Summations Only

Well, as Forest Gump would say: "Simple is as simple says (does), sir!"
JCH

quote:

---

I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
And don't you find it amazing how the water in a puddle so neatly conforms to the hole.

---

Meaningless!

quote:

---

We may not understand exactly the how but we have the general gist. I find it amazing that you claim you do not posit a god of the gaps argument and then you use it. Using your own personal definitions does not change reality.

---

No, but reality should change our own personal definitions should it not?
JCH

Questions become evidence when they are not answerable. The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".JCH

But it is simple.The water exactly fits the puddle. We are simply the product, not some goal.The odds of us being the way we are is 100%.The odds of the universe being the way it is is 100%.The odds of anything in the past is 100%.

quote:

---

Then I am confused as to why you would keep saying things like this:
1) "My point is, complete confidence in our knowledge base such that we are assured there are no possible outside influences we cannot detect or track down. I think this is virtually impossible. We seek certitude in all things. There is no possible certitude I can imagine right now."
2) "I am a scientist who believes teleological principles MIGHT have led to and through the processes ending in where we are today. In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence."--message 29
3) "Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours."--message 32
4) "IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar (i.e., behind a curtain of His own design as well), He might direct evolution this way or that by minor nudges of our molecular DNA — once it came into being; OR, He may have implanted it early on. We would never really know."--message 111
5) "There is none, obviously other than the probability/improbability argument. Faith is the belief in something. It is not evidence except in personal experiences which convince some that such a power exists. On the other hand, the impossibility of certitude in certain areas of science is also a big problem for science --- especially quantum mechanics. It all has value, but some small part is still based on faith in the validity of our tests and testing of concepts."--message 116

​

Overall, your position seems to be that God is acting in areas that we cannot currently verify. How is that anything other than a God-of-the-Gaps?

---

Wow, I am impressed. You actually read and collated what I wrote!! Thank you!
I confess, I may be applying that logic. I just disdain the label. God-of-the-gaps is such a manufactured concept and obviously prejudicial. I think that’s why I reject the term.
If there are gaps, God already filled them --- otherwise we wouldn’t be here. But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are. Just because we can’t understand some of the gaps is irrelevant, since they obviously have been attended to in the evolution of our improbable universe (and galaxy; and solar system and earth; and life; and us etc. etc.).
It’s the immutable apparently required sequence I find so compelling.
JCH

quote:

---

Obviously, you have not read much ID literature. Many IDers argue vehemently that NS can not produce an increase in fitness over long time periods. Sanford and "Genetic Entropy" come to mind, and Sanford was a speaker at an ID convention not too long ago.

---

Quite right. I am not an aficionado of ID literature since I have found its science attempts all over the place and ultimately uninteresting. I read it only under duress and then with a very critical eye and find most of it rambling and without substance.
I find all of my affirmations in real science; especially quantum cosmology and cosmology in general as well as the biologic sciences (since I was first a Zoologist; then physician; then internist then immunologist).
My feeling is that, while well intentioned, classical IDers are attempting to do the impossible: To make logical sense out of fable and allegory and to somehow extract science there-from. In so doing, they frequently make fools of themselves. They take upon themselves an unnecessary task: To make sense out of mythical rhetoric: Sacred as it is read, but gibberish as applied to reality. That’s not blasphemy, I write; just fact.
If ID would stick with fundamental real science as argument, they would find themselves less ostracized and more included in conversation.
JCH

quote:

---

So what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?

---

The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day. There is a continuum of both information and hope, and lots of time for mankind collectively to contemplate.
None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.
Whatever,--- it’s OK. We are, after all, sapient beings and part of the universe together, and I think it’s just our job--- our purpose --- to contemplate that simple fact. Probably the only one we all can’t deny.
JCH Edited by jchardy, : No reason given.

How?
Unanswerable questions simply describe what we do not know. The only thing they could be considered evidence of is our lack of knowledge. Questions are not explanations either.

And yet you discuss the unknowable anyway. The life that happened in this universe was life that was possible in this universe. Were this a different universe with different laws then any life that happened would have been life that was possible in that different universe. How many different types of universes could give rise to life? You don't know, yet you seem certain that it is amazing that life arose in this one.Any other unknowable things you'd care to discuss?--Percy

Apparently not. JCH

You've misunderstood the term "God of the gaps". When people attribute what we do not know to God, their god is called a "God of the gaps", where "gaps" refer to gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge grows and fills in those gaps the things attributed to the "God of the gaps" becoms less and less. Gods used to be responsible for the motion of the planets, the weather, disease and much else, but as knowledge has increased these Gods have had to cede control of these phenomena to nature. As our telescopes and microscopes increase in power these Gods recede and shrink. You're a physician. You have a BA in zoology from MSAC (Mountain State Agricultural College?) and worked one year as a lab technician at Riverside County Hospital before beginning med school. You were never a zoologist. You're running a word salad generator program, aren't you. Far be it from me to defend IDists, but you seem to have as little acquaintance with ID as you do with science. It's great to know that these experiments are being run as we common folk dither on, but to ask once again, what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them? How scientific do you think it is to postulate a being for whom you have no evidence?--Percy

This rejoinder reminds of a bad joke I once saw on a TV comedy hour back in the 60's. One guy says to the other, "Ever ride a jackass." "No," the other guy replies. "Well, why don't you hop on your back and give it a try?""Oh, that's a good one," the other guy replies. "I'm going to try it on this gentleman coming now. Sir, have you ever ridden a jackass." When the gentleman says no the guy turns his back and says, "Well, hop on."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor wordsmithing.Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.

Shouldn't that be:

Oddly enough, repeating the same claim in response to a request for clarification doesn't add to the discussion, nor does it make the claim more persuasive. If there's no use discussing the unknowable, there's even less use basing a hypothesis on such lack of knowledge. And if you cannot know the details of all possible ways life can arise, you cannot begin to assign probabilities of it arising. The calculations you used to come to your conclusion that life is too improbable to have arisen without influence from an intelligent agent. I can't begin to discuss with you your claim that it's improbable without such calculations. Without them, we are left with nothing but you claiming it's so and me disagreeing. That's not a debate.

The fact that you don't understand the point doesn't mean it's meaningless.The conditions on earth are suited to support life because life has adapted to suit the conditions on earth. We don't see life forms that require 10% of earth's gravity to flourish because any such life forms that might have arisen would have been outcompeted by organisms better suited to the conditions that do exist. Similarly, the water in the hole might think that the hole is perfectly designed to hold it, just the right shape and depth. But the fact of the matter is that the water's shape and amount are determined by the hole instead.

quote:

---

The fact that you don't understand the point doesn't mean it's meaningless.
The conditions on earth are suited to support life because life has adapted to suit the conditions on earth. We don't see life forms that require 10% of earth's gravity to flourish because any such life forms that might have arisen would have been outcompeted by organisms better suited to the conditions that do exist.

---

OK, I’ll play; that’s more like it. Riddles waste time. I agree with your general surmise.

quote:

---

Similarly, the water in the hole might think that the hole is perfectly designed to hold it, just the right shape and depth.

---

Or, just as correctly, the water might think the hole it fashioned was now perfectly designed by itself for its purposes.

quote:

---

But the fact of the matter is that the water's shape and amount are determined by the hole instead.

---

Unless, of course, the hole was made by the impact of the water, (e.g., a glacial lake), in which case the hole might fit the water perforce.
Water is very persistent and forceful stuff on the move, particularly when in solid state.I am still at a loss to determine your point here in contrast to my position. Enlighten me!
JCH

Rather than going through calculations, none of which would be mine alone, I would ask that you read the summary of Chapter 1 of Mallary's "Our improbable universe" at: Our Improbable Universe - Book Summary - Chapter 1: Fourteen Stepping Stones .JCH