The Game of Life and God

[Nirvanam]

Recently I was watching a series done by BBC with the British Royal Astronomer about Physics and the Universe. The physicist's name has slipped out of my consciousness but I remember he was like a cat on the wall about whether the universe is created thru some kind of sapience or whether it is just a random event, with slightly more weight on the latter. (I think I shared these videos here)

He presented a nice experiment/program done by a person named Conway which he had named Game Of Life. Apparently it answered the atheists viewpoint while debating a theist viewpoint that, without god the universe could not have developed the way it did i.e. without sapience there is no way the precision required of the universe could have been achieved.

Conway's program is called the Game of Life. He built a program that basically was very simple and showed that you don't need any outside intervention to evolve into different forms. You an do a google search to find sites where you can download the program and fiddle around with it. You will find amazing things developing...its beautiful. Here's a wiki article on that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

My reason for starting this thread is to show to you that the logic used in Game Of Life and indeed the argument to dismiss of that there is a sapience that is responsible for the universe the way it is, is not sound. In deed if you understand why it is not sound you would definitely stop using that logic to argue against the existence of sapience in the universe.

So, can you detect the unsoundness in the Game of Life argument (and of course argument for no need of sapience for the universe to be the way it is)? Let's attempt it

[Paolo]

I assume you are referring to the fact that the game of life has been formulated as a concept by a sapient being, which runs using algorithms applied by a sapient being and has been structured to run by a sapient being.

If so, you (or rather the dude on telly) are missing the point that the game is not meant to mimic the creation of the universe or life, only the ways in which an existing life forms are capable of developing without interference from a sapient being, within an existing framework of simple rules.

To accuse the game of lacking a logic it was never intended to have is a bit like accusing Neil Armstrong of having never landed on Mars - it's an unhelpful misunderstanding.

[Nirvanam]

I assume you are referring to the fact that the game of life has been formulated as a concept by a sapient being, which runs using algorithms applied by a sapient being and has been structured to run by a sapient being.

If so, you (or rather the dude on telly) are missing the point that the game is not meant to mimic the creation of the universe or life, only the ways in which an existing life forms are capable of developing without interference from a sapient being, within an existing framework of simple rules.

To accuse the game of lacking a logic it was never intended to have is a bit like accusing Neil Armstrong of having never landed on Mars - it's an unhelpful misunderstanding.

You understood it wrong. Who is accusing anything here?

I have only said you can draw a parallel to this argument and the argument that most atheists seem to have on the creation of the universe that since the universe can be explained by natural laws (how did those laws come about no one knows), there is no need for an external intervention. Beaut of an argument that is. Looking at the Game of Life...it can also be said that looking at the things that it does seemingly all contained in itself, there is no need for an external intervention.

That is the point...that argument does not work on simple logical terms... because there exist laws does not necessitate that those laws were not designed. yes or no?

[Fia]

I'm following you around until you come and play

[Nirvanam]

I'm following you around until you come and play

I just did

[Gurdur]

.... My reason for starting this thread is to show to you that the logic used in Game Of Life and indeed the argument to dismiss of that there is a sapience that is responsible for the universe the way it is, is not sound. In deed if you understand why it is not sound you would definitely stop using that logic to argue against the existence of sapience in the universe.

The whole point to Conway's Game of Life was that it followed on von Neumann's work on automata, and greatly expanded it; in doing so, emergent properties were shown, and it was further shown how unpredictable results could be even when one had perfect information about the starting-conditions. Furthermore, it was eventually shown by researchers that in theory a Turing Machine could be built in the Game of Life, a universal calculator. The entire point was bottom-up modelling. It worked pretty damn cool. It had repercussions for all sorts of things, including understanding genetics.

So, can you detect the unsoundness in the Game of Life argument (and of course argument for no need of sapience for the universe to be the way it is)? Let's attempt it

As far as I am concerned, there does not need to be any initial sapience. I would be interested to find out why you think there is a flaw in the argument using Game Of Life.

[Nirvanam]

.... My reason for starting this thread is to show to you that the logic used in Game Of Life and indeed the argument to dismiss of that there is a sapience that is responsible for the universe the way it is, is not sound. In deed if you understand why it is not sound you would definitely stop using that logic to argue against the existence of sapience in the universe.

The whole point to Conway's Game of Life was that it followed on von Neumann's work on automata, and greatly expanded it; in doing so, emergent properties were shown, and it was further shown how unpredictable results could be even when one had perfect information about the starting-conditions. Furthermore, it was eventually shown by researchers that in theory a Turing Machine could be built in the Game of Life, a universal calculator. The entire point was bottom-up modelling. It worked pretty damn cool. It had repercussions for all sorts of things, including understanding genetics.

So, can you detect the unsoundness in the Game of Life argument (and of course argument for no need of sapience for the universe to be the way it is)? Let's attempt it

As far as I am concerned, there does not need to be any initial sapience. I would be interested to find out why you think there is a flaw in the argument using Game Of Life.

First I'll answer your question. The flaw is this -

Game of Life is based on certain rules...very simple and only 3 rules if I am not mistaken. However these rules are not formed by themselves during an instance of the game was being played. These rules are external to the game. They were built in by a sapience (Conway).
When people argue that I see no need for sapience, they say that based on the fact that they have been able to decode some rules and understand them. What they forget is that, understanding or decoding those rules does not make it necessary that the rules were not built in. To explain this further pls read the following -


I know this is unprovable but I'd like you to attempt to rationalize your belief of no need for sapience for the way the universe turned out.

Here's a suggestion - your theories will break down on the formation of natural laws. Examples of natural laws - say the 4 forces - em, sn, wn, gravity. Say electricity, say magnetism, etc...try rationalizing how these laws came to being and why you have such laws. Remember, how these laws work is not equal to how they came to being. Explaining how they work is not equal to explaining why they work.

Why do we have an electron, a neutron, a proton? Why? I find the simplest explanation, using Occam's Razor, for these is that "they were intended to be there".

So, please do attempt to rationalize your belief of no need for sapience. Only a sincere attempt from you will allow you a chance to question the faith you have placed on various explanations. You must attempt to rationalize to understand this. Please do so.

[philbo]

Why do we have an electron, a neutron, a proton? Why? I find the simplest explanation, using Occam's Razor, for these is that "they were intended to be there".

That to me doesn't sound like an explanation with the fewest assumptions: as soon as you use a word like "intended", that means there must be something (in this case, presumably some kind of creator god) which has intent. That's a pretty big assumption.

I find the simplest explanation is: "there is no 'why', that's just how things happened to pan out"

[Nirvanam]

Why do we have an electron, a neutron, a proton? Why? I find the simplest explanation, using Occam's Razor, for these is that "they were intended to be there".

That to me doesn't sound like an explanation with the fewest assumptions: as soon as you use a word like "intended", that means there must be something (in this case, presumably some kind of creator god) which has intent. That's a pretty big assumption.

I find the simplest explanation is: "there is no 'why', that's just how things happened to pan out"

LOL! What you are doing is that you are evading the "Why" question. Science does not work that way, my friend. Science always tries to discover the "why" (and the what, how, where, when, etc). So please attempt to answer the why and if you can provide a better answer to my answer I am all ears.

Evading the why to argue that this universe was not intended to be the way it is, is well, how do I say this, incredulous to the notion of being rational and scientific. Find a scientific, logical, rational answer to the question...just coz you hit a wall or your science doesn't seem to explain this, you cannot ignore it. I heard a chrisitian fellow remark to the scientists, "you all say, give me just one miracle, and I'll explain the rest". It is just coz it is...now that sounds like miracle-language to me. Be more scientific than that, please.

[philbo]

What?

To me it sounds rather like you have an odd view of what science is/is trying to do.

Why does there have to be a "why"?

You say:

Evading the why to argue that this universe was not intended to be the way it is, is well, how do I say this, incredulous to the notion of being rational and scientific.

Why? That sounds like an argument from personal incredulity, not a rational/scientific one.

Find a scientific, logical, rational answer to the question...just coz you hit a wall or your science doesn't seem to explain this, you cannot ignore it

But there will *always* be a wall to hit.. if not a "turtles all the way down" explanation. Some people say "God" is the "why".. but that simply leads to the even bigger one of "why god?", so "god" as an answer to "why" is never an answer, merely an opening to many more questions.

[Nirvanam]

What?

To me it sounds rather like you have an odd view of what science is/is trying to do.

Why does there have to be a "why"?

You say:

Evading the why to argue that this universe was not intended to be the way it is, is well, how do I say this, incredulous to the notion of being rational and scientific.

Why? That sounds like an argument from personal incredulity, not a rational/scientific one.

Find a scientific, logical, rational answer to the question...just coz you hit a wall or your science doesn't seem to explain this, you cannot ignore it

But there will *always* be a wall to hit.. if not a "turtles all the way down" explanation. Some people say "God" is the "why".. but that simply leads to the even bigger one of "why god?", so "god" as an answer to "why" is never an answer, merely an opening to many more questions.

Ah here comes the first guy using ridicule as his weapon. Anyway I'll let that one go to the wicket keeper. Sometimes it becomes very apparent how knowledgeable a person is by how quickly he jumps on the ridicule band wagon.

Hers's the point I am making and the context in which I am making it.

The point is this : when atheists argue that science tells them that it is more likely that a God doesn't exist, based on what science teaches them, they are not being logical by any stretch of imagination.

Why do I assert that?
Because in that argument, they assume that existence of God and existence of natural laws are mutually exclusive. Otherwise they would never use science's discoveries as reasons for the non-existence of God.

I think you also are guilty of that mistake...that the ability to describe how something works necessarily means there is no place for God in it. If you are not guilty of that mistake, then logic tells me you'd never argue that "based on science it is more likely that there is no God". I must confess I am assuming you do argue that way...do you?

Edit: By the way, if you had to apply Occam's Razor and explain why the natural laws exist, what would your explanation be?

[philbo]

Ah here comes the first guy using ridicule as his weapon.

"Using ridicule as his weapon"??? Grow up.

Anyway I'll let that one go to the wicket keeper. Sometimes it becomes very apparent how knowledgeable a person is by how quickly he jumps on the ridicule band wagon.

Oh, so quick on the condescension. If you're going to be like that, you might just as well fuck off now.

Hers's the point I am making and the context in which I am making it.

The point is this : when atheists argue that science tells them that it is more likely that a God doesn't exist, based on what science teaches them, they are not being logical by any stretch of imagination.

So go and argue this with an atheist who argues that science tells them that it is more likely a God doesn't exist. Funnily enough, I've *never* heard an atheist put things in that context - I have on many *many* occasions had that misconception of atheism thrown at me by religious types.

Why do I assert that?
Because in that argument, they assume that existence of God and existence of natural laws are mutually exclusive. Otherwise they would never use science's discoveries as reasons for the non-existence of God.

Like I should care?

I think you also are guilty of that mistake...that the ability to describe how something works necessarily means there is no place for God in it. If you are not guilty of that mistake, then logic tells me you'd never argue that "based on science it is more likely that there is no God". I must confess I am assuming you do argue that way...do you?

No.

Edit: By the way, if you had to apply Occam's Razor and explain why the natural laws exist, what would your explanation be?

Maybe you would be so kind to answer the question I asked in my previous post:

Why does there have to be a "why"?

For someone who stoops to condescension so quickly, that was a remarkably misdirected answer to my post.

[Nirvanam]

Maybe you would be so kind to answer the question I asked in my previous post:

Why does there have to be a "why"?

Simply because our sciences tell us that we live in a causal universe. This means that every event (or thing) necessarily has one or more events (or things) causing it to happen.

Now that I have answered your question, would you like to attempt applying the Occam's Razor?

[Nirvanam]

Folks, I think we must attempt to rationalize the viewpoint that, "based on science it is more than likely there is no God".

I think such a thought exercise will only help us become more rational. So why not attempt to see if there is any logical grounds to argue from such a viewpoint what can be argued about existence of God. I know it puts you in a funny situation because you have to question your beliefs which are based on the faith you have put in what, where, and how the knowledge you have acquired was acquired. But I guess being Humanists, rationality is essential in a world view hence this attempt should help us understand if that viewpoint is logical at all.

Philibo, what does Occam's Razor's application on the situation described earlier lead you to?

[philbo]

Would you agree that there must be at least one thing which does not have a cause? Otherwise we're back in a "turtles all the way down" sort of metaphor again.

..and if there is one thing that doesn't have a cause, why not more?

So my "Occam's razor" simplest explanation is that the laws of nature are as they are simply because they are. Occam's razor isn't a test for proof, it's merely a statement that the most likely explanation is the one requiring the fewest assumptions.

Folks, I think we must attempt to rationalize the viewpoint that, "based on science it is more than likely there is no God".

Why?

The way I'd phrase it is more along the lines of "an awful lot of the things that used to require God as an explanation no longer do so, thanks to what we have learned with science" - I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries.

Any more than that, you have to get into defining "God", as views vary from vague all-encompassing deities to petty, prurient schizophrenic dictators - whether science can make any kind of statement about whether any particular god exists depends on what properties you think that god should have.

[Nirvanam]

Would you agree that there must be at least one thing which does not have a cause? Otherwise we're back in a "turtles all the way down" sort of metaphor again.

..and if there is one thing that doesn't have a cause, why not more?

That is the thought process of the God believers...as per science this is a causal universe and everything MUST have a cause. In case you are not aware of this and don't believe me, please speak to some physicists, astrophysicists, theorists, etc

So my "Occam's razor" simplest explanation is that the laws of nature are as they are simply because they are. Occam's razor isn't a test for proof, it's merely a statement that the most likely explanation is the one requiring the fewest assumptions.

Of course it is not a test or proof. It is, what many "thinkers" say, the best logical way to proceed/infer when we don't have all the info. And given that science requires a causal connection, please try applying the Occam's Razor, or forget the Occam's Razor, please try giving your reason for why there is an electron, why there are natural laws?

The way I'd phrase it is more along the lines of "an awful lot of the things that used to require God as an explanation no longer do so, thanks to what we have learned with science" - I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Yes, and it must end there but I notice people using this fact to argue that God does not exist...to actually argue that it is more likely that God does not exist

Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries.

Ah...you just said it! What is the logic in that statement? How does our ability to discover a natural phenomenon necessitate that a God does not exist?

Any more than that, you have to get into defining "God", as views vary from vague all-encompassing deities to petty, prurient schizophrenic dictators - whether science can make any kind of statement about whether any particular god exists depends on what properties you think that god should have.

Let's leave that. I am interested in your assertion that, "Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries." Give me one logical reason for me or anyone else to accept this assertion.

I'll tell you where the problem is...the problem is coming about when you necessitate that scientific discovery = non-existence of God. That has no logical basis. And I am making this point. If you consider the process of logic, it should not be difficult to see why that assertion is not based on logic. If you think that it is logical, please feel free to convince any other Humanist here and maybe they can argue the case in a different way...but I doubt other Humanists will find this to be logical.

For our other Humanists here, the argument is this - Ability of science to discover natural phenomenon does not necessitate the non-existence of God.

Edit : realized some words I used were giving a different meaning than what I intended

[philbo]

Would you agree that there must be at least one thing which does not have a cause? Otherwise we're back in a "turtles all the way down" sort of metaphor again.

..and if there is one thing that doesn't have a cause, why not more?

That is the thought process of the God believers...as per science this is a causal universe and everything MUST have a cause. In case you are not aware of this and don't believe me, please speak to some physicists, astrophysicists, theorists, etc

Go and talk to some physicists yourself - you'll find plenty of apparently uncaused events in quantum physics - radioactive decay of specific atoms being the one that springs to mind: we know from observation that for a particular radioactive nucleus there is a specific chance of decay in each second, yet have no way of detecting which nucleus will decay in advance. While the decay of a quantity of radioactive material appears to fit our "laws of nature", the decay of one specific nucleus seems to be spontaneous.

But either the universe's whole existence is based upon an uncaused event, or you have a creator god (which itself needs an uncaused creation event, so is no answer at all), or it goes back literally ad infinitum.

There is also a difference between the concept of an uncaused event and a natural law that just happens to be the way it is - planck's constant needs to have some value, to say that the value it actually holds needs a cause is not the same thing at all.

So my "Occam's razor" simplest explanation is that the laws of nature are as they are simply because they are. Occam's razor isn't a test for proof, it's merely a statement that the most likely explanation is the one requiring the fewest assumptions.

Of course it is not a test or proof. It is, what many "thinkers" say, the best logical way to proceed/infer when we don't have all the info. And given that science requires a causal connection, please try applying the Occam's Razor, or forget the Occam's Razor, please try giving your reason for why there is an electron, why there are natural laws?

I don't see why there has to be a "why there is an electron" - science gives you a great way of modelling how these things are made up - what we think of as "an electron" is not an indivisible object, so the "why" of an electron is that it's just how the bits that make it up like to hang around.. but that doesn't answer anything in the same way as answering the question "Why is that house there?" with "Because that's where the bricks are".

The way I'd phrase it is more along the lines of "an awful lot of the things that used to require God as an explanation no longer do so, thanks to what we have learned with science" - I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Yes, and it must end there but I notice people using this fact to argue that God does not exist...to actually argue that it is more likely that God does not exist

I tend to think that it is more likely that God does not exist because (s)he is never seen to do the things that believers say - there is no evidence of a god existing. People pray/make sacrifices/curse to no measurable effect whatsoever.. It's that sort of thing that makes me 100% sure that there is no god who is supposed to be all-powerful yet loving and intercessory but never does anything. I'm less sure when it comes to different types of god, though.

Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries.

Ah...you just said it! What is the logic in that statement? How does our ability to discover a natural phenomenon necessitate that a God does not exist?

You're not reading it properly. That we can be more confident in making that assertion *is* logical, because there are fewer things requiring god(s) as an explanation. If that natural phenomenon (be it thunder, lightning etc.) was being used as evidence for a god's existence, then surely showing it to be natural is one less bit of weight on the theistic side. But it's relative, not absolute.

Please say you can see the logic in that, because I can't explain it in any simpler terms.

Any more than that, you have to get into defining "God", as views vary from vague all-encompassing deities to petty, prurient schizophrenic dictators - whether science can make any kind of statement about whether any particular god exists depends on what properties you think that god should have.

Let's leave that. I am interested in your assertion that, "Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries." Give me one logical reason for me or anyone else to accept this assertion.

Read what I said above.

I'll tell you where the problem is...the problem is coming about when you necessitate that scientific discovery = non-existence of God. That has no logical basis. And I am making this point.

And I am not. Where in the above have I said "scientific discovery = non-existence of God"?

Kindly stop trying to put words into my mouth.

[Nirvanam]

Philibo, I am not going to argue with you on the other parts coz it will simply keep going in circles...you'll keep asserting that science explains universe as a causeless thing and I'll keep telling you that that is not the way science approaches the description of universe.

I am more interested in the following -

Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries.

Ah...you just said it! What is the logic in that statement? How does our ability to discover a natural phenomenon necessitate that a God does not exist?

You're not reading it properly. That we can be more confident in making that assertion *is* logical, because there are fewer things requiring god(s) as an explanation. If that natural phenomenon (be it thunder, lightning etc.) was being used as evidence for a god's existence, then surely showing it to be natural is one less bit of weight on the theistic side. But it's relative, not absolute.

Please say you can see the logic in that, because I can't explain it in any simpler terms.

Well, the problem here is you are referring to a very specific section of Human Beings who think thunders and lightnings are not natural phenomenon...but I am not sure who they are...and I wonder if there are any such beliefs today or even in the past...at least I know my civilization did not believe that these were unnatural phenomenon.

So your argument about that should be directed to those people. Making a blanket statement that our ability to discover natural phenomenon = non-existence of God is illogical. Your argument is only to those people who believe those are unnatural phenomenon not a scientific argument for the non-existence of God or "more likely to not exist".

I am making this statement to you that our ability to discover natural phenomenon is no reason to believe that the chances of God's existence is lessened. Now this is perfectly logical. Your argument, which is the reverse, is not logical. In your argument you are not arguing science but you are arguing against a very specific set of people (I don't know if such people exist even. Pls find me one Human Being who says lightning is not a natural phenomenon) who think there are no natural phenomenon.

I'll tell you where the problem is...the problem is coming about when you necessitate that scientific discovery = non-existence of God. That has no logical basis. And I am making this point.

And I am not. Where in the above have I said "scientific discovery = non-existence of God"?

Kindly stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Your argument implies that. If you did not believe that then you would not even make an argument here. If you did not imply that or believe that, what necessitates your argument at all? Give me a reason why you are arguing if you believed that scientific discovery does not necessitate non-existence of God.

See, you thought that all God believers feel natural phenomenon don't exist and lightnings and thunders are special events that God made which are magical (as in require no natural reasons at all). And with that assumption you argued to show that when science starts discovering how these natural phenomenon works, it reduces the chances of there existing a need for a God. So, how am I putting words in your mouth. If you did not argue thus, why would you even argue...what were you arguing if not this?

So, finally here's my question again - why is it logical to believe that, the explanation of natural phenomenon by science reduces the need for a God. Please argue this rather than believing that I am arguing that lightning, and thunder are non-natural phenomenon. You can take that argument to people if and when you come across one who argues that. I am only arguing about the inherent logic in your argument...which I think is illogical.

[philbo]

Seeing as you seem to be incapable of reading what I've actually written, choosing instead to interpret it based on your own preconceptions of what you think I'm going to say, I'm not going to bother carrying on with this discussion.

[Nirvanam]

Seeing as you seem to be incapable of reading what I've actually written, choosing instead to interpret it based on your own preconceptions of what you think I'm going to say, I'm not going to bother carrying on with this discussion.

Good!