Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 76 of 506 (694725)
03-27-2013 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
03-27-2013 1:36 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
Then you won't have any problem providing the original source so that we can see the context for the quoted phrases, will you ?
See Message 71. From that link:
quote:
William Dembski has responded to my January 18 Tom Jukes Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley. Others are responding on Meta and elsewhere to the focus of his essay, whether natural selection is testable, and I shall not do so here. I should, however, comment on views attributed to me.
I was not really dealing with the testability of intelligent design (ID), though that is the impression one might get from Dembski’s essay. In this public lecture, I discussed both traditional creation science and neocreationism, and compared them. I talked about Behe’s irreducible complexity idea, and Dembski’s Design Inference, and illustrated the religious motivation for fighting evolution. I am not especially concerned with whether ID is testable. I look at the testability of ID the same way I look at the testability of traditional young-earth creationism (YEC): YEC can make empirically or logically or statistically testable statements (the earth was covered by a body of water, all living things are descended from creatures that came off a boat) but its foundational claim that everything came into being suddenly in its present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator is not a scientifically testable claim. I shall let theologians argue over whether special creationism is good theology, but invoking omnipotent supernatural causes puts one smack out of the realm of science, protestations of the validity of theistic science notwithstanding. One cannot use natural processes to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces; hence it is impossible to test (by naturalistic methodology) supernatural explanations (Scott 1998). Whether a supernatural force does or does not act is thus outside of what science can tell us.
Similarly, ID can make empirically or logically or statistically testable claims (certain structures are irreducibly complex; by using probability arguments like the design filter one can detect design) but the foundational claim that a supernatural intelligence is behind it all is not a scientifically testable statement. (And please, let us be grownups here: we are not talking about a disembodied, vague intelligence that might be material, we are talking about God, an intelligent agent who can do things that, according to ID, mortals and natural processes like natural selection cannot. Not for nothing does Dembski say that ID is the bridge between science and theology.)
In my talk, I was not deploring the untestability of ID per se but the fact that its proponents do not present testable models. I was referring to the fact that ID proponents do not present a model at all in the sense of saying what happened when. At least YEC presents a view of what happens: the universe appeared a few thousands of years ago, at one time, in its present form; living things are descended from specially created kinds from which they have not varied except in trivial ways; there was a universal flood that produced the modern geological features; and humans are specially created apart from all other forms. So what happened in the ID model?
No mention of "direct observation" or anything similar. DT's "quote" is a poor paraphrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2013 1:36 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 10:49 PM JonF has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(4)
Message 77 of 506 (694726)
03-27-2013 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:37 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
designtheorist writes:
Can you think of any new evidence regarding the Cambrian that would lead you in the direction of the work of an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis?
In the question of "Where are my keys?" the hypothesis might be that they were stolen by gremlins. The null hypothesis would be that they were not stolen by gremlins. An alternative hypothesis might be that they're in my other pants.
The original hypothesis requires some previous evidence that gremlins exist while the alternative hypothesis requires some evidence that I have other pants. The test for gremlins is considerably more difficult than the test for pants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:37 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 78 of 506 (694727)
03-27-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
03-27-2013 1:29 PM


Hello Taq
How does that even relate to a null hypothesis?
I think it is valuable for you to do your own reasoning on these points, but I am willing to give you an example. Let's say you are interested in the question of detecting the effects of a Creator God in the area of the fine-tuned universe. Plug in your own numbers here, this is just an example.
You may say, if the fine-tuning only involves six parameters and the tuning has a range of 25%, then I would consider that to be not extremely fine-tuned. It could well be these numbers result from pure chance.
You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator.
You need to decide a priori what you expect to find and what those findings will mean to you. Would you say no amount of fine-tuning would convince me a Creator was involved? I cannot. At some point, theoretically speaking, you have to say 'The is beyond the realm of a chance happening. This shows intention and purpose.'
I hope that helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2013 2:12 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 2:20 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 03-27-2013 2:28 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 3:28 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 7:17 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 79 of 506 (694728)
03-27-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:37 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Scientists detect things which are not directly observable regularly
Of course. Nobody, especially Genie Scott, is denying that. Oh, except for the YECs who try to distingush between "observational" and "historical" sciences.
The problem with the Goddidit hypothesis is not that we can't observe Him directly, but that an omnipotent Being could do anything and therefore anything we observe could have been produced by Him. there is no possibility of distinguishing between an observation produced by "natural" causes and an observation produced by His direct action.
Here's a game we can play. You are the chancellor of the University of Utah in 1990. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are in your office. You complain about the lack of replication of their cold fusion results, and they answer "It really worked at the time, but God must have changed the Universe in an undetectable way so it doesn't work anymore".
What is your response?
Oh and the null hypothesis for all your questions is "what we observe was produced by known natural agencies". It's your job to come up with any alternative hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:37 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 8:41 PM JonF has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(3)
Message 80 of 506 (694729)
03-27-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:56 PM


following?
quote:
...has to be the result of an intelligent Creator.
Maybe I missed something but I see a gigantic gap in logic where my ellipses are.
Perhaps you can explain more? So far you've missed that part in many places.
You might note that our current state of knowledge of physics doesn't allow us to make, that I know, of any statements about so-called "fine tuning". For one thing the constants we see may be the only possible ones. For another we already have some work done that shows that varying more than one constant allows for universes that "work" even if they are widely different from our own.
So any use of fine tuning at all is a house built on sand and currently utterly useless as an argument for anything at all. Unless you actually have some logic that allows you to fill in those ellipses. We await.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:09 AM NosyNed has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 81 of 506 (694730)
03-27-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:56 PM


Oh, yuck, fine-tuing again.
You may say, if the fine-tuning only involves six parameters and the tuning has a range of 25%, then I would consider that to be not extremely fine-tuned. It could well be these numbers result from pure chance.
You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator.
There is no number of parameters and allegedly astonishing fits that by themselves will convince me there cannot be a "natural" origin of the universe. Until we have much more data than we do we're just a puddle of water surprised by how well we fit into that depression in the road.
There could be uncountable numbers of other universes with different parameters. There could be uncountable numbers of those universes that contain life so different from what we know that we can't even imagine it. You can express astonishment at how well the universe fits us (even though so much of it doesn't) but it's just handwaving until you can provide a probability calculation based on observation and measurement. And we're pretty far from being able to do that and it's likely we will be in that situation for a long time to come.
Personally, I like the quantum fluctuation hypothesis, but there are lots of "naturalistic" possibilities that are not disproven by "fine-tuning". And you don't have a meaningful argument that what we see is unlikely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 82 of 506 (694731)
03-27-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Hi Straggler
If you are going to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing reality you need to be able to distinguish between a universe where there is no supernatural involvement and one where there is.
What would the universe look like without any supernatural involvement?
What would the universe look like with supernatural involvement included?
How have you come to these conclusions?
DT writes:
Science has detected both dark matter and dark energy. We believe they exist because we can see their effects.
Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We infer their existence of dark matter because our theory of gravtitation, which we know is able to make accurate predictions regarding gravitational phenonema , suggests that there is considerably more mass in the universe than so far directly observed.
What similarly compelling (i.e. able to make testable predictions) theoretical basis can be utilised in order to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural?
DT writes:
What do you think?
I think your claims rely on the rather debateable premise that the observable universe is so ordered/impressive/wondrous/whatever that it must have been created by some sort of super-being.
I also think it worth noting that humanity has a rather dismal record of erroneously invoking gods as necessary causal agents for phenomenon deemed wondrous and impressive.
But I, like everyone else here, am still waiting for this evidence you keep promsing us.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:37 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 83 of 506 (694732)
03-27-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:56 PM


Whoopa Science Style
designtheorist writes:
You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator.
That seems like a silly thing to say if we're going through this scientifically.
Let's assume your claim is true, scientifically.
Let's assume that "the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%"
This does not imply that the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator, that is merely one possibility.
It actually scientifically implies that the universe is the result of a fixed system.
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system is entirely natural and required no Creator at all through some sort of looping universe
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system is entirely natural and required no Creator at all through some sort of physical inevitability
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system is entirely natural and required no Creator at all through some sort of alternate dimension
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system is entirely natural and required no Creator at all through some sort of reaction between multiple alternate dimensions
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system did require a Creator, but that Creator was stupid and basically only had to trip and fall on the "go" button... creating this universe by accident.
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system did require an intelligent Creator (who could be the Christian God, but maybe Islam or Wiccan or Roman or Greek or...)
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system did require an intelligent Creator... who died shortly after creating the universe.
  • It is a possibility that this fixed system required multiple intelligent Creators.
    All 8 of those are possibilities.
    2 of them (the first two) do not require anything more than what we see in front of us right now, and are therefore favoured by Occam's razor.
    Only one (the sixth one) favours the Christian religion... and even then it's one of many.
    1/8 for the Creator God choice = 12.5%
    1/5 of that just from what I listed (probably worse odds...) to get to the Christian Creator God = 2.5%
    So, yes, given a fine-tuned universe assumption, science can say something about a Creator Christian God... it is then 97.5% likely that this God does not exist.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM designtheorist has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 84 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 2:38 PM Stile has replied

      
    JonF
    Member (Idle past 167 days)
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: 06-23-2003


    Message 84 of 506 (694733)
    03-27-2013 2:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by Stile
    03-27-2013 2:28 PM


    Re: Whoopa Science Style
    So, yes, given a fine-tuned universe assumption, science can say something about a Creator Christian God... it is then 97.5% likely that this God does not exist.
    That conclusion requires some hidden assumptions about probability distributions. My position is that nobody can produce a meaningful observation-based probability argument for or against the Goddidit hypothesis.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Stile, posted 03-27-2013 2:28 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Stile, posted 03-27-2013 2:53 PM JonF has not replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    (7)
    Message 85 of 506 (694735)
    03-27-2013 2:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 60 by designtheorist
    03-27-2013 12:37 PM


    Re: Hi Straggler
    If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about the Creator God whose effects we can see scientifically, would you be willing to read the Bible or go to church to learn more?
    If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about talking rabbits, would you be willing to read Alice in Wonderland to learn more?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 60 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:37 PM designtheorist has not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 86 of 506 (694736)
    03-27-2013 2:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by JonF
    03-27-2013 2:38 PM


    Re: Whoopa Science Style
    JonF writes:
    That conclusion requires some hidden assumptions about probability distributions. My position is that nobody can produce a meaningful observation-based probability argument for or against the Goddidit hypothesis.
    I whole-heartedly agree.
    I just explained it more colourfully
    (If anyone can understand why my values are bogus, they should be able to apply the same conceptual idea to see why any other value-based probability would be bogus).
    Edited by Stile, : These are not the edits you're looking for

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 2:38 PM JonF has not replied

      
    NoNukes
    Inactive Member


    (2)
    Message 87 of 506 (694739)
    03-27-2013 3:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
    03-27-2013 1:56 PM


    Re: Hello Taq
    You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator.
    Do you know whether those 20 parameters are independent? Are you or anyone else able to vary one of them independently and to then show us that the other 19 remain constant? What if only all of the parameters are a function of a single master parameter? What if that master parameter cannot be changed?
    Because if you cannot provide a correct answer to the above questions, then the actual number of parameters is of no probative value.
    Can a universe even exist with a change in a single one of those parameters by 1%, given our inability to know if the parameters are truly independent? If you cannot demonstrate an answer this question, fine tuning is no argument at all.
    Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
    I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
    If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM designtheorist has not replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    (1)
    Message 88 of 506 (694740)
    03-27-2013 3:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
    03-27-2013 1:18 PM


    Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
    Not true. Did you watch the video clip? He totally disagreed with Craig Ventner regarding the fact there is not one LUCA. Dawkins obviously is either unaware of the Koonin papers and is in denial. Koonin says we have to stop talking about the tree of life and begin talking about the forest of life. Dawkins has not come to terms with the evidence from genomics. Those are facts.
    No, those are things that you've made up, as anyone can see by watching the video.
    Note in particular when Ventner says: "There may be a bush of life" and Dawkins replies: "I concede that point".

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

      
    designtheorist
    Member (Idle past 3832 days)
    Posts: 390
    From: Irvine, CA, United States
    Joined: 09-15-2011


    Message 89 of 506 (694747)
    03-27-2013 5:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
    03-27-2013 1:18 PM


    Re: Hi Paul
    Yes, if the RTB creation model predictions do not pan out, the model can be proven inferior to other models whose predictions do pan out.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM PaulK has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by Percy, posted 03-27-2013 7:26 PM designtheorist has replied

      
    NoNukes
    Inactive Member


    Message 90 of 506 (694748)
    03-27-2013 5:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
    03-27-2013 3:37 PM


    Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
    Note in particular when Ventner says:
    Throw me a bone Dr. A. How about a pointer to where in the video I should start listening?

    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
    I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
    If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2013 3:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2013 10:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024