Part 8 – Dinesh D’Souza/ Dan Barker Debate
http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.
tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.php
Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm
Barker Debates Dinesh D’Souza, Christian and best-selling author, debates Dan Barker
Duration : 0:10:0
[youtube jcLkEGM83lE]
The universe …
The universe contains all matter and energy.
Right, my mistake. …
Right, my mistake. I meant to say the origin of information.
“all matter and …
“all matter and energy, physical space and time itself, came into being.”
Everything about the singularity is speculation at the moment. I don’t know if it’s accurate to say that it’s the beginning of matter and energy OR just the beginning of matter/energy expanding into our known universe. Why are you saying space & time instead of spacetime? Is it accurate to rule out proceeding events before the expansion of spacetime? Does spacetime contract to 0 in a black hole while the universe goes on?
” …. it is clear …
” …. it is clear that that specific assertion, about the origin of intelligence, is not reaching you.”
WRONG.
We were talking about the origin of information, & I had already gotten you to contradict your original premise.
Now you’re changing the subject to the “origin of intelligence” when you have yet to define “intelligence” in the sense that you’re using it.
The origin of intelligence, as we know it. came about through the evolution of the species on this planet.
@thecrashingfalcon …
@thecrashingfalcon
I say again:
The universe is expanding.
If the universe is expanding, that means at a point in time previous, the universe must have been smaller, and denser.
(Unless it was created more previously than the singularity, such as God.)
At the point of the singularity, all matter and energy, physical space and time itself, came into being.
The universe had a beginning at some point in the finite past.
You and I are …
You and I are having an arguement based on a definition of intelligence that we have already agreed on (unconciously). I am delighted that you accepted my premise because it removed my suspision that you would attack the method of defining intelligence rather that my position, this is possible because intelligence has an established and finite number of definitions.
Even so, it is clear that that specific assertion, about the origin of intelligence, is not reaching you.
That’s fine
“your example relys …
“your example relys on and demonstrates my arguement.”
Wow!
No, it doesn’t!!!
The information was always there, regardless if anyone’s senses are present to collect it for a mind to process it.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to here it,
IT STILL MAKES A SOUND!!!
And for the 3rd time,
Please clear something up: define “intelligence” in the sense that youre using it.
Why do you keep avoiding this?!
@thecrashingfalcon …
@thecrashingfalcon
The universe is expanding.
If the universe is expanding, that means at a point in time previous, the universe must have been smaller, and denser.
(Unless it was created more previously than the singularity, such as God.)
At the point of the singularity, all matter and energy, physical space and time itself, came into being.
The universe had a beginning at some point in the finite past.
The information, …
The information, that which you interperet, is a product of your intelligence, your example relys on and demonstrates my arguement.
If you agree that …
If you agree that I’m correct, do you realize it contradicts your premise that the only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence?
Just because intelligence is able to process information does not mean that intelligence is the sole source of information.
And again,
Please clear something up: define “intelligence” in the sense that youre using it.
“The image you see …
“The image you see of a rock is information”
In this you are correct, but you are only able to interperet, process, and label it a rock because of intelligence.
Please clear …
Please clear something up: define “intelligence” in the sense that youre using it.
The image you see of a rock is information, and its origin is not “intelligence” but light waves bouncing off the rock that came from the sun.
I guess I just …
I guess I just don’t understand the model. Sorry.
If you have no …
If you have no opinion, why do you participate in this dialogue?
The only known …
The only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence.
“Prove one of those …
“Prove one of those was not the product of intelligence.”
No! How about you prove that they are a product of intelligence… oh, that’s right, you’re not relying on proof; you relying on faith.
There’s plenty of information out there that describes how the objects I’ve listed came about through natural processes that do not require agency. You can look it up on your own.
“Do you believe in …
“Do you believe in the singularity?
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe that the universe has always existed?”
I’d believe anyone of those propositions if sufficient evidence is provided and it convinces me proper.
However, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence that Dinesh D’Souza’s christian god is just as fictional as Harry Potter.
Go Gryffindor!
Prove one of those …
Prove one of those was not the product of intelligence.
“Please give me an …
“Please give me an example of something you can prove, that exists, that was not the product of some intelligence. ”
A planet, a galaxy, a snow flake, Mount Everest, the Pacific ocean, the species of earth, etc.
Do you believe in …
Do you believe in the singularity?
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe that the universe has always existed?
Do you believe that things exist?
“Wrong!”… Please …
“Wrong!”… Please don’t be so elementary. That exclaimation is unfounded and unecessary…
You didn’t adress the issue. Your post has no value.
Please give me an example of something you can prove, that exists, that was not the product of some intelligence.
The only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence. Please adress this statement.
“You haven’t proved …
“You haven’t proved the singularity.”
Nor do I have to.
No where in any of my posts did I state that the singularity is fact. In fact, I specifically stated that anything before planck time is speculation, while it was JustinHill47 who said, “you can’t deny the inescapable fact that God exists”.
The burden of proof is on those who are claiming to have the facts.
“You cannot resrict my arguement that the universe came from God”
I would not be able to only if you prove it to be true.
” Rather, it is …
” Rather, it is also “no program exists without a programmer.”"
Wrong!
Inferring a painting from a painter is not analogous to a universe from a universer, and even if it was, it would do nothing to prove the existence of a particular god or a first cause.
Also a programmer couldnt write a program in the first place if it didnt ALREADY EXIST as a possibility. Also no programmer exists without the need and/or desire to program, which are part of a causal chain of a program.
The origin of light …
The origin of light is intelligence. I am making a leap of faith. Based on the fact that the only known cause for information, is intelligence. I am suggesting that the unknown, is more likely to exist for the same reason that the known exists. The known exists, because it’s origin is intelligence.
You haven’t proved the singularity. You cannot resrict my arguement that the universe came from God, if you are free to assert that it came from something you have left yet unproven.
“The only known …
“The only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence.”
Says who?
Light is information, and you’d have to make a leap of faith to say its origin is intelligence in the sense that youre using that word. Also, the altitudes of mountain topography is naturally occurring data. This is one of countless examples.
Your need to prove your god first before you say the sunrise came from him.
Please clear something up: Please define “intelligence” in the sense that youre using it.