Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 9, 2022

Atheism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Conversation in Clubhouse ( a conversation app ) with an atheist:

Please answer with yes or no.

Are computers always designed?

Yes

Is hardware, and software, always designed?

Yes

Are machines always designed?

Yes

Are factories always designed?

Yes

Are transistors always designed?

Yes

Are energy turbines always designed?

Yes

Are codes always designed?

Yes

Good. All this, we see analogously, but also literally in the cell.

Neurons are literally computers

DNA is the hardware, and the sequence of DNA nucleotides is the software

Proteins are molecular machines

Cells are chemical factories

Neurons are transistors

ATP synthase is an energy turbine.

The genetic code is a real code

Is it logical to infer that therefore, these things were also designed?

Atheist answer: No. The first mentioned things, we know humans design them. The secondly mentioned things in nature, we don’t know how they came to be.

It’s sometimes so frustrating to have a conversation with atheists…. Others deny and claim the things mentioned in nature are not analogous to human made artifacts.

Once you back up the claim:

The Cell is a super computer
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2712-the-cell-is-a-super-computer

1. A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
2. Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
3. The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

Paul Davies: the Fifth Miracle page 62: Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

Molecular machines in biology
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology

1. Machines are always designed.
2. Proteins are machines.
3. Therefore, proteins were designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms – the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Inside the neuron
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2292-neurons-remarkable-evidence-of-design#7201

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 9 The Physics Of Consciousness Andrew Thomas:
The similarity between transistors and neurons is elucidated when we consider how most transistors are used nowadays. The vast majority of transistors are micro-miniaturised onto a semiconductor substrate to form an integrated circuit (“silicon chip”). The latest fabrication techniques allow extraordinary densities of up to 25 million transistors on a square millimetre of silicon. This actually results in an individual transistor size which is rather smaller than a neuron, but it is clear that the principle of packing microscopic transistors onto an integrated circuit resembles the packing of microscopic neurons in a brain.

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1439-the-irreducibly-complex-atp-synthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed ( The proton energy gradient is like the water in a dam, feeding a water turbine to generate energy). The second subunit has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away.
2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts of ATP synthase must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. The challenge is particularly onerous because these components are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). Besides ATP synthase, the membrane is essential to pump protons across the membrane. This setup cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known.
3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds. Therefore, ATP synthase is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.

The genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages.
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

John Frederick William Herschel: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, page 149, 1830
If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.Flagellum, Behe’s prime example of irreducible complexity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.

They will still deny it…..

Comments

Relatd: You’re acting like you’ve just been called to the Principal’s office. When you want to have an actual, substantial conversation let me know. Until then I'll stay in the naughty corner.JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

[A Fox's] argument...
Not an argument: a fact. There are two unrelated families of flagella. See here for info on the bacterial family
...that there are two types of flagellum does not change the fact that the bacterial flagellum requires 36 proteins, most, if not all, essential for proper function.
As I said, there is no "the flagellum". You are trying to ignore a large chunk of biology. I'll let you ponder why "the bacterial flagellum" is in fact a nested heirarchy of several related versions, not all sharing all protein subunits.Alan Fox_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

JVL at 28, You're acting like you've just been called to the Principal's office.relatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Relatd: He’s making a list And checking it twice Gonna find out who worships Richard Dawkins Or not I don't. Is that good or bad?JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

JVL at 25, Don't you know? He's making a list And checking it twice Gonna find out who worships Richard Dawkins Or notrelatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox. your argument that there are two types of flagellum does not change the fact that the bacterial flagellum requires 36 proteins, most, if not all, essential for proper function. The Flagellum - prime example of irreducible complexity https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity#6351Elshamah_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Sigh… Sometimes I have to do a new survey. I don't expect you to change your mind, do you expect me to change mine?JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

JVL at 23, Sigh... Sometimes I have to do a new survey.relatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Seriously? Surely you knew how I'd respond. I don't understand what you're trying to do. If you're going to express righteous indignation then I think you should get on with it.JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

JVL at 21, Seriously?relatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Which has the best evidence? Living things are actually designed or they just look like they were? To the surprise of no one I would say they just look like they were. But you knew I was going to say that so I'm not sure why you asked. Is my demonisation to follow then?JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

JVL at 17, Which has the best evidence? Living things are actually designed or they just look like they were?relatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs. May I just point out that your explanation (God did it) isn't very illuminating. It doesn't actually explain how that happen; it just assumes some . . . being who can violate the laws of physics at will designed and spelled out all those laws for some reason. And created a big, really big empty universe with cosmic rays and super novas and lots of other ways to kill the intelligent life they supposedly created. I get that in your heart-of-hearts you have a personal experience of a loving caring God. I understand (I think) how compelling and persuasive that feeling must be. But not everyone has had that experience. And, scientifically, there's not much to go on. I don't hate God or hate the church or hate Christians or am brainwashed to support some materialist view (I don't get paid, I'm not in a position of power, etc) and I also have not had any kind of experience that suggests to me that a God-like being exists. So I tend to look for other explanations, ones which are based on things I have experienced or that have good documentation for (the laws of physics and chemistry). And, so far, I have had no need for the God hypothesis. Someday, I might change my mind if there's is sufficient data and evidence because all scientific knowledge is provisional. The more we learn the more often we have to adapt our views. As we should.JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Red Reader: People choose what they want to believe. Could the same be said about you?JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

So, here, they can only flail about. Or, God willing, admit to the truth. Look, the point is a matter of evidence and which explanation has the fewest assumptions. Think about the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularised by Erich von Daniken in the 1970s. He looked at some ancient constructions and art works and thought they could be interpreted as proof that our planet was visited by extra-terrestrial intelligent beings centuries ago. He claimed the constructions were too complicated and immense and precise to be within the capabilities of humans around at the time and he thought the artwork looked like rocket ships and such. Trouble was he never really talked to historians and archaeologists who would have been able to tell him why they thought all those things were man-made. Anyway, given the two schools of thought: man-made vs ancient astronauts one has fewer assumptions and better data. We know there were humans around, we know some of what they were capable of, they even left written records sometimes along with living quarters, tools, refuse tips, etc, etc, etc, etc NONE OF WHICH show any artefacts not made by materials available on Earth. Not one. Von Daniken proposes that unknown beings (which we have no other evidence for) travelled across vast distances of space (via processes we have no evidence for) for some reason helped humans build some really large structures (for what reason?) and then buggered off leaving no other evidence they had ever been here. Now, from a scientific point of view, which of those notions sounds more plausible? More likely to be true? The extraordinary claim that alien astronauts visited Earth requires more than just some interpretations of buildings and murals which already have more prosaic explanations which are supported by data and evidence. And the ancient astronauts hypothesis requires some mighty big assumptions (that they exist, that they have mastered interstellar space travel, that they had a reason for helping to build the pyramids, etc, etc, etc). So, we choose to reject the ancient astronauts hypothesis because it just doesn't really fly. It's science fiction, and not very good science fiction at that.JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Neurons are literally computers Hardly. Neurons are transistors Um . . . those are two very different things that operate on very different levels. You can't just assert stuff like this without going into your metaphor. Like when someone says: electricity is like water: amps are like volume, volts are like pressure, etc. Neurons are literally computers. That's pretty silly.JVL_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

BR at 12, "Perception matters. The perception of atheists is that of a chaotic universe where everything, including the laws of physics, came about randomly. They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs." Everything is a matter of perception and degree. For atheists to admit to design anywhere in the "natural" world would amount to crossing over to the other side. Of abandoning their "it all came about by chance" belief system. And it is just that, a belief system. The attraction to random disorder becoming the universe, galaxies and living things has a hold on them. So, here, they can only flail about. Or, God willing, admit to the truth.relatd_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

AF is right. UD's quality control dept. let this one slip through......chuckdarwin_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum.
Wrong! There is no "the flagellum". There are two major known versions of flagella: that possessed by some Archaea and that possessed by some bacteria. They have separate evolutionary origins. The bacterial flagellum "whip" grows by protein units being despatched through the hollow centre which then self-assemble at the tip, whereas the Archaean flagellum grows from the base. Two unrelated ways of achieving the same result. But the designs both nest within their respective domains. There's a simple* explanation for that.
Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
Anyone prepared to defend that bit of word salad?
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
It's as if Nick Matzke had never been born!
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum
Do I need to dig up links to papers? Start here, note references
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.
The Sherlock Holmes fallacy again. Don't ID proponents ever tire of repeating this old chestnut? *Maybe I'm equivocating with "simple" here. ;)Alan Fox_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

Perception matters. The perception of atheists is that of a chaotic universe where everything, including the laws of physics, came about randomly. They have no natural answer for a single law coming into existence, other than what they already perceive from their beliefs.BobRyan_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

...don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you would attack someone else as being an “oddball” in particular? I mean really, not that I have a lock on being ‘normal’ myself, but you certainly are not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of normalcy either
I'm criticizing the OP. Pointing out Otangelo is well-known across the internet for stream-of-consciousness screeds is just a fact. The OP is just one long equivocation with the meaning of words. Prime example: machine.Alan Fox_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox October 9, 2022 at 3:20 pm “Goodness me. ? I’ve seen plenty of incoherent waffle from dear Otangelo on several sites over the years, usually as an initially tolerated then dismissed oddball. Never thought UD would offer him an OP. Did nobody think to proofread it first?“ Like clockwork :DAaronS1978_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

@Seversky@7” Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I have no problem with conceding that the Universe may have come about through non-natural means ” That’s mighty big and tolerant of Seversky - so far. Then he weasels out, “ depending on how you define “natural”” That’s the shabby, ‘2+2=5 - for certain values of 2” definitions ploy. And paragraph 1 of 6 looks like a cut-and-paste after a run-through a checker for egregious grammatical errors.Belfast_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Atheism is insanity. The problem isn't that the atheist doesn't know the cell is designed. The problem is that the atheist makes a conscious choice to deny what he plainly sees, what he knows to be true. Atheists, just like rational people, intuitively recognize design when they see it, whether it is a computer or a cell. The atheist knows that design implies intelligence. But, the atheist has also learned that the incredible complexity of the cell is not created by man. The cause and effect circuits in the brain of every atheist automatically conclude that the intelligence which created the cell is vastly greater than the intelligence of any man. And right there, the pride and arrogance of the atheist CHOOSES to believe the cell happened accidentally "through some intermediary". People choose what they want to believe. The choice to believe the cell "just arose" out of happenstance is not based on evidence but on pride. The atheist prides himself on his own intelligence; he is smarter than anyone, he thinks, except perhaps some other atheists. The atheist doesn't WANT to believe there is an Intelligent Creator for he would have to admit his own intelligence is no more that a flicker compared to that of the Creator of all Space/Time. There is zero science in the atheist's belief; there is much imagining of how the cell might have happened, volumes of conjecture, but no science, no a+b=c. So called experiments are so controlled by the intelligent designers of the experiments untill their results are the conclusions they want. The theory is a fairy tale of circular reasoning. The atheist sees the design, but chooses to believe the stories that the cell is really nothing more than a series of random rolls of dice over millions of years. There is a disconnect between what the atheists sees and knows to be true and what he chooses to believe. This disconnect is the root of insanity. Atheism is a "symptom" of this insanity. There are thousands of such symptoms. For example, the bank robber who believes society has wronged him. He chooses to believe the lie he tells himself; this makes it easier for him to keep robbing banks.Red Reader_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I have no problem with conceding that the Universe may have come about through non-natural means depending on how you define "natural". In kf's favorite Lewontin quote he highlights the phrase that we cannot allow a "divine foot in the door". In my view that is a misleading metaphor and a better one is of earning "a seat at the table". ID/creationism is not excluded unfairly by some cabal of atheist scientists but because its proponents have not made a compelling case for its admission. If there were a campaign to suppress ID/creationism then how is it that its proponents are able to publish all the books, magazine/newspaper articles, blog posts, podcasts and videos that they do?Seversky_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

The fundamental flaw of the arguments presented in the OP is a reliance on confirmationally biased interpretations of analogical arguments which, even at their best, only provide weak support for the case being made. The attacks on atheism are essentially a distraction from the weakness of the case for ID/Creationism, because they are irrelevant. Not all scientists are atheists and you will find hypotheses and theories being defended or attacked by researchers regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. In fact, I suspect most professional scientists are well aware of the danger of allowing religious beliefs to influence science. If you allow that a test of the credibility of a hypothesis or theory is whether or not it conforms to religious doctrine, you open the way to religious Lysenkoism.Seversky_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, besides ad hominem attacks being a common logical fallacy that is employed by atheists, don't you find it the least bit ironic that you would attack someone else as being an "oddball" in particular? I mean really, not that I have a lock on being 'normal' myself, but you certainly are not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of normalcy either. :)
Logical Fallacies 1. Ad Hominem An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#ad-hominem
bornagain77_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Goodness me. :) I've seen plenty of incoherent waffle from dear Otangelo on several sites over the years, usually as an initially tolerated then dismissed oddball. Never thought UD would offer him an OP. Did nobody think to proofread it first?Alan Fox_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

The commonest atheist position is that it is not known how the universe and life came to be by natural means, but not concede the universe and life may have come by means beyond natural. The sincerest position may be to admit doubt on both alternatives, but in such a case in is wrong to describe oneself as an atheist, or to wrong religious belief. It is equally wrong to disparage such doubt as doubt pursued may end in satisfied conviction.Belfast_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Atheism is mainly based on a distaste/dislike for a certain group of people. It's not logical as we all know. When you read how people defend atheism as their choice, their reasons are ludicrous. Hence, it has to be irrational. That does not mean they are irrational in everything though some are. Many are extremely rational about anything that does not have implications for their choice of atheism.jerry_{October 9, 2022
October
10
Oct
9
09
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply