Are Remarkable Coincidences Truly Random or Evidence of Design?

[RAD4921]

Some mathematicians argue that it would be even a more remarkable coincidence if there were no remarkable coincidences in the world. Considering that there are over 6 billion people in the world, there are bound to be stories of remarkable coincidences just because of the odds. There is the story of the New Jersey woman who won the state lottery grand prize twice. But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion. There is a website where you can put your 4, 5 or 6 digit birth date into an entry box to see where your birth date appears in the mathematical number of PI. The number Pi is random and in theory infinite so sooner or later your birth date is bound to appear in PI. So are there such a thing as synchronicity? It might appear that a remarkable coincidence has occurred when it was just the odds at play. For an example. I heard on the news last night that some people in Wisconsin that won the power ball thought it was an act of God. From their perspective they may believe so since what are the odds of it happening to them? But from another one’s perspective it was just a matter of odds. Sooner or later someone had to win. Why not them? Then there is the remarkable coincidence of life in a universe where the odds of such a series of circumstances happening by accident appear to be astronomical. But if there were an infinite amount of configurations of universes than sooner or later life would pop into existence just by accident. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that there is other universes in existence. So it would be logical to assume that there is some creative force in the universe.
As far as we know, infinities only exist in mathematics and we don’t know if mathematics was created or discovered. If it is the latter than there may be no “God”. The universe appears to have been created by some type of intelligence. Or did we just win the lottery of infinite chance?

(If you do not understand the anthropic principle or design argument, please do not reply to this thread)
RAD

 

[Royce]

In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.

"...stretch of imagination and odds..."
"...reasonable..."
These are how humans naturally (i.e. before the aid of scientific method) process the world - by looking at things that are reasonable in their experience.

Show me a human who has lived 10 million years, and I'll show you a human who is capable of intuitively understanding the process of evolution.

The corollary of this is: show me a human who can't conceive of a process that takes 10 million years to occur ... and I'll show you a human who has lived less than a century.

But us not being able to understand is not a prerequisite of it being the truth.


(Note, this argument is irrespective of Darwinists et al, who have no problem accepting it.)

 

[MeJennifer]

There is the story of the New Jersey woman who won the state lottery grand prize twice. But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion.

You are mistaken about the probabilities here.
After she won the first time, the probability that a single ticket she owns wins the grand price again are just as high as any other ticket from other contestants.

 

[DaveC426913]

Rad is not mistaken. He did not say "a second time", he said "twice".

The probability of throwing a heads twice on a coin is 1 in 4 - i.e. the product of the two individual probs.

I think you shot from the hip on this one.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with this is that there is no evidence that there is other universes in existence. So it would be logical to assume that there is some creative force in the universe.

No evidence of other universes, no evidence of a creator. A scientific person would not assume the existence of either.

Regarding the gambling issue, I think we all understand the gambler's fallacy, but citing the probabilty in terms of odds of winning twice instead of odds of winning a second time implies to me an overstating of the odds. If you say, for example, that her odds of winning the second lottery were 1 in 700,000, it sounds a whole lot less improbable. In any case, maybe we're not talking about the same woman, but from what I see, the odds were 1 in 3.6 trillion... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/4175323.html

There is also a guy who was hit by lightning 7 times at a lifetime odds of 1 in 3000 per hit...

 

[Tojen]

...Then there is the remarkable coincidence of life in a universe where the odds of such a series of circumstances happening by accident appear to be astronomical...

Making an assumption is your first mistake. The odds might appear to be astronomical to us, but doesn't mean they are. Human history is full of assumptions that turned out to be wrong--the Earth is flat, the Universe is static...

ABout the anthropic principle...If the Universe was made just for us, does that mean we're safe from extinction? Can we do as we please without worrying about meteor impacts, superbugs, global nuclear war, etc.?

 

[RAD4921]

No personal God

Making an assumption is your first mistake. The odds might appear to be astronomical to us, but doesn't mean they are. Human history is full of assumptions that turned out to be wrong--the Earth is flat, the Universe is static...

ABout the anthropic principle...If the Universe was made just for us, does that mean we're safe from extinction? Can we do as we please without worrying about meteor impacts, superbugs, global nuclear war, etc.?

If there is some type of "god" or intellignet creator it probably is like that of what Einstein thought, an impersonal God. A God that does not reward and punish which is in sharp contrast to that of the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[RAD4921]

The living universe

No evidence of other universes, no evidence of a creator. A scientific person would not assume the existence of either.

Regarding the gambling issue, I think we all understand the gambler's fallacy, but citing the probabilty in terms of odds of winning twice instead of odds of winning a second time implies to me an overstating of the odds. If you say, for example, that her odds of winning the second lottery were 1 in 700,000, it sounds a whole lot less improbable. In any case, maybe we're not talking about the same woman, but from what I see, the odds were 1 in 3.6 trillion... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/4175323.html

There is also a guy who was hit by lightning 7 times at a lifetime odds of 1 in 3000 per hit...

That fact that matter has come alive and started thinking makes me question as to whether all matter is alive and thinking, even matter that appears to be inorganic and inanimate.

Who is to say that a scientific minded person is superior to one who thinks philosophically? Science, taking collectivly, is still ignorant of many many issues in the universe, so a "scientific" minded person would have to admit ignorance. I have heard many circumstances where "scientific minded" people have made assimptions, one being the universe thought of as being static, which was Eistein. Then there is the case of Hawkins who made the assumption that computer viruses were a form of life. Everyone makes assumptions it is human nature.

 

[RAD4921]

Something is going on

In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.

Yes Royce I got to agree with you. The universe has come alive and started thinking because we have come alive and started thinking. If the universe is governed by pure chaos why didn't it stay chaotic? Where does organization come from?

 

[Tojen]

If there is some type of "god" or intellignet creator it probably is like that of what Einstein thought, an impersonal God. A God that does not reward and punish which is in sharp contrast to that of the Judeo-Christian God.

I agree with the "impersonal" part. There isn't a single indication that the Universe cares whether we exist or not. That's quite a slap in the face to a form of life that thrives on thinking of itself as special, and I suspect that's what leads us to create defensive, overblown ideas about our place in the Universe.

 

[Royce]

I agree with the "impersonal" part. There isn't a single indication that the Universe cares whether we exist or not. That's quite a slap in the face to a form of life that thrives on thinking of itself as special, and I suspect that's what leads us to create defensive, overblown ideas about our place in the Universe.

Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.

If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.

 

[Hurkyl]

But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion.

I think you mean "the odds of winning that lottery twice in two tries", which makes the odds deceptively larger -- if she plays 1000 times in her life (e.g. one ticket per week for 20 years), her odds of winning twice are a more reasonable one in 34 million.

 

[octelcogopod]

Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.

If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.

Maybe there's a completely different way to look at it..

The universe came into existence, determinism ran its course and lots of objects were created by seemingly pure chance.
Suddenly life came into existence, and of course since everything is deterministic, life would automatically "fit in."
As life grew more and more complex, it started to go outside the boundaries of pure determinism, it started doing things that put it in danger.

Other life ate each other and so forth.
But still underneath this seemingly "free" will, there was nothing buit hard concrete logic and determinism.
It is my opinion that the universe isn't made to cater for life, but rather humans are made to cater for themselves.

I also de believe that every human has a relationship with the universe, everytime you drink something, walk somewhere or do anything, you are a part of the universe doing what you are made to be doing.
The universe isn't conscious of your existence, and you are not conscious of its existence.

You are merely doing your part and nobody expects anything else.

 

[Royce]

Maybe there's a completely different way to look at it..

The universe came into existence, determinism ran its course and lots of objects were created by seemingly pure chance.
Suddenly life came into existence, and of course since everything is deterministic, life would automatically "fit in."

First, how and why did the Universe come into existence?

Second, if the Universe is deterministic, it has yet to run its course.

Third, I think that "since everything is deterministic" is a totally unfounded and unsupportable statement.

I am not going to argue Determinism with you. I have already done that time and time again in other threads over the years. I am just going to say that I cannot and will not accept the truth of that statement.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to and can live with but, so too am I. We disagree in our most basic assumptions and beliefs. Having said that, I am willing to continue the discussion within the topic of this thread.

I also de believe that every human has a relationship with the universe, every time you drink something, walk somewhere or do anything, you are a part of the universe doing what you are made to be doing.
The universe isn't conscious of your existence, and you are not conscious of its existence.

You are merely doing your part and nobody expects anything else.

We cannot know that the Universe is not conscious of our existence and you and I are most certainly conscious of the Universe's existence at least in part or we could not talk or write about it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Just throwing out an idea, I don't necessarily have the answer :-\

Matter has a natural tendency to arrange itself in the lowest stable energy state available (entropy), and this lowest energy state when it comes to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. will tend to create conditions that are consistent with the building blocks of life... just as gravity tends to attract particles together and create circular / spherical objects and formations.

The appearance of life based on the odds in my estimation isn't improbable, it is inevitable.

 

[Royce]

Just throwing out an idea, I don't necessarily have the answer :-\

Matter has a natural tendency to arrange itself in the lowest stable energy state available (entropy), and this lowest energy state when it comes to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. will tend to create conditions that are consistent with the building blocks of life... just as gravity tends to attract particles together and create circular / spherical objects and formations.

The appearance of life based on the odds in my estimation isn't improbable, it is inevitable.

I agree completely that is virtually inevitable. My question is what are the odds that these tendencies that you mention and all of the other parameters and laws of science and nature should be so exactly the value that these laws and tendencies would lead to the formation of a universe such as the one we live in much less lead to complex intelligent life?

One other question that always was comes up is "WHY?"
Why are all of these things just the way they are and who or what made the physical and natural laws be what they are. The Anthropological Principle of course says that because if they were any other way or value we wouldn't be here to ask why.

This in my opinion just begs the question and is no answer at all. If all came from nothing without cause or reason then what are then the odds are nearly infinite that the parameters just happen to be the values that they are for all of this to come about.

Determinism is the same. If all is deterministic then who or what made that determination and made the laws, tendencies and values just the exact way they need to be for us to ask Why. And last but not least, once again, WHY? Why did they or it make it so that conscious, intelligent is inevitable if it wasn't on purpose?

 

[Tojen]

Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.

If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.

No worry, I've been preached at much worse before. But never mind you or me dying tomorrow. Billions of people and trillions and trillions of other animals have already lived and died here on Earth. How has that changed the Universe? It's still going on its merry way as it would have if life had never evolved here.

If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason? That's hardly a caring attitude. I can't "make a personal relationship with a Universe" (as you so anthropomorphically put it) that could whimsically commit random acts of unspeakable cruelty on me. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.

 

[Royce]

No worry, I've been preached at much worse before. But never mind you or me dying tomorrow. Billions of people and trillions and trillions of other animals have already lived and died here on Earth. How has that changed the Universe? It's still going on its merry way as it would have if life had never evolved here.

It is just another indication that the Universe is ever changing and evolving in many ways that we cannot fathom or even know.

If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason? That's hardly a caring attitude. I can't "make a personal relationship with a Universe" (as you so anthropomorphically put it) that could whimsically commit random acts of unspeakable cruelty on me. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.

Well put! I don't have an answer only opinions and beliefs. I think that individual life is not a concern but life itself over the entire universe may be. Without getting into religious beliefs this seems to be a reasonable belief.

 

[DaveC426913]

Third, I think that "since everything is deterministic" is a totally unfounded and unsupportable statement. <snip /> I am just going to say that I cannot and will not accept the truth of that statement.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to and can live with but, so too am I.

Nope, in a deterministic univese, his choice and your choice are predetermined!

 

[DaveC426913]

If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason?

I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.

Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?

 

[nannoh]

I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.

Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?

True enough.

Design is something we have conceived of and now comprehend in the things we observe. It is impossible to know if a grizzly or a salmon perceive or comprehend what we term as a design (be it an experimental design or designs for dinner and a fur coat).

Design implies intelligence, which is a human trait (we're told!) and design requires motive or motivation behind it (intelligence could be seen as a motive). Design requires a reason for it to be. And design requires reasoning in order to be realized. None of these requirements are met by the existence of the laws of physics. The laws exist as a result of natural selection. The laws that survive do so because their constitution allows for their continued existence. The laws that did or do not continue did not continue because they did not adhere to the principles of other more basic laws of physics. These laws are a result of a regimen of trial and error that has lasted, we are told, almost 14 billion years. Over this time the laws that have survived are what we perceive as a "design" when these are simply the orgainized, surviving remnants of what was, initially a chaotic explosion.

Accidents need the compliment of an organized design to be seen as "accidents". With this in mind I would propose that neither "accidents" nor "designs" exist beyond the thoughts and actions of human kind. Outside of our mental mechanism there a simple existence of events that have no value other than the fact that they exist, as far as I can see.

 

[Royce]

Nope, in a deterministic universe, his choice and your choice are predetermined!

That's the point, it is not a deterministic universe. This is supported by Quantum Mechanics, QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and nuclear decay, all random and unknowable phenomena. In short if one truly random and/or unknowable, indeterminable event occurs in 14+ billion years then the universe cannot be deterministic. I, thus, do have a choice and free will as does the Universe if it is conscious and aware. We do know that at least part of it is. It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.

 

[Tojen]

I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.

Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?

I think that's what I'm saying. From our perspective, we can't come close to comprehending the Universe, so why would we assume it was made for just for us?

The bear can't come close to comprehending our motivations either, even with concrete evidence that we exist. It also wouldn't comprehend why next year a hunter would kill it just to have its head hanging on his wall and leave its cubs to slowly starve to death or be torn apart alive by another bear. From that perspective, it would reasonably conclude that this Universe was not made just so bears could exist.

 

[octelcogopod]

That's the point, it is not a deterministic universe. This is supported by Quantum Mechanics, QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and nuclear decay, all random and unknowable phenomena. In short if one truly random and/or unknowable, indeterminable event occurs in 14+ billion years then the universe cannot be deterministic. I, thus, do have a choice and free will as does the Universe if it is conscious and aware. We do know that at least part of it is. It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.

I won't get too deep into it but indeterminism does not entail "free will."
Even if it was indeterministic you wouldn't have free will either.
Free will is our conscious ability to make a choice, nothing more.
You have a choice don't you?

It can be seen as our ignorance to understanding what we are.

 

[nannoh]

It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.

Logically, because humans are conscious and aware of their environment and because humans are a part of the universe you are right to say that the universe is therefore conscious and aware.

However this does not address the question of design or accident(?). Awareness of design does not imply that design exists and the same is true of accidents. What we are aware of is determined by what we perceive. It can mistakenly be perceived that a bird is "aware" of the changing seasons or compassionately preparing for offspring when it builds a nest or when it flys south. The truth may be, on the other hand, that it is mechanically acting on the motives of hormones and genetics that are naturally selected and ensure the survival of its species.

The same can be true of humans. What we perceive as compassionate acts and grand "designs" and even our "conscious awareness" are actually manifestations of naturally selected human genetic mechanisms that remain in place, to this day, because they have delayed the collapse of the human species.

It is in this light that "conscious awareness" becomes another anthropocentric way of perceiving the mechanism of the universe. We tend to add our precepts where they may or may not belong.

 

[Royce]

I won't get too deep into it but indeterminism does not entail "free will."

No it does not entail free will; however, Determinism does preclude free will.

Even if it was indeterministic you wouldn't have free will either.

If you are saying that if the Universe is indeterministic it does not then necessarily follow logically that we have free will, then I agree, but as I said it does make it possible whereas Determinism make it impossible.

Free will is our conscious ability to make a choice, nothing more.
You have a choice don't you?

I believe free will is more than just making choices. It is also the ability to have purpose and intent, to be creative and inventive. Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.

 

[Royce]

However this does not address the question of design or accident(?). Awareness of design does not imply that design exists and the same is true of accidents. What we are aware of is determined by what we perceive...

It is in this light that "conscious awareness" becomes another anthropocentric way of perceiving the mechanism of the universe. We tend to add our precepts where they may or may not belong.

What I have been suggesting without actually saying it, is that there is one universe, one consciousness and one designer/creator and all of these things are one identity or entity and we are all an integral part of that One, the one universe, the one consciousness. Simply the One that is all. I realize that this is controversial and borders on religion but this is what I believe as a philosophy.

 

[nannoh]

Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.

Then again, free will is, without a doubt, an result of the same genetics that predetermine our behaviors. For instance creating, inventing and designing are behaviors that are driven and determined by the naturally selected genes of humans. One could say that we are robots with those abilities because those abilities form the mechanisms that result in our survival.

 

[sneez]

Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.

If you have some time, 15-20min read this "What is man", and tell me how would you refute his hypothesis? [you don't have to read all 125 pages, after 10 you will get the idea. Its mark twain so its worthy anyway.
(Its in a form of dialog)

http://books.google.com/books?vid=I...rk+twain+man&sig=iucS_89tX9Wk2ykvGFvtjjJff-8"

 

[octelcogopod]

Determinism make it impossible.

This is where I highly disagree with you, and I have to explain why.

If you look at the universe as a huge object of fundamental particles interacting, then it doesn't matter whether they are indterministic or deterministic, because they will not help nor disclude free will, as it were.
If indeteminism states that something compeletely random can happen, then it is not run by the choice of a person, otherwise it wouldn't be random, so what that means is that if something random happens, it will control whatever is physical, on the most fundamental level.

Since human choice is not primordial or fundamental in the universe, it will no doubt control that as well.
Same with determinism, if everything is determinsistic, everything is indeed controlled for us on the fundamental level.

The only (somewhat) other option I see for free will, is that it is an emergent property of determinism, where each person can control their own within a set of constraits, namely physics.
The most fundamental particles will still be controlled completely, but as consciousness and choice are emergent, we will indeed have free will, as for example our ability to choose whether or not to go to a party.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you mean "the odds of winning that lottery twice in two tries", which makes the odds deceptively larger -- if she plays 1000 times in her life (e.g. one ticket per week for 20 years), her odds of winning twice are a more reasonable one in 34 million.

Heh. Nice catch.

 

[russ_watters]

Who is to say that a scientific minded person is superior to one who thinks philosophically?

Perhaps I should have said logical. You appealed to logic in your OP, then made unequal assumptions. When I said unscientific, I was talking about the logical aspect of science.

To wit:

That fact that matter has come alive and started thinking makes me question as to whether all matter is alive and thinking, even matter that appears to be inorganic and inanimate.

And how is that logical? People aren't made up of single atoms. We can measure and observe that complex electrochemical reactions are occurring in our brains. It is not logical to conclude that neurons (much less protons) think, only that brains think.

Science requires evidence. There is no evidence that atoms, quarks, planets, etc. ever behave in a way that requires conscious thought. Ie, they don't ever disobey the laws of the universe.

Science, taking collectivly, is still ignorant of many many issues in the universe, so a "scientific" minded person would have to admit ignorance.

Since when is ignorance a crime and since when does science not acknowledge ignorance? If scientists truly believed they already knew everything, there'd be nothing to study and science would end.

I have heard many circumstances where "scientific minded" people have made assimptions...

Scientists are human and you're a pot calling the kettle black. Just because some scientists are bad scientists, doesn't make it ok for you to do the same thing.

...one being the universe thought of as being static, which was Eistein.

Huh? Since when did Einstein assume that? GR was a critical piece of the puzzle for explaining/proving the expansion.

[edit] - Oh, you're talking about the cosmological constant, right? Expansion was an untested prediction when he inserted that term into GR. When evidence showed up (Hubble) that showed expansion, Einstein immediately recognized it for what it was. Sure, he made a mistake based on a personal preconception. But he was logically/scientifically minded enough to recognize the evidence when he saw it.

Anyway, how is this relevent? Are you saying that if Einstein can be illogical that it is acceptable for you to do it? Especially considering that you claim to be arguing based on logic, it rings a little hollow to then argue that it is ok to not argue based on logic.

Besides, what you are doing is worse: you're inventing evidence to support your assumption. Or rather, you're taking evidence for one thing and applying it to something else, while at the same time the same observations of that other thing show nothing. I flip one light switch and a light in my living room goes on. Based on that, I conclude that another light also goes on - even though I can see that the light is still off!

Then there is the case of Hawkins who made the assumption that computer viruses were a form of life.

Do you have a source for that? Not that its relevant (see above) - I'm just curious.

Everyone makes assumptions it is human nature.

Certainly, its an endless struggle. Sometimes people are able to put their preconceptions aside and argue logically. And sometimes... So does this mean you are going to stop claiming you are arguing based on logic?

 

[Royce]

Then again, free will is, without a doubt, an result of the same genetics that predetermine our behaviors. For instance creating, inventing and designing are behaviors that are driven and determined by the naturally selected genes of humans. One could say that we are robots with those abilities because those abilities form the mechanisms that result in our survival.

While I agree that genetics, hormones etc influence our choices so do our state of mind and body at the moment and our history. The operative word is influence. They do not compel us to do anything unless we have a compulsive disorder. I am a smoker and addicted to nicotine but I am still not compelled to smoke. As Mark Twain said; "Quiting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." It is still a matter of conscious choice.

Anything that is programed by design or genes to certain behavior or operations is, IMO, incapable of creating or inventing anything. It has no free will and it's behavior is controlled and compelled. I don't think that such a thing could even be called a thinking being.

 

[Royce]

If you have some time, 15-20min read this "What is man", and tell me how would you refute his hypothesis? [you don't have to read all 125 pages, after 10 you will get the idea. Its mark twain so its worthy anyway.
(Its in a form of dialog)

http://books.google.com/books?vid=I...rk+twain+man&sig=iucS_89tX9Wk2ykvGFvtjjJff-8"

I was able to read only a few pages. Apparently I would have to buy the book at the link you gave us, but I think that I got the drift. However, I don't think that I read enough to refute his position other than by what I've been saying. A human is not a machine nor a computer. We are not compelled to do anything whereas a machine including computers can only respond one way to any given set of circumstances, we humans have a choice, free will.

We are getting way off the topic of this thread. If one of you want to start a determinism and/or freewill thread, I will certainly join in.