Existence of God

As to the really part .... well, yes, increased understanding
of a system/phenomenon/artifact may eliminate the suggestion
of a creator from the list of possibilities. You are mixing/confusing apples with blue whales, Peter.

​

If I said that lightning was caused by Zeus and later discovered that it was a 'natural' phenomenon, how does that eliminate the possibility that Zeus created the entire universe including charged particles and physical laws that together produce lightning?

​

It doesn't eliminate the possibility, does it?Take deep sea formations, for example, some people suppose that
there are ruins from ancient (circa 11,000 years ago) cities,
while others say they are natural formations. There will always be erroneous interpretations.Increased understanding of geology/erosion AND of the structures
themselves will likely lead down one track or the other ...
possibly concluding that they are so likely to be natural as
to discount the other possibility.As to the second point ... I'll be pedantic for a second ...
science understands nothing, people do. I'm still waiting to hear what you think science or people truly understand.The process of science allows us to develop understanding of
the observations that we make. With enough time and effort
(and advancement for some types of observation) we can gain
sufficient understanding of natural events to preclude certain
explanations ... like Thor makes thunder and lightning. Still waiting...Scientific explanations are not always correct, and never complete
I'll give you that, but they are often sufficient. 'Sufficient' for what?That is there are no counter-examples that can refute sufficiently 'understood' aspects of the natural/physical/chemical world. So, what are these????? ONE, please...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science / good reasoning must be guided by the inference to the best explanation. This 'best explanation' should employ accepted rules of logic in combination with the empirical evidence / observations. Given all this, the best inference is that there is a God that is the Creator of all things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You seem to be using 'inference' to mean 'leap of logic'. You mean "leap of logic" as in : we observe variations occurring among existing organisms and from these observations Naturalists LEAP into the supposition that all modern forms originated from a single common ancestor. This is the 'leap of logic' that you mean, right?What observations are there that lead to such an inference? Take your pick among thousands. Ever heard of the "Fine-tuned Universe"? What about the myriad of symbiotic relationships? What about life from non-life? What about the historical evidence for Jesus Christ?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that "the notion is stated, rather than supported" - I totally disagree. The notion is very well supported except that you et al. refuse to accept the support as such and instead interpret the evidence so as to support YOUR chosen beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Problem with evidence .... if you have evidence that genuinely, and
after peer review etc. etc. supports multiple view points
simultaneously then the evidence doesn't provide a conclusive
route ... and alternative evidence must be sought.Science does this (amongst other ways) by taking a hypothesis and considering what observation would make it false. If you find that observation it's back to the drawing board.The problem I see is that the 'evidence' used to support the
existence of a god doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And the 'evidence' used to support materialistic Naturalism does?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, consider elaborate symbiotic relationships. These are very revealing of a purposeful design - the interconnection of a single creation - yet you choose to see them as an "evolved mechanism for survival". I can't help that you wish to see things a certain way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Biologists can point to examples of 'systems' that are suggestive
of a route to such complex symbionts, they can propose an
evolutionary route, and the suggested routes are often borne
out by other observations. The key point being that by NOT
automatically assuming god one investigates. Peter, you need to listen more carefully : no one is "automatically assuming" anything. The combined weight of the evidence is what allows a verdict in the direction of God - not an "assumption".You on the other hand just keep saying 'This is so obviously the
work of God, that it must be the work of God.' I never have and I never will say such a thing - it's not a logical statement. I will say that after close examination the combined weight of the evidence certainly supports a rational belief in God.Does that sound logical or systematic to you? See above.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So stop saying that it "isn't supported" - it is amply supported, you et al. merely choose to ignore the evidence via an alternate interpretation that is suited to support your worldview.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But my worldview is supported by further evidence ... observations
that are expected from the theory. Come now, Peter, you aren't that naive, are you?

​

When the fossil data didn't jibe with the "theoretical expectations", what did Goldschmidt, Eldredge & Gould do? Did they modify their worldview? Did they toss out neo-Darwinism?

​

Of course they didn't - they simply concocted a mechanism that would allow people to 'rationally' justify retaining the (desired) position. These gentlemen would NEVER have proposed Hopeful Monsters (Goldschmidt) or Punctuated Equilibrium (Eldredge & Gould) EXCEPT for the fact that all was not well in Muddville.

​

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)?

​

And if it is possible to introduce any 'plausible' ad hoc hypothesis (such as Hopeful Monsters) in order to retain a theory, what does this say about the falsifiability of said theory? This is why in several of my papers I maintain that the present reigning paradigm is essentially unfalsifiable.

​

Now, do you wish to challenge me on this point? Your worldview is unsupportable .... that's why you need faith. We all need faith, Peter - I need faith for my God and you need faith for 'yours'.Premise: 'God created the universe and everything in it.'
Refutation .... ?
Predictions ... ?
Primary Evidence ...? Asked and answered.

​

Joralex

quote:

---

" How does one convince a person that will stop at nothing to advance materialistic Naturalism? I believe that this isn't possible."

---

Surely you aren't talking about me? My questions were very specific, and had nothing to do with materialistic Naturalism. They were clarifications of *your* points, for the most part, and trying to see if you agreed or disagreed on whether specific systems complied with your argument or not.

quote:

---

"With what purpose?"

---

The purpose of the other discussion was to clarify whether or not certain systems complied with your argument or not. Whether your assertion that various systems all needed to appear at once is true. Whether specific examples proved your assertion wrong, or not. When pressed on these specific questions, you dropped the discussion.

quote:

---

"No empirical evidence would be "proof" of design (or of natural evolution). The matter is not about "proof", it is about rational justification and inferencing the best explanation."

---

Point well taken, I usually avoid the word "proof" like the plague.
If you want to open a topic on symbiotic relationships, and whether or not they are a problem for naturalistic explanations, please do so.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

quote:

---

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)?

---

Creationists are apparently unaware that the original papers on PE are filled with positive evidence for transitions, not just the negative evidence of empty gaps and missing links. It is in fact the fast pace and local nature of the rare species-to-species level transitions that provide such evidence.So PE was not, despite the common misperception of creationists, built entirely on the evidence of fossil "gaps"; rather, it is based on the pattern of change that is found: fine gradations occur quickly and locally, thus are rare (but still occasionally found).[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

You would not be correct in assuming intelligent interference. You think so, huh...

​

Have you analyzed the pattern that I presented. It contains numerous mathematical relationships that are NOT explainable via any known naturally-occurring phenomena.

​

Of course, you can hypothesize that there is such a 'natural mechanism' out there, capable of producing such a pattern, only that we "haven't yet discovered it" (this technique, BTW, is among the top-ten in the Naturalist's bag-o-tricks). Do you wish to do introduce such a hypothesis? If you came across stone circles like these :would you automatically assume that the hand of man (or tentacle or alien) was involved? Gases percolating from the sub-surface or some other natural phenomena may create rounded shapes as you show here (see the craters on the moon). However, your 'pattern' is at least several parsecs away in information content from the pattern that I presented.If you saw regular hexagonal stones like ones show at the bottom of this page : would you infer divine influence or natural formation? Honey bees create their 'houses' (honeycomb cells) in hexagonal form also. You are presenting simple-minded examples to try and refute my argument - you need to try harder. The feature you need to think about is CSI. There are many naturally-occurring events that produce patterns "suggesting" intelligent design. On close examination, the appearance vanishes.

​

However, there are cases where the pattern does much more than merely provide the "appearance" of design - it confirms it. Carl Sagan, in his book Contact (later a movie), correctly stated that if SETI received a signal containing the first, say, 50 prime numbers in sequence, then... STOP the presses - ET has just been discovered!! There would be no doubt whatsoever of this conclusion because there is nothing in nature that, even in principle, could produce/transmit the first 50 prime numbers - certainly not to the best of our knowledge.

​

Joralex

So what is your natural example that is the equivalent of finding the first 50 prime numbers in a signal?You've tried the eye, and that discussion is still there, waiting for you, with specific concrete questions left dangling.You've brought up symbiotic relationships. Feel free to open such a topic, as well.

Creationists are apparently unaware that the original papers on PE are filled with positive evidence for transitions, not just the negative evidence of empty gaps and missing links. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all creationists are unaware of these matters. Eldredge & Gould and subsequent followers did some real fancy tap-dancing to conceal the fact that PE was a necessary evil. Even so, even to this day many evolutionists do not agree with the introduction of PE just as many did not appreciate the embarrassment caused by Goldschmidt's HM proposal.

​

My point was that the theory (until Goldschmidt, Eldredge & Gould) did not "allow" what the mounting evidence continued to support - very rapid appearance with little-to-no transitionals. So, how was this fixed? Oh, I know, let's introduce a NATURAL mechanism that allows us to retain our materialistic-based theory, allows us to exclude the necessity of a God, and allows us to be 'rationally' justified in so doing. Yeah... that'll work.It is in fact the fast pace and local nature of the rare species-to-species level transitions that provide such evidence. So, because there isn't evidence then... that proves it!
Oh, I see... that's how it works.So PE was not, despite the common misperception of creationists, built entirely on the evidence of fossil "gaps"; rather, it is based on the pattern of change that is found: fine gradations occur quickly and locally, thus are rare (but still occasionally found). I do believe that you've just answered my question with a resounding (albeit a bit cryptic) NO!

​

Thank you... I'll rest my case on this point.

​

Joralex

It's pretty obvious that you ARE unaware of the facts of the matter.The real facts are that PE is not a saltationist theory, and is based on widely-accepted evolutionary theory (Mayr's allopatric model of speciation). So in terms of evolutionary theory it is neither a close relative of Goldschmidt's views, nor is it a "patch job".

quote:

---

"Oh, I know, let's introduce a NATURAL mechanism that allows us to retain our materialistic-based theory, allows us to exclude the necessity of a God, and allows us to be 'rationally' justified in so doing. Yeah... that'll work."

---

PE is not a new mechanism; it is about the dynamics of evolution, and under what circumstances and at what pace it occurs.You seem to imply that you know about the positive evidence for PE (relatively fast and local change in the fossil record), but your reply makes no sense if you are aware of this. For example, you say:

quote:

---

So, because there isn't evidence then... that proves it!

---

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. PE is based on the EVIDENCE supplied by KNOWN TRANSITIONS in the fossil record. These transitions often occur quickly, geologically speaking, and are often highly localized.So, PE is based on EVIDENCE, not the lack of evidence as you've claimed.So when you say:

quote:

---

Don't make the mistake of assuming that all creationists are unaware of these matters.

---

You actually weren't referrring to yourself, apparently.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

quote:

---

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)

---

I don't know the history of Goldschmidt's motivations, but I do know a bit about Gould and Eldredge. P.E. was motivated to explain the pattern of the fossil record - that small-scale transitions are uncommonly found, (although transitions are easily traced at coarser levels of change), and stasis of form is common.PE is a refinement, not a replacement. Early evolutionary theory predicted the large scale patterns perfectly, but was not specific enough to predict the small scale patterns. PE is a specification, not an overthrow.So, the answer to your question is that your question rests on incorrect assumptions.PE is a modification, not a replacement. Theories change because they better explain the evidence. It's called "science".Also, there is nothing ad hoc about PE - it is motivated by the presence of fossils showing small-scale transitions. These transitions are geologically fast and localized.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

Let's turn it around - would the notions of general and special relativity EVER have been proposed if it weren't for an intractable difference between the predictions of Newtonian physics and actual observation of celesital objects?Since the answer is probably "no", can we assume therefore that you reject all modern physics in favor of the "invisible angels" theory? If not, why not? Why do you give physics a pass on refining their models through change, and not evolution? Is it because evolution uniquely challenges your personal faith? If so, how is that evolution's problem?You seem insistent on condemning only evolution for acting just like science - revising theory in the light of new observation. So which is it? Does science change in the light of new data, or is it supposed to remain static and dogmatic, like your religion?

"WTF is this?!!! Admit this is just a made up measurement so you can sound intelligent. "All sound and fury signifying nothing"" Ahhhhh... the sounds of ignorance.

​

You know, even the fool, when silent, is counted as wise. Of course, such advice comes too late for you.

​

If you don't know, ASK - that's much better than accusing people of making stuff up to "sound intelligent".

​

Go and sin no more.

​

Joralex

You may consider yourself asked then Joralex. What is CSI?It appears to be something that is quantifiable, if so please show how it is calculated.Since it isn't your concept I'm sure you have the source for it.Since I've already read some sources on this and wasn't able to figure out what CSI actually is I'm asking you to explain it. It seems to be central enough to your argument to deserve a separate thread.

CSI is a term used in the ID community. Joralex can be forgiven for thinking that those folks do know what they are talking about. Uh, I would be part of that "community" so I guess 'I' don't know what I'm talking about either. Oh well...

​

From the tone of your post I take it that you are also clueless regarding ID, CSI and related topics. Why not ASK rather than blast away at what you don't understand? Seems to be a common feature among Naturalists.However, I have yet to see it defined in a way that can be used. You sound like you have some formal education so what's your problem in understanding such a straightforward definition? Are you just trying to poison the well?

​

'Complex' as in the number of 'bits of information' and this in turn measured by the 'probability of an event' such as a particular arrangement. All of these things are purely mathematical and scientific - no theology here - so, what's your problem?

​

'Specified' as in correlating with a criterion that is independent of the event itself. For instance, ink on paper may be specified or unspecified. There is nothing in the chemistry or physics of the paper-ink that would explain a particular pattern.

​

For example, if you randomly splattered some ink on the paper the pattern that you just created would be highly complex (e.g., try reproducing that exact pattern) yet there would not be any specification (there is no independent criterion that a random splattering of ink may be correlated to... from math/information theory we know that stochastic independent events do not correlate : r^2 --> 0 as I(bits) increases).

​

Now use the same amount of ink to write a few Elizabethan sonnets following the rules of English grammar. Your end product may be correlated to the independent criterion of English grammar and Elizabethan sonnet structure.

​

Now there is a pattern on the paper that is both complex and specified. We'll have to see if a definition appears here now.
Do NOT hold your breath. You may now breath deeply.

​

Joralex

Kudos to Joralex, for answering a question! Now, let us pray, he will cease to dodge issues about the eye.Also, can you please explain what you feel this has to do with life? Am I correct in assuming that you think that DNA is "complex specified information"? If so, why do you feel that it is as such?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and/or2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? Good questions - sorry I missed them earlier.

​

I won't even try to provide here a comprehensive answer since these are very profound questions. However, I do wish to make a brief comment about the core issue here - at least as far as I see it.

​

Are creationists rationally / scientifically justified in our position or, as your questions appear to imply, must we abandon our position because of the fact that certain limitations exist today and may always exist?

​

If we have to abandon our position, then so do Naturalists and for the same cause. Stated differently, ultimately we must all stand on faith given the epistemological limitations that are always present.How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we1) do not currently understand but may in the future. Understanding something doesn't eliminate (or establish) whether or not it's been intelligently designed.

​

Regardless, ID systems are recognized by the presence of CSI. God is arrived at in a very straighforward manner : huge quantities of CSI are present in nature and neither chance, natural laws, or combinations thereof are able to explain the origin of this CSI. So what are the options?How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? Same reasoning as above. We may never be able to understand it, but we are certainly able to detect / recognize it as an ID system.

​

Joralex