.

O M F G
I actually completely agree...with my uber nemesis!

The only thing I would suggest that you consider is this:
"Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate"
can't be true unless
"Matter itself is nothing less than life made inanimate"
is also true.

If you can accept that second part, then you should apply that understanding to the other areas where you accuse me of lying or making things up or whatever other skullduggery I'm supposed to engage in.

[Immediacracy]

"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?

Life is just another kind of order. So is matter. The cosmos is made of order. Matter doesn't cause order, order is expressed as matter.