RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (666) < ... 640 641 642 643 644 [645] 646 647 648 649 650 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ArborealDescendent



Posts: 29
Joined: Feb. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,09:21   

Quote ( Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2015,19:11)
 That's exactly what SAI does.

I’m glad to hear this.  I started reading your paper yesterday and I’m going to look at the other one to before I go further with my arguments.  Apparently, my arguments so far demonstrate that I’m out of the loop.  Thanks for the references.

 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2015,19:21)
How is deism distinguished from "materialism"? Other than deism might make you feel better?


I concede I don’t know yet.  Materialism is “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. (google)”  So unless any possible IDer/creator is bound materialistically, “materialism” equates to atheism in my view.  It seems to me that matter would not exist if there was not some kind of ultimate intelligent creator.  In fact nothing would exist at all.  But this is just my philosophy and religious belief I admit.  On a philosophical level can you tell me why something exists at all if there isn’t a creator?  If the universe created itself, as the atheist Hawkings proposes, then still the universe is in essence the Creator as Hinduism suggests.  Unless one alleges that what we see around us is in fact “nothing” and meaningless, which I don’t think many people would agree with.

 
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 03 2015,20:17)
And just because we can't observe, nor test, the notion that the universe was brought into existence last Thursday, complete with the appearance of age, and complete with memories of the early days of their lives prior to that wondrous day, when the Invisible Pink Unicorn, pbuh, doesn't mean we should rule it out, right?
I mean, just think of the social effects if we could show that this is true!  Surely it must matter, matter enough for science to take seriously, and begin searching for the fingerprints of her awesome hoofs, right?


Well I remember events from before last Thursday so there you go…..  This argument just as easily throws all of science into question.  How can you disprove the Omphalos hypothesis?  In my opinion, only some kind of cruel and deceitful Creator would realistically implement such plans.  By studying the nature of god and evil, I suspect we can rule them out.  What I call “evolutionary ID” (evoID), in my opinion, is not analogous to the five-minute hypothesis.    
But I noticed you said nothing about Ken Miller’s quote.  Do you accept that evolution exhibits form-function design?  That evolution is a design process?  Is what Miller says accurate?


 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)

Really?  I didn't know that evolution was either prescriptive or capable of claiming that morality is only an illusion.  There could be a god who prescribes morality, for all that "evolution knows," and if that seems unlikely (does to me), it hardly means that the sense of good and evil didn't evolve.  

There are people mistaking evolution for a totalist view, when it is ideally open, and limited in its claims.


Can you not see Miller’s point that many religious anti-evolutionists in the US and around the world subscribe to Santorum’s views, which is  based on the misunderstanding that evolution is indeed a “totalist” random and accidental process, the implication of which render’s life meaningless?  This misguidedness implies illusory morality.  Miller is making a call to action in order to help provide clarity for these people by reframing the debate about design.  To emphasize to the public evolution does not prescribe morality as illusion.  That even if the sense of good and evil did socially evolve, this doesn’t preclude an ID agency handing down morality via this process.  That evolution exhibits design and is non-random at some levels.  
I don’t see many evolutionists emphasizing these points in debates with IDers or creationists.  I share Miller’s assessment that until they do, IDers/creationists will continue to back us into a corner.  I would agree that religion is not an exclusive source of morality, like NoName mentioned in a previous post, rather religion is mostly a “target” of morality as it was put.  However, many religious, anti-evolutionists in the US I suspect, don’t see it this way.  Miller’s proposal offers them a different perspective.    

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
Not true, at least not for the most part.  Scientists rightly say that there isn't evidence for design in nature, not that there is no design.  At least most do when they're being careful.


Sorry, can’t agree with you here.  I think Miller is spot on.  If you accept as Miller says that there is exquisite correlation between form and function in nature, then how can one not interpret this as a form of design; one that deserves emphasis?  Of course evolution is not perfect showing many improvisations (e.g. optic nerve fibers in front of the vertebrate retina creating a blind spot), but it is design nonetheless (i.e. ”jerry rigging”).

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
which is that we have no evidence that the universe was set up for evolution
 If the universe was not set up for evolution, we would not have evolution it seems to me.  No?

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
Of course evolution is, more or less, predictable (that is, many of its effects are expected, while the forms taken are not, long-term)


Really?  How does one explain the myriad instances of convergent evolution?  There are common form-function solutions that appear again and again to solve organismal fitness problems.  Physics and chemistry make predictable forms in living and non-living matter according to constructural laws.  There are always variations but many common foundational forms are widespread.  Am I misunderstanding something here?  

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
Not even close.  The "natural world" can allow evolutionary development, there's nothing that makes it "inherent."
 
Same difference seems to me.  The one empirical example of a universe that we have, our own, permits evolutionary development of life.  By this reckoning so, far the probabilities that universal law allows this is 100%, which follows that the evolution of life is inherent.  This is not a priori, it’s empirical.  Show me evidence of a universe that doesn’t have life and I will be convinced to reconsider.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)

Hm, well, in some broad sense I'm willing to call it a design, but in what way does inheritance imply any sort of design that Paley would recognize?
 

The form – function designs in nature are far, far more intricate and complex compared to any human made watch in my opinion….or anything else humans have invented.  Human machines haven’t even approached the energy efficiencies of natural mechanisms last time I checked.  Look at the energy efficiency of the Rubisco enzyme in plants.  Paley broadly recognizing this was the basis for his analogy.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
Structure tends to dictate function.  I can't even imagine how this truism is supposed to relate to such design claims.
 

Yes and what dictates the design of effective and efficient structures?  The selective pressures of evolution.  The fact that evolution selects for structures that, with time, are better and better at allowing specific functions so that organism can survive has “design process” written all over it in my book.  

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
What religious conclusions?  I think many who don't believe in God would hardly credit evolution with having a lot to do with it, save perhaps for discrediting very creationist religions.  The lack of any apparent intervention throughout phenomena studied by science really does have a lot to do with it, for many.


I got the mistaken impression that some of you might be categorically denying the possibility of an ID agency due to lack of scientific evidence.  I stand corrected.  Partly, this may have to do with my past personal experiences with atheists that justify their beliefs with evolution.  
On the issue of “intervention,” the term has to be defined.  Constructural laws themselves could be considered the by proxy guiding/intervening mechanisms of an ID agency?
     
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
No, I was disagreeing with the notion that functionality indicates design.
 

Oh I see.  How about the consideration of form and function together?  Especially, considering that the energy flow efficiencies natural form-function correlations allow by far rivals in human invention.  Yet the latter case bespeaks intelligence and the form does not?
There is a problem in nature….that of organisms surviving.  There is a process for solving this problem, one that selects for structures that allow the most efficient functions necessary to hedge against environmental contingencies that would otherwise kill an organism.  Evolution designs the organism efficiently according to constructural physical laws, which in turn increases survival probability.  It is a design process no?  So the products are designed seems to me….I could be wrong.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
 We're waiting for evidence to do that…..What makes you think that we have any reason to adopt it, sans good evidence?


It’s staring us in the face in my opinion.  There’s evolution denial and design denial….I oppose both.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
Who said that it [i.e. science] will never be able to do so [i.e. prove ‘real’ design]?  The usefulness of trying to do so is in question, it is true.
 

It seemed to me that NoName and others were implying that because science has been trying to detect natural intelligent design for centuries and has failed it would be a futile endeavor going forward.  They posed the question to me why dredge it up/resurrect it and keep beating a dead horse.  
Yes the usefulness seems to be in question.  Science would go on as normal either way.  But so would be the case if we discover ET on a planet thousands of light years away, but it won’t stop us from allocating valuable resources to such an endeavor.  To me it’s worthwhile and probably so, I hazard to guess, for a large majority of humanity.

 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
I would prefer that science would be honest about the data and what may be inferred from it……You really seem to think that because Miller made some claims that the argument has been made, possibly even won.  It doesn't work that way.
 

So Miller’s not being honest?  Evolutionary design seems a reasonable inference to him and I agree.  Science philosopher Robert Pennock and, if I remember correctly, anthropologist Eugenie Scott seem to agree, according to what they said in the 2002 American Museum of Natural History debate on ID.  Pennock had a slide that listed several kinds of design that he considered compatible with evolution.  I’m willing to bet that there are probably more reputable scientists that would agree with Miller, though they are probably the minority or Miller wouldn’t be making a rallying cry.  However, Miller’s speech was in 2008 so more may have come around since then.  
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 03 2015,21:17)
This is where the intellectual bankruptcy of such a position really shows.  First off, no one said that the lack of evidence does allow anyone to categorically deny the possibility of a godly role in the universe, and secondly, the problem is that it is up to you and your fellow believers to give us a reason to suppose that some spiritual (or whatever) entity is responsible for the universe/evolution.
 I’m glad to read what you say in the second sentence….I may have been misinterpreting before.  As mentioned, I do personally know atheists that justify their beliefs with the scientific evidence of evolution however.  Some famous scientists do as well, like Dawkins and Hawkings.  This is where I get confused.        
True what you say here I admit, about the burden of proof that is.  To me it just seems intuitive, but I understand that’s not enough for science.  I will keep trying to think of ways.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,10:02   

Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Mar. 05 2015,10:21)
...
       
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 03 2015,20:17)
And just because we can't observe, nor test, the notion that the universe was brought into existence last Thursday, complete with the appearance of age, and complete with memories of the early days of their lives prior to that wondrous day, when the Invisible Pink Unicorn, pbuh, doesn't mean we should rule it out, right?
I mean, just think of the social effects if we could show that this is true!  Surely it must matter, matter enough for science to take seriously, and begin searching for the fingerprints of her awesome hoofs, right?


Well I remember events from before last Thursday so there you go…..  
 And what prevents the memories from being fake and having been "installed"?
     
Quote
This argument just as easily throws all of science into question.  How can you disprove the Omphalos hypothesis?
 
You don't, because the demand that you do so is self-defeating, and more pointedly, depends on unwarranted assumptions.  The demand itself destroys science because it allows unproven assertions to require refutation regardless of their warrant, their grounding, any rational for accepting that the proposal to be defeated is true or to be taken seriously.  Make that case, give me reason to suppose the Omphalos notion is strong enough that it must be disproved and we'll work on it.  Absent that, it's like disproving the Lord of the Rings -- a category error. Absent any warrant for the vast number of assumptions required for the Omphalos 'hypothesis' and a demonstration that it is well-grounded enough to count as a serious contender for truth, it can be dismissed unless and until such warrant is supplied.  The speculations of fiction are not scientific hypotheses, and cannot be take to be until and unless there is warrant, not just the free play of the imagination, to place them in that category.
   
Quote
In my opinion, only some kind of cruel and deceitful Creator would realistically implement such plans.

Such deities are commonplace across world religions.
This points up both your culturally influenced prejudices and, more to the point, raises the issue that what matters is not whether or not there is an 'ultimate creator' but what characteristics it has.  The notion that one can determine that a thing exists yet has no knowable characteristics whatsoever appears to be internally contradictory.  Existence is not a predicate.  We know things, in the purest sense of the term, by knowing at least some of their 'attributes', their 'characteristics'.
For the case of an 'ultimate creator', we need to know quite a great deal for mere 'knowledge of the existence of' to be meaningful, useful, impactful, whatever.  To know of the existence of such a being, we must know at least some of its characteristics.  Which ones we do know will certainly have great impact, but all of this is preceded by questions of what warrant we have for seeking such an 'entity', whether the requirements on said 'entity' can apply to anything categorized as an 'entity', what 'creation ex nihilo' means and enough about how it 'works' for the notion to be senseful, coherent, and not contradictory on the face of it.  For that, there needs to be warrant for the search, and no such warrant other than "wouldn't it be nice if..." exists.  Those fantasies either assign attributes without knowing whether they do, let alone can, apply or stop with the error of taking existence to be a predicate, an attribute that can be known independently of any and all others.
     
Quote
 By studying the nature of god  
presumably a typo for 'good'  
Quote
and evil, I suspect we can rule them out.

To do that in ways that are useful to any scientific enterprise, we need clear, coherent operational definitions of the terms, absolute rigor in their usage despite their manifestly equivocal standing in everyday language.
It is also entirely unclear how such an operational definition could be discovered to apply.  It is also entirely unclear why such a characteristic, if 'good' and 'evil' are characteristics of entities rather than acts, should apply to, let alone constrain, an 'ultimate creator'.
   
Quote
 What I call “evolutionary ID” (evoID), in my opinion, is not analogous to the five-minute hypothesis.    
But I noticed you said nothing about Ken Miller’s quote.  Do you accept that evolution exhibits form-function design?  That evolution is a design process?  Is what Miller says accurate?

...
I don't care about Ken Miller's quote.  I'm not making his argument.  I'm not required to have a positive argument.  You're the one making positive claims, ones that from my position are outlandish and unsupportable.  All I need to do is show your arguments, such as they are, fail.  If they apply to Miller, so much the worse for him.  If they don't, so much the worse for your attempted argument from authority.

  
ArborealDescendent



Posts: 29
Joined: Feb. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,16:19   

Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
Absent any warrant for the vast number of assumptions required for the Omphalos 'hypothesis' and a demonstration that it is well-grounded enough to count as a serious contender for truth, it can be dismissed unless and until such warrant is supplied.  The speculations of fiction are not scientific hypotheses, and cannot be take to be until and unless there is warrant, not just the free play of the imagination, to place them in that category.


I agree that currently there is no warrant for the Omphalos, five-day, or last Thursday hypotheses, so no science should not take them seriously.  You insist on analogizing these speculations to that of EvoID (my acronym for Evolutionary Intelligent Design), and I don’t see them in the same ballpark.  EvoID has warrant in my opinion.  I know you are going to ask how this is the case, but I’m going to read Elsberry’s paper before I expound more on this POV.  

 
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
The notion that one can determine that a thing exists yet has no knowable characteristics whatsoever appears to be internally contradictory.  Existence is not a predicate.  We know things, in the purest sense of the term, by knowing at least some of their 'attributes', their 'characteristics'.
 

George Moore might have a thing or two to say about Kant’s claim, but I’m not going to get into that.  I don’t really see why we have to know many attributes of a creator to know that it exists.  If SETI received an obviously intelligent radio signal from deep space, and we could rule out human contamination, they could justifiable infer that an extraterrestrial intelligence existed somewhere, contemporaneously or in the past, without knowing detailed attributes about it.  We would know that they are obviously advanced enough to manipulate radio waves.  We might be able to pinpoint the vicinity of their location.  We might know other attributes they give us in the message.  But aside from that not much.  
Likewise, with an EvoIDer (i.e. evolutionary intelligent designer), we can glean just enough attributes about it in the design signals from evolved life to justify it’s existence.  We would know one attribute about it that it used the evolutionary process to design/create life.  We might be able to indirectly infer other attributes from life itself and physical laws.  For starters, all we have to do is show that natural form/function design is in fact “real” design, directly analogous to that seen in human inventions.  
I agree for such a discovery to be scientifically useful, we would have to know more attributes about any potential EvoIDer.  But let me ask you a simple, straight forward, hypothetical question?  If the existential question of an ultimate creator COULD be scientifically answered, wouldn’t you think it would be a worthwhile endeavor even if it didn’t add anything useful to science?  Don’t you think the overwhelming majority of humanity would want know, for the same analogous reasons that we want to know if extraterrestrial life exists?  It seems to me that the argument for utility is irrelevant.  We human are just curious creatures and want to know things just for the sake of knowing.

 
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
To do that in ways that are useful to any scientific enterprise, we need clear, coherent operational definitions of the terms, absolute rigor in their usage despite their manifestly equivocal standing in everyday language.
 Agreed, that’s why I’m going to read Elsberry and the other resource he posted.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,17:12   

Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Mar. 05 2015,17:19)
   
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
Absent any warrant for the vast number of assumptions required for the Omphalos 'hypothesis' and a demonstration that it is well-grounded enough to count as a serious contender for truth, it can be dismissed unless and until such warrant is supplied.  The speculations of fiction are not scientific hypotheses, and cannot be take to be until and unless there is warrant, not just the free play of the imagination, to place them in that category.


I agree that currently there is no warrant for the Omphalos, five-day, or last Thursday hypotheses, so no science should not take them seriously.  You insist on analogizing these speculations to that of EvoID (my acronym for Evolutionary Intelligent Design), and I don’t see them in the same ballpark.  EvoID has warrant in my opinion.  I know you are going to ask how this is the case, but I’m going to read Elsberry’s paper before I expound more on this POV.  

But if you don't already know the warrant, you don't have one.  The Judeo-Christian mythology from which you work is not sufficient warrant for entertaining "EvoID" in science.. I am not analogizing, I am equating.
     
Quote
       
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
The notion that one can determine that a thing exists yet has no knowable characteristics whatsoever appears to be internally contradictory.  Existence is not a predicate.  We know things, in the purest sense of the term, by knowing at least some of their 'attributes', their 'characteristics'.
 

George Moore might have a thing or two to say about Kant’s claim, but I’m not going to get into that.  I don’t really see why we have to know many attributes of a creator to know that it exists.  
I did not specify 'many'.  That is a prejudicial inclusion on your part.  My argument is simply that we must know *some* characteristic to claim knowledge of existence.  Of course the more characteristics we know, the better.  Something at which science excels.  Theology and other fictions, not so much.  I could make arguments that it is impossible to know exactly one attribute/characteristc of any existent, but that's rather beside the point here and know.
   
Quote
If SETI received an obviously intelligent radio signal from deep space, and we could rule out human contamination, they could justifiable infer that an extraterrestrial intelligence existed somewhere, contemporaneously or in the past, without knowing detailed attributes about it.  We would know that they are obviously advanced enough to manipulate radio waves.  We might be able to pinpoint the vicinity of their location.  We might know other attributes they give us in the message.  But aside from that not much.  

So?  Quantity was your insertion, it plays *at most* a subsidiary supporting role in my argument.
 
Quote
Likewise, with an EvoIDer (i.e. evolutionary intelligent designer), we can glean just enough attributes about it in the design signals from evolved life to justify it’s existence.  

Except we don't.  Mankind looked for centuries with no more warrant than superstition.  Nothing has been found, least of all a warrant to continue, particularly within the bounds of science.
   
Quote
We would know one attribute about it that it used the evolutionary process to design/create life.
Between this and the preceding, you're running perilously close to post hoc ergo prompter hoc.  A fallacy, not a warrant.
 
Quote
 We might be able to indirectly infer other attributes from life itself and physical laws.  For starters, all we have to do is show that natural form/function design is in fact “real” design, directly analogous to that seen in human inventions.  
We need a rigorous, consistently used, operational definition of 'design'.  And again, the issues you are wrestling with, or better, fondling, involve manufacture, not design.  All kinds of things are made without what we generally mean by 'design'.  All sorts of designs are crafted (manufactured, and without design, I'll note) without ever being manufactured.  And yes, I know, 'manufacture' implies factories.  Do me the favor of taking it the broadest sense of 'prooduced'.
   
Quote

I agree for such a discovery to be scientifically useful, we would have to know more attributes about any potential EvoIDer.  But let me ask you a simple, straight forward, hypothetical question?  If the existential question of an ultimate creator COULD be scientifically answered, wouldn’t you think it would be a worthwhile endeavor even if it didn’t add anything useful to science?

As it stands, the question is neither simple nor precise.  It amounts to asking me "well, but if your argument were wrong, wouldn't you think it were wrong?". Absent warrant beyond local tribal superstition, we have no warrant for considering the question, least of all in science.  You also continue to insert some sort of 'practical value' consideration into science.  I agree with your subsequent remark that utility questions are irrelevant; I simply insist that that is inherent to science regardless of topic.  You seem to feel otherwise.
   
Quote
 Don’t you think the overwhelming majority of humanity would want know, for the same analogous reasons that we want to know if extraterrestrial life exists?  It seems to me that the argument for utility is irrelevant.  We human are just curious creatures and want to know things just for the sake of knowing.

Sigh.  I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, and it's implications.  Simple knowledge of the existence if a "thing" with no knowledge of its characteristc(s), it's attributes, is meaningless.  
   
Quote
       
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 05 2015,10:02)
To do that in ways that are useful to any scientific enterprise, we need clear, coherent operational definitions of the terms, absolute rigor in their usage despite their manifestly equivocal standing in everyday language.
 Agreed, that’s why I’m going to read Elsberry and the other resource he posted.

Now *that* is a masterful misleading quote-mine.  In my original, the phrase "the terms" specifically refers to 'good' and 'evil'.  To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the papers in question, they are not concerned with axiology.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2015,07:33   

Quote
Well I remember events from before last Thursday so there you go…..  This argument just as easily throws all of science into question.  How can you disprove the Omphalos hypothesis?
As NoName said, your apparent memories provide no protection against them having been created, along with everything else, last Thursday.  The Omphalos logic would indeed throw all science into question, except that (a) we have no way of testing it, (b) science works just fine without worrying about it, and ( c) we don't have any evidence for it (not that we know all the forms such evidence might take).  Thus we ignore the possibility completely and leave the topic outside science.  Laplace said about divine intervention, "I have no need of that hypothesis", and that has held up perfectly since then.  It's impossible to disprove a deity, but it's very easy not to need one, and there's no evidence for one that does not beg the desired conclusions.

         
Quote
But I noticed you said nothing about Ken Miller’s quote.  Do you accept that evolution exhibits form-function design?  That evolution is a design process?  Is what Miller says accurate?  ............................

Can you not see Miller’s point that many religious anti-evolutionists in the US and around the world subscribe to Santorum’s views, which is  based on the misunderstanding that evolution is indeed a “totalist” random and accidental process, the implication of which render’s life meaningless?  This misguidedness implies illusory morality.  Miller is making a call to action in order to help provide clarity for these people by reframing the debate about design.  To emphasize to the public evolution does not prescribe morality as illusion.  That even if the sense of good and evil did socially evolve, this doesn’t preclude an ID agency handing down morality via this process.  That evolution exhibits design and is non-random at some levels.  
I don’t see many evolutionists emphasizing these points in debates with IDers or creationists.  I share Miller’s assessment that until they do, IDers/creationists will continue to back us into a corner.  I would agree that religion is not an exclusive source of morality, like NoName mentioned in a previous post, rather religion is mostly a “target” of morality as it was put.  However, many religious, anti-evolutionists in the US I suspect, don’t see it this way.  Miller’s proposal offers them a different perspective.    
..................................

I think Miller is spot on.  If you accept as Miller says that there is exquisite correlation between form and function in nature, then how can one not interpret this as a form of design; one that deserves emphasis?  Of course evolution is not perfect showing many improvisations (e.g. optic nerve fibers in front of the vertebrate retina creating a blind spot), but it is design nonetheless (i.e. ”jerry rigging”).


I don't feel at all responsible for Miller's views on design and the deity.  Although he holds his views sincerely, they strike me as unjustified words that serve only to provide comfort to those afflicted by religion.  Yes, biology has much of the appearance of design.  However, instances of really bad design and downright malicious design by almost any recent human standard are far more abundant than most people care to contemplate: viz. Cecidomyian gall midges, the abundance of parasites, cat penises, incomplete human adaptation to bipedalism, etc., etc., etc.  Evolution does a really good job of explaining all these things, while the design hypothesis leaves one with a deeply repulsive and/or incompetent designer.  Religion has not been a source of unalloyed good and morality, and its posited designer has not been competent and praiseworthy, and I'd rather go forward on that basis than proferring pablum and false palliatives to make the religious feel more comfortable.

Yes, the religious are in the majority, which presents political problems for science.  Yes, Miller's views would lubricate acceptance of science.  However, I don't think they are honest.  Calling biology "design" as opposed to "the appearance of design" is done only so that one can elide from "biology shows evidence of design" to "ergo, there must have been a Designer".  From Linnaeus on, where science has led us is to the position that evolutionary processes create much of the appearance of design by fitting form to function, within the constraints of branching lineages of related organisms.  That's it, period, end of story.




         
Quote
Really?  How does one explain the myriad instances of convergent evolution?  There are common form-function solutions that appear again and again to solve organismal fitness problems.  Physics and chemistry make predictable forms in living and non-living matter according to constructural laws.  There are always variations but many common foundational forms are widespread.  Am I misunderstanding something here?
 Yes, there's a lot of impressive convergence, but this supports evolution, not design.  Designs don't converge, they import innovations wholesale from unrelated lineages.  Car horns share identical features regardless of which brand of car they are on, but ceratopsian dinosaur horns and cow horns show different ancestries.  Convergence in function in life does not always imply identical forms rather than equivalent forms (horses, antelopes, llamas, kangaroos), but even when it does, above the level of prokaryotes it always, always, always leaves telltale differences as a vestige of their different origins and different evolutionary pathways. Ichthyosaurs, dolphins, and some large fish share a lot in common, but their genes are different, only the cetaceans have hair and milk, only the fish have lateral line organs, only the ichthyosaurs have the downward bend of the spine into the lower lobe of the tail.  Details of the bones of cetaceans are clearly mammalian (three inner ear bones; only one bone in the jaw; a mammalian jaw joint), while details of the bones of ichthyosaurs are clearly reptilian (multiple bones in the jaw, only one inner ear bone; a reptilian jaw joint).  Unlike actual wolves, the Tasmanian wolf has a pouch, epipubic bones, two holes in the palate, extra molars, twinned hypocunulid and entoconid cusps on the lower molars, an extra upper incisor, incomplete dental replacement, paired vaginas, and an inflected jaw angle at the back of the skull, and they share all these features with other marsupials and not with placental mammals.  Creationists have pointed to the tremendous similarities of wolves and marsupial wolves to argue for design and against evolution, noting that medical students at Oxford were unable to tell dog skulls from thylacine skulls.  This speaks more to medical students not yet being competent comparative anatomists than to the skulls being identical.  If they had been designed, the better versions in each case would have been imported to the other lineage, through licensing or copying.


         
Quote
Yes and what dictates the design of effective and efficient structures?  The selective pressures of evolution.  The fact that evolution selects for structures that, with time, are better and better at allowing specific functions so that organism can survive has “design process” written all over it in my book.  


All that we gain by such views of design as yours and Miller's is confusion with actual design and conflation from "design" to Designer.


       
Quote
I agree for such a discovery to be scientifically useful, we would have to know more attributes about any potential EvoIDer.  But let me ask you a simple, straight forward, hypothetical question?  If the existential question of an ultimate creator COULD be scientifically answered, wouldn’t you think it would be a worthwhile endeavor even if it didn’t add anything useful to science?
Yes, but (a) it cannot be entirely answered scientifically, and (b) to the extent that it can be answered, it has been answered in the negative.  If you want to consider it further, by all means go ahead and waste your time, but science shouldn't be told to go out and investigate phlogistons just because a bunch of people still strongly believe in phlogiston theory and who knows, they might be right.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2015,15:17   



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,08:03   

Hi guys, new to the forums.

I've been enjoying panda's thumb a lot and just registered here to say hi and join some of the discussions, or simply read and learn from the knowledgeable guys and gals around here.

I'm not a scientist, just a software engineer so I don't claim to have any sort of expertise in evolutionary biology or cosmology, but I had a decent education and I'm tired of the IDist nonsense too.

Also, I've been having a few arguments about fine tuning and I wanted to ask what do you think about the following contention about fine tuning. I can't start a new thread being my first post, so I'll just post it here if that's ok, then if the admins deem it thread worthy we can discuss it in it's own thread later.

It's not really an original idea, just a rehash of the Euthyphro dilemma against objective morals adapted to the fine tuning crap:

So if the laws of physics are so precisely "dialed in" that the slightest change in the fundamental constants or the laws themselves would have made the universe life prohibiting, doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God? Those laws are imposed to him for what life is concerned, he couldn't have made it any other way so a life permitting universe is necessarily defined by the natural laws themselves, not what god wants or decides. The laws PRECEDE God and make him contingent to the universe.
Those laws are also sufficient to explain the process by which the universe becomes a life permitting environment by forming matter, stars, planets, etc...
So natural laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain the life permitting universe, moreover, in a universe so necessarily fine tuned for life, GOD CAN'T INTERVENE SUPERNATURALLY and temporarily suspend natural laws to perform miracles for example:
If he suspends those fine tuned laws the universe should collapse, or disintegrate or whatever. If one accepts that he could suspend them and keep it going, then one should also accept he can suspend natural laws in any other potential universe that is in principle not life permitting, and allow matter and life in those other universes with different constants and/or laws too... but then fine tuning would be just an illusion and the entire argument of FT in favor of design falls apart.
So the only alternative for miracles would be that they follow natural laws, in which case one would have to ask himself if they are really miracles when no supernatural stuff is going on: one smart physicist could run a few experiments and figure out what's going on and replicate miracles in a lab!

So in conclusion, if fine tuning is true, the biblical accounts of miracles must be either cheap magic tricks or outright lies.
God is constrained to natural laws at least in the sense of them being imposed to him, as if he had to follow a user guide to create life, a guide that needed to be there beforehand regardless of the existence of that supernatural god. Actually, for all we know, the creator could have stopped existing right after the creator and we would never find about it because he can't manifest himself from his supernatural nothingness.

What do you guys think?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,08:18   

God word seems to be a placeholder for that part of an argument that doesn't make sense.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,09:35   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2015,08:18)
God word seems to be a placeholder for that part of an argument that doesn't make sense.

Was that a comment to my post? not sure what that's supposed to mean, sorry

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,10:34   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,10:39   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,11:27   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,10:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

Nice evasion, but you avoided addressing my point. You introduced magic.  Why is your magic better than mine?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,11:39   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,11:27)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,10:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
 
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

Nice evasion, but you avoided addressing my point. You introduced magic.  Why is your magic better than mine?

What is that magic you call "my magic"?

Did you even bother reading what I posted? It's a logical argument about the devastating implications for god "if" fine tuning is true.

I don't believe in any magic, god or any other superstitions

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:00   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,06:03)
So if the laws of physics are so precisely "dialed in" that the slightest change in the fundamental constants or the laws themselves would have made the universe life prohibiting...

We can stop right there, until this has been established as true.

We don't know what range of properties the fundamental laws can have.

We don't know the extent to which they are inter-related.

We don't know what all other universes with different properties would be like.

Also: Why is life such an important property of a universe (rather than, say, spiral galaxies or dark matter)?  There's no reason to think any of the observed properties of our universe would be exactly the same if the constants were different.  Does this mean the universe is fine-tuned to produce the photoelectric effect?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:08   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2015,12:00)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,06:03)
So if the laws of physics are so precisely "dialed in" that the slightest change in the fundamental constants or the laws themselves would have made the universe life prohibiting...

We can stop right there, until this has been established as true.

We don't know what range of properties the fundamental laws can have.

We don't know the extent to which they are inter-related.

We don't know what all other universes with different properties would be like.

Also: Why is life such an important property of a universe (rather than, say, spiral galaxies or dark matter)?  There's no reason to think any of the observed properties of our universe would be exactly the same if the constants were different.  Does this mean the universe is fine-tuned to produce the photoelectric effect?

Are you guys kidding me?

I'm not arguing for fine tuning. I don't even think there's any fine tuning.
I don't think life is important for the universe in any way.

Was my OP really so poorly written that not only nobody seems to get the idea, but you all even came to the conclusion that it was about pushing the idea of FT?

WTF?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:29   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,10:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

Yes, your OP was poorly written.

YOU introduced magic by writing
Quote
...are a NECESSITY for God


A fictional, magical being.

Ani I asked why that fictional, magical being couldn't be Harry Potter?

Quit equivocating and address the question.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:31   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,12:08)
Was my OP really so poorly written that not only nobody seems to get the idea, but you all even came to the conclusion that it was about pushing the idea of FT?

Your posting style is scoring about 2.5 billy goats on my troll meter.

I'm inclined to think that this is a false positive, but this is on a careful reading of your "ifs". We often get drive-by trolls here, who pretend to an anti-ID position while trying to smuggle in pro-ID doctrine. You're seeing some of the troll-avoidance tactics in play.

For myself, I'm inclined to discard "fine-tuning" in favour of "auto-tuning", where life adjusts to fit the available reality.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:40   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,12:29)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,10:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
 
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

Yes, your OP was poorly written.

YOU introduced magic by writing
Quote
...are a NECESSITY for God


A fictional, magical being.

Ani I asked why that fictional, magical being couldn't be Harry Potter?

Quit equivocating and address the question.

Damn it. That should read "a necessity TO god" as in "imposed to god"
I'm no English native speaker so give me a break.  At any rate it should have been obvious enough what I meant to say from the context.

No trolling going on here. I just think this is a powerful argumentation to use against IDiots who bring up fine tuning

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:46   

Idists are impervious to argument.

Arguing with them about god is like wrestling with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

After several centuries, there are iron clad apologetics arrayed against any criticism of religion. They do not need to make sense. Just be available for copy and paste.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:52   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2015,12:46)
Idists are impervious to argument.

Arguing with them about god is like wrestling with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

After several centuries, there are iron clad apologetics arrayed against any criticism of religion. They do not need to make sense. Just be available for copy and paste.

FFS, I'M NO IDIST. I'M AN ATHEIST. sigh.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:53   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,12:40)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,12:29)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,10:39)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 12 2015,10:34)
 
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God?

No more so than they imply the NECESSITY of Harry Potter.

Fine tuning doesn't make any claims about Harry Potter though. It's about the laws of physics and the fundamental constants.
So if those laws and constants can't be any different (according to fine tuning proponents), then those laws and constants are necessary and sufficient to explain nature. So fine tuning makes drastically limits god's omnipotence if true.

Yes, your OP was poorly written.

YOU introduced magic by writing
 
Quote
...are a NECESSITY for God


A fictional, magical being.

Ani I asked why that fictional, magical being couldn't be Harry Potter?

Quit equivocating and address the question.

Damn it. That should read "a necessity TO god" as in "imposed to god"
I'm no English native speaker so give me a break.  At any rate it should have been obvious enough what I meant to say from the context.

No trolling going on here. I just think this is a powerful argumentation to use against IDiots who bring up fine tuning

Just as bad.

"To" or "for" doesn't matter.

YOU introduced a fictional, magical being.

So, why not "to" Harry Potter?

Failure to address this question is a serious and I must say fatal flaw to your "thesis."

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:54   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,12:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2015,12:46)
Idists are impervious to argument.

Arguing with them about god is like wrestling with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

After several centuries, there are iron clad apologetics arrayed against any criticism of religion. They do not need to make sense. Just be available for copy and paste.

FFS, I'M NO IDIST. I'M AN ATHEIST. sigh.

Yeah, but why do you believe in fine-tuning, then?

Hee hee.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:59   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
Hi guys, new to the forums.

I've been enjoying panda's thumb a lot and just registered here to say hi and join some of the discussions, or simply read and learn from the knowledgeable guys and gals around here.

I'm not a scientist, just a software engineer so I don't claim to have any sort of expertise in evolutionary biology or cosmology, but I had a decent education and I'm tired of the IDist nonsense too.

Also, I've been having a few arguments about fine tuning and I wanted to ask what do you think about the following contention about fine tuning. I can't start a new thread being my first post, so I'll just post it here if that's ok, then if the admins deem it thread worthy we can discuss it in it's own thread later.

It's not really an original idea, just a rehash of the Euthyphro dilemma against objective morals adapted to the fine tuning crap:

So if the laws of physics are so precisely "dialed in" that the slightest change in the fundamental constants or the laws themselves would have made the universe life prohibiting, doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God? Those laws are imposed to him for what life is concerned, he couldn't have made it any other way so a life permitting universe is necessarily defined by the natural laws themselves, not what god wants or decides. The laws PRECEDE God and make him contingent to the universe.
Those laws are also sufficient to explain the process by which the universe becomes a life permitting environment by forming matter, stars, planets, etc...
So natural laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain the life permitting universe, moreover, in a universe so necessarily fine tuned for life, GOD CAN'T INTERVENE SUPERNATURALLY and temporarily suspend natural laws to perform miracles for example:
If he suspends those fine tuned laws the universe should collapse, or disintegrate or whatever. If one accepts that he could suspend them and keep it going, then one should also accept he can suspend natural laws in any other potential universe that is in principle not life permitting, and allow matter and life in those other universes with different constants and/or laws too... but then fine tuning would be just an illusion and the entire argument of FT in favor of design falls apart.
So the only alternative for miracles would be that they follow natural laws, in which case one would have to ask himself if they are really miracles when no supernatural stuff is going on: one smart physicist could run a few experiments and figure out what's going on and replicate miracles in a lab!

So in conclusion, if fine tuning is true, the biblical accounts of miracles must be either cheap magic tricks or outright lies.
God is constrained to natural laws at least in the sense of them being imposed to him, as if he had to follow a user guide to create life, a guide that needed to be there beforehand regardless of the existence of that supernatural god. Actually, for all we know, the creator could have stopped existing right after the creator and we would never find about it because he can't manifest himself from his supernatural nothingness.

What do you guys think?

Seriously, though, how would anything be a necessity for God?

First off, God doesn't need to make life.  I mean, why would he?  Kind of a basic question, but it still matters.

Secondly, if for some uncertain reason God did make life, why must he be constrained by physical limits?  Just make life magic (like our "souls" are supposed to be), screw the limits.

I mean I think it's a nice try, but God being rather unlimited in possibilities seems unlikely to fall under physics limits.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:02   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 12 2015,12:54)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,12:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2015,12:46)
Idists are impervious to argument.

Arguing with them about god is like wrestling with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

After several centuries, there are iron clad apologetics arrayed against any criticism of religion. They do not need to make sense. Just be available for copy and paste.

FFS, I'M NO IDIST. I'M AN ATHEIST. sigh.

Yeah, but why do you believe in fine-tuning, then?

Hee hee.

Glen Davidson

I don't. I already explained it's an adaptation of the euthyphro dilemma intended to present the  implications of fine tuning for an hypothetical god.

I'm going to assume you are all either Christian trolls or just  plain retarded, which is sort of redundant but still

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:03   

I really think people are being far too harsh on our newest poster.
His mention of Euthyphro should have been enough to get the gist of his point.
It can be taken entirely as hypotheticals, with consequences devastating to any sort of fine-tuning hypothesis.  Either fine-tuning is not required, in which case the argument for a fine-tuner collapses, or fine-tuning is so tightly constrained as to be limit within which the tuner must operate, and that removes whatever strength the fine-tuning argument might appear to have.
One can present Euthyphro's dilemma without committing to a belief in an all-powerful deity nor to a belief in "objective ethics".
It may not be the best argument against the standard ID fine-tuning ploy, but it is one that is rarely if ever heard.  More weaponry is not to be scorned, even if one prefers to choose from a different armamentarium.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:04   

Ook.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:04   

Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,13:02)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 12 2015,12:54)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,12:52)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2015,12:46)
Idists are impervious to argument.

Arguing with them about god is like wrestling with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

After several centuries, there are iron clad apologetics arrayed against any criticism of religion. They do not need to make sense. Just be available for copy and paste.

FFS, I'M NO IDIST. I'M AN ATHEIST. sigh.

Yeah, but why do you believe in fine-tuning, then?

Hee hee.

Glen Davidson

I don't. I already explained it's an adaptation of the euthyphro dilemma intended to present the  implications of fine tuning for an hypothetical god.

I'm going to assume you are all either Christian trolls or just  plain retarded, which is sort of redundant but still

Gee, what don't you get about "hee hee"?

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:07   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 12 2015,12:59)
Quote (dazz @ Mar. 12 2015,08:03)
Hi guys, new to the forums.

I've been enjoying panda's thumb a lot and just registered here to say hi and join some of the discussions, or simply read and learn from the knowledgeable guys and gals around here.

I'm not a scientist, just a software engineer so I don't claim to have any sort of expertise in evolutionary biology or cosmology, but I had a decent education and I'm tired of the IDist nonsense too.

Also, I've been having a few arguments about fine tuning and I wanted to ask what do you think about the following contention about fine tuning. I can't start a new thread being my first post, so I'll just post it here if that's ok, then if the admins deem it thread worthy we can discuss it in it's own thread later.

It's not really an original idea, just a rehash of the Euthyphro dilemma against objective morals adapted to the fine tuning crap:

So if the laws of physics are so precisely "dialed in" that the slightest change in the fundamental constants or the laws themselves would have made the universe life prohibiting, doesn't that imply that those laws of physics, the natural laws are a NECESSITY for God? Those laws are imposed to him for what life is concerned, he couldn't have made it any other way so a life permitting universe is necessarily defined by the natural laws themselves, not what god wants or decides. The laws PRECEDE God and make him contingent to the universe.
Those laws are also sufficient to explain the process by which the universe becomes a life permitting environment by forming matter, stars, planets, etc...
So natural laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain the life permitting universe, moreover, in a universe so necessarily fine tuned for life, GOD CAN'T INTERVENE SUPERNATURALLY and temporarily suspend natural laws to perform miracles for example:
If he suspends those fine tuned laws the universe should collapse, or disintegrate or whatever. If one accepts that he could suspend them and keep it going, then one should also accept he can suspend natural laws in any other potential universe that is in principle not life permitting, and allow matter and life in those other universes with different constants and/or laws too... but then fine tuning would be just an illusion and the entire argument of FT in favor of design falls apart.
So the only alternative for miracles would be that they follow natural laws, in which case one would have to ask himself if they are really miracles when no supernatural stuff is going on: one smart physicist could run a few experiments and figure out what's going on and replicate miracles in a lab!

So in conclusion, if fine tuning is true, the biblical accounts of miracles must be either cheap magic tricks or outright lies.
God is constrained to natural laws at least in the sense of them being imposed to him, as if he had to follow a user guide to create life, a guide that needed to be there beforehand regardless of the existence of that supernatural god. Actually, for all we know, the creator could have stopped existing right after the creator and we would never find about it because he can't manifest himself from his supernatural nothingness.

What do you guys think?

Seriously, though, how would anything be a necessity for God?

First off, God doesn't need to make life.  I mean, why would he?  Kind of a basic question, but it still matters.

Secondly, if for some uncertain reason God did make life, why must he be constrained by physical limits?  Just make life magic (like our "souls" are supposed to be), screw the limits.

I mean I think it's a nice try, but God being rather unlimited in possibilities seems unlikely to fall under physics limits.

Glen Davidson

I do realize that the point might be to make fine-tuning absurd on its own claims, but my point is that it sort of falls apart before that, plus they will contradict themselves and may use arguments like I did.  

Then they could always say, too, that God could make anything anywhere any way he likes, it's just that for whatever reason he chose these narrow parameters for this sort of life.  And of course it's ridiculous, but that's how it always ends anyhow, in ridiculousness.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:12   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 12 2015,10:31)
For myself, I'm inclined to discard "fine-tuning" in favour of "auto-tuning"

You're saying god can't sing?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,13:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2015,13:12)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 12 2015,10:31)
For myself, I'm inclined to discard "fine-tuning" in favour of "auto-tuning"

You're saying god can't sing?

Well, have you ever heard God sing in tune?

I haven't.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
  19967 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (666) < ... 640 641 642 643 644 [645] 646 647 648 649 650 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]