Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My faith is falsifiable, Professor Coyne. Is yours?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent article in USA Today, Professor Jerry Coyne made the following claim:

I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley, and I’m a Christian whose faith in God, Jesus Christ and Intelligent Design is falsifiable. I have the greatest respect for your acknowledged expertise in the field of biology, and I don’t wish to question it for a moment. My Ph.D. is in philosophy, not science. For the record, I accept that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and that all living things spring from a common ancestor that lived approximately 4 billion years ago. However, I do not believe that non-foresighted processes (random mutations plus natural selection, in popular parlance) are adequate to account for the complexity we observe in organisms today, or that natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life. Here is a list of observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God, belief in Christianity and belief in Intelligent Design.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God

1. The discovery of a naked singularity – a point in space which could literally spew forth anything “out of the blue” – chairs, pizzas, computers, works of literature, or whatever.

2. The discovery that it was possible for intelligent agents (such as human beings) to go back in time and alter the past.

3. The invention of a machine that could read the propositional content of my thoughts – or those of any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

4. A scientific demonstration that our thoughts, words and actions are completely determined by external circumstances beyond our control (heredity plus environment).

5. The invention of a machine that could control the propositional content of my thoughts, and make me believe anything that the machine’s programmer wanted me to believe – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

6. The invention of a machine that could control my actions, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. Which brings me to…

7. The invention of a machine that could turn me into a person who would willingly perpetrate atrocities like those those committed by the Nazis, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. In answer to your question about the Holocaust, Jerry: Nazis wouldn’t destroy my faith in God, but a machine that could turn me (or anyone else) into a willing Nazi, would.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity

1. The discovery of Jesus’ dead body in Palestine.

2. The discovery of archaeological proof that any of the following individuals never existed: Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Ezra and Nehemiah – e.g. a letter by a scribe, confessing to having made them up as a work of fiction. (I haven’t included Noah on this list because I suspect that the Biblical Noah is a “telescoping” of two individuals – one of whom lived two million years ago and another who lived 5,000 years ago. I’ve included Daniel and Jonah, because Jesus Christ referred to them as historical individuals.)

3. A human being coming back to life, with an indestructible body. (This human being would also have to contradict one or more of the claims of Christianity.)

4. Documentary evidence of 3., which was at least as strong as the documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

5. Observations confirming that the universe is infinitely old, or is infinite in size.

6. Scientific proof that human beings did not spring from a common stock, and that the human race had a polyphyletic origin.

7. Scientific proof that the following distinctively human abilities arose at different times in the past: the ability to create a language with rules of discourse and a structured grammar; the ability to engage in logical argument (and not just means-end reasoning); the ability to entertain abstract concepts such as “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty”; the ability to entertain a concept of God who is worthy of worship and who punishes wrongdoing; and the ability to believe in a personal after-life. (As a Christian, I believe that all of these human abilities emerged literally overnight, although some of these abilities may not have manifested themselves in the fossil record until long after they appeared.)

8. The discovery of a non-human animal (e.g. a dolphin) possessing one or more of the abilities listed above.

9. The discovery of a race or tribe of human beings who are currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason, but who are utterly incapable of even comprehending – let alone accepting – the Gospel message.

10. The creation of a machine that was capable of conversing at length about any topic – including its own mental states and life story – in such a way that it could fool an audience of intelligent people into thinking that it was human.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Intelligent Design

1. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of life on Earth during the past four billion years as a result of purely natural processes, without any intelligent guidance and starting from a random assortment of organic chemicals, is greater than 10^-120.

2. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of any of the irreducibly complex structures listed on this page, as a result of non-foresighted processes (“random mutations plus natural selection”) is greater than 10^-120.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity and/or Intelligent Design

1. A scientific demonstration that the human brain was sub-optimally designed for a human primate – in other words, that it would have been possible for an Intelligent Designer to have manipulated our ancestors’ genes in such a way as to generate human beings which looked just like us, but whose neural architecture was much more efficiently wired.

I could go on, but I think that’s about enough for one day. Suffice it to say that my faith is falsifiable. What about your atheism?

Comments
Gpuccio #84 and #85 Thanks for recognising that you have to make assumptions about the designer to falsify ID. It is rare for anyone to concede anything in these debates. The coins have not happened, but the privileged planet has (well I am not sure it has - but most ID people believe it has). In the case of the coins you assumed there was no designer who could and wanted to influence the coins. I am going to assume there is no designer that could or wanted to influence the universe to support life (after all it is a very tall order). Under this assumption the privileged planet appears to be a case of CSI which is not designed and refutes ID! The higher the number that BA quotes - the stronger the evidence against ID. What would you assume, or infer, then? I would evaluate possible explanations and plan how to explore them further. Top of my list would be a human who has found a way of influencing the outcome. One option might be a "God" of some kind and hopefully there would be an opportunity to ask it a lot of questions. Cheersmarkf
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Way back in [37] gpuccio submitted the following challenge to markf: So again, please offer an example, just one, of a digital string emerged in a random system, without any contribution of designers, which has the following properties: (a)is functional (has some use) (b)it is incredibly improbable to have happened through chance (c)was not designed Markf responded with fanciful red herrings and other attempts to change the subject. Obvious conclusion: Markf is unable to meet gpuccio’s challenge but lacks sufficient good faith as an interlocutor to admit it. Gpuccio wins this debate by default.Barry Arrington
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Mark: Oh, and after all ID, although falsifiable, has not been falsified by my coins. So we could postpone our assumptions to when that will happen (which could be an infinite time), an occasion where we will certainly be helped by the content of the intelligent information channeled by our random system. I suppose science can always put us in difficult cognitive situations. What if the message form the coins were: "Well, I am God, and I have chosen this strange method to reveal myself to you all, because I think Matk had really a great idea". What would you assume, or infer, then?gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Mark: OK, in that you are right. In the case of the coin tossing I was assuming that no designer was probably involved in an experiment devised and set up by us. But you are right, in principle that could be true. I suggest two possible scenarios: a) A God who is an unknown ally of darwinists, and badly wants to falsify ID where nobody aspects that. b) A convinced darwinist focused on falsifying ID and endowed of remarkable psychic powers (James Randi?). I prefer b), but a) is intriguing too :) Well, I suppose qe are always assuming something, whatever we do. That there is a reality, that our interlocutor will be reasonable, that science has at least some vague meanings... We intelligent conscious designers weem to work on unconscious assumtions of all kinds. So, thank you for having revealed to my consciousness the unjustified assumptions I was making. Now I will state, more humbly, that, unless God wants to play tricks against ID and help darwinists, or James Randi is able to influence my coin tossing, ID can be falsified in a model such as mine. And design about planetary generation can be inferred in a model such as God's (the universe). I pregpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Timaeus, While you are waiting for Dr. Torley's response, I really would appreciate if you would just give a few quick examples of what you feel would be a reasonable falsification of Atheism in General and neo-Darwinian evolution in particular. Since this is in fact part of the main topic of the post I do feel it is completely proper.bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
JM, I take reality outside of myself as a 100% certainty. Thus I disagree with your statement that the only thing we can be certain of is our own existence. Frankly I find it philosophical mumbo jumbo, pardon the toes, to state otherwise. As for proof, the novel 'transcendent' information I receive from outside myself verifies reality (transcendent information which also happens to be foundational to physical reality itself). Though we may question various interpretations of the information we receive from outside ourselves, the fact that we now possess information that we not possess before confirms with as much certainty as possible (100%) that reality outside of us exist. note: In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the 'primary cause' of our 3D reality: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.htmlbornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
bornagain: Yes, if we assume that the world was created, then "purposely created or not purposely created" is indeed an exhaustive dualism: A or not-A. But of course some would argue that the world is uncreated and eternal. This is generally taken to be Aristotle's position, for example. In any case, even if the world is created, my point was that those two possibilities (purposefully and not purposefully) don't map neatly onto theism and materialism. There may be non-theistic ways of understanding "purpose", as there are non-theistic ways of understanding "spirit" and "truth" and many other things. (Of course, one can always boil any number of ultimate metaphysical positions down to two, by simply nailing down one as the reference point and classing all the other as "not that." But that is like dividing all the music in the world into "classical" and "not classical", and treating rock, jazz, country, folk, etc. as essentially the same. It's very artificial. So if we take materialism as our reference point, then on the other side (non-materialism) we have Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, Platonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other things. It's wrong to call all of these "theism." As for your other question, I never criticized Dr. Torley's thesis here. I said I hadn't made up my mind. And I have plenty of criticisms of Coyne and other atheists, but I didn't enter this thread to discuss those, but (among other things) to ask Dr. Torley a question about his thesis. So I am trying to deal with the topic of the thread. I await his reply with interest. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
ba77 @ 77:
JM, apparently the atheists I’ve dealt with and the atheists you have dealt with are completely different in their commitment to materialism!
Most of the atheists I know are materialists. But none of them would say that they are 100% certain of it. I would say without hesitation that I believe that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But If I'm speaking precisely, I can't say I'm 100% certain of it, although my degree of certainty probably rounds up to 100. There is one, and only one thing, that a human being can be 100% certain of: That they exist. Everything else is on a sliding scale of certainty. Now, things like the existence of the external world are assigned such a high probability (for me anyways) that they essentially round up to 100% certainty. I might be 99.99999999% sure that New York exists, and 99.99999998% sure that Chicago exists. (I've been to the former and not to the latter.) So in approximate terms, I may say that I'm sure that my house exists, for the sake of having conversations with others. I'm 99.9999 percent sure that Mars exists, while I'm 99.9999 percent sure that Krypton doesn't. (I can't prove that it doesn't, of course) Similarly, I would imagine that most materialists, when being precise, would say their same thing about the supernatural: That they are 99.9999 percent sure that ghosts, fairies, magic, and angels don't exist. If I say that I'm 99.9999 percent sure that Krypton doesn't exist, and you say that you're 99.9999 percent sure that it does, who bears the burden of proof?jurassicmac
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
ba77 @ 56:
The ironic thing in all this is that ‘material’ as has been classically defined for centuries, is a fantasy. There simply is no solid ‘material’ particle at the base of reality somewhere! So in reality the whole point of reasoning you are using should be turned around. i.e. The comparisons to Santa Clause, Unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters etc.. etc.. should be laid at materialists feet when they speak of some material process creating this or that!! Agree?
Of course I don't agree with that nonsense. You seem to be saying that the existence of Santa Claus and unicorns are on equal footing with Mt. Rushmore and iPods because 'solid material is a fantasy'. Are you really suggesting that because there is no one 'solid' particle, that nothing 'solid' exists? Thats absolutely ludicrous. 'Solidness' is an emergent property of protons, neutrons, quarks, leptons, and whatever else we discover about subatomic particles, just as 'saltiness' is a property of sodium chloride, even though neither sodium, nor chlorine are 'salty' in and of themselves. As I've said before, I admire your zeal in defending what you believe to be true. But I pity the intellectual pickle you're in. Centuries ago, the theology of many Christians was dependent upon a stationary earth that was the center of creation. When Galileo and Copernicus offered compelling arguments that this wasn't the case, many fought against them vehemently, because it threatened their framework for understanding reality. Even some prominent theologians like Luther and Calvin thought that heliocentricity invalidated the core gospel message. You're in the same position. The theology you've built up doesn't allow for God to have created life indirectly, through natural processes. In your mind, the following is true: If the origin and diversity of life can be explained in naturalistic terms, then God doesn't exist. That is a complete non sequitur. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and now people look back and say "Well, there's no real question that the earth does move around the sun, so obviously they got their theology wrong." But it wasn't 'obvious' at the time by any means. In that same way, it's very likely that future generations of Christians will look back on you and others and say "Well, there's no real question that life did evolve by a (more or less) Darwinian process, so obviously those christians who rejected it got their theology wrong." The primary question is though: Will Creationism permanently scar the reputation of the church as badly as geocentrism did, or will it be even worse?jurassicmac
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
JM, apparently the atheists I've dealt with and the atheists you have dealt with are completely different in their commitment to materialism! :)bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Timaeus, As well to try to bring the topic back in line with the main question of the post that Dr. Torley has asked, What would you consider a reasonable falsification for atheism???? Though some on this thread have offered small critiques to Dr. Torley of his list for falsifiability of his belief for God, Christianity, and ID, these critiques, IMHO, have all failed the mark by a wide margin. But not one of these 'critics' of Dr. Torley, as far as I know, has even offered a minimal benchmark as to what a reasonable falsification for Atheism would be. Does it not seem odd to you that these critics would be so 'uncritical' of the atheistic position?bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 54
Do not the vast majority of atheists claim that purely material processes created everything, especially all life on earth, through purely material processes?
I don't know that they do. Like I said, there are hundreds of millions of atheists who aren't materialists. Now, I happen to agree with you that atheism and materialism are perfectly compatible. But you've just made a claim about what atheists believe, not what follows logically. I'm hesitant to say that the majority of atheists claim that material processes created everything, since there are many atheistic religions. I think it would be safe to say that most western atheists agree with that statement, but I myself believe that the origin of stars, planets, and life are explainable in purely naturalistic terms, as the result of material processes. This alone certainly doesn't make me a materialist!
If not Can you please show me the list of the vast majority of atheists that are not 100% sure about this ‘positive’ claim for materialism?
I don't have the resources to track down and poll every atheist, but from the atheists I do know, I would feel quite confident that almost none of them would say that they are "100% sure that materialism is true." (I've ignored the fact that 'materialism' isn't a thing, but a lack of a thing; 'materialist' just means one who doesn't believe in the supernatural.)jurassicmac
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Timaeus, as you can see, I am trying my best, which is far from adequate sometimes, to provide a two point limit between the dominant materialistic view of us being an accident and the other dominant Theistic view of us being intended. I can think of no other option for the two primary sets from which all other these subsets you mention flow. You may say I am not being open enough to some of the subtle nuances, but regardless of 'stepping on philosophical toes', the reality is that we were either purposely created or we were not created all the rest is just stamp collecting as Rutherford said,,,bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
bornagain (67): I did not think you were talking narrowly about views of origins, but about views of reality generally. And I took it that you were saying that the two views "theistic" and "materialistic" exhausted all possibilities. My point was that they do not. Theism is only *one type* of non-materialistic view. Even if we talk narrowly about origins, they don't exhaust all possibilities. The account of origins in some Hindu texts is not what one would normally call "theistic." And there are Buddhist myths of origins which do not involve any reference to a supreme being, but which presuppose the existence of something other than matter. Regarding my point to Dr. Torley, I didn't say that I *agreed* with the theory I was describing; in fact, if you read it again you will see that I indicated I didn't. In any case, even if I did agree with it, I wouldn't be guilty of affirming an effect without a cause, since the term "effect" is already prejudicial, implying a cause. Rather, I would be affirming an *event* without a cause. As I understand it, this is what the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum theory affirms. But it has been years since I did physics, and I may have it wrong. Anyhow, popular science accounts represent it this way: there is no sufficient reason why the wave function takes on value k rather than value p at any given moment. You and I may find that silly and irrational (I think Einstein did, too), but that, as I understand it, is what the physicists say. I was merely asking Dr. Torley if he accepts this sort of randomness, and if so, how it is not the sort of "chaos" that he says would disprove God. And I have no idea what Dr. Torley's answer will be. My question was asked not aggressively, but merely as a means of clarifying what exactly he was asserting about chaos and the existence of God. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Timeaus, Here is a little more detail on the Penrose number at the first part of this video: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Timaeus, You used an example of radioactive decay to say that some events of this universe are uncaused and are thus, in your eyes, evidence against God. In fact you stated: "why does it not count against the existence of God that such uncaused events happen?’" As I hope you are well aware decay is a fundamental property of entropy. and entropy is one of strongest arguments FOR God!, and though we may be vastly imprecise of saying when a exact moment of decay will occur, this 'uncertainty' of when a certain decay will occur is a vastly different thing from saying that the decay has no cause at all! notes: Although 1 part in 10^120 and 1 part in 10^60 far exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the highest tolerance ever achieved in any man-made machine, which is 1 part in 10^22 for a gravity wave detector, according to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the 'original phase-space volume' of the universe, required such precision that the "Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ As well, contrary to speculation of 'budding universes' arising from Black Holes, Black Hole singularities are completely opposite the singularity of the Big Bang in terms of the ordered physics of entropic thermodynamics. In other words, Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order. Roger Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the time-asymmetry of the initial state of the 'ordered entropy' for the universe, also lends strong support for 'highly specified infinite information' creating the universe since; "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis A 'flat universe', which is actually another surprising very finely-tuned 'coincidence' of the universe, means this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to Dark Energy, will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic 'Heat Death' of the universe). The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 Does God Exist? The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708 Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Aleta, and exactly which subset do you choose from? i.e. Which subset of being created or being an accident do you choose from?bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
#68 Gpuccio Well I think you have identified a relevant difference. The difference is the assumptions we make about the ability/desire of a designer to influence the outcome. If make zero assumptions about the designer then there is just as much reason to suppose they are influencing the 500 coin tosses as the formation of planets (On the whole I would have thought influencing the laws of the universe was the greater challenge. But who are we to decide?). The distinction between using and testing seems vacuous. In both cases there is an observation and we draw a conclusion. In one case you conclude design. In the other case you conclude evidence against the design inference. The only relevant difference you have identified so far is background assumptions about the likelihood of a designer getting involved. Just to remind you of my case. "You cannot falsify the statement that design is associated with CSI without making assumptions about the motives/powers of the designer." I think you have illustrated this rather well. If you disagree I challenge you to produce a counter-example, something that would falsify the statement that design is associated with CSI and makes no assumptions about the designer. The example of the coin tosses assumes there was no designer with the intention and ability to influence the outcome.markf
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
To Timmaeus at 61: Thanks for those comments. I agree.Aleta
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Mark: It seems that I have the power to confoubd you often :) But there is really no reason here. The coin tossing example would falsify ID theory becasue it is (at least in my intentions) a system we can directly control and observe, probably a system we have set up ourselves, and in which we can reasonably exclude an intellugent intervention which drives the results. So, it is a model system to test if dFSCI can, even rearely, come out in absence of design. In the case of planets, I would say that the situation is different. Here the problem is that we don't know if some intelligence (maybe a god) guides the formation of life allowing planets beyond what general necessity laws or randomness would explain. So we can use ID theory to decide if CSI is evident in the observed distribution of life allowing planets in the universe. IOW, here we are using the ID theory, not testing it. We are in scenario b), and not in scenario a). I hope I have solved your confusion (but something tells me that new confusions will probably arise...)gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Timeaus, But there ARE only two ultimate forms the argument on origins can take!!! If you want to differentiate particulars of each of the two positions, as you were beginning to draw out, then of course it is readily apparent that the positions will be three or vastly more that you, or anyone else can choose from. I did not deny the vast subsets of each position and I thought I made that point somewhat clear yesterday. That I would try to focus the argument on the 'simple' of only two primary competing points was precisely the aim of my goal! as for this statement of your to Dr. Torley, 'Do you accept that there are events like this in the universe? If not, why not? And if so, why does it not count against the existence of God that such uncaused events happen?' I hope you are aware that you just stated that a effect had no cause!!! Do you really want to stick by this statement as your primary argument against God?bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
#63 Gpuccio Now I am seriously confused. In the case of the privileged planet the argument is evidence for design. In the case of coin tosses the argument falsifies design. And there is no relevant difference!!!markf
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Timaeus: About what you write of QM, I think that the description of what you define as the "reigning theory of what nature is really like" is correct. Personally, I consider that kind of interpretation of QM as "intrinsically probabilistic" as the most credible, and it is certainly the most widely accepted. It is important, however, to rememeber three things: a) The probabilistic part is limited to measurements which cause the "collapse of the wave function", or whatever it is. The deepest aspect of QM, the wave function itself, is entrirely deterministic. b) The true meaning of this double aspect of reality remains a mystery. c) Consciousness is not yet a part of that scenario in a satisfying way. While some QM models seem to rely on consciousness to explain the "collapse", that is not universally accepted. Indeed, consciousness is not yet an explicit component of any physical theory of reality. But it will, some day.gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Timaeus: I really appreciate your posts. I agree with you on many things. I would probably see the many forms of spiritual concepts you allude to as many different facets of a fundamentally similar concept, but you are right that there are anyway formal differences in the different formulations of that concept, and it is correct to ackowledge them.gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
Mark: There is no relevant difference. The ID argument is the same in both cases. The difficulties in detailing it quantitavely are different. My choice to stick to digital strings is motivated exclusively by the better "tractability" of those cases, and by the lucky corcumstance that biological information is in effect digital. Being specially interested to the biological case, it is therefore perfectly natural for me to restrict the discussion to digital strings. But analogic information, if correctly quantifiable, can be very well treated in the same way. So, let's go back to the privileged planet issue. If we can show that the characteristics of our planet are absolutely functional for, let's say, allowing the development of life. If we can quantify the informational content of those minimal characteristics necessary to allow life. If we can detail the necessity laws which determine the formation of planets with sufficient understanding. If we can calculate the search space (the natural variability of planet formation according to those necessity laws). If we can compute the probabilistic resources available to the known universe since its beginnings for planet formation. If we can be sure that no specific known necessity law can explain the particular configuration of conditions which allows life. And finally, if the whole probability of the formation of a palent allowing life is in the end so law as to vastly exceed an appropriate threshold. Then the case for design in the formation of life allowing planets would be very similar to the case of design for life. There would remain a difference, at least for now. We have at present evidence of only one planet allowing life, that is earth. While we have evidence of designed biological information in thousands, maybe millions, of biological structures. That is a difference. One observed case of CSI is always one case, even if our threshold should be enough to exclude the non design origin even of a single instance (there should be no false positives). But one case is one. The old objection that one lucky "extraction" is in principle possible, even if empirically impossible, could always apply. But not to thousands or millions of cases. That is the final, overwhelming strngth of the design argument in biology. But, if we can have evidence of thousands, maybe millions, of life allowing planets in our universe, remaining valid all the "ifs" I have listed above, then the case for planet design would be as tight as the case for biological design. But please, don't ask me to prove all those "ifs". I can't, for planet design. That's why I don't assume a position on that. But I definitely can, for biological design.gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
vjtorley: I continue to admire your postings on Aquinas. I haven't made up my mind yet about the approach you take in this current post. However, I do have a question about a response you made above. You said: "My response is that the discovery of even one corner of the cosmos where chaos reigned supreme would be disastrous, as it would allow uncaused events to disrupt the order of the cosmos." If some people's account of "quantum indeterminism" is correct, chaos reigns all through the universe -- at the level of the very small. Events are probabilistic, rather than law-guided. I understand this to mean (though both the physicists and the philosophers who discuss it write so unclearly than I am not sure I know what they are talking about) that certain subatomic events occur without sufficient cause, i.e., are "random" in an absolute sense. That is, if there are, say, 20 possible discrete values for the energy level of an electron in the outer shell of a carbon atom, the value actually realized is not governed by any "law of nature" but is a result of "luck of the draw." Or, when a radioactive nucleus gives off a particle, if there are *n* possibilities for the timing of that emission, no law determines when the emission will take place, and any given time of emission has a probability of 1/n, and that's all that science can say, not just due to lack of current knowledge, but in principle. No future science will ever enable us to predict the timing of a nuclear emission, because there is no sufficient cause for the timing. That's how I understand the theory. Do you accept that there are events like this in the universe? If not, why not? And if so, why does it not count against the existence of God that such uncaused events happen? I'm not being merely contentious here; I don't particularly like this formuation of quantum theory, and have no desire to defend it. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the reigning theory of what nature is really like, so surely you have to respond to it in some way. Hence my question. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
bornagain: I appreciate your zeal both for ID and for Christian faith, but sometimes it causes you to oversimplify things. In your current argument, you seem to be pushing for an exhaustive dichotomy of two positions: theism and materialism. In your view, a person must adhere to either one or the other, and any third position is just plain confused. You are overlooking the possibility that there might be a non-material component of reality, what might be called a "spiritual" component, which is not accurately captured in the notion of "God" that is found in the theistic religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Aristotle's "god", for example, is not the God of theistic religion; he does not love the world, or even, in the normal sense of the word, "create" it. The Hindu god cannot be characterized in any single way, because "Hinduism" is not really a single entity, but a congeries of religious traditions and insights; but in many formulations of Hinduism, the ultimate reality is not God as Western religion conceives it. And in Buddhism the state achieved in nirvana points to a reality that is non-material, but that reality does not seem to be a personal being of the theistic type. I am told by students of African religion that in some parts of Africa the ultimate God is not personal; only the lesser gods are. Still others may conceive of the non-material part of reality as some sort of Mind that thinks the thoughts of higher mathematics. Etc. Your approach tends to force every religion, philosophy and world view into one of two camps, and often the fit is very awkward. It also doesn't help when you suggest that 350 million Buddhists are "illogical". The Buddhist scholars developed the science of logic to a high degree, and wrote erudite technical treatises on it, not less difficult than the treatises of scholastic logic in the West. It is not inability to think straight which has enabled Buddhism to continue in existence for 2500 years. I'm not saying Buddhism is superior to Christianity; I'm saying it is counter-productive to mischaracterize it. As for whether the position of your materialist and/or atheist conversation partners here is internally incoherent, I take no side and have no time to enter into that debate; but if you mis-frame the debate by insisting that there are only two possible positions, when there may be three or more, it will produce more heat than light. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
#50 Gpuccio No, their argument is not invalid, but quantitatively less defined. OK. Let's assume that we can estimate that quantity, or at least estimate the probability is extremely low, and concentrate on the logic of the argument. In the Privileged Planet case we have: Probability of this arising through chance is extremely low therefore we suspect design. In the case of the 500 coin flips you argue. The probability of this arising through chance is extremely low therefore we have an example which falsifies ID. What is the relevant difference? That one is digital and the other is not?markf
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
Aleta, Reality is Theistic in its basis, of this I am 100% sure! Will you ever admit to this truth though presented with solid evidence. I am 99.474% sure that you will not! Why will you do this? I really have no clue.bornagain77
October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
A simple way to put it: All materialists are atheists. All atheists are not materialists.Aleta
October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply