Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[Mise]

There are many scientific arguements for and against a creator. It is no surprise that some people believe some and others believe others, and neither question their own beliefs. This is the mark of a bad scientist. A scientist postulates a theory, then tests his theory, and does not conclude his theory is a truth until it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to so many significant figures.

Incidentally, some person in this thread posted some reasons, including a Physics reason, which stated that GRAVITY was correct to billions of significant figures. This of course is a load of codswallop. GRAVITY is NOT that accurate, the COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT IS that accurate.

And in any case, all this proves is the theories related to this constant would collapse if the constant was changed by 1 part in so many billions of sig fig. That doesn't require a creator. It is interesting, and somewhat surprising that such a small change in one variable could create such a huge change to the universe, but in no way does this suggest that someone must have created it as such. For all we know, there could be several "nodes" at which this constant is adjusted such that the universe as we know it is created (think of the how an 'A' note could be played at so many different places on a guitar and it's still the same note), or indeed, there could be (which is most likely) that there are an infinite number of values all the constants can be "tuned" to that create the universe as we know it. Thus, it is no longer that cool.

The fact is, all of these things might hint at a creator, but it requires such a leap of faith that believing in them is so unscientific that anyone who attempts to use this dodgy science to prove that "God" exists is themselves a dodgy scientist, and should not be trusted.

 

[Shadylookin]

Why not? A sperm and an egg create a human. From the tiny "point" of the big bang the universe was created. Am I not more complex than a sperm cell?
What is not logical? We are just quarks/leptons. Nothing more (as yet). Are you saying that there is more to people than quarks and leptons? What would that be? Where did it come from?

Our brains only allow us to perceive the gross forms of matter and not the quark reality behind it. To the best of our current scientific knowledge quarks & leptons are the most basic elements of matter. All matter breaks down to that level: you, me, the rocks and my pet cat. I think that you are the one who is not being logical.

I did not call the universe god. I said god alone exists and is Real. The universe is a product of our limited perception. And within the confines of our perception we can do science and learn all about our universe, but nothing more. Does your argument only apply to a western concept of god? Which western concept of God BTW?
If that is so, then your case is rather limited in its use and application.

no a sperm and egg and a lot of vitamins and nutrients went into making you(which you got from your mothers blood). Nothing is ever gained or lossed so I suppose technically the combination of everything that went into you was as complex as you yourself. So no something simpler cannot make something more complex.

We are made of quarks and leptons, our thoughts our everything. Yet since they exist the things made up by them also exist. Anyway we have nothing to argue over since apparently you don't believe the universe is god(which I thought you implied)

The universe exists outside our perception, if you died(which means you cannot percieve anything) the universe would still exist. So it is not a product of our limited perception. If you believe you cannot learn about god(which means you cannot know if one exists) then how can you believe in one.

 

[Blasphemous]

So it is not a product of our limited perception.

Well, the universe itself is, as far as we know, independant of our perception, but everything we know of the universe is a product of our perception and so the real universe may be something quite different from the universe that we percieve.

 

[cgannon64]

I've never bought the theory that the universe is complex, and so it must have been created. I can understand that complex things can be created by chance.

The theory I do attach myself to is this: The mere fact that matter exists, and at one point did not, points to a creator.

 

[ybbor]

okay don't hae time to read the whole thread but i'll repond to the 'string' throry/multiple universe theory, we have no evidence for these univereses, all we are sying is that if there was no creator than it would make since that there were multiple universes, and if there were multiple universes it could mean there is no Creator, that's circular reasoning

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Faith: firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof

Why try to redefine it? You either have it or not, whether it is faith in God or faith there is no god.

 

[Bluemofia]

well, saying that there must be a creator because there is a fine tuned universe is like saying that there must be a grand intervenier or something like that so you are you (out of the 2 million sperm that could possibly be you, that 1 sperm actually sucedded).

 

[Birdjaguar]

So if what is Real is outside of the universe (because the universe is obviously not under the definition of Real), then how can you assert that anything Real exists?

Somewhere you have to establish your basic assumptions and definitions and lay out the nature of the universe you live in. These foundation stones are on which everything else is built. The assumptions you begin with will determine where you will end up. I begin with a definition of Reality or what is Real: That which is eternal, infinite, unchanging and permanent.
If you do not believe that there is a single fundamental unity to existence that is beyond time and space, then you will have a different starting premise. Your view of existence will have two or more starting entities.

It seems that Real in your sense is just a divination, and I'm wondering what your basis is for asserting that something Real exists. Is the God you talk about (and if I understand you correctly, you are defining God as that which is Real) simply the infinite existense asserted by atheists and theists alike?

I cannot speak for others (usually), but you have my thinking stated correctly. And as I stated above, If you don't start with a fundamental unity, you will have to begin with two or more entities within existence. Western christian thought traditionally goes down this path (god and the universe with maybe heaven or hell). Modern science has complicated matters by adding a real beginning to the universe, as well as, quantum theory.

It seems that the atheist scenario of your "Real God" is the exact same as the theist scenario of your "Real God" only it seems more simple. I also question the reasoning behind giving the fact of existence existing the title of God?

It's all in the trimmings. Atheists have none; theists do. From that begining you can choose to add or not add characteristics to this formless fundamental existence: Consciousness, intelligence, purpose etc. Simply adding some level of consciousness to existence, moves one further from chance driving everything and closer to a purposeful creation. Keep in mind that whatever path one chooses to go down (atheist or theist) the choice, in reality, has already been made: God is already. Our choices do not affect Reality.

How does the universe fit into all this? Well under either the atheist or theist view, it is not Real (by my definition). In my view it has purpose: it is medium through which our consciousness evolves and allows us to discover Truth. You 'll have to coerce some of our resident atheists to expound on what all this means to them.

Hopefully this won't get lost through subsequent postings on this thread... I'm interested in your answer and I find this to be a good discussion.

God forbid!

 

[Birdjaguar]

no a sperm and egg and a lot of vitamins and nutrients went into making you(which you got from your mothers blood). Nothing is ever gained or lossed so I suppose technically the combination of everything that went into you was as complex as you yourself. So no something simpler cannot make something more complex.

We are made of quarks and leptons, our thoughts our everything. Yet since they exist the things made up by them also exist.

Please define what you mean by "exist", "make" and "real". Without some firm anchors we will get lost and talk past each other.

Anyway we have nothing to argue over since apparently you don't believe the universe is god(which I thought you implied)

See my post above #48. Does that make my position clear?

If you believe you cannot learn about god (which means you cannot know if one exists) then how can you believe in one.

The key word in your post is "learn". I do not believe that you can experience god through the intellect. A belief is not an intellectual position. Once you can rationally prove something it is no longer a matter for belief. Reasoning an science are our best tools for undestanding the universe, but not god.

 

[Perfection]

I was at a book store yesterday, and I started flipping through the various books in which people claim to have come to the scientific conclusion that God must exist. A lot of them used a similar arguement:

They all say (in one way or another) that the overwhelming complexity of the universe and the various life-sustaining qualities it exhibits are signs that the universe must have been created. A common analogy is that if you found a watch, you would be led to the conclusion that it was created on the basis of its complexity, rather then it just fell together that way.

What is the counter-argument to this, since all of these God books seem to rest on that line of reasoning.

Try your best to answer the question I asked. A lot of times I notice that when a topic is posted like this people will respond with something like "the notion of god is ridiculous" or "I need not believe your childlike fairy tales!". I know that a counter-argument probably exists, and I'm asking you to tell me what it is. I'm not trying to argue this line of reasoning, so refrain from things like "you must be an illogical idiot from jesusland if you believe this". Thanks!

Well first off this is not a scientific arguement, it is a philosophical one and a bad one at that.

The arguement presumes that there is a natural link between complexity and intelligent origin that I do do not think exists, a nail is not complex but it's certainly created by intelligent means

Evidence of Cosmology
Due to immense scientific discovery over the last few centuries, the ancient Kalam cosmological argument has taken on a new powerful force. The argument is simple and logical.

First, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Second, the universe has a beginning.
Almost all scientists agree that a big-bang occurred in the past, so we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.

The conclusion follows the first two premises, Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first presumption is false, virtual particles attest to that

Evidence of Physics
One of the most powerful arguments are the discoveries of modern science in the field of physics. All the elements seem to conspire together to get the universe to sustain life. For example, physicist Robin Collins said “gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion”. Interesting that it should be so precise.

The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bull’s eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. Several scientists suggest that there are at least 30 0r more physical or cosmological parameters which must be precisely calculated in order for the universe to be able to sustain life.

That presumes that life requires physics like that of our universe and that multiple universes cannot occur

Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin once said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Biochemists have proven that there are “irreducibly complex” molecular machines.

These complicated contraptions are extremely unlikely to have to have been built piece by piece as they had to be present in total in order to maintain life processes. It is quite clear that these structures could not have evolved, they would have to be designed.

That's untrue, while the origin of many are still unknown it has not been shown that they are irreduciby complex, many that creationists argued as irreducibly complex have subsequently been explained. It is not just to have unknowns but to demonstrate that the cannot have occured. Biochemists have not proven irreducible complexity.

Evidence of Biology
Six feet of DNA is coiled into each one of our cells. It contains a four letter alpahbet that spells out the precise information of your body. Coiled into such a small unit is the blueprint for YOU. Scientists agree, that this information is the hallmark of intelligence.

Which scientists? Do they say which ones agree? The scientific community, in general, disagrees with that.

If we were to stumble upon a computer and discovered its programming language what would you conclude? Would you conclude that evolved from non living materials and programmed itself? No, you would conclude it was made and programmed by an intelligent being.

Once again the anology is absurd and unscientific, you take something associated with humans and assume it must work with nature, which IMNSHO is a gross fallacy.

Evidence of Consciousness
Many scientists are concluding that laws and chemistry and physics cannot explain how we experience consciousness.

Which scientists?

We have introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice.

Well, free choice is debatable but why must those be outside the realm of physics and biochemistry?

Some studies have shown that consciousness can continue after a person’s brain has shut down. This would appear to be evidence that we have a soul.

Poorly conducted and debunked studies.

Also, how did we get this conscious? Professor J.P. Moreland said “You can’t get something from nothing. If the universe began with dead matter having no consciousness, how then how do does something totally different occur – Consciousness, thinking, living, feeling, believing creatures- how could it come from materials that don’t?”

We seem to be able to get water that flows changes shape and dissolves stuff from ice that doesn't. That arguement is absurd.

More a comin'!

 

[Perfection]

i would recomend reading the perfection KO's creationuism to get the best (and not that much of the worst) of both sides of the argument

just a counter argument to the "everything isn't perefect" arguemnt, who says God had to create everything perfect? with perfection in every being you couldn't maintain proper blance, i see everything being imperfect as an attribute to ID,

Paley didn't, as with most creationists back when creationism was mainstream biological thought (19th century and earlier). The fact is there's really nothing you can't say "god did it" to. That makes ID unscientific in the way it is now presented

evolution should have weeded these flaws out

Incorrect, as evolution does have limitations including:
The capability of variation
Finite time
Changing enviornments that alter what is flawed
The fact that every step must have a natural selection advantage

something can not create anything more complicated than oneself/resources.

Evidence? Rationale?

Here's my counterarguement

1. Get a liquid with a supersaturated ionic substance in it
2. drop a small crystal of the same ionic substance in it
3. observe the resulting highly complex formation

Or...

Look up stuff on one dimensional cellular automata

okay don't hae time to read the whole thread but i'll repond to the 'string' throry/multiple universe theory, we have no evidence for these univereses, all we are sying is that if there was no creator than it would make since that there were multiple universes, and if there were multiple universes it could mean there is no Creator, that's circular reasoning

You're misreading the arguement, the arguement is that multiple universes could logically explain the occurance of improbable events without god, therefore improbabilites do not indicate the presence of god.

 

[Shadylookin]

Evidence? Rationale?

Here's my counterarguement

1. Get a liquid with a supersaturated ionic substance in it
2. drop a small crystal of the same ionic substance in it
3. observe the resulting highly complex formation

Or...

Look up stuff on one dimensional cellular automata

chemically/atomically it is equal. Thus not more complex. nothing is ever gained or lossed only chages forms remember. Thus nothing can be more complex that it's individual parts.

Please define what you mean by "exist", "make" and "real". Without some firm anchors we will get lost and talk past each other.

can't we have a debate without such semantics?

exist: To have actual being; be real.
make: to create
real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

The key word in your post is "learn". I do not believe that you can experience god through the intellect. A belief is not an intellectual position. Once you can rationally prove something it is no longer a matter for belief. Reasoning an science are our best tools for undestanding the universe, but not god.

so why do you believe? typically one at least presents a faulty argument, you seem to just be saying because you want to believe. While I admire the honesty I don't think you should use it for a debate.

 

[Perfection]

chemically/atomically it is equal. Thus not more complex. nothing is ever gained or lossed only chages forms remember. Thus nothing can be more complex that it's individual parts.

1. Then you must argue the same for humanity as the individual parts remain the same.

2. Please come up with a precisely defined measure of complexity.

I would argue that a human is more complex then a hunk of salt of the same mass and a good definition of complexity would recognize that. Since yours does not I would describe it as not a good definition.

 

[Birdjaguar]

can't we have a debate without such semantics?
exist: To have actual being; be real.
make: to create
real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

If we cannot agree on what such words mean, how can we have an intelligent discussion? BTW what is "actual being"?

so why do you believe? typically one at least presents a faulty argument, you seem to just be saying because you want to believe. While I admire the honesty I don't think you should use it for a debate.

Belief has nothing to do with arguments; why would I present some half baked ideas to support something that cannot be supported by facts? No intelligent person would be pursuaded. Belief cannot be debated. You can call me stupid and tell me that I am wrong, and show me your evidence to the contrary, but unless we are discussing something about the physical universe, all your arguments are pointless. The "prove god exists" threads (2000+ posts worth) are illustative of this process. For the most part it was people making statements and the other side saying "you're wrong" and here's why. No minds were changed. The scientists and atheists want proof of god within the physical universe that they can see, feel, touch measure. Belief is all about things that cannot be counted and measured. Why do I believe? I think that humans are geneticaly built to believe in things they cannot understand.

When we are forced to define our assumptions and terms we layout how we see the universe working. It seems to me that you believe that the universe is all of existence. There is nothing more. But since we now think that the universe had a specific beginning, the problem of what was before comes up. Science is working on that and they "believe" they have a course of study that will answer the question.

 

[Blasphemous]

How does the universe fit into all this? Well under either the atheist or theist view, it is not Real (by my definition). In my view it has purpose: it is medium through which our consciousness evolves and allows us to discover Truth. You 'll have to coerce some of our resident atheists to expound on what all this means to them.

The universe "fits in" to nothing. All that Is fits into the universe.
The universe is the sum of all reality. Reality is all that which is continually and consistently observable, measureable, or detectable.
Because we cannot, indeed, leave the confines of our perception, the only reality that we can Know is that which we percieve with our senses. Thus it is real, as nothing is more real than it.

 

[ybbor]

Paley didn't, as with most creationists back when creationism was mainstream biological thought (19th century and earlier). The fact is there's really nothing you can't say "god did it" to. That makes ID unscientific in the way it is now presented

this is one of those times when people say something without really 'saying' anything, you didn't rebut my point, or even make any connection to it, you covered it with a blanket statement about about why you feel intelligent dsign doesn't make sence (and a poor statement at that, if you saw me throw a \piece of paper in the trashcan and then asked how'd that piece of paper get there? i couldn't say "God did it")

Incorrect, as evolution does have limitations including:
The capability of variation
Finite time
Changing enviornments that alter what is flawed
The fact that every step must have a natural selection advantage

i'll use the example of the blind spot produced by a human eye thanks to the connection of that neve or whatever
capability of variation: you believe that new organs/systems can be created but don't believe a nerve can move a few inches?
finite time: sorta like the last argument, there has been time to devolp new structure, even entirely new organisms, but not enough time to move a nerve a few inches in an existing organism?
the fact that every step must have a selective advantage: and having no blind spot isn't an advatage?

You're misreading the arguement, the arguement is that multiple universes could logically explain the occurance of improbable events without god, therefore improbabilites do not indicate the presence of god.

but we have no evidence for these universes, we have ntohing, nothing! this is just an idea thrown out there, you can't say well since it could have happeneed this way that means there is no God.

 

[Blasphemous]

this is one of those times when people say something without really 'saying' anything, you didn't rebut my point, or even make any connection to it, you covered it with a blanket statement about about why you feel intelligent dsign doesn't make sence (and a poor statement at that, if you saw me throw a \piece of paper in the trashcan and then asked how'd that piece of paper get there? i couldn't say "God did it")

But you can say that god made you do it. In fact, it is not unheard of for a religious person to believe that everything they do they do because of god. =|

i'll use the example of the blind spot produced by a human eye thanks to the connection of that neve or whatever
capability of variation: you believe that new organs/systems can be created but don't believe a nerve can move a few inches?
finite time: sorta like the last argument, there has been time to devolp new structure, even entirely new organisms, but not enough time to move a nerve a few inches in an existing organism?
the fact that every step must have a selective advantage: and having no blind spot isn't an advatage?

The thing is that changes are random, and not designed with any purpose. Remaining flaws are just bad luck. The only thing that forces a flaw out is if it detracts from an individual's chances to mate. If you can live with the blind spot, and you can successfully find a mate and reproduce, it won't be eliminated from the genepool.

 

[ybbor]

The thing is that changes are random, and not designed with any purpose. Remaining flaws are just bad luck. The only thing that forces a flaw out is if it detracts from an individual's chances to mate. If you can live with the blind spot, and you can successfully find a mate and reproduce, it won't be eliminated from the genepool.

well it would detract from the indivdiauls chances to mate, as it would be slightly easier for a predator to sneak up on the animal. and it seems like your trying to have it both ways, your saying that changes are random and flaws would still persist, but the whole idea behind evolution is that flaws are weeded out through natural seection, both sides can be pressed to a degree, but your saying that it's possible for new spoecies to arrive, new organs to devolp, new organelles to emerge, but it just so happens that a far less complex change, preumably only involving a few pieces of DNA just so happens not to happen, evem though it is far less complex, would require almost infinitly less genetic mutation and couls be more easily done in smaller incriements (move it 1 half of a milimeter every generation and you'll have it unobstructing the line of sight in no time) as opposed to new organs or such (first create a cell that just so happens to work for the intended purpose, make sure the cell is able to reporduce without using too much energy, which just so happens to grow and produce more of itself every generation, making sure the trait doesn't get wiped out when mating, hope the cell doesn't get damaged, or mutate in a way that would stop its function or reproduction, have it break off and specialize, make it so the cell just happens to have the right proportion of specialized cells, all of which must be able to reproduce and survive, make sure the path to the other organs it needs to connect to just so happens to end up in the right place, along with the connecting organs just so happening to all undergo the same gentic mutation and the same time that would allow proper flow between the organs, make sure the change is not harmful in each and every step, make sure the organism's defenses don't think it is harmful, make sure it doesn't consume to many reources, make sure the organism's transportation system just so happens to be able to connect with the new organ at the same time it's bieng devolped (making sure this part of the DNA also makes it through every generation of reproduction) and most important, make sure every link along the way survies to reporoduction, otherwise the whole process starts over, and that's just for a single organ let alone a whole organ system or a whole orgaism, let alone a community if organisms, and of course every single one of these steps must happen in order at the right time and with evry DNA change being either dominant or having the other mating organism be at the same stage in the mutation process, making sure the organisms the new organism mates with doesn't have a stronger dominant), yeah i guess i can understand how the latter can happen and not the former.

 

[Blasphemous]

ybbor, who is supposed to "make sure" that any of these things happen?
I think it is you who does not understand the basic concept of evolution:
Random changes happen with every generation. Changes that severely damage the individual's chances to survive and mate do not stay in the genepool for long since those who possess them are not likely to get a chance to mate and pass the gene on to more individuals. Changes that greatly increase the individual's chance to sruvive and mate are integrated over time into most of the species because those who possess the change are more likely to mate and pass the change on to offspring who are in turn more likely to pass it on. Changes that do not make that much of a difference may spread or die out almost completely at random since they don't cause a real difference in the chances of an individual surviving and mating.
If you already understand all of this I don't see your point - you treat the process as one guided by an intellect that can make small changes easily and large changes less easily. That's not the way evolution is. Deal with it.

 

[carlosMM]

What is the counter-argument to this, since all of these God books seem to rest on that line of reasoning.

Who or what created that AMAZINGLY poweful and complex creator?