Jump to content
Caleb

Why wouldn't God exist?

Does God exist?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Does God exist?

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      30


Recommended Posts

I don't know of any reasonable estimates being one in a billion. The highest probability estimates for the modern scenarios have it at well under 10^400, and no wonder. Simple replicating biomolecular systems have been been studied for some time now and the common element is that they require a substantial infusion coherent stored information defining a working structure from among the countless alternatives. The probability of obtaining a working structure by any mechanism is the basis of the estimate. Estimates of the number of atoms in the universe are about 10^81 so the opportunities to search the set of workable structures isn't worth discussing.

If chemistry was like rolling dice, then these kinds of assesments would be valid, but chemistry is not like rolling dice - it follwos well defined rules. For example: Certain chemicals prefer to rect to others, and under cirtain circumstances.

 

Because of this non randomness in chemical reactions, using a statistical analysis of the likelyu hood of a chemical reaction occuring is not a valid counter arguemnt to abiogenisis (evolution is not the creation of living systems).

 

According to the laws of chemistry, if you have carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen and supply a certain amount of energy (not necesarily electrical, but heat, uv light and even kinetic will do) you will get increasingly complex chemicals of the type called organic (essentially carbon/nitrogen chemicals). These are precursors to living chemistry in that they are the basic components that go together to make living systems.

 

Two groups of these that are important are the Lipids and Nucleotides. Both of these are known to spontainiously generate given some pretty common, and wide ranging conditions.

 

Whatis interesting about the lipids (phosolipids especially) is that they have a Hydrophobic end (water repelling end) and a Hydrophilic end (water attracting end). The phycics of this cause the lipids to line up next to each other into a membrane and form vesicles (like a cell - in fact the cells you are made up of are made up from such phospolipid membrances).

 

If these membranes encounter any free lipids, they will absorb them into the membrance and grow. Also enough agitation (kinetic action) can cause them to split into two (which then reform into two vesicles).

 

So we have growth (when they absorb naturally occuring lipids) and division (when they split apart). However, this is still a long way from a living system.

 

Next is the Neuclotides: these also occur natrually. Neucleotides will naturally polymerise under cirtain circumstances.

 

Single neucleotides are able to pass through lipid membrances, but polymerised neucleotides are too big to do so. This means that single neucleotides will be able to enter or leave a lipid vesicle, but if the neucleotide polymerises inside a vesicle, then it will not be able to leave again.

 

This means that over time the lipid vesicles will accumulate more and more neucleotides inside them in long chains.

 

Another aspect of neuclotides is that the catalyse their own polymeriseation by binding to their pair (as in RNA or DNA neucleotide pairings - yes neucleaotides are the building blocks of RNA and DNA). As they form a paired chain the second chain polymerises and you get an paired neucleotide chain (which can then go on an catalyse another chain, and so on).

 

At the momnet these chains are random strings of neucleotides and do not do anything useful, for the most part. However certain neuclotides do have some effects, like being able to produce lipids (or at least catalyse their production). If such sequences form, then the vesicles that house such chains will grow faster than others and therefore be more likelyu to split (effectlivly reproduce).

 

Also some have the ability to encourage or block the uptake or removal of lipids in their vicinity and so a vesicle with these would be more likely to be able to steal lipids from other vesicles (become predators).

 

Now we are getting itno evolution rather than abiogenisis, but the processes to reach this point are not random, follows the rules or chemistry and occur in quite a large range of circumstances.

 

Of cources, the "chance" of it orruring randomly are quite astronomical, but since it isn't random, chance is not the correct way to evaluate this.

 

Its likely that some scientist hold this particular position, but it does not seem to follow rules of science. Since the cause of the universe remains out of reach to scientific discovery at this time, science properly done is silent on the existence of a creator. However, contrary to your assertion, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that indicates the necessity of a creator for both the universe and life in it. Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the existence of this evidence.

The only evidece I have seen is flawed logic (namly the strong anthropic principal and the mistaken belief that complex systems can't arise form simple rules).

 

It is certainly possible for very complex system to orriginate from simple rules. There is a branch of mathematics that deals with this (complexity theory).

 

Take for example this: zn+1 = zn2 + c

 

This is the formula for the Mandelbrot set. This simple rule defines the most complex thing we know of (it is actually infinitly complex - as I siad, the most complex thing we know of :cool:).

 

So what we have here is a very simple rule and this produces something so complex it could not exist in its entirety in the universe. It is more complex that the entire universe :eek:

 

This is direct proof against the belief that from simple systems complexity can't arise (this belief is also used as evidecne against evolution and abiogenisis because they don't think a simple system can generate complex life).

 

At the Big Bang what came into exists was Space and Time. There is nothing about that that says that nothing else existed at that point. It is therefore possible for the laws of the universe to exist, as well as energy to exist at the point of the bing bang. Accorgin to the known laws of the universe, it is possible that Space and Time can form from jus these two things (Energy and the laws of the Universe - specifically quantum mechanics).

 

Inother words, the Big Bang is not "Creation ex Nilho", but just the creation of space and time from energy and the laws of the universe.

 

It is onyl when you have the incorrect assuption that the Big Bang created everything (incluign the laws of the universe and energy) that it makes no sense. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it fair to say that the rules of science allow us to say werewolves or vampires do not exist? But what, God gets a special pass because he has the handicap of being invisible and intangible? By comparison to corporeally cursed undead, the God hypothesis rates in at "Not Even Wrong.

 

rules of science can help us with the existence of werewolves and vampires because the hypothesis that they exist leads to a prediction that would place them in our realm and thus we would expect regular observation. Likewise science can help with certain hypotheses regarding gods if those hypotheses put these gods in our realm. On the other hand science must be silent about the possible existence of an intelligent agent external to this universe that is hypothesized to have caused this universe except perhaps that science study may well be able to identify clear markers of designing activity and infer that the universe was designed.

 

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that while Last Thursdayism is conceivably possible, provided an omnipotent being, that it probably isn't true, or at least that there isn't any reason to believe in it, and never even could be a reason to believe in it, even if it were true? (assuming an omnipotent being could pull the masquerade off perfectly, which is sort've implied by all the omnipotence)

 

It would depend on what predictions we should expect. If we should expect nothing as a consequence of it being true relative to it being false then no conclusion is possible and it would not be reasonable.

 

Now, what I'm implying here isn't that science hasn't specifically proven the in-existence of such an entity, so much that the hypothesis for it (or they) lacks any support from observations of the universe, and requires many more assumptions than the various, far simpler naturalistic hypothesis, which, unlike god, hold more empirical water than the Great Green Arkleseizure.

 

I disagree. There is a plethora of evidence that the universe was a carefully planned event. The reality that the physical constance are fine tuned and work in concert to produce a world conducive to life is an example.

 

There has never been a veritable peer reviewed study or observation that has ever suggested that the actions or intercession of a conscious entity was necessary to account for the world we observe around us. This fair amount of evidence you mention does not exist except in the heads of the wishful.

 

False. There are a number of peer reviewed studies and observations including fine tuning and the list is growing.

 

 

And personally, I would PREFER a world with a god, where decent people were truly rewarded for who they were at heart and ultimate happiness was just a shimmer away, where even such ambiguously subjective concepts of right and wrong might be quantifiable and as such utopian paradise was achievable for all.

 

Many people would prefer to dictate how their god should behave.

 

But I'm not gonna delude myself into believing in anything that has no rational or empirical basis, and is consistently contradicted by all the evidence.

 

I don't know of any evidence that mater and energy alone is capable of causing the universe as we know it. Not a single sliver. I consider those who have decided there is no creator to be the ones who have deluded themselves.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
If chemistry was like rolling dice, then these kinds of assesments would be valid, but chemistry is not like rolling dice - it follwos well defined rules. For example: Certain chemicals prefer to rect to others, and under cirtain circumstances.

 

Because of this non randomness in chemical reactions, using a statistical analysis of the likelyu hood of a chemical reaction occuring is not a valid counter arguemnt to abiogenisis (evolution is not the creation of living systems).

 

I would suggest you brush up on chemical reaction kinetics. Please note that my degree and my occupation involves substantial study and practical application of this topic. Though chemical reactions do involve a significant degree of deterministic behavior based on physical laws, it also involves a high degree of stochastic characteristics as well. This is particularly true with bimolecular systems unaided by protein enzymes. Sorry you are incorrect.

 

According to the laws of chemistry, if you have carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen and supply a certain amount of energy (not necesarily electrical, but heat, uv light and even kinetic will do) you will get increasingly complex chemicals of the type called organic (essentially carbon/nitrogen chemicals). These are precursors to living chemistry in that they are the basic components that go together to make living systems.

 

Two groups of these that are important are the Lipids and Nucleotides. Both of these are known to spontainiously generate given some pretty common, and wide ranging conditions.

 

Yes the numbers I provided grant a copious supply of every precursor known.

 

So we have growth (when they absorb naturally occuring lipids) and division (when they split apart). However, this is still a long way from a living system.

 

That is an understatement.

 

Next is the Neuclotides: these also occur natrually. Neucleotides will naturally polymerise under cirtain circumstances.

 

I don't think you are correct. Do you have a citation that nucleotides other than adenine form in pre-biotic conditions?

 

Single neucleotides are able to pass through lipid membrances, but polymerised neucleotides are too big to do so. This means that single neucleotides will be able to enter or leave a lipid vesicle, but if the neucleotide polymerises inside a vesicle, then it will not be able to leave again.

 

This means that over time the lipid vesicles will accumulate more and more neucleotides inside them in long chains.

 

No it does not. Please provide a reference that supports this statement that pre-biotic lipid vesicles accumulate nucleotides in realistic situations.

 

Another aspect of neuclotides is that the catalyse their own polymeriseation by binding to their pair (as in RNA or DNA neucleotide pairings - yes neucleaotides are the building blocks of RNA and DNA). As they form a paired chain the second chain polymerises and you get an paired neucleotide chain (which can then go on an catalyse another chain, and so on).

 

Nonsense. Only after an RNA chain is specifically designed and constructed does it self catalyze. Please cite a study that shows that short random RNA polymers self catalyze.

 

At the momnet these chains are random strings of neucleotides and do not do anything useful, for the most part. However certain neuclotides do have some effects, like being able to produce lipids (or at least catalyse their production). If such sequences form, then the vesicles that house such chains will grow faster than others and therefore be more likelyu to split (effectlivly reproduce).

 

More nonsense. Only carefully constructed non-random RNA perform such functions. Citations please.

 

Also some have the ability to encourage or block the uptake or removal of lipids in their vicinity and so a vesicle with these would be more likely to be able to steal lipids from other vesicles (become predators).

 

Now we are getting itno evolution rather than abiogenisis, but the processes to reach this point are not random, follows the rules or chemistry and occur in quite a large range of circumstances.

 

It is a just so story. Completely void of observable evidence. I'm sorry, it sounds fascinating but it is presumption not reality.

 

Of cources, the "chance" of it orruring randomly are quite astronomical, but since it isn't random, chance is not the correct way to evaluate this.

 

Without a mechanism to manage the sequence of polymerization, it has been conclusively demonstrated that RNA bases polymerize randomly if at all. The number of functional self replicating RNA strands relative to the set of possible combinations is estimated on the order of 1 in 10^60. Chance based on browian motion is the only way to evaluate chemical reaction kinetics when multiple reactants are involved with bonding energies nearly equal as in this case and the set of possible outcomes is greater than one.

 

The only evidece I have seen is flawed logic (namly the strong anthropic principal and the mistaken belief that complex systems can't arise form simple rules).

 

My logic might be flawed although you have not yet demonstrated that, but your proposed process is in fact deeply flawed.

 

It is certainly possible for very complex system to orriginate from simple rules. There is a branch of mathematics that deals with this (complexity theory).

 

I don't think anybody has shown that it is certainly possible for complex systems to originate from simple systems. As a point of fact, shannon entropy and molecular entropy are both violated by this process unless more complex systems are engaged to accomplish such a task.

 

Take for example this: zn+1 = zn2 + c

 

This is the formula for the Mandelbrot set. This simple rule defines the most complex thing we know of (it is actually infinitly complex - as I siad, the most complex thing we know of :cool:).

 

So what we have here is a very simple rule and this produces something so complex it could not exist in its entirety in the universe. It is more complex that the entire universe :eek:

 

Its a very poor example of complexity as it relates to DNA. The mandelbrot set is very simple when viewed by traditional measures of information content. However DNA is billions of times more complex.

 

This is direct proof against the belief that from simple systems complexity can't arise (this belief is also used as evidecne against evolution and abiogenisis because they don't think a simple system can generate complex life).

 

Except you are wrong on this point as well. By what measure do we claim that the mandelbrot set is complex? It can be compressed to fewer than 20 bytes of information.

 

At the Big Bang what came into exists was Space and Time. There is nothing about that that says that nothing else existed at that point. It is therefore possible for the laws of the universe to exist, as well as energy to exist at the point of the bing bang. Accorgin to the known laws of the universe, it is possible that Space and Time can form from jus these two things (Energy and the laws of the Universe - specifically quantum mechanics).

 

Inother words, the Big Bang is not "Creation ex Nilho", but just the creation of space and time from energy and the laws of the universe.

 

It is onyl when you have the incorrect assuption that the Big Bang created everything (incluign the laws of the universe and energy) that it makes no sense. :doh:

 

Your description does not account for the physical constants. Your model is incomplete and therefore we cannot say what was created and we cannot say what was possible at the time. When I note that the physical constants are fined tuned to support life, I don't make any assumption about the source or timing. I simply note that they indeed are fine tuned. Currently when we note such unlikely coincidences upon examination, we find that intent/purpose was the cause. We don't currently know of any case where very high complexity and function in concert have a deterministic and/or random cause. Perhaps you can cite one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that I think people continually forget in debates about God is that you have the ability to define God as you like. You can either adopt a few, or you can attribute aspects to God. I think the most physicalist, rational human idea that has come out of theological views would be the concept of the Tao. Whether or not it is an intelligent entity is of debate. Nonetheless, of the greatest aspects of the Tao is the idea that it cannot be defined.

 

Let's say I'm being a completely logical being without sticking to the idea of an anthropomorphic God. So, if I define God as the Tao, I'm only equating terminology. But I cannot logically define what the Tao (God, for that matter) is.

 

I think as science continues, it will indeed adopt a view that if there is a God, then it would definitely appear relative to the idea of the Tao. Sure, you can keep an atheistic view if you so desire. However, the values of the Tao seem remarkably sincere to the Universe having a plan for itself: order, consequences, input/outputs, etc...

 

As a serious note, as I'd just like to state here, atheists who continually think of a monotheistic God (Zoroastrian, Arabic, Christian-based)--you'll find many from European-derived areas--whenever arguing are not going to be very good at arguing against me nor anyone else who takes philosophy and theology and their relation to science with seriousness. There are more views on God than that, people. Those things are the major reason I don't bother to discuss religion, theology, nor God with people.

 

I believe most of humankind throughout history has designed God as a function to comfort people's psychological views toward life and death. God, in the ultimate, in most religions can have a heaven (or rebirth) for people.

 

If science were to assume some form of God, I assume science would adopt views from many Eastern religions (as they include cycles, consequences, and a system of renewal). As it is often within the view of Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, to stop the cycle of life and death, you'll notice that science has been attempting to do the same thing. Keyword: Transhumanism.

Edited by Genecks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*

rules of science can help us with the existence of werewolves and vampires because the hypothesis that they exist leads to a prediction that would place them in our realm and thus we would expect regular observation. Likewise science can help with certain hypotheses regarding gods if those hypotheses put these gods in our realm. On the other hand science must be silent about the possible existence of an intelligent agent external to this universe that is hypothesized to have caused this universe except perhaps that science study may well be able to identify clear markers of designing activity and infer that the universe was designed.
*Addressed below

 

It would depend on what predictions we should expect. If we should expect nothing as a consequence of it being true relative to it being false then no conclusion is possible and it would not be reasonable.
Reason requires reasoning, and one valuable element of the reasoning process is Occam's Razor. The last Thursdayist universe requires far more assumptions than the naturalistic one, so while the consequences of either are possibly no different, it's perfectly reasonable to bet on the more parsimonious hypothesis. Where science cannot arrive at an empirical conclusion, it CAN weigh the probable values of varying hypothesis and decide which is more likely.

 

I disagree. There is a plethora of evidence that the universe was a carefully planned event. The reality that the physical constance are fine tuned and work in concert to produce a world conducive to life is an example.
The fine tuned universe argument ONLY holds water if you assume that this is the only universe that has ever been. Can we prove whether that's true, or there are many universes? Nope. Not now, maybe not ever. But we can compare models and reason out which make more sense. And I'm unaware of any model that specifically requires this to be the only universe. Erm, someone please correct me if I'm wrong :P

 

Anyway, even if then, the fine tuned universe only holds water if you can show that life as we know it or not as we know it cannot exist under any other conditions or circumstances. I hate to use what seems to be an increasingly popular cliche, but puddles in holes and whatnot. And also I'll point out that many of the "fine tuning" parameters have quite a range to swing in and still turn out in carbon-based life's favor.

 

On top of that, even if you could prove that there was only one universe, and that only one tiny model of parameters shaping that universe could shape life, then you could only say how LIKELY this universe being as it is is, you still don't have any evidence that this universe had to have been actively chosen specifically for life by an intelligent being. But I'd happily admit that given those criteria Occam's favor certainly begins to swing toward a creator or multiple creators' favor (I don't get why IDers almost universally assume a singular creator). But it doesn't constitute proof, particularly since it doesn't offer anything to say about how the universe came to be and how it was shaped and influenced or anything about the nature of that doing the creating / shaping. Now you have to show that something conscious DID do it. IF you can do that somehow, then you're left with the incomplete answer of "Something conscious did it." NOW you have to figure out how it was done and what the thing or things that did it is/was/are/were.

 

False. There are a number of peer reviewed studies and observations including fine tuning and the list is growing.
I'm having trouble finding any... if you could dig some up to share with me I'd be happy to consider it. Honestly

 

Many people would prefer to dictate how their god should behave.
Assuming we're not dealing with a deist creator actually outside of the universe, thereby isolated from it, which would be irrelevant to our existence anyhow (based on at least one cosmological model I'm aware of, a truly deistic universe would be indistinguishable from a natural one as a consequence of the initial state of the early universe), then you're dealing with one that does interact with the universe in some way. This can be tested for. And has been. Repeatedly. And no sign of any form of intervention has ever been detected. Any form of intervention. No matter what interpretation of deity. As far as we can tell based off of what we know currently, the universe looks exactly as you would expect it to if it had formed by naturalistic means.

 

Otherwise, are you just suggesting some tautology that no matter what evidence is found for or against god it doesn't matter because god is above our capacity to consider, and therefore question?

 

I don't know of any evidence that mater and energy alone is capable of causing the universe as we know it. Not a single sliver. I consider those who have decided there is no creator to be the ones who have deluded themselves.
Models exist that represent the universe as we know it fairly, without having to resort to god. They don't get everything right, but they do get quite a bit. And they have made testable predictions that have been confirmed via testing. And while gaps exist, there is no evidence to suggest that a god is needed to fill those gaps. It's not self-delusion to simply make the most parsimonious choice based objectively off of the available information. Claiming a conscious entity did it raises more questions than answers, where perfectly adequate answers are already available. Edited by AzurePhoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, even if then, the fine tuned universe only holds water if you can show that life as we know it or not as we know it cannot exist under any other conditions or circumstances. I hate to use what seems to be an increasingly popular cliche, but puddles in holes and whatnot. And also I'll point out that many of the "fine tuning" parameters have quite a range to swing in and still turn out in carbon-based life's favor.

 

Indeed. One of the basic ideas of Evolution is that life is fine tuned for its environment-not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason requires reasoning, and one valuable element of the reasoning process is Occam's Razor. The last Thursdayist universe requires far more assumptions than the naturalistic one,

 

We have no clear idea how either universe might arise and therefore we simply do not know which model is simpler. Occam's Razor favors the more parsimonious explanation, not the one with fewer or simpler assumptions. It's not the same thing.

 

The fine tuned universe argument ONLY holds water if you assume that this is the only universe that has ever been. Can we prove whether that's true, or there are many universes? Nope.

 

False. Fine tuning makes no assumption of the number of universes. The configuration of this universe also does not depend on the presence of other universes. Since we know of no naturalist mechanism to generate alternate physical parameters, it is irrational to presume there is a mechanism. Your argument also employs a double standard. When it comes to a creator you have argued that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss the notion despite the reality that there is evidence of design in nature. Here there is no evidence for your model, not even a sliver of evidence to indicate there are infinite universes with different physical parameters and laws and yet you want me to consider it. In addition, it is an illogical premise for many reasons including that by your scenario, there should exist a universe the same as ours except that the me in that universe happens to agree with you and beats his head on the concrete daily.

 

Not now, maybe not ever. But we can compare models and reason out which make more sense. And I'm unaware of any model that specifically requires this to be the only universe. Erm, someone please correct me if I'm wrong :P

 

You have a prior commitment and it drives your sense of logic. I submit that you are not a good arbiter of what makes more sense.

 

Anyway, even if then, the fine tuned universe only holds water if you can show that life as we know it or not as we know it cannot exist under any other conditions or circumstances. I hate to use what seems to be an increasingly popular cliche, but puddles in holes and whatnot. And also I'll point out that many of the "fine tuning" parameters have quite a range to swing in and still turn out in carbon-based life's favor.

 

It is a crazy notion to suggest otherwise. Sure there are many constants that can be varied, but there are about 20 that if varied by as little as 1 in 10^15 (some much less) would make life impossible. A full discussion of this is not possible here. The reality that the universe is fine tuned has been known for 35 years or more. The counter arguments all seem to be metaphysical as opposed to scientific.

 

On top of that, even if you could prove that there was only one universe, and that only one tiny model of parameters shaping that universe could shape life, then you could only say how LIKELY this universe being as it is is, you still don't have any evidence that this universe had to have been actively chosen specifically for life by an intelligent being.

 

Now you are creatively changing the traditional definition of evidence. It is evidence. One can choose to accept it or reject it. Clearly you have rejected it. I accept it as evidence and use it to shape my conclusions. I know of many people who also accept it as evidence but find other factors override this evidence and they still reject the idea of a creator.

 

But I'd happily admit that given those criteria Occam's favor certainly begins to swing toward a creator or multiple creators' favor (I don't get why IDers almost universally assume a singular creator).

 

Nor do I.

 

But it doesn't constitute proof, particularly since it doesn't offer anything to say about how the universe came to be and how it was shaped and influenced or anything about the nature of that doing the creating / shaping. Now you have to show that something conscious DID do it. IF you can do that somehow, then you're left with the incomplete answer of "Something conscious did it." NOW you have to figure out how it was done and what the thing or things that did it is/was/are/were.

 

Indeed. But for now it is sufficient that there is evidence that the universe and life in it is a product of a intentional acts of design, while there is no evidence that either occurred or could have occurred naturally. Things may change, new evidence may come forward but for now the evidence is tipping in favor of a creator.

 

I'm having trouble finding any... if you could dig some up to share with me I'd be happy to consider it. Honestly

 

Reviewed and published studies I assume. On what topic precisely?

 

Assuming we're not dealing with a deist creator actually outside of the universe, thereby isolated from it, which would be irrelevant to our existence anyhow (based on at least one cosmological model I'm aware of, a truly deistic universe would be indistinguishable from a natural one as a consequence of the initial state of the early universe),

 

No a deistic universe would still exhibit markers of intentional design as would the progression of its development.

 

then you're dealing with one that does interact with the universe in some way. This can be tested for. And has been. Repeatedly. And no sign of any form of intervention has ever been detected. Any form of intervention.

 

Over the past 400 years testing has been done. No physical sign of the common ideas of gods has been noted. Please note that I have only stated there is evidence for a creator of this universe and life in it. On a final point, I note that QM uncertainty makes it impossible for us to distinguish the difference between an improbable event and a miracle.

 

No matter what interpretation of deity. As far as we can tell based off of what we know currently, the universe looks exactly as you would expect it to if it had formed by naturalistic means.

 

False. There is no indication that a universe would look this way had it occurred naturally. We simply don't know what a natural universe would look like and we don't know how it would arrive at the state it might. The same argument applies to a hypothetical creator. All we know is that universe is the way it is and it exhibits markers of a designed activity.

 

Otherwise, are you just suggesting some tautology that no matter what evidence is found for or against god it doesn't matter because god is above our capacity to consider, and therefore question?

 

I have stated it the way I did to avoid a tautology. Your argument that assuming multiple universes negates fine tuning is a form of tautology.

 

Models exist that represent the universe as we know it fairly, without having to resort to god. They don't get everything right, but they do get quite a bit. And they have made testable predictions that have been confirmed via testing. And while gaps exist, there is no evidence to suggest that a god is needed to fill those gaps. It's not self-delusion to simply make the most parsimonious choice based objectively off of the available information. Claiming a conscious entity did it raises more questions than answers, where perfectly adequate answers are already available.

 

I find this paragraph laughable. Models exist that allow people to claim the universe could have arisen naturally. Some are quite interesting. However every model I've seen simply pushes the question of a creator one step back. None of them eliminate the need for a creator. Thus far it is turtles all the way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a crazy notion to suggest otherwise. Sure there are many constants that can be varied, but there are about 20 that if varied by as little as 1 in 10^15 (some much less) would make life impossible. A full discussion of this is not possible here. The reality that the universe is fine tuned has been known for 35 years or more.

Not so fast there. There are several reasons why Fine Tuning doesn't hold water, imo.

 

Every single time I've seen this argument made, it is done in the same wrong fashion. If w parameter is changed even a little, then life as we know it would not exist! Let's look at this a bit:

 

1)

It ignores the possibility of multiple changes offsetting each other. We can take the set of all possible universes and make it into a 20-dimensional space, X, in which each universe varies from the adjacent universe by one quantum of a given constant. Surely there's a region of this space, Y, in which life is most assuredly possible. How many universes are in Y and how many are only in X? What's the ratio of the two?

 

What about life as we DON'T know it? What about other possible self-replicating systems? If we take other forms of life other than our Earthly carbon-based type, Y grows even more. And let's not forget that as of this momet, we only have one data point to work with; we don't know what is required for life. Y could be HUGE! In fact, it's likely that Y is infinite.

 

2)

What about the constants governing the Fine Tuner? If our constants are so fine tuned, what makes you think the Fine Tuner's constants aren't also fine tuned? Surely that would mean the Fine Tuner requires fine tuning. I smell an infinite regression.

 

3)

If the Fine Tuner is taken to not itself need a fine tuner-if it is the uncaused cause-then this itself presents a problem for ID. In the beginning, there was the Fine Tuner and nothing else; it had no creator. Every entity's actions are determined by its properties(for us, we have higher level properties such as hopes, dreams, values, memories, beliefs, etc), but since this Fine Tuner is also the Prime Mover, its properties thus have no cause. Similar to what we did with the set of OUR possible universes, we can do the same thing with the properties of the Fine Tuner. Given a set of possible properties with no governing force as to which properties are manifested, the properties which DO manifest are necessarily random. This means that the set of actions taken by the Fine Tuner are necessarily random and thus our constraints are necessarily random. Our constraints are what they are with for no reason with no cause. Golly, that's the same answer modern science is at thusfar and it didn't have to assume a Creator. Occam ftw.

 

 

However every model I've seen simply pushes the question of a creator one step back. None of them eliminate the need for a creator. Thus far it is turtles all the way down.
Including ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3)

If the Fine Tuner is taken to not itself need a fine tuner-if it is the uncaused cause-then this itself presents a problem for ID.

There is also no particular reason that a Fine Tuner has to be a deity rather than an unknown principle of physics. Perhaps there's some physical limitation that we do not yet understand that constrains the values of physical constants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is also no particular reason that a Fine Tuner has to be a deity rather than an unknown principle of physics.

Principles of physics aren't intelligent.

 

edit: point 3 holds regardless, anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though chemical reactions do involve a significant degree of deterministic behaviour based on physical laws, it also involves a high degree of stochastic characteristics as well. This is particularly true with bimolecular systems unaided by protein enzymes. Sorry you are incorrect.

Yes, you are correct. If you look at it on a molecule by molecule basis, it does occur in a stochastic way, but as large amounts of these chemicals are involved, then the chance of these reactions occurring rises to an almost certainty.

 

I don't think you are correct. Do you have a citation that nucleotides other than adenine form in pre-biotic conditions?

Of course modern Nucleotides are far too complex and require cellular machinery to produce them, but they are not the only nucleotides that can exist. For example: Phosphoramidat DNA (which can spontaneously polymerise).

 

You might have heard of Dr Jack Szostak from Harvard Medical School. He has been doing research into this.

 

Also this is a good (but simple) over view of the process:

 

You can probably skip the first 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

No it does not. Please provide a reference that supports this statement that pre-biotic lipid vesicles accumulate nucleotides in realistic situations.

As early Lipid vesicles are permeable to the monomers, but impermeable to the polymers, then it stands to reason (without the need for citation) that if you have monomers that spontaneously polymerise inside the vesicle, then they would not be able to get out again and so an accumulation of them would arise inside the vesicle (but see again the work by Dr Jack Szostak).

 

Nonsense. Only after an RNA chain is specifically designed and constructed does it self catalyse. Please cite a study that shows that short random RNA polymers self catalyse.

I was not stating that RNA or (even DNA) specifically were the polymer chains, but was stating that certain Nucleotides can spontaneously self polymerise. I mentioned RNA and DNA because they too are nucleotides as well.

 

Again, see the work by Dr Jack Szostak

 

More nonsense. Only carefully constructed non-random RNA perform such functions. Citations please.

Enzymatic activity is not necessary for the basic system to work, just that if there are any strands that do show such activity it would give likely give that vesicle an advantage over others (which leads to evolution). Also enzymatic is not the only source of advantage that would increase the information content (the "careful construction") of the polymer stands.

 

Remember, at this point evolution is "kicking in" and favouring order over randomness in the nucleotides polymer strands when that order gives an advantage.

 

Without a mechanism to manage the sequence of polymerization, it has been conclusively demonstrated that RNA bases polymerize randomly if at all. The number of functional self replicating RNA strands relative to the set of possible combinations is estimated on the order of 1 in 10^60. Chance based on browian motion is the only way to evaluate chemical reaction kinetics when multiple reactants are involved with bonding energies nearly equal as in this case and the set of possible outcomes is greater than one.

As the system I was describing does not require RNA, just Nucleotides (which there are hundreds of different types, not just the ones found in DNA or RNA). And, as I did not specify that, this has been your assumption, which amounts to a straw-man argument (ie: you were not arguing against my claims, but your own creation from your incorrect assumptions).

 

Also in the system I described, there does not need to be anything active within the vesicle to cause this. The outside environment (in the form of kinetic forces to break apart the vesicles and occurring chemicals like the nucleotides and lipids) would supply the vesicle with the th9ings it needs to grow and replicate.

 

This is why this is not life, but the precursor to life (hence why it is about how life got started). Even the final system I described would not be life (FTR: I never said it was), but it does show evolution and many of the qualities that life has (growth, replication, etc) but it can't self replicate. However, any change that allowed self replication would be a massive advantage to that vesicle as it would allow it to replicate without outside help and thus expand into environments that the non-self-replicating vesicles could not.

 

All that is required to do this is to allow the nucleotide chains to be able to be separated and joined by internal chemistry (ie that it produces) rather than through external means as the vesicles I described.

 

My logic might be flawed although you have not yet demonstrated that, but your proposed process is in fact deeply flawed

Logical Falacy: Ad Hominin

 

You used an ad hominin attack stating that "Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the existence of this evidence". You are claiming it is our "difficulty accepting the existence of the evidence" that is our cause of our inability to accept your position.

 

So, as you have asked of me: Citation please. What is the evidence you have for the necessity of a creator.

 

As I have already shown, it is possible that life can spontaneously form through just chemistry (and even gave references to the researcher directly working on that method after you asked for them - I didn't at first as I thought it fairly easy to check them with just a simple google search, let alone going to scientific journals).

 

I don't think anybody has shown that it is certainly possible for complex systems to originate from simple systems.

Yes there has: Benoît Mandelbrot, John Conway, Roger Penrose, and many other mathematicians studying complexity theory (because that is what complexity theory is all about - complexity from simple mathematical rules).

 

Of course, not all simple systems will produce complex outcomes, but it is certainly possible to do so.

 

As a point of fact, shannon entropy and molecular entropy are both violated by this process unless more complex systems are engaged to accomplish such a task.

For the record: I never stated a closed system. That is an assumption by you, thus another straw-man argument.

 

Its a very poor example of complexity as it relates to DNA. The mandelbrot set is very simple when viewed by traditional measures of information content. However DNA is billions of times more complex.

I was not specifically trying to use it as an example of DNA (another assumption by you. At that at that stage I was talking about that simple systems can create complex outputs.

 

Actually if you want to know, if you use the right encoding system, you will find your own DNA sequence within the Mandelbrot set (ie: instead of displaying it the values as colour values, you display it as ASCII characters values). But that is a complete aside, all the Mandelbrot set was meant to do was to show that from simple systems you can get very complex outputs.

 

So, if you want to talk specifically about evolution then all you need are 3 rules (or functions if you prefer):

 

1) Replication of the selected with inheritance

2) Variation with replication

3) Selection of the variation with competition

 

Note that Variation does not have to be random variation, it can be deterministic variation and that Selection does not have to be from within the system, but can be imposed from outside the system (this is usually called artificial selection as opposed to natural selection).

 

These 3 very simple rules are all that is needed to produce evolution. These 3 rules can be encoded into a Turing Machine. Turing machines are an abstract concept that mathematically encapsulate certain functions. As long as the hardware they are implemented on can perform those functions, then any combination of those functions (algorithm) is allowed.

 

This means that Turing machines are "hardware independent" and that if two turning machines can perform the same basic functions, than an algorithm designed for one of them can be (with some degree of modification) be adapted to run on the other.

 

So all that is needed to prove evolution must be true is to show that living systems can perform the 3 functions needed for evolution and that they are arranged in the correct algorithm.

 

So:

- Do living systems replicate with inheritance: yes

- Do living systems have variation from generation to generation: yes

- Do living systems show selection with competition: yes

- Do these functions exist in the correct order to create the algorithm: yes.

 

In other words: Evolution of living systems is a mathematical fact.

 

It can also be mathematically shown that the algorithm of evolution has the property of complexity from simple systems (ie: the 3 rules in that algorithm).

 

As the system (evolution of living organisms) has been shown to be algorithmically true and internally consistent, there is no need for any outside agent (god, human, alien or otherwise) to be invoked to explain it. Of course, this does not rule out there being an outside agent (as I explained above), just that it is not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principles of physics aren't intelligent.

Do they need to be? Some principle of physics could have required the physical constants to end up in a configuration similar to the one we have now. There could be some fundamental relation between the constants that we do not understand. And so on.

 

Of course, then it's hard to call it a Fine Tuner, but oh well. If we can call something a God Particle, we can call a physical principle a Fine Tuner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they need to be?
To qualify for Intelligent Design, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have no clear idea how either universe might arise and therefore we simply do not know which model is simpler.
There ARE hypothetical models supported at least by math that offer suggestions how it might arise. There are NO models for a created universe (no mechanisms are ever proposed) and where someone attempts one they fail. Naturalistic models win points for probability in that they actually exist.

 

Occam's Razor favors the more parsimonious explanation, not the one with fewer or simpler assumptions. It's not the same thing.
You are wrong. Occam's Razor states that plurality should not be posited without necessity. It's often misinterpreted in the laymen sense of "simple" is better, but that is a simplification that leads to it's abuse. It means don't make many unnecessary assumptions where you can do just as well with a few. The most direct route is the most parsimonious.

 

False. Fine tuning makes no assumption of the number of universes. The configuration of this universe also does not depend on the presence of other universes. Since we know of no naturalist mechanism to generate alternate physical parameters, it is irrational to presume there is a mechanism.
Fine tuning DEPENDS entirely on the unlikelihood of life arising in the first place. If there are more than one universe, or if the universe is cyclic, the chances of a single unlikely event are increased by repetition. And we do have models that suggest how multiple, variable universes might arise. Nothing suggests the universe HAS to be the way it is. And no mechanisms are proposed to show that it has to be. However, mechanisms for generating alternate parameters have been hypothesized and modeled. You have to propose equally viable models of why alternate parameters can't be true.

 

Your argument also employs a double standard. When it comes to a creator you have argued that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss the notion despite the reality that there is evidence of design in nature.
There is no evidence of design in nature. None. Ever. At all. Dynamic naturalistic processes have been repeatedly shown to give rise to order via perfectly naturalistic, materialistic, godless means.

 

Here there is no evidence for your model, not even a sliver of evidence to indicate there are infinite universes with different physical parameters and laws and yet you want me to consider it.
Evidence? nope. Mathematical models, sure. This is where you have to apply rationalism and reasoning and consider the hypothesis as such. And no one said infinite. Maybe there are many, or maybe even just one cyclic one. Or, maybe there are many possible variations and just one universe that settled on a particular variation. And it's impossible to say how likely or unlikely that variation might have been, or whether or not how many other variations prevent life.

 

In addition, it is an illogical premise for many reasons including that by your scenario, there should exist a universe the same as ours except that the me in that universe happens to agree with you and beats his head on the concrete daily.
That my friend is the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. You have no logical reasons to reject the possibility, but it doesn't appeal to you on some level so you reject it as stupid.

 

You have a prior commitment and it drives your sense of logic. I submit that you are not a good arbiter of what makes more sense.
And I submit that you are incapable of distinguishing sense from nonsense. But this isn't about us, this is about the logical consistency of our arguments. So stuff it.

 

I'm perfectly happy to consider any proposed model so long as it has either evidence, or lacking that, a rational basis. There is no model for a creator, simply people giving up, throwing their hands in the air and saying "It's not worth the trouble of thinking about so god did it!"

 

It is a crazy notion to suggest otherwise. Sure there are many constants that can be varied, but there are about 20 that if varied by as little as 1 in 10^15 (some much less) would make life impossible. A full discussion of this is not possible here. The reality that the universe is fine tuned has been known for 35 years or more. The counter arguments all seem to be metaphysical as opposed to scientific.
The pseudo-scientific fine tuned universe fallacy has been examined, debunked and rejected for the nonsense that it is since the onset of its own modern incarnation. And again, it must be stressed, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

 

 

 

Now you are creatively changing the traditional definition of evidence. It is evidence. One can choose to accept it or reject it. Clearly you have rejected it. I accept it as evidence and use it to shape my conclusions. I know of many people who also accept it as evidence but find other factors override this evidence and they still reject the idea of a creator.
You have no evidence whatsoever, none to reject, just a few people who crunched some numbers, glanced at them and said "well these numbers suggest it'd be hard :-( Yay god!"

 

And I'm not changing anything, just pointing out that any conclusions must be supported by the evidence. If you can find evidence that the universe was created by intelligence, and that's all the evidence suggests without insight into the nature of this creator, then you still don't have evidence of a god-like being that created the universe and might interact with it. The creator could just as likely be a fat kid from another universe playing with his supercollider and an advanced version of Spore.

 

 

 

Nor do I.
see, common ground, lets be friends now :embarass:

 

Indeed. But for now it is sufficient that there is evidence that the universe and life in it is a product of a intentional acts of design, while there is no evidence that either occurred or could have occurred naturally. Things may change, new evidence may come forward but for now the evidence is tipping in favor of a creator.
No there's not. There are a wide range of models that suggest how abiogenesis might have occurred naturally. We're not sure how it did yet, but there's nothing to suggest it can't happen, and all the circumstantial evidence in the world to suggest that it did. The same applies to the universe (we've reasonably figured out how it developed to it's current state, now it's just a matter of figuring out that origins bit)

 

Reviewed and published studies I assume. On what topic precisely?
Anything that indicated clear signs of intentional conscious design in the universe or the origins of life. Anything that suggests naturalistic processes are unsupportable. Anything at all. Just one.

 

No a deistic universe would still exhibit markers of intentional design as would the progression of its development.
Maybe there are some models that allow for this, I don't know, but some cosmological models of the early universe indicate that the infant universe was born in a state of maximum entropy, with the implication that any "programming" would've been wiped clean, leaving no imprint of intent on the universe and allowing it to develop along its natural course devoid of design. As a reference, Victor Stenger discusses this in some of his books.

 

Over the past 400 years testing has been done. No physical sign of the common ideas of gods has been noted. Please note that I have only stated there is evidence for a creator of this universe and life in it. On a final point, I note that QM uncertainty makes it impossible for us to distinguish the difference between an improbable event and a miracle.
I am curious about one thing; by your own speculations, do you imagine that your creator had a direct hand in directing the genesis of life, and then did it interfere in the process to give rise to specific forms of life, particularly, human-like intelligence? Or did it simply outline the parameters of the universe to increase certain likelihoods, set it in motion and cross its fingers in hopes that a specific outcome might arise?

 

False. There is no indication that a universe would look this way had it occurred naturally. We simply don't know what a natural universe would look like and we don't know how it would arrive at the state it might. The same argument applies to a hypothetical creator. All we know is that universe is the way it is and it exhibits markers of a designed activity.
Models clearly show that given the initial parameters, given what we know about the universe as of now, stellar, galactic, and planetary formation occur just fine without interference. Evolutionary models show just fine how unicellular life can give rise to complex multicellular organisms. Then there are indications of the naturalistic origins of the parameters themselves (spontaneous symmetry breaking and whatnot.) There are no known signatures of design.

 

I have stated it the way I did to avoid a tautology. Your argument that assuming multiple universes negates fine tuning is a form of tautology.
If mine is tautological, it provided grounds upon which it can be evaluated and either modeled with support or rejected.

 

But I'm still asking, are you suggesting it's pointless to try to refute a creator because it's simply beyond us, or aren't you? And if so, on what grounds do you base this assumption?

 

I find this paragraph laughable. Models exist that allow people to claim the universe could have arisen naturally. Some are quite interesting. However every model I've seen simply pushes the question of a creator one step back. None of them eliminate the need for a creator. Thus far it is turtles all the way down.
Quantum fluctuations; something is more stable than nothing, and a system with a total net energy of zero is hypothesized to be capable of spontaneously emerging without cause. I find this to be the most boring proposed mechanism for the emergence of the universe, but i do have to admit it's parsimonious elegance puts all the rest to shame, and completely discards the need for any other prior cause.

 

Other models suggest that matter/energy simply always existed, without need for a first cause.

 

A conscious creator on the otherhand would show the very "signs of design" that you accuse the universe and life of displaying. So now you have to push further back and figure out "who created the creator" or more reasonably "what naturalistic process gave rise to the creator? itself"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quantum fluctuations; something is more stable than nothing, and a system with a total net energy of zero is hypothesized to be capable of spontaneously emerging without cause. I find this to be the most boring proposed mechanism for the emergence of the universe, but i do have to admit it's parsimonious elegance puts all the rest to shame, and completely discards the need for any other prior cause.

 

Other models suggest that matter/energy simply always existed, without need for a first cause.

 

Links to back this up:

 

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

 

http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

 

It's a viable explanation, but still a hypothesis -- more precise measurements of the variables involved would be needed to prove it. And we still don't quite understand the processes in the first moments of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so fast there. There are several reasons why Fine Tuning doesn't hold water, imo.

 

Every single time I've seen this argument made, it is done in the same wrong fashion. If w parameter is changed even a little, then life as we know it would not exist! Let's look at this a bit:

 

Perhaps you misread or misinterpret it.

 

1)

It ignores the possibility of multiple changes offsetting each other. We can take the set of all possible universes and make it into a 20-dimensional space, X, in which each universe varies from the adjacent universe by one quantum of a given constant. Surely there's a region of this space, Y, in which life is most assuredly possible. How many universes are in Y and how many are only in X? What's the ratio of the two?

 

Not so. while relative ratios of the constants may also produce livable conditions, it can easily be shown mathematically that the number of workable ratios of a fixed number of variables remains an infinitely small number relative to the total combinations.

 

What about life as we DON'T know it?

 

The expression as applied to this situation is intended to mean any form of life we can conceive of given our understanding of biochemistry and chemical properties of similar molecules. Your attempt to dismiss the argument may help you rationalize it away but it is no different that a young earth creationist making an appeal to the supernatural. You would not accept that appeal and you should not accept your own similar appeal.

 

2)

What about the constants governing the Fine Tuner? If our constants are so fine tuned, what makes you think the Fine Tuner's constants aren't also fine tuned? Surely that would mean the Fine Tuner requires fine tuning. I smell an infinite regression.

 

What about them? We cannot evaluate constants that might govern a hypothetical realm external to the universe so it is silly to bring it up. It is sufficient to note that our universe is in fact finely tuned. There is no evidence for an infinite regression and no necessity for one, therefore it is also silly to suggest one except as a metaphysical argument.

 

3)

If the Fine Tuner is taken to not itself need a fine tuner-if it is the uncaused cause-then this itself presents a problem for ID.

 

I don't make any claim about the characteristics of this fine tuner other than the results imply and are evidence for purposeful design. Capt'n did an excellent job of addressing this issue at another level. I don't make any representation that it is an uncaused cause. It is not a necessary requirement.

 

In the beginning, there was the Fine Tuner and nothing else; it had no creator. Every entity's actions are determined by its properties(for us, we have higher level properties such as hopes, dreams, values, memories, beliefs, etc), but since this Fine Tuner is also the Prime Mover, its properties thus have no cause. Similar to what we did with the set of OUR possible universes, we can do the same thing with the properties of the Fine Tuner. Given a set of possible properties with no governing force as to which properties are manifested, the properties which DO manifest are necessarily random. This means that the set of actions taken by the Fine Tuner are necessarily random and thus our constraints are necessarily random. Our constraints are what they are with for no reason with no cause. Golly, that's the same answer modern science is at thusfar and it didn't have to assume a Creator. Occam ftw.

 

An incorrect and irrelevant analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't make any claim about the characteristics of this fine tuner other than the results imply and are evidence for purposeful design. Capt'n did an excellent job of addressing this issue at another level. I don't make any representation that it is an uncaused cause. It is not a necessary requirement.

If the fine tuner is caused, you've merely introduced another turtle; something must have occurred to cause the fine tuner, and if the universe were just slightly different, that may never have happened...

 

I still do not see why a potential Fine Tuner cannot be a simple physical principle. If it can be, fine tuning is not evidence for purposeful design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. while relative ratios of the constants may also produce livable conditions, it can easily be shown mathematically that the number of workable ratios of a fixed number of variables remains an infinitely small number relative to the total combinations.

It can? Then do it.

 

It is sufficient to note that our universe is in fact finely tuned.
It is far from a fact.

 

In addition to my above post, the VAST majority of the universe is nothingness. A large portion of the infinitesimal part left is made of black holes and superheated plasma. The part of the universe that contains life is so small as to be nearly irrelevant. To claim that the whole of our unbelievably large universe was designed to bring about self-replicating molecules on our pale blue dot is quite frankly absurd and the epitome of arrogance. If the universe were fine tuned for life, shouldn't we see it everywhere? Surely such universes where there IS life everywhere are contained within Y, the subset of X discussed above.

 

It's far more reasonable to claim that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of black holes. After all, there are billions upon billions of them taking up unimaginably more mass than all known life put together.

 

I don't make any claim about the characteristics of this fine tuner other than the results imply and are evidence for purposeful design.

Either it has governing forces, or it doesn't. Either way, as I've shown, it is an immense problem for FT; it's turtles all the way down, or it's necessary randomness. You pick.

 

Capt'n did an excellent job of addressing this issue at another level.
He did? Where was that? Perhaps you could explain it.

 

I don't make any representation that it is an uncaused cause. It is not a necessary requirement.

I didn't say it was. I present problems with both options. Do try to keep up.

 

 

An incorrect and irrelevant analogy.

How so?

 

I still do not see why a potential Fine Tuner cannot be a simple physical principle. If it can be, fine tuning is not evidence for purposeful design.

 

If that were the case, it would be irrelevant, as I've said before, to Intelligent Design.

Edited by ydoaPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about them? We cannot evaluate constants that might govern a hypothetical realm external to the universe so it is silly to bring it up. It is sufficient to note that our universe is in fact finely tuned. There is no evidence for an infinite regression and no necessity for one, therefore it is also silly to suggest one except as a metaphysical argument.

Infinite regression is required. You just argued that fine tuning implies purposeful design; purposeful design implies the existence of a realm external to the universe in which some purposeful agent must exist. A purposeful agent implies life; and life in an alternate universe is dependent on its physical constants.

 

Even if you do not accept that the external realm must be finely tuned, you must admit that its existence requires separate explanation, as does the existence of a purposeful agent inside it.

 

On the other hand, it's possible that there is no purposeful agent, no external realm, and nothing that would have to create an external realm. Instead, some unknown principle of physics resulted in our physical constants emerging as they did.

 

It would be safer to say "nobody knows why the constants have their values" than to say "their values imply a purposeful agent." Until physical causes can be ruled out, you can't jump to the conclusion that purpose was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still do not see why a potential Fine Tuner cannot be a simple physical principle. If it can be, fine tuning is not evidence for purposeful design.

 

Indeed, we see simple processes creating complexity all the time-from snowflakes to evolution.

 

Recently, it's been shown that all of the complexity of the universe very well could have stemmed from the elegant simplicity of the E8 Lie Group.

qQ7IqIA1Aeo

Edited by ydoaPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logical Falacy: Ad Hominin

 

You used an ad hominin attack stating that "Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the existence of this evidence". You are claiming it is our "difficulty accepting the existence of the evidence" that is our cause of our inability to accept your position.

 

So, as you have asked of me: Citation please. What is the evidence you have for the necessity of a creator.

 

I don't argue that a creator is a necessity. I have stated there is evidence that the universe and life in it was intentionally created.

 

As I have already shown, it is possible that life can spontaneously form through just chemistry

 

False. You provided some just so stories supported by a host of assumptions, some of which are wrong. I pointed out a couple errors previously.

 

(and even gave references to the researcher directly working on that method after you asked for them - I didn't at first as I thought it fairly easy to check them with just a simple google search, let alone going to scientific journals).

 

True that there are references for the presence of research. Not true that the research validates your claims.

 

For the record: I never stated a closed system. That is an assumption by you, thus another straw-man argument.

 

Correct you did not, and my statement does not require the system to be closed either. Even in an open system entropy requires a source of order (information and molecular entropy both require a source for an increase in order).

 

Actually if you want to know, if you use the right encoding system, you will find your own DNA sequence within the Mandelbrot set (ie: instead of displaying it the values as colour values, you display it as ASCII characters values). But that is a complete aside, all the Mandelbrot set was meant to do was to show that from simple systems you can get very complex outputs.

 

I do agree that human mathematicians are very adept at beginning with simple systems and transforming them into complex ones. Design is a nice source of entropy.

 

 

These 3 very simple rules are all that is needed to produce evolution. These 3 rules can be encoded into a Turing Machine. Turing machines are an abstract concept that mathematically encapsulate certain functions. As long as the hardware they are implemented on can perform those functions, then any combination of those functions (algorithm) is allowed.

 

This means that Turing machines are "hardware independent" and that if two turning machines can perform the same basic functions, than an algorithm designed for one of them can be (with some degree of modification) be adapted to run on the other.

 

So all that is needed to prove evolution must be true is to show that living systems can perform the 3 functions needed for evolution and that they are arranged in the correct algorithm.

 

Turing machines are designed. I completely agree that evolution can and does proceed uninhibited when a designer is behind it. Genetic engineers are proving this regularly these days. Take away the designer and you need a different source of information and molecular ordering. If evolution made use of some naturally derived turing machine I would tend to agree with you.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
If the fine tuner is caused, you've merely introduced another turtle; something must have occurred to cause the fine tuner, and if the universe were just slightly different, that may never have happened...

 

Agreed, but our information ends in our realm so it is fruitless to speculate if the fine tuner was caused or not.

 

I still do not see why a potential Fine Tuner cannot be a simple physical principle. If it can be, fine tuning is not evidence for purposeful design.

 

Nor do I, however if fine tuning was a result of a simple physical principle, then we should be able to derive examples using physical principles alone of mimicking designed systems. Looking for this example seems like a reasonable thing to do.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Infinite regression is required. You just argued that fine tuning implies purposeful design; purposeful design implies the existence of a realm external to the universe in which some purposeful agent must exist. A purposeful agent implies life; and life in an alternate universe is dependent on its physical constants.

 

Hmm, I am not convinced. Your description is one scenario but by no means the only one. I won't go into the alternatives since examples are easy to find on the web. However I simply note that we don't need to understand the characteristics of the fine tuner or the fine tuners realm to address the evidence we find in our universe.

 

Even if you do not accept that the external realm must be finely tuned, you must admit that its existence requires separate explanation, as does the existence of a purposeful agent inside it.

 

I am silent about the character of it. While an explanation may be helpful I don't see how it is required.

 

On the other hand, it's possible that there is no purposeful agent, no external realm, and nothing that would have to create an external realm. Instead, some unknown principle of physics resulted in our physical constants emerging as they did.

 

Agreed.

 

It would be safer to say "nobody knows why the constants have their values" than to say "their values imply a purposeful agent." Until physical causes can be ruled out, you can't jump to the conclusion that purpose was involved.

 

I don't know if it is safer or not, but I would say that although there is evidence from the nature of the constants to suggest a designer, since physical causes have not yet been ruled out it is not conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so. while relative ratios of the constants may also produce livable conditions, it can easily be shown mathematically that the number of workable ratios of a fixed number of variables remains an infinitely small number relative to the total combinations.
you have to know all the varying ways by which life or exotic equivalents of life can form before you even begin to estimate. You don't have the data to say whether the chance of life is 1 in a million or 1 in a trillion trillion.

 

The expression as applied to this situation is intended to mean any form of life we can conceive of given our understanding of biochemistry and chemical properties of similar molecules.
that would be life as we know it.

 

Your attempt to dismiss the argument may help you rationalize it away but it is no different that a young earth creationist making an appeal to the supernatural. You would not accept that appeal and you should not accept your own similar appeal.
It is entirely different in that it is based on rationality and model-able hypothesis. YEC, like ID, is based off of irrational, unsupported claims lacking in viable supportive models that fail to explain anything and are rooted in emotional predispostions.

 

What about them? We cannot evaluate constants that might govern a hypothetical realm external to the universe so it is silly to bring it up.
if we can't model them, then we can't model whether or not the fine tuned universe holds any water as a result. "How likely is the existence of a universe like ours?" "dunknow." But it's never silly to consider ideas and judge their merit. It's simply that, after being considered carefully, yours have already been shown to lack any.

 

It is sufficient to note that our universe is in fact finely tuned.
I don't argue that a creator is a necessity. I have stated there is evidence that the universe and life in it was intentionally created.
False. You provided some just so stories supported by a host of assumptions, some of which are wrong. I pointed out a couple errors previously.

You're just reiterating the same baseless claim that have no scientific support or rational merit.

 

There is no evidence for an infinite regression and no necessity for one, therefore it is also silly to suggest one except as a metaphysical argument.
Your proposal by its very nature requires a progression beyond the creator in order for the god itself to exist. It's one thing to consider the spontaneous emergence or ever existence of unformed matter and energy in an initial primordial state of chaos and disorder. It's quite another to assume the same of a complex entity. Higher complexity has only ever been shown to arise via processes. Edited by AzurePhoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am silent about the character of it. While an explanation may be helpful I don't see how it is required.

We are attempting to explain the existence of our universe by trying to find a first cause. We cannot arbitrarily pick a point in the causal chain and say "right, I quit, let's call it good right here."

 

I don't know if it is safer or not, but I would say that although there is evidence from the nature of the constants to suggest a designer, since physical causes have not yet been ruled out it is not conclusive.

I do not see how any of the evidence points to a designer rather than a physical principle. There is no need to favor a designer.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Nor do I, however if fine tuning was a result of a simple physical principle, then we should be able to derive examples using physical principles alone of mimicking designed systems. Looking for this example seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Why? The principle that results in fine tuning does not have to be one already known to science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are attempting to explain the existence of our universe by trying to find a first cause. We cannot arbitrarily pick a point in the causal chain and say "right, I quit, let's call it good right here."

 

There is not enough data to go beyond this point. We could continue to argue metaphysically, but I have no interest in that so I stop where the evidence exceeds our current reach.

 

I do not see how any of the evidence points to a designer rather than a physical principle. There is no need to favor a designer.

 

Yes I can see you don't. A designer is favored because we observe things that are fine tuned and note that in every case where the cause is known, design is at the root of it while at the same time we never observe physical principles causing fine tuning. Perhaps this will change one day. For now it is a sound rationale.

 

Why? The principle that results in fine tuning does not have to be one already known to science.

 

Again you make a valid point. I agree, but since we have no information about unknown principles we have no way to factor them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A designer is favored because we observe things that are fine tuned and note that in every case where the cause is known, design is at the root of it while at the same time we never observe physical principles causing fine tuning

 

This is completely false. The only observed fine tuning is quite happily explained by natural principles. Natural selection quite exquisitely fine tunes life for its environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is not enough data to go beyond this point. We could continue to argue metaphysically, but I have no interest in that so I stop where the evidence exceeds our current reach.
The entire concept of the fine tuned universe "goes beyond this point," in that it's based on unverifiable numbers based off of a particular view of the nature of the singularity vs the multiplicity of the universe. You are already exceeding the reach that you claim you stop at right from the get-go. Our uninteresting examinations of your allegations are playing at the exact same level of assumption.

 

A designer is favored because we observe things that are fine tuned and note that in every case where the cause is known, design is at the root of it while at the same time we never observe physical principles causing fine tuning. Perhaps this will change one day. For now it is a sound rationale.
Once more, and I'm sure once more you'll ignore it, no objective scientist has ever observed any empirically testable indications that support your baseless, imaginary claims. It is not empirical. It is not rational. It is denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.