Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On the Vastness of the Universe

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nevada is mostly empty; I mean really empty.  Ninety percent of the state’s residents live in the vicinity of Las Vegas or Reno, and the rest of the state is all but uninhabited.  I realized just how empty the state is when I was riding my motorcycle across the desert last month, and I passed a sign that said “Next Gas 167 Miles.”  They weren’t kidding.  My bike’s range is only a little over 200 miles, and if I hadn’t stopped to top off my tank, I would have run out of gas in the middle of the desert. 

This is the kind of riding I love the best.  Riding hour after hour through a vast emptiness, alone with my thoughts, the wind in my face, and the deep-throated throb of my engine in my ears, fills me with a peace and joy that is difficult to describe.  One day my two friends and I decided to just keep on riding after the sun went down, and at about 11:00 we stopped in the middle of the desert and turned off our motorcycles.  There was no moon that night and the wind had died down.  No other vehicles were on the highway, so we were alone in the quiet darkness, the only sound the pinging noises made by our engines as they cooled in the night air.

Hundreds of miles from the lights of the nearest city, the night sky was stunning.  The Milky Way was clearly visible from one horizon to the other.  Antares glowed like a tiny ruby in the heart of Scorpio.  My friends and I just stood there, gaping in awed silence at the numberless points of twinkling light in the celestial sphere.  Then John said, “I wonder why God made the universe so big.” 

John’s comment got me to thinking.  Why is the universe so big, with billons of galaxies and with each galaxy containing billions of stars, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all the beaches of the world. 

The vast size of the universe along with the earth’s comparative insignificance have often been used as an argument against the Christian view of God.  The argument goes something like this:  When our poor benighted ancestors thought we lived in a cozy little universe that revolved around the earth at its center, the Christian view of God might have made sense.  But now we know better.  We have the Copernican Principle (or the “Principle of Mediocrity”), which tells us that the universe is not cozy, and the earth is not at its center.  The universe is larger than we can possibly understand, and, cosmically speaking, the earth is an insignificant speck of dust orbiting a slightly less insignificant speck of dust in one galaxy out of billons.  Surely God would not create such a vast universe to support only life on earth; now that would be a waste of a truly cosmic proportions.

As it turns out, there are good reasons to doubt every premise of this argument.

1.  The Ancients Were Not Stupid.

Let’s deal with the first assertion, that the ancients believed we live in a small universe.  Consider Psalm 8:  “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”  The psalmist looked at the multitude of stars in the night sky and realized that he was tiny and insignificant in a vast universe.  It is truly a conceit of the modern age that the ancients naively believed they lived in a small and cozy universe in which the earth and man figured significantly, and that only now with our telescopes and other instruments of science do we understand the vastness of the universe and our relative insignificance. 

Consider also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which was written in the early 100’s AD.  It was the standard text on astronomy for over a thousand years.  In chapter 5 of book I of the Almagest, Ptolemy writes:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  So it turns out that the ancients were not as naive about the size of the universe as modern skeptics would have us believe. 

2.  The Earth is Almost Certainly a Very Special Place

No one supposes that the Earth is at the exact geometric center of the universe anymore.  Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that it is a very special place, perhaps even unique.  In recent years astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez has led the way in demonstrating that the existence of life is far from likely.  In fact, it is exceedingly improbable and the conditions of the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, the solar system, the moon and the earth itself are remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of life.

 According to Gonzalez, “The claims by many Copernican Principle advocates over the centuries, that life is commonplace on other celestial bodies, has been a spectacular failure. . . . Since it is Earth’s ability to support life that many take to be its most important quality, it is clear that this is a major failure of the metaphysical version of the Copernican Principle if the actual conditions which support life are so rare that they may only exist for Earth.”

 3.  The Universe is Exactly the Right Size

 Finally, it turns out that the universe is not “too big” after all.  In fact, it is exactly the size it must be in order to support life.  Rich Deem summarizes just a few of the “just right” parameters which make the universe ideal for the existence of life:

It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Comments
Here's HuffiPo's take on Hawking's new book: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/hawking-to-god-your-servi_1_b_705773.html Pretty dismal rationalizations: "Is it true? Maybe. It is a reasonable extrapolation from incomplete evidence. However, there may be other explanations that have yet to be explored in a scientific manner. Two things are certain. The evidence clearly shows that the Universe we inhabit is not the handiwork of an omnipotent, perfect Creator. Whatever the true explanation, the traditional interpretation of Genesis makes no sense. There are just too many inefficiencies, extravagances, and plain bad "design" for that to hold." But according to Naff, we should still be able to have faith in such a Creator err....faith in something: "The other certainty is this: authentic faith does not depend on traditional creation stories. 'Faith' is a vague term, but I suggest it has two essential characteristics: it is a belief that ultimately some good will come of it all, and while its components may be reshaped by evidence it is a belief that transcends the evidence. In short, people who feel that such and such scientific claim must be false or their whole religious belief system will collapse don't really have faith. They have a membership in a particular ideology." Faith transcends the evidence? No clay, faith does not transcend evidence. Faith in what is reasonable is confirmed by evidence. Faith in what is not reasonable transcends nothing. Continuing, he states: "Ideologies come and go. Faith is an enduring characteristic of most human beings. I have, in various essays, suggested ways that faith might be empirically true. I won't reiterate them here. Let me instead close with these thoughts: * Every single word of what Hawking now says might be true, and yet something wonderful may yet happen. * Beyond all doubt, God exists -- in the minds of his (or her) followers. Whether God is more than a belief is itself a question of belief, but that belief makes a difference in our world. * The future is not wholly determined, and to the extent that we control our destiny, our fates depend not on pure reason nor on pure faith, but on just the right intertwining of the two." So that's it; God only exists in the minds of "His (or her) followers," but all the evidence suggests that He is not real. So why have faith? Because "Faith is an enduring characteristic of most human beings," and "I have, in various essays, suggested ways that faith might be empirically true. I won't reiterate them here." Well he can't reiterate them here because he has already dismissed the ways that faith (at least in God) could be empirically true. Well faith is empirically true in the sense that some people have faith in certain things. That part of faith is empirically true. But what of the objects of faith? Does he have evidence that the objects of faith (God or fairies or devils) could be empirically true? I doubt it. But we could all at least have faith that good will overcome evil; right? Just what "good" would that be? Well the good inherent in Darwinism or the larger materialistic philosophy, of course. But "there are just too many inefficiencies, extravagances, and plain bad "design" (without a designer arguments) for that to hold." So what does this all have to do with the vastness of the universe? Well despite the vastness of the universe and all the chance potential for great thinking, which would inevitably come out of it, we are still capable of irrationality, I guess.CannuckianYankee
September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
CY: You are right, there are many views and ideas on God afoot, and God as ordering principle, an impersonal, perhaps immanent, even almost pantheistic view, has been fairly common. The NS article lays out the basic problem with the current stage of argument. Though, it tries t6o soften the blow. It would be interesting to see something really new. Gkairosfocus
September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
KF, There was an unauthorized publication not too long ago entitled "A Theory of Everything," which was a collection of Hawking's unpublished writings. Hawking never endorsed it's publication; and in-fact has repudiated it. What's interesting about this is his initial excitement over a "unified theory" in "A Brief History of Time," eventually leading us to knowing "the mind of God." Hawking talked a lot about God in that book, but it's important to understand that Hawking's God is very different than the God of theism. To Hawking, God is simply an "abstract concept of order and harmony," which is perhaps why he is now dismissing the concept. His current repudiation of a "unified theory" indicates that his concept of God as an "abstract concept of order and harmony" is no longer needed. So I think we should use caution with respect to what Hawking means by "God." He doesn't mean the theistic God. However, he seems to lump his concept of God with the thesitic God in dismissing both concepts. I'm not even certain he realizes the distinction when he says "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." When Hawking says "design" he doesn't mean teleological design, but design by the "order and harmony" of the laws of physics. This is perhaps what his book's title is referring to. Another interesting observation is that he doesn't dismiss "design" as an abstract meaning "order and harmony," but he does dismiss a designer as the "harmonic orderer." In other words, Hawking posits design without a designer. BTW, thanks for the interesting article from NS.CannuckianYankee
September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Collin, While the article doesn't state directly that Hawking believes in the multiverse hypothesis, I think it's clear that with his current metaphysical commitment, this is really the only option. But Hawking is a thinker of Einsteinian caliber. Perhaps he might come up with some new unconventional thought once he discovers (or rather acknowledges) the incoherence of his current thinking. This is why I mentioned in an earlier post (and I clarify here) that this current thinking might simply be a pitstop in the process towards something a little more coherent - his "cosmological constant," leading to a new hypothesis or theory. I trust though, that he will still be committed to metaphysical materialism no matter what new thinking he posits. Hawking's books are at the top of the best sellers in science, even more so than Richard Dawkins'. But he doesn't publish often. I'm thinking that perhaps this new book was published in haste to get something out there, and maybe it's a little premature. In some future book, he might just surprise us like he did with his first.CannuckianYankee
September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Does Hawking believe that there are infinite multiverses? If so, then my previous point applies to his reasoning as well.Collin
September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
F/N re Hawking CY, BA, Vivid et al: First, let us note the inspiring example of a man who has fought a terrible disease for decades, and prevails in his work despite such odds. That said, you are right that he is moving from a domain of acknowledged expertise (Physics) to one of probably unrecognised want of expertise (Philosophy), and in the context that tempts physicists into such errors, cosmology. A pity really. Things are bad when it is New Scientist that corrects a champion of materialism in a review. Here is Craig Callender:
The Grand Design, written with Leonard Mlodinow, is Hawking's first popular book in almost a decade. It duly covers the growth of modern physics (quantum mechanics, general relativity, modern cosmology) sprinkled with the wild speculation about multiple universes [My NB: metaphysics alert!] that seems mandatory in popular works these days . . . . Early on, the authors claim that they will be answering the ultimate riddles of existence [metaphysics alert no 2] - and that their answer won't be "42". Their starting point for this bold claim is superstring theory . . . . Having declared that "philosophy is dead" [traipsing into alert . . . ], the authors unwittingly develop a theory familiar to philosophers since the 1980s, namely "perspectivalism" [traipsing into . . . ]. This radical theory holds that there doesn't exist, even in principle, a single comprehensive theory of the universe. Instead, science offers many incomplete windows onto a common reality, one no more "true" than another. In the authors' hands this position bleeds into an alarming anti-realism: not only does science fail to provide a single description of reality, they say, there is no theory-independent reality at all. [self-referential incoherence: there is no more to reality than what is real to me or you is a claim to an objective reality: radical subjectivism, thus self-refuting] If either stance is correct, one shouldn't expect to find a final unifying theory like M-theory - only a bunch of separate and sometimes overlapping windows. [now, that physics may well be following mathematics and finds itself confronting the possibility of irreducible complexity so no finite axiomatic system or postulational system will be complete is a sign that The Old One has a sense of humour, not of absence of a reality that the physics is trying to come to grips with!] So I was surprised when the authors began to advocate M-theory. But it turns out they were unconventionally referring to the patchwork set of string theories as "M-theory" too, in addition to the hypothetical unified theory about which they remain agnostic. M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn't stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful. [For good reason, cf John Leslie as already cited at 66: local finetuning is quite wondrous enough, and breaks through multiverses. Which are of course metaphysical speculation, we have no observational base.] Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive "luck" warrant the postulation of God? No. [What do you mean by "warrant"? On inference to best explanation at worldview level, with all the evidence in play, not just datum lines ruled on "science" . . . ?] Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed - until we start watching universes come into being - to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn't that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn't go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.
Of course, I have brought out a bit on the understatements used by NS. And, all of this comes back full circle to the issue in the original post: what are the lurking premises (and where are the points of misinformation and chronological snobbery . . . ) in cosmological arguments. GEM of TKI PS: Vivid, BA and CY, good work.kairosfocus
September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
"A potential law? A law that would be in effect if something should ever exist?" Which leads to the question: What if the law existed prior to anything else, and then nothing decided to exist? Hawking says "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing," But prior to this, he states: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So he requires the law of gravity for spontaneous creation. Then this spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing - including gravity, I presume. So gravity is the reason for spontaneous creation, and spontaneous creation is the reason for gravity. Cause and effect all rolled into one. New term for the "Big Bang:" The "Hawking Happening" or the "Hawkening" for short. Maybe it's his cosmological constant; a hypothesis for which he's begging for a refutation. The problem is there won't be a scientific refutation forthcoming, because it isn't a scientific hypothesis.CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Since nothing can be created by nothing, something would have to first exist in order to create anything.
Well that would be gravity of course! Don't you see? Although... it seems a bit odd for there to be a law hanging out in a condition of absolute nothingness...a law about what, if nothing existed? A potential law? A law that would be in effect if something should ever exist? It sounds so...planned.avocationist
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
"And if the reply is “well, gravity is something” then the question has only been begged once again. Whence gravity? And everything else?" One cannot even concieve "nothing" To talk about "nothing" one always resorts to talking about something in order to assert that "nothing" caused this or that. I mean the concept is so absurd and incoherent it gives ones mind a charlie horse. Take Hawkings he must first assert something, the laws of phsyics,to assert that nothing created the universe. Are these people nuts?? Well I guess if one embraces irrationality we can conclude that they indeed have lost their minds? Opps I forgot there are no minds soooo0..... nevermind! Vividvividbleau
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Thus the obvious question, whence the law of gravity? What are these people THINKING? This is insane on the face of it. "Because gravity exists" somehow implies that something can create itself? The very idea is incoherent whether gravity exists or not. Since nothing can be created by nothing, something would have to first exist in order to create anything. The irrationality of that claim is stupendous. That Hawking or the author of this article couldn't see that in an INSTANT is depressing. That people will jump in and argue against the rebuttals to Hawking in this space is almost beyond belief. But there it is, the evidence will be here before morning, I'm sure. One of us (not me) will find ourselves arguing with an allegedly sentient and reasoning human being that something cannot create itself. And if the reply is "well, gravity is something" then the question has only been begged once again. Whence gravity? And everything else?tgpeeler
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
BA, I like the euphemism of his title: "The Grand Design." Once again, materialists using the language of design in order to simply deny it.CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Hawking has really gone down hill in his intellectual prowess since his work on Black hole evaporation and this work from the 70's,,, "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html ,,, the funny thing is he states this,,, ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,' This statement makes absolutely no sense as far as science is concerned... He has completely left the bounds of scientific endeavor.,, Once you allow that nothing can cause, not only a specific effect to happen, but all effects to happen, you have no leg to stand on as far as science is concerned,, How did matter and energy come into existence? Hawking's answer ??? NOTHING spontaneously created it!!! How did space and time come into existence? Hawking's answer ??? NOTHING spontaneously created it!!! How did the over 100 transcendent constants governing matter and energy come into existence? Hawking's answer ??? NOTHING spontaneously created them!!! How do Quantum Waves collapse? Hawking's answer ??? NOTHING spontaneously makes it happen!!! What a thoroughly sad state of affairs for a man I had such high respect for.bornagain77
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
More from Hawking, regarding the recent discovery of planets that orbit stars: "'That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,' he writes." So Hawking is making the same fatal mistake - assuming the theological position of us theists "that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings" - the same assumptions we see here in this discussion. It's a strawman, can't you see? We're not saying that God created just to please us. Fine tuning; which apparently Hawking denies because some planets orbit other suns is still a relevant hypothesis. If I'm reading him right, Hawking is assuming that by simply discovering other orbital planets makes life elsewhere more likely. Well even if it were true, that too would be beside the point. Here's why: Let's assume that once upon a time all humans lived in natural caves - not a bad assumption. Now one day out of the blue, a house is built, and some humans begin to live in it. No-one knows where the house came from, but it's clear that such a house is unique from the caves. If other houses start springing up and more humans begin to live in them, this does not detract from the uniqueness of houses from caves. The same is true if there are other habitable planets with life. Such a discovery would not necessarily detract from the fact that such habitable planets are unique among all other planets, and that the fine tuning of their systems is required to support such life. I personally believe it's a huge gamble to make such assumptions; that the existence of life supporting planets elsewhere in the universe somehow diminishes the uniqueness of our own. If anything, it is more likely to add to the verifiability of fine tuning. The more data we gather about other systems, which support life may continue to demonstrate that special conditions are required. Thus, we will have the fine tuning hypothesis verified by the fulfillment of a very likely scientific prediction; that wherever we see life in the universe, such special finely tuned conditions are required. Hawking seems to think that more life elsewhere in the universe is indicative of a lucky throw of the dice played out by the laws of physics. I fail to see how any future evidence of life on other planets supports such a hypothesis. Simply because the universe is vast and expanding in no way warrants such assumptions. If this article is true to the hypothesis of the book in question, I'm not persuaded.CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
A little OT, but what the heck; I was just checking my Yahoo email and came across this: "God did not create the universe, says Hawking" "LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the 'Big Bang' was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book. In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,' Hawking writes. 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.'" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking Sigh. :(CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Tgpeeler, intelligence of course exists, but I am starting to wonder if reading comprehension does. To you and the others, I never said intelligence does not exist. I said it doesn't exist by itself (there is a crucial word "an" that you might have missed). It's a description or observation that that is ascribed to something else (a person and possibly other animals). That is not rhetoric, its actually basic english grammar. BA, in response to all your questions - yes. Also BA, as smordecai impied, great thinkers about science came from all of the major religions, (in particular Islam). CY, I have no need of astrology in my views of the world either. I guess you would say that never the less I am indulging in astrology by taking that position.zeroseven
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Science was not a competition among religious peoples, and I am certain that is not the implication being made here. The only time this comes up is when materialists must stoke the wholly manufactured war between science and religion. What else is there to keep their faithful in line? Evidence?Upright BiPed
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Zeroseven, But the fundamnetals of nature seem to be information. After all, matter seems to be immaterial: made up of energy and force fields and inscrutible laws. Maybe intelligence is all there is.Collin
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
SM: The main founders of the main fields of modern science predominantly were Christian, in the worldview sense, and often in the sense of personal piety. Jewish scientists came to prominence across C19 - 20 (and mostly as we moved to C20), which is after the relevant era. Gkairosfocus
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Onlookers (and 07): Re 07, 76: There is no such thing (that we know of) as an “intelligence”. It is a description of a capability we see in humans and possibly other things. We have never seen it exist by itself out of a body. So your theory is pure metaphysical speculation. The cynic in me wants to laugh bitterly, and the Christian in me wants to cry when I see a live reduction to absurdity like that. Here we have an intelligent and educated person -- an intelligence! -- trying to deny that intelligence is real, and to tiptoe by the basic point that we discern the presence and action of intelligence from its effects, in a two stage empirical inference that makes no a priori commitments; save that it refuses to rule out the possibilities that materialists are ever so eager to rule out ahead of time. As a simple corrective -- and noting that this is probably a distractive attempt to shift the thread's focus -- we will bring out the error and note on how relevant the cosmological issues are. So, let's go at it again, since 07 is patently labouring under the notion that there is a smuggled in a priori on the nature of intelligence. 1 --> We are undeniably intelligent [on pain of immediate absurdity], and we routinely exercise purposefully directed contingency; such as 07 did to compose 76, including the cited above. If we meet a robot or an Alpha Centurian who is able to do these things, we will accept it as intelligent, even as we acknowledge limited intelligence in animals. 2 --> That is, we can see that directed contingency is the action of intelligence is an empirical fact, indeed it is close to being a first fact of our experience as conscious, purposeful creatures. 3 --> We live in a world full of cases that shows that three causal factors commonly occur: (a) mechanical necessity [a dropped heavy object falls], (b) chance [a dropped fair die then tumbles and comes to a reading at random], (c) directed contingency [we can set a die to a given reading]. 4 --> In the case of complex functional organisation and associated information, we routinely, reliably observe that it is the product of directed contingency produced by intelligences, per massive observation. 5 --> Similarly, complex functional states are so isolated in the credible space of possible configurations, that the other source of highly contingent outcomes is maximally implausible, i.e. chance. (And, 07, if you think there is a law of mechanical necessity that programs digitally coded functional information into C-chemistry cell based life, you have just described the set of laws of nature to do that as a program written into the physics and chemistry of the universe.) 6 --> We have an empirical basis, and a reasonable search space basis for inferring that such observable features are signs of directed contingency. 7 --> So when we turn to origins sciences contexts, we have good reason to infer -- regardless of AIG's doubts -- that the signs point to the signified causal process, directed contingency, which is routinely associated with a source, intelligence. 8 --> We have excellent reason, just on the PCs we are using, to note that mere embodiment and possession of brains or analogous processors are not sufficient to account for sufficiently complex and subtle systems. Highly knowledgeable, skilled and capable, reasoning intelligence is required. 9 --> In the case of life forms, we see a case of digitally coded functionally specific complex information, which warrants the inference to intelligent design, unless and until an empirical counter-example can be produced. (The resort to trying to play games on the reality of intelligence tells us that this has been pretty much given up.) 10 --> In the case of our observed cosmos, we have good reason to believe the underlying physics and parameters are functionally integrated in quite subtle, finely balanced, sophisticated and complex ways, leading to the inference that the system is evidently intelligently designed, not a happy accident. The odds -- epistemic probability sense -- against that are just too long, especially given that the functionality of the observed cosmos is locally isolated in the space of parameters. 12 --> That points to an extracosmic powerful and deeply knowledgeable intelligence, which will be stoutly resisted by those with a prioris at stake. ___________________ But for the rest of us, the evidence points to empirical support for the inferred best explanation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Bornagain77- I did not know that Jews made no significant contribution to science!smordecai
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Peeler...tee heeUpright BiPed
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
zero
There is no such thing (that we know of) as an “intelligence”.
Aiguy played a game of rhetoric in place of being able to argue the observable evidence. Its a materialist last card - deny the "self" and argue over definitions (see K Popper). Aiguy knows that any statement of intelligence can be drawn into a definitional battle of rhetoric, and that battle can offer the cover necessary to flank what is observationally verifiable. He simply payed that card and hoped you'd bite. But good God man, pick yourself up from your doo! To say that something doesn't exist just because (gasp!) we humans can argue over it, is a wee bit too much don't you think? Lets see what else doesn't exist over those terms shall we? Well shucks... SCIENCE does not exist because their are those who still argue over its complete meaning. SPECIES do not exist because their are those who still argue over its complete meaning. LIFE does not exist because their are those who still argue over its complete meaning. How far do you wany this to go? Does science exist, Zero? Does life exist, Zero? Does intelligence exist, zero?
We have never seen it exist by itself out of a body.
Does mathematics exist. Zero? Do abstractions exist, zero? Does language exist, Zero? Does reason exist, Zero?Upright BiPed
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
BA, Yes, all that and the fact that to say that science has no need of a God hypothesis is itself a "no God hypothesis," which is theological. To be truly neutral in the matter, the scientist would have to be of no opinion either way. In other words, "we don't know if we are in need of a God hypothesis."CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
zero @ 76 "There is no such thing (that we know of) as an “intelligence”." Actually, having read all of your last post, I can see why you'd say that.tgpeeler
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Actually zeroseven you are so far off the mark of the truth it almost unbelievable,, First Modern science owes its very existence to Christianity,,, Little known by most people is the fact that almost every, if not every, major branch of modern science has been founded by a scientist who strongly believed in Christ: Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ http://www.tektonics.org Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=8b121425f7e044148a1b A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Then you made some off the cuff comments of what God looked like since we were made in His image,,, yet I actually have a 'photograph' of God,,, The Turin Shroud - Comparing Image And Photographic Negative - interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.) http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm The very first part, and very last part, of this following paper discusses the Shroud in more detail as concerned to the physics and the authenticity of it: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html -------------- General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355bornagain77
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
KF, your argument @66 that "intelligence" did it has already been completely dismantled by aiguy. There is no such thing (that we know of) as an "intelligence". It is a description of a capability we see in humans and possibly other things. We have never seen it exist by itself out of a body. So your theory is pure metaphysical speculation. BA, contrary to what Dr Hunter thinks, scientists, when doing science, do not give a seconds thought to what God might or might not have done. There is no need of God in their hypotheses (to paraphrase). It is on this blog and forums like it that atheists talk about what God would have done because of the self-evident poor designs that we see in the natural world. If an omniscient being designed me, surely he could have structured my skeleton in a way that I don't get a sore back all the time. Which takes me to a point that puzzles me. Given that we are supposedly made in the image of God, he must have looked like us right? Is that what this means, that we are made in his image? So is he a bipedal hominid type creature as well? Just something I wonder about. And the pictorial representations often show him as an old man.zeroseven
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Indeed. Or worse, bet an eternal future on such "thinking." Sheesh.tgpeeler
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
tg, I've had many problems with infinite universes as well, but two observations add to the absurdity for me, and they are the fact that our own is expanding and that eventually universe(s) die(s). First of all, how can infinite universes expand? I thought they were already infinite. Also, If one among an infinite number of universes dies, is the number of existing universes now infinite minus one? Baffling that anyone could even think of such things.CannuckianYankee
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Dear God, please give me patience... and give it to me NOW.tgpeeler
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
ba @ 52 "Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses..." Not to mention that it is impossible for an actual infinite of anything physical to exist. :-) If it's physical, it can be counted. If it can be counted, it's not infinite. The multiverse or landscape "theory" is hogwash. They'll have to do better than that. But they can't do better than that. Fun to watch, sometimes. Mostly aggravating, though, I must admit.tgpeeler
September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply