Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 296 of 506 (695660)
04-08-2013 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by NoNukes
04-07-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Texas sharpshooter or yeah, you're right.
NoNukes writes:
I've spent a lot of time with this off-line today, and I've been able to convince myself that you are right. Random, unusual stuff happens all of the time, and there need not be any explanation for a particular rare event.
I must say it's refreshing to read someone on EvC changing his mind, deciding he has been on the wrong track, and, most important, saying so. A heartfelt thanks for an honest and interesting discussion.
The interesting thing is that we assumed our scenario giving every possible advantage to those who make the fine tuning with intent argument. We don't know that the formation of the world actually was a lottery type scenario. The point I wanted to make is that it isn't necessary to counter the fine tuning argument with anything other than pointing out that it relies on a misunderstanding of probabilities and the "target" fallacy.
In scenarios like our hypothetical one, a rare result is inevitable, and is to be expected. The scenario actually predicts it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2013 5:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2013 7:37 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 361 of 506 (695841)
04-09-2013 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by designtheorist
04-09-2013 1:16 AM


Re: Fine-tuning
designtheorist writes:
Knowing that individual rare occurrences happen in nature, but combinations of rare occurrences are rare -....
Combinations of unique occurrences are common. History is full of them.
....what level of fine-tuning would you say can reasonably be chalked up to random natural events (null hypothesis)?
Any.
And what level of fine-tuning would you say is beyond random chance and chaotic natural processes (alternate hypothesis)?
None.
The whole fine tuning with intent argument is fallacious. You are making the same simple mistake as someone who says:
"Ten million people participated in a lottery, and therefore could have won it. Mrs. Gertrude Brown of George Street Philadelphia won it. The chances of her winning the lottery were incredibly remote, therefore the lottery draw must have been fixed (intelligently designed with intent that she should win).
You've spent half of this thread telling the world that you think lottery results must be fixed. The mistake that you're making is that you're seeing the chance winner as a target. You're saying:
Quadrillions of different universes could have come into existence. Only one universe exists (and therefore won the lottery). The chances of that one universe winning out were incredibly remote. Therefore, the process must have been fixed (intelligently designed with intent that this universe should be here).
In the lottery, whoever wins it, the result will be one in ten million. So, the chances of ending up with a "one in ten million" result of some kind is actually one. It's inevitable.
In the universe scenario, whichever universe wins out, the result will be one in quadrillions. So, the chances of ending up with a "one in quadrillions" result of some kind is actually one. It's inevitable.
Edited by bluegenes, : rong spelin
Edited by bluegenes, : slight clarification!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by designtheorist, posted 04-09-2013 1:16 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 378 of 506 (696288)
04-14-2013 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Adminnemooseus
04-14-2013 2:02 AM


Re: Going into summary mode at 380 messages
Adminnemooseus writes:
Going into summary mode at 380 messages
Oh dear! That'll give designtheorist an easy way to avoid the obvious point I've made repeatedly on this thread, and fail to reply to Message 361, which explains clearly to him why there is no rational teleological fine tuning argument.
Maybe we need another thread on the "lottery fallacy" or the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" and petitio principii
Assume that Mrs. Life was intended to win the lottery with millions of participants after the draw, and you'll conclude that the draw was fixed.
Why the theists who make the fine tuning with intent argument aren't phoning the police to alert them to foul play every time someone wins a lottery I'll never understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-14-2013 2:02 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Admin, posted 04-14-2013 8:31 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 405 of 506 (696907)
04-19-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Just being real
04-19-2013 11:53 AM


Some questions
Just being real writes:
Likewise just because we have never observed God doesn't mean we can't detect His effects. And I think that these effects are clearly and scientifically detectable. All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...
(1) Why do any of the things you've listed require a "supremely intelligent being"?
(2) Are you suggesting that miracles (lawless magic) would be evidence against a physical law making god?
(3) What force, if any, constrains your god to create a world with the physical regularities that we call laws?
(4) What laws, if any, would your god be subject to?
(5) If he is not subject to any constraints (laws) then how can the hypothesis "God created the world" make any predictions about the world?
(6) Wouldn't any world of any description be compatible with the hypothesis?
(7) If (6) then how could observations of this world provide evidence for a creator god?
(8) If you think that the the DNA code cannot come about by the physical processes of this world, do you also think that your god made the world with the wrong type of physical nature for our type of life?
(9) In your opinion, did it require a miracle (law breaking) to bring about DNA based life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Just being real, posted 04-19-2013 11:53 AM Just being real has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 414 of 506 (696945)
04-19-2013 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by GDR
04-19-2013 2:48 PM


Re: Predictions
GDR writes:
The most basic part of "natural" reality is complex arrangement of particles that appear to have properties that are either non-dimensional or uni-dimensional. In the end we know something about the properties of these particles but in the end know very little about. They pop in and out of our perceived existence. They don't take our perceived form until they are observed and then we find that they go back in time in order to be observed.
Even if you can imagine all of that forming without an intelligent first cause you then have to believe that somehow there was a chance coming together of these particles to form atoms, and then molecules. It takes a great deal of faith to believe all of this.
However now that there are atoms and molecules to our great fortune these all combined to form an incredibly small living cell which has a complexity that would at least rival any of our computers.
Now that we have cells, again with incredible good fortune of these cells coming together in such a way that far more complex life forms with the ability to actually think, even if it was only instinct and based on survival.
Then we have to believe that these life forms evolved into humans with the intelligence humans to understand today's science and to have developed a code of morality.
Again I ask, Which is more plausible? That all of that happened by blind chance or is there an intelligent first cause. I can't begin to generate enough faith to conceive of the first choice as being even the least bit plausible.
Why? If you can believe that a god who can design all the things you mentioned does not itself require intelligent design, then you can easily believe all the things you mention don't require intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by GDR, posted 04-19-2013 2:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by GDR, posted 04-19-2013 8:45 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 419 of 506 (696989)
04-20-2013 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by GDR
04-19-2013 8:45 PM


Re: Predictions
GDR writes:
I’m going to copy this over from what I wrote on another thread a while back concerning who created God. The same objection keeps coming up on different threads so this is actually the third time I've posted this.
It will keep coming up, because your reply doesn't answer my point. You expressed incredulity at all kinds of things, from atoms to intelligent biological beings, coming into existence without being intelligently designed, but you find it credible that a god capable of designing all these things doesn't require intelligent design.
That last takes away any reason for your initial incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by GDR, posted 04-19-2013 8:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by GDR, posted 04-20-2013 2:25 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 422 of 506 (696995)
04-20-2013 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by GDR
04-20-2013 2:25 AM


Re: Predictions
GDR writes:
Your thinking is linear. The explanation I gave gives a theory that is consistent with current scientific theory, or probably more accurately scientific speculation, of the rationale for an eternal being.
That's not the point. My point was that if, for you, a super intelligent being, eternal or anything else, can exist without requiring intelligent design, then there is no reason for you to express incredulity at anything else you mentioned existing without intelligent design.
GDR writes:
We all have incredulity in our beliefs. Sure I find it incredulous that all that we perceive could naturally come from mindless particles. You express incredulity at the thought of an intelligent first cause.
I don't express incredulity at intelligence existing without requiring intelligent design, and neither do you. So what is your basis for incredulity at anything else existing without being intelligently designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by GDR, posted 04-20-2013 2:25 AM GDR has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 445 of 506 (697116)
04-21-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Just being real
04-21-2013 2:13 PM


Questions (again).
Just being real writes:
Exactly! Specified information is worth investigating.
I asked you some questions relating to your idea of "specified information" in Message 405.
Why are the things you list below "specified information".
bluegenes writes:
Just being real writes:
Likewise just because we have never observed God doesn't mean we can't detect His effects. And I think that these effects are clearly and scientifically detectable. All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...
(1) Why do any of the things you've listed require a "supremely intelligent being"?
(2) Are you suggesting that miracles (lawless magic) would be evidence against a physical law making god?
(3) What force, if any, constrains your god to create a world with the physical regularities that we call laws?
(4) What laws, if any, would your god be subject to?
(5) If he is not subject to any constraints (laws) then how can the hypothesis "God created the world" make any predictions about the world?
(6) Wouldn't any world of any description be compatible with the hypothesis?
(7) If (6) then how could observations of this world provide evidence for a creator god?
(8) If you think that the the DNA code cannot come about by the physical processes of this world, do you also think that your god made the world with the wrong type of physical nature for our type of life?
(9) In your opinion, did it require a miracle (law breaking) to bring about DNA based life?
Any answers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Just being real, posted 04-21-2013 2:13 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:49 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 460 of 506 (697210)
04-22-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Just being real
04-22-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:
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.
I've read your post. Here's the bit where you assume your conclusion.
Just being real writes:
In fact one could argue that specified information is the biggest clue to detecting intelligence. The very definition of specificity incorporates words like purpose or intent.
No it doesn't.
Just being real writes:
It’s almost redundant to even say, but you’d be surprised at how many I’ve encountered that don’t make the connection.
No, I wouldn't be surprised.
Just being real writes:
Of course anything with an intent or purpose must have an intelligent source. Therefore we know for certain that when we observe specificity that we are observing something with an intelligent source. We can say this with certainty because we have never observed (physically) anything of a specified nature form apart from intelligence.
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.
Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:49 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:45 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 468 of 506 (697294)
04-23-2013 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Just being real
04-22-2013 9:45 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:
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.
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. It falsifies your claim that we only observe such things when they involve intelligent senders and receivers such as humans and dolphins.
If you assume that bacteria require intelligent pre-programing in order to send and receive signals, you are assuming the conclusion that you're trying to establish. It means that you have deceived yourself into thinking that we only observe "specified information" emanating from intelligent entities because every time you observe clearly unintelligent exceptions you will assume that they are the result of intelligent programming in order to conclude that they are.
That's petitio principii. Surely someone must have pointed out this out to you before?
JBR writes:
bluegenes writes:
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?
Clearly, 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. It isn't "specified information" per se that they would be looking for.
Your idea of the "same type" seems to extend to anything and everything. For example:
JBR writes:
All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...
If that's your idea of the "same type", the answer is no, I wouldn't in most cases. And I don't see "specified information" itself as you've defined it as a sign of intelligent origin.
Here you tell us what you mean by something being "specified".
Just being real writes:
So this of course raises the question of how do we tell for sure if something is specified? What criteria can we use to say something is specified? There are three things that are required to be present at one time. There must of course be the transmission of information (transmitter), there must be the independent reception of the information (receiver), and thirdly the observer must be able to make the connection that the information used by the receiver is completely independent of the transmitter and that only that information arranged in that order will initiate the response. An example would be a key and a lock. The key transmits the information to the independent lock tumblers and the observer recognizes, though independent of each other, only the specific carving arrangement on the key will open the lock. Likewise when a marine biologist suspects specified information might be present in the sounds that a dolphin makes, he or she begins to look for specific patterns of sounds made between them that initialize certain responses. Only those specific patterns of sounds will initialize that response.
So, the communications systems of both intelligent and unintelligent organisms clearly fit your definition. And what you're describing the marine biologists doing with dolphins has been done with birds, insects, bacteria and plants. 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've chosen human artifacts as an example (the lock and key). You could have chosen the "lock and key" systems in our bodies; the "lock and key" systems that are a prerequisite for the existence of all observed intelligent designers. You could also have chosen examples from chemistry outside the life system. A specific catalyst that will cause a specific reaction in a "receiver".
Now, having been answered, you are free to do as you promised, and answer my questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:45 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:05 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 478 of 506 (697343)
04-23-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Just being real
04-23-2013 5:05 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:
bluegenes writes:
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.
Yes it is. Bacteria don't act with conscious intent.
JBR writes:
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.
No. Specified information, by your own definition, is observed originating from both unintelligent organisms and intelligent organisms. Both are "programmed" with the ability to do this. Which brings us to a real observation.
Specified information, by your definition, is a prerequisite for all observed intelligent beings. Observation tells us that "specified information" is required to produce intelligence, not the other way around.
Just being real writes:
bluegenes writes:
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?
I've given you two. Would you like to falsify the observation based conclusion that specified information is a prerequisite for the existence of all intelligent designers?
JBR writes:
bluegenes writes:
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.
Do you mean the origin of the genes that enable dolphins and humans to communicate specified information?
JBS writes:
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.
And information was required for the designers of computers and their programs to form.
JBS writes:
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.
Except that we've observed that all known intelligent beings are dependent on specified information for their existence, and cells aren't actually computers, and computers aren't chemical self-replicators that replicate with variation.
There's lots of specified information in chemistry. And self-replicators, ones without brains, can be observed to produce variants with new specified information, which is an interesting observation, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:05 PM Just being real has 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