Evolution versus Creationism

[BasketCase]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

The United States is able to eliminate suffering in places such as Iraq. But, of course, we know what the general worldwide sentiment is towards actually doing so: "don't."

Is the world, therefore, malevolent? Are all anti-war activists malevolent? How about all you CFC'ers who oppose Iraq War #2? Are you malevolent?

No. The people who don't want us in Iraq simply think we shouldn't be messing around in other peoples' business. They think staying out of Iraq and letting Saddam kill people was the right thing to do (or, more accurately, the "least wrong" thing under the circumstances).


And there you have it. If God is able but not willing, that doesn't make him malevolent. Rather, it means He is behaving just like all those anti-Iraq-war peaceniks out there.

By the way--I'm an atheist.

 

[Simple Simon]

The United States is able to eliminate suffering in places such as Iraq. But, of course, we know what the general worldwide sentiment is towards actually doing so: "don't."

Erhm, you went and tried to do it anyways in Iraq, and you had and still have a lot of support and help in Afghanistan. However, the news of rape victims stoned to death and the Taliban on the rise again tells me the US failed. Seems you overestimated your capabilities a tiny bit. And that collapses the rest of your argument.

 

[Smidlee]

One of the things we learn about proteins especially from the "mad cow disease" is that just any shape will not do. So life is not no where near as simple as water fitting into a designed glass. Thus there is very good reason why some proteins are common in all living creatures.

P.S From my understanding the fine tune argument is not saying the universe (nature) is very friendly to life (clearly it's not) just that the universe is fine tune in order to produce the very basic elements required for life as we know it.

 

[Simple Simon]

P.S From my understanding the fine tune argument is not saying the universe (nature) is very friendly to life (clearly it's not) just that the universe is fine tune in order to produce the very basic elements required for life as we know it.

For that to be a testable hypothesis, you'd have to show how other theoretically possible universes would not be able to support life - which means that you must show that the specific 'very basic elements required for life as we know it' are indeed the sole possible such elements. Who says that in a slightly different universe N-based instead of C-based life would not be possible?

Thus, we can dismiss that hypothesis as idle speculation.

 

[El_Machinae]

The 'water in a puddle' arguement deals with the fine tuning argument. If a puddle woke up, it would be amazed that everything in the hole was exactly conformed to its shape (down to the atomic level), and think the hole was built just for it.

Of course a universe has to be fine-tuned for sentient life, if it's going to contain sentient life.

 

[Ghpstage]

The United States is able to eliminate suffering in places such as Iraq. But, of course, we know what the general worldwide sentiment is towards actually doing so: "don't."

Is the world, therefore, malevolent? Are all anti-war activists malevolent? How about all you CFC'ers who oppose Iraq War #2? Are you malevolent?

No. The people who don't want us in Iraq simply think we shouldn't be messing around in other peoples' business. They think staying out of Iraq and letting Saddam kill people was the right thing to do (or, more accurately, the "least wrong" thing under the circumstances).


And there you have it. If God is able but not willing, that doesn't make him malevolent. Rather, it means He is behaving just like all those anti-Iraq-war peaceniks out there.

By the way--I'm an atheist.

Entirely different thing...
For the God argument if he could do something with no repurcussions he should do it, and if he is omnipotent he can do that. If he does not do it, he is therfore malevolent.

Is the world, therefore, malevolent? Are all anti-war activists malevolent? How about all you CFC'ers who oppose Iraq War #2? Are you malevolent?

This is so far removed from the topic at hand its unbelievable
We'd need a new thread in a different section for this discussion

Although in this context I can say one thing, its all about repurcussions, the effects war are disasterous. Whereas God 'should' be able to do things without any negative effect at all.

 

[AngryZealot]

One of the things we learn about proteins especially from the "mad cow disease" is that just any shape will not do.

Exactly, and this is why the arguments from statistics are usually terrible. Many of the amino acids are interchangeable, and all that matters is the shape. There are proteins out there with only ~10% sequence similarity but nearly identical shapes. There are many solutions to the same problem, which this fine tuning argument ignores.

 

[El_Machinae]

And, to be even more detailed, you can get the same amino acid from different genetic sequences.

 

[civ_king]

maybe living things have the same shaped proteins because you know, they evolved from the same organisms???

 

[Smidlee]

Exactly, and this is why the arguments from statistics are usually terrible. Many of the amino acids are interchangeable, and all that matters is the shape. There are proteins out there with only ~10% sequence similarity but nearly identical shapes. There are many solutions to the same problem, which this fine tuning argument ignores.

There are many amino acids that are interchangeable and there are many that are not. They have kept this in mind the whole time.

maybe living things have the same shaped proteins because you know, they evolved from the same organisms???

Or maybe they were design.

 

[GoodGame]

Exactly, and this is why the arguments from statistics are usually terrible. Many of the amino acids are interchangeable, and all that matters is the shape. There are proteins out there with only ~10% sequence similarity but nearly identical shapes. There are many solutions to the same problem, which this fine tuning argument ignores.

I'm lost what you're trying to prove/criticize about statistics. Cladistics? Saying that homologous proteins across species might be convergence directed by the enivronment, rather than conservation of genes?

Shape is important to some protein binding when you're talking van der waal type forces. E.g. Antibody's epitope binding to target antigen. But that's not the only thing that makes or breaks protein interactions.

And actually amino acids often aren't all easily interchangeable in protein structure. That's thanks to limits that the chemistry of their side-chains impose on the structure of the overall protein. Which is why protein structure is complicated and involves multiple structural levels. And is also why it's hard to engineer proteins.

 

[AngryZealot]

I'm lost what you're trying to prove/criticize about statistics.

The statistics are used to "support" the fine tuning argument, but they always neglect the fact that there are multiple solutions to the same problem. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[BasketCase]

Entirely different thing...
For the God argument if he could do something with no repurcussions he should do it

Not if you don't want him to.

For people who opposed Iraq War #2 (before it happened, before any repercussions even had a chance to happen), the morally correct thing to do was to stay out of other peoples' business. The repercussions of staying out of Iraq were not important to them and never entered into their mental equations.

God is merely staying out of your business. From the fact that you haven't committed suicide, it's pretty clear you're glad for the life He (hypothetically) gave you, even though it's not a perfect one.

 

[Lone Wolf]

the morally correct thing to do was to stay out of other peoples' business.

I doubt that the majority, at least, of anti-Iraq war protesters were complete noninterventionists who believed that any stuff that interferes in other people's business (like the police system, or even the hospital system (why you are giving that medicine to him? It's his business if he's gonna die without it, not ours!)) is morally wrong. I think that, althrough they were opposed to the war before it, and, therefore, before any repercussions had a chance to begin, they had the brains to predict some of the repercussions.

 

[Smidlee]

By the way , finding "water in a puddle" itself requires even more fine tuning than the law of physics themselves. Scientist refer this as the "sweet spot" when they are looking for earth-like planets in other solar systems. (earth-like as in "water in puddle"-like) Scientist would wet their pants if they found "water in a puddle" on another planet. Of course finding "water in a puddle" is so common to us we don't realize just how amazing it really is.
The reason they don't get excited about gas giants is because of our knowledge of life as we know it. So I agree the "fine tuning" argument can only deal with life as we know it. One of the basic requirement for life as we know it is water.

 

[AngryZealot]

By the way , finding "water in a puddle" itself requires even more fine tuning than the law of physics themselves. Scientist refer this as the "sweet spot" when they are looking for earth-like planets in other solar systems.

For our solar system, Earth could be about 5% closer or 37% farther away from the sun and still support liquid water. It's not so much a "sweet spot" as it is a huge swath of space.

Scientist would wet their pants if they found "water in a puddle" on another planet.

There's water on Mars and probably a liquid ocean on Europa and Callisto. We're past the "wet their pants" part. "Water in a puddle" is very common.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I never got the "universe is fine-tuned to us" argument. Considering how big the universe is and how many stars and planets are out there, conditions suitable for life will be present in at least one planet and solar system. It's another case of not understanding the vast scales of magnitude involved in the creation of life.

 

[Flying Pig]

Pidgeon-hole proof; the odds of winning the lottery are 16000000/1, but if you sell 17000000 tickets then it must be won at least once.

 

[Ghpstage]

Pidgeon-hole proof; the odds of winning the lottery are 16000000/1, but if you sell 17000000 tickets then it must be won at least once.

Not true, unless you had 17,000,000 different combinations (which in this case wouldn't even be possible!).
Otherwise you would need add the individual chances with a method other than 1/10 + 1/10 = 2/10 (I don't remember what the method is called, or how to do it though, been too long!). Someone else could explain it far better (Looking at you ParadigmShifter!), I hate probability

 

[Flying Pig]

It works for the lottery becsue there is one combination that they pick, and one that you do, and 16 million in total. Then if you pick 17000000 you are more likely to win it than not, but OK it's not certain.

I was just making the point that if you flip a 10,000 sided dice a lot, you're going to get a 10,000 eventually.