Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 426 of 506 (697033)
04-20-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by NoNukes
04-19-2013 12:12 PM


The computer in front of me is of natural origins versus super natural origins.
I suppose it depends on your use of the word "natural." If that word is being used to describe only those things which are physically possible, then yes your computer is of natural origins and the opposite of natural in this usage is supernatural. But if natural is used to describe those things which are formed by random unguided processes and laws of physics, then the opposite of naturally formed becomes artificially or intelligently formed.
This is why I prefer not to refer to God as a supernatural being. Many in these debates love to flip flop the use of the word natural and so God magically becomes an entity that is beyond what is possible to exist. But if He is refered to as the Supreme being then it doesn't matter. He then becomes the greatest of all that is possible rather than being beyond what is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2013 12:12 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 429 of 506 (697036)
04-20-2013 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Tangle
04-19-2013 12:15 PM


RE--Put it the other way - did it have a supernatural cause?--
See my reply to NoNukes on the same question
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 12:15 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 430 of 506 (697037)
04-20-2013 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Straggler
04-19-2013 12:17 PM


Re: Predictions
RE--What has your "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?--
I thought we were discussing the theory that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation? If you want to talk merits of belief in a supreme being verses merits of QFT, then lets talk virtually every university, educational system, hospital, and charity organization, being birthed from belief in God. But I know, that's a whole nother thread.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 12:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 5:24 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 444 of 506 (697113)
04-21-2013 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by NoNukes
04-20-2013 7:16 PM


None of the signals you describe would indicate intelligence to me, but perhaps if you were also to add some modulation that might distinguish the signal from naturally occurring phenomena, then maybe you'd be on to something.
So you're saying that SETI is wasting all their time and money looking for what Jill Tarter (SETI Director) tells us is exactly what they are looking for to detect intelligent life?
Something ordinary but not Creator good level super ordinary. And that's the topic of the thread. Simply finding intelligence outside the galaxy would be exciting
Yes I understand what the topic of this thread is. But we have to be on the same page here first. I'm trying to discern exactly what in your eyes qualifies as evidence for intelligence. Because if you hold to some higher standard than do SETI scientists and marine biologists then this conversation is doomed before it starts.
The above however is just the same CSI ID nonsense I've seen pushed a dozen times.
I know you may think so but I would point out that that CSI "nonsense" that you have heard, does in fact make a very fatal flaw. Complexity does not equate to intelligence. A snow flake can be very complex and yet formed completely by natural laws of physics. So complex information can not be used to detect intelligence. If you drop a hand full of marbles off a tall building onto a typewriter below, the information it produces would be very complex and the odds of reproducing it would be beyond astronomical.
What I am talking about here is detecting information that has intent or purpose. Not merely complex. That is what I am pointing out is exactly what SETI looks for to detect ET and what marine biologists look for in dolphins.
I don't need to identify an intended receiver to recognize that I have no natural explanation for a signal bearing, say a long repeated sequence of prime numbers in descending order.
Well now you are implying that ET might be insane. Because only insane people would go to the trouble to transmit a signal with absolutely no intended receiver. Even a message in a bottle tossed into the ocean is done so with the hope of eventually making its way into the hands of someone to receive it. Again if we detected such a signal then we might actually be the intended receiver as well as the observer.
If a signal like that shows up, then the source is worth investigating further.
Exactly! Specified information is worth investigating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 7:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2013 3:22 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 4:56 PM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 454 of 506 (697178)
04-22-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by bluegenes
04-21-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Questions (again).
I asked you some questions relating to your idea of "specified information"
Okay sure I will answer your questions but first I would ask that you take a look at my comments to NoNukes in mssg#425, and I will direct them towards you since he seems to have wimped out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2013 3:22 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:03 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 460 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 12:51 PM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 455 of 506 (697179)
04-22-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by NoNukes
04-21-2013 4:56 PM


The signals need not be transmitted for the purpose of reception. They might be a bi-product of some energy use.
Yes and the detection of such a signal would still have a transmitted, receptor, observer relationship. Else we would not be recognizing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 4:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:08 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 464 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 3:54 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 465 of 506 (697270)
04-22-2013 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by NoNukes
04-22-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Questions (again).
akgtjlsasjzgmslriutasgsugskgajlahajlajaehklhu
quierounatazadecafeconcremayazucarporfavor
What on earth is the basis of this comment? Have I been too slow in responding to some of your messages? Did I not stay up late enough last night typing posts?
I have already gotten the message that this thread is drawing to an end, and have consoled myself with the fact that I probably will never get to discuss the actual evidence here because of the dragging. I understand that you don't want to answer me with a straight answer, and I understand why.
So here is my new point to this discussion. Scientific evidence for intelligent design gets stonewalled by the "big bouncers" at the door before it can ever even make it inside to the "dance floor." And the reasons for the stonewalling have nothing to do with science at all. Normally I here the objection that looking for non-human intelligence is not a scientific en devour. And yet I can show at least two sciences that clearly do exactly that. The next objection I usually here is that looking for intelligence in marine animals or extra terrestrials is somehow different than looking for intelligence in the design of the universe and life. So I point out that the methodology used is exactly the same. No one can ever seem to explain why looking for specified narrow bandwidths, or dolphin sound patterns is a good way to hunt for intelligence, but looking for specified information in the laws of physics, DNA molecule, and arrangement of the cosmology is not.
I understand that ID proponents need a receiver to advance their theory that they can observe design, but in reality, even a laser beam intended for no use other than to destroy a target,
And the target is the receiver. The point I am making with the "transmitter, receiver, observer" scenario is that this is how specified information is DETECTED. We look for something that has an intended purpose. I once found a very old rusty wrench berried in my yard. I knew immediately by its shape that it was fashioned for an intended purpose. It was not a shape that occurs naturally, and a previous unrelated experience I had with tools gave me the recognition response needed to immediately determine it was the product of intelligence. In order to detect intelligence, there has to be a source of the object, bandwidth, or sound (transmitter). Then there must be an intended reason for the object, bandwidth, or sound (receiver). And finally there must be someone to make the connection that the object, bandwidth, or sound was meant for that reason (observer). Without these three ingredients, specificity can exist, but it can not be detected.
An example: at the beginning of this post there are two seemingly meaningless lines of letters. Actually the first line is. It is merely random meaningless letters. But the second actually has specified information. You may have not recognized it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If you speak Spanish then you know what it means. You have a recognition response that is completely independent of that line and you become both the receiver and the observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:03 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 10:06 PM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 466 of 506 (697271)
04-22-2013 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by bluegenes
04-22-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Questions (again).
We observe it all the time. Bacteria send specific signals to each other and will react in specific ways on receiving the signals. They are not intelligent.
Yes things operate under preprograming all the time that have zero intelligence. My computer automatically scans for viruses twice a week with no one around to initiate it. But show me a computer form that can do this completely by natural unguided processes with no intelligence and then I'll be impressed. Likewise, show me a bacteria form from completely from non biological matter that can send these signals and I'll really be impressed. Otherwise all your example has done was further underscore my point.
Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.
I will... just as soon as you tell me rather or not you will accept, as evidence for intelligence, the same type of specified evidence that both SETI and marine biologists accept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 12:51 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 6:17 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 469 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 9:31 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 473 of 506 (697322)
04-23-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by NoNukes
04-22-2013 10:06 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Such a bean contains no information, specified or otherwise, and communicates nothing to the target. Yet because it is a narrow bandwidth transmission, we might infer something from the beam that is not an intended message to the target.
Well see, you could have just said No I don’t agree with SETI that a laser flash would be specified enough to consider evidence for intelligence. That would have been sufficient and saved a lot of time. But let me ask you this. Do things with an intended purpose imply intelligence to you?
Where people balk is when attempts are made to simply say either that order means design or that it is possible to recognize design simply by looking at it, just as you do when looking at a wrench.
Since you chose to repeat an argument that I have already replied to, I’ll just repeat what I told you in response the first time. I AGREE, complexity does not equate to intelligence. A snow flake can be very complex and yet formed completely by natural laws of physics. Therefore complex information can not be used to detect intelligence. Likewise if you randomly drop a hand full of marbles off a tall building onto a typewriter below, the information it types would be very complex and the odds of reproducing it (the exact same information) would be beyond astronomical. But merely complex information is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is detecting information that has intent or purpose. That is exactly what SETI looks for to detect ET and what marine biologists look for in dolphins. When a monkey crams a stick down an ant hole he turns that ordinary stick into specified information. That is to say it goes from ordinary stick to eating utensil. It is not very complex at all, but it is still very intentional, and intention requires intelligence. If you just found the stick alone, you probably wouldn’t have enough information to make the connection, but if you observed it in use you would recognize from previous independent experiences what the monkey was doing.
Information that has intent or purpose is called specified information. I know you don’t like that term because ID people sandwiched it in between their complexity nonsense, but I’m sorry that is just what it is called. Specified information is detected when an observer can make a connection that the information being transmitted has an intended relationship with where it is received. I don’t care if you are talking about a 20 year old craftsman wrench or a 5,000 year old pot, the detection of intelligence requires the same three ingredients.
And I've provided an example that suggests that those three things are not always needed. The observer can be completely clueless about the reason or intended purpose of the transmission or the nature of the receiver.
And I have pointed out to you that we are not just talking about the existence of specified information, but rather the DETECTION of its existence. Perhaps I did not make myself clear here. Your right, I could place drift wood indiscriminately along a beach, and that would make it intelligently placed. There would be no need for a receiver at all. But it is the detection of specified information that requires the three components I mentioned. I would have to place the drift wood in some sort of a pattern that I hoped would be recognized and used (like forming the word HELP), Then it could be detected as having an intelligent source. But then it would have the three components of transmission, receiver, and observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 10:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:27 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 479 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 11:32 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 474 of 506 (697328)
04-23-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by bluegenes
04-23-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Questions (again).
No. It's an example of the sending and receiving of specific signals without conscious intent on the part of the sender or the receiver.
No its not. Unless you can produce an example of the bacteria being observed forming from non biological material complete with the ability to produce and receive these signals, then your just supporting my point. That being that specified information has only been "observed" originating from intelligent sources and therefore is our best clue of intelligence.
you are assuming the conclusion that you're trying to establish.
No I am drawing a conclusion based on the observed evidence. Unless you have an actual observation that falsifies that conclusion?
if the marine biologists are trying to identify a high level of intelligence in dolphins, they would be looking for something in dolphin signals that distinguishes them from the unintelligent "specified information" communicated by ants, bacteria and plants.
Yes clearly they are indeed looking for "high levels" of intelligence in dolphins. But that doesn't mean the methodology is all that different. The more intricate that the specified information is, the higher the level of intelligence that can be inferred. But that doesn't discount the fact that an ant with a very small brain can carry out amazing feats displaying specificity that must have obviously been programmed into its instinctive behavior patterns.
There are many examples, both intra-specific and inter-specific. The transfer of specific information by your definition does not require conscious intent on the part of sender or receiver.
You can't loose sight of the fact that we are talking about the origin of the specified information which requires an intelligent source, not just the transfer of it. As I said before, a computer can be preprogrammed to run (transfer) specified information without the need of intelligence to constantly be present. But obviously an intelligence was required for that information to form. Since this is a conclusion based on observation we must conclude that any system where we observe specified information operating in this sort of automated form, was the product of an intelligent source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 6:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 10:50 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 475 of 506 (697329)
04-23-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by NoNukes
04-23-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Questions (again).
Accordingly, unlike wrenches, biological systems are subject to evolving through unguided introductions of variety and natural selection.
Now you are jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion. Without actually having ever seen at least one example of a multi-celled biological system have new never before existed information get added to its chromosomal DNA and improve that system (something we would need to see at least once to infer universal common decent) there's no solid basis for that conclusion. What we have actually observed is specified information form only by intelligent sources. Therefore when we look at the specified information observed in the DNA code of biological organisms (though reproduced many times over) the more logical conclusion is that that code had an original intelligent source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 9:31 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:19 PM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 494 of 506 (697465)
04-25-2013 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by NoNukes
04-23-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Questions (again).
we do have indirect evidence that multi-celled biological systems have evolved. I understand that the evidence does not convince you, but it is there.
Well don't be too hasty to judge me. If you've got evidence that's been drawn by a logical conclusion based on observation of the data I'd like to see it. But here's the thing... you can't just say "We believe so and so evolved from so and so and therefore since we observe some similarity between the two this proves it." In order to make that kind of conclusion and have it be anything more than only an assumption, you would have to have at least one case in which something was observed evolving into something else (finely graduated chain of fossils with no large jumps). Or at least one case where the process believed to drive the phenomenon was actually observed (mutation adding new information to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organim which gives it a selective advantage). To my knowledge neither exists. If you are aware of something I'd love to see it.
Evidence is not limited to my or your directly watching organisms evolve.
A man is found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the head. One officer believes it was a suicide and another officer believes it was a murder. Evidence is not limited to direct observation but it is limited "by" it. Specially if there are two competing theories on how a historical event occured, then more and better observations are just naturally going to be required.
we have absolutely no evidence, direct or indirect, that any biological system has been designed by humans or non-humans. None at all.
What we do have ample evidence for is that information being transmitted with specific intent to a receptor, requires an intelligent source to produce. Therefore the most logical conclusion, when we observe the highly specified code in DNA and how it is transmitted and used, is that it had an original intelligent source. Specially devoid of any observations that show specified information could arise gradually through the evolutionary process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2013 7:12 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 496 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2013 8:01 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 501 of 506 (697492)
04-26-2013 9:36 AM


This thread topic posed the question of rather or not science can say something significant about the existence of God. My answer in short is "Yes it can."
But it depends on your definition of God. If your definition is a Supernatural being (an entity that is beyond what is possible to exist) then of course not. But if your definition is a Supreme being (the greatest of all that is possible to exist) then absolutely science can say a lot.
Anything with an intended purpose (specified information) must logically come from an intelligent agent. Specified information can be detected when an observer recognizes the relationship between the transmitted information and the receiver that uses that information. Some would have us to believe that this somehow changes when we are talking about biological specificity, however I've never seen a sound logical explanation as to why. Many attempts to do so employ the similarity arguments, but fail to recognize that when the competing theory also predicts similarity, something more observable must be employed.
One poster claimed my expectation for observable evidence was unrealistic and even tried to compare it to a tobacco companies claim that no one has ever observed tobacco smoke cause a single cancer cell. Of course there is a big difference in looking for one specific change in an arena where the pure statistics demonstrate the problem, and looking for any kind of change anywhere in an arena where no such stats exist and there is a very viable competing theory.
In the end opponents to design theory, seem to me, to hinge their arguments more on personal bias than on real observable scientific evidence.
Just Being Real

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024