Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[Birdjaguar]

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.

That's why definitions are so important. We each define Reality differently. And where you begin will determine where you end up. Your assumptions about Reality limit the scope of your vision to the post big bang environment that we can observe. And like most assumptions, both yours and mine, they are not verifiable.

 

[zulu9812]

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.

Sorry to jump in late, and sorry again if this has already been posted. The argument that the university's complexity indicates a premeditated thought or guiding hand is not a new one. This was, in fact, first put forward in Christian doctrine by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and was his great scientific proof for the existence of God. However, I would argue that it is not scientific as it is not based on physical, empirical evidence. Rather, it is a philosophical suggestion; nothing more.

 

[cgannon64]

It is scientific in the sense that it takes things science has proved into account, not in the sense that it is actually scientific.

 

[Perfection]

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 senc

I don't need to rebut it speceficly if I can demonstrate that "god did it" can by applied to anything and thus is unscientific (unless, you can, like Paley did, come up with testible statements to see if your solution is correct (Darwin showed that Paley's tests came back false)). Thus all statements of that sort aren't credible evidence either way.

(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")

You can still say that. You could say that I didn't really see it, God made me see it, but it didn't really happen

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?

First off it's quite a bit more complex then just moving a nerve, may the optic disk generates from the optic stalk and thus the blind spot may not be able to be changed without damaging the rest of the eye's development.

finite time: sorta like the last argument, there has been time to devolp new structure, even entirely new organisms,

It's never entirely new organisms, all organisms in the world share a massive amount of similarity

but not enough time to move a nerve a few inches in an existing organism?

Like I said it may not be as simple as movement and given the relatively minimal advantage (which I will discuss further below) it may take a very long time to sort out

the fact that every step must have a selective advantage: and having no blind spot isn't an advatage?

Perhaps not, my blind spot has never caused me any trouble, my mental processes can pretty much get rid off all the negative effects of it. I'd venture that not having it wouldn't benefit me to a significant degree.

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.

No, but it doesn't mean the must have been a god. There is no way to disprove god, however improbalistic arguements for our coming to being is not proof of god as many propose.

 

[Perfection]

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.

I'm betting that the effect would be extremely minimal

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,

How do you know it's not that complex? It could have much broader developmental problems

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)

Where's the selective advantage of having it moved a milimeter

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.

You're alluding complex multi-step process where all the steps have selective advantage, you have not described a realistic system that takes into account selection and devlopemental structure where all steps have a selective advantage. That's a requirement for natural selection, and if you cannot come up with that no matter how simple your system is it's not going to be a valid criticism.

Take into account the developmental biology of the eyes and provide a convincingly strong selective advantage and you may have an arguement.

 

[ybbor]

ybbor, who is supposed to "make sure" that any of these things happen?

that was a figure of speach to suggest that every step has to follow that path

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..

i understand how evoltuion is upposed to work, in fact i would agrue i understand it better the an you. why? because you made this statement:

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

but large changes have to be less easy because evolution states that everry major change is a a result of many smaller changes.

@perfection: now i'n no expert on the human eye, but couldn't the problem be solved my moving it to the edge of the eye? i could be wrong. your statement about organisms sharing a massive amount of similarity, organisms are probably the weakest of those examples, but the thing i would like to focus on is organs. also, i didn't understand your last stement (i'd contend that you were showing off and trying to confuse me and make me look stupid, but i'll stop short of actually accusing you of that )

 

[Perfection]

Well, the optic plate (the retina) develops from the optic stalk (the optic nerve), so the problem is you can't just shift the location of the optic stalk and have the retina develop like normal because you shifted the beginning point of developlment. It's like trying to get a plant to grow in the same spot while putting the seed in a different place.

Plus you haven't established that the blind spot causes a signficant problem in life, and that all your mid-steps are advantageous. I mean how often do you miss something because of your blind spot

 

[cgannon64]

Chesterton, of course, has something to say about this:

An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not beleive in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors into swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentlemen of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery explained, by dwelling on delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things.

To put it another way: The fact that there was no life in the universe, and then there was, and then this life became man, is no less miraculous because it happened in many steps. There was no life, and then there was. That is one miracle. And there was unintelligent life, and then there was intelligent life. That is another miracle.

 

[Blasphemous]

i understand how evoltuion is upposed to work, in fact i would agrue i understand it better the an you. why? because you made this statement:

Why exactly does that statement show that I do not understand it as well as you?

but large changes have to be less easy because evolution states that everry major change is a a result of many smaller changes.

Your use of the word "easy" is wrong. It's Easier for me to move my finger an inch than it is for me to move it a while, but that's still a relative term. If what you meant is "more likely", well, that's another thing. But the way you talk about "easy" and "solution" makes it seem that you see evolution as a process motivated by some kind of intelligence or even just an automatic problem-solving force. The problems that evolution solves get solved at random and only if the problems are big enough to stop those who have them from mating. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean it should have been solved, and just because the solution is seemingly simple doesn't mean it should have happened.

 

[ybbor]

i am not giving it a force or intelligence, if you see it that way maybe that's because you think of it that way. anyway about likihood vs. easyness, let's say there are two steps in a process the first step- A - is easy to do, the 2nd step- B -is just as easy to do, now which is harder to do, step A or steps A and B

@perfection: well i'm interpreting what you said two different ways, so i'll provide a solution for each

1)whay not just have the rods and cones have a series of connecting neves that 'hangs down' further and attaches to the optic nerve/disk (not sure which one)

2) have the optic disk grow in a non-linear pattern like this:

[pre] _
/
L[/pre]

you get the point

all your mid-steps are advantageous

every step has to be advantageous? well, when evolution was first producing the heart, the most logical thing it would start out as would be a muscle or two, but here's the probelm, those muscles don't do anything yet. or when first poducing flaggelum, which came first, the flagellum themselves, or the means to operate them? or DNA istelf, what came first, the actual gentic information (DNA) or the RNA to make/use it? in my previous two examples if one came before the other the existing one is useless.when making an ear, when at first it had to be just a hole in the side of your head, what is the advantage in that? (in fact it would almost certainly be harmful), and when slowly moving a nerve to the ear,what is the advantage in that? and even when you have both a ear canal in your head and a nerve connecting to it you can't do anything unless your nervous system can somehow process that information. and IIRC there are 7 major parts to an ear, which came first? or did they all just magically get the beginings of them mutated at the exact same time? or when creating wings, which came first the ability to know how to use them, the material itself or the muscles to power them?

 

[betazed]

Is this our monthly God Thread? We have one of these every month which peters out after 40 pages without reaching anywhere. Well, to expedite the same for this one too, here are my two cents about the original argument of "Complexity hence God".

IMHO, Science does not show that the universe is inherently complex. Rather complexity is an emergent phenonenon. The basic underlying laws are all very simple. Simple enough to be written down in one 8 by 11 page. But then the various ways the laws can couple to each other and interact creates the diversity of behavior. Even this diversity is not complex in any sense. Each of them can be broken down individually. Although an argument can be made that the whole is actually more than the sum of its parts the difference between the whole and the parts can also be explained by the parts themselves following those self-same laws.

Hence the original argument fails because the complexity it proposes does not exist. It exists only because of our ignorance. Hence the argument "Complexity hence God" can be turned around and said "Lack of complexity hence lack of God.".

 

[ybbor]

@betazed:

what i think he means is the way the laws are, take for instance, gravity, now as far as we know there is no reason gravity has the strength it does, it just happens to be that way, however, if that gravity were to be changed ever so slightly higher, stars when stars explode they could not sufficantly distrubte their materials, any bit lower and stars would not be able to form or hold together. or something like that, not to mention the precisity of the big bang and if the gravity were any different...*poof*

 

[carlosMM]

every step has to be advantageous?

almost. rare is the 'accident' that gets preserved and LATER is uselful.

well, when evolution was first producing the heart, the most logical thing it would start out as would be a muscle or two, but here's the probelm, those muscles don't do anything yet.

how do you know? acutally, the sensible thing is a muscular ring around an artery that speeds up the blood by conraction, similar to the way you push food down your throat when swallowing - a good start!
[@uote]or when first poducing flaggelum, which came first, the flagellum themselves, or the means to operate them?[/quote] please, you do not think a full complete flagellum sprang into existence?

or DNA istelf, what came first, the actual gentic information (DNA) or the RNA to make/use it?

actually, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/Ribosome system is a very complex system that must have evolved in steps. So we do not know how exatly today.

in my previous two examples if one came before the other the existing one is useless.

duh - how do you know it was?

when making an ear, when at first it had to be just a hole in the side of your head, what is the advantage in that? (in fact it would almost certainly be harmful), and when slowly moving a nerve to the ear,what is the advantage in that? [/quot€]eh, antoehr of the same kind of misconceptions: usually these 'parts of the whole' had other functions before.[@uote]and even when you have both a ear canal in your head and a nerve connecting to it you can't do anything unless your nervous system can somehow process that information. and IIRC there are 7 major parts to an ear, which came first? or did they all just magically get the beginings of them mutated at the exact same time?

please, get yourself a few good paleontology books and read up oin that. I wish the new Mickoleit (development of vertebrates) was in English.

or when creating wings, which came first the ability to know how to use them, the material itself or the muscles to power them?

another of these.


ybbor, you know rpeciously little, and a really good and understandable explanation requires you knowing more about the hsitory of life than can be opsted in one post here.

Select one example (wing, ear, whatever) where we have fossil evidence and I will be happy to explain that one.

 

[Blasphemous]

i am not giving it a force or intelligence, if you see it that way maybe that's because you think of it that way. anyway about likihood vs. easyness, let's say there are two steps in a process the first step- A - is easy to do, the 2nd step- B -is just as easy to do, now which is harder to do, step A or steps A and B

Easy is a word that can correctly describe something that is done. It cannot, however, describe something that happens.
"It was easy to do that" = okay.
"It was easy for that to happen" = illogical, since an action cannot actively happen.
And I Am about as far as can be from thinking there is a force or intelligence behind creation. I've been an atheist since the second grade (or perhaps before that, I just can't recall an earlier time when I said I don't believe in god.) I don't think I ever thought there was an intelligence or force behind evolution, as I was already a thorough non-believer by the time I first heard of evolution.
This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned, as you're looking at evolution in the completely wrong way and making meaningless arguments. I'm not gonna continue arguing with you about this.

 

[betazed]

@betazed:

what i think he means is the way the laws are, take for instance, gravity, now as far as we know there is no reason gravity has the strength it does, it just happens to be that way, however, if that gravity were to be changed ever so slightly higher, stars when stars explode they could not sufficantly distrubte their materials, any bit lower and stars would not be able to form or hold together. or something like that, not to mention the precisity of the big bang and if the gravity were any different...*poof*

What you are talking about is fundamentally the Anthopic principle. Universe is exquisitely tuned for life hence purpose of universe must be life. It smells a bit like the arguments aimed against Evolution doesn't it?

While it is possible that some laws of physics cannot be explained without at least a small support from the weak version of the Anthropic principle, that does not mean that it proves a creator. Our universe can be one of the vast numbr of universes. We just happen to live in one because this one happens to have the right set of laws that support life. Where else could we live?

I suggest you read the Wiki article i linked to. It does a good job of showing all the weak points in the argument.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

I guess it would miss the point, if I pointed out that E=mc^2. The first matter was formed from energy, if I recall, when the expansion and cooling of the universe allowed it.

But what you meant, no doubt, was that matter/energy (treating both as one basic "stuff", convertible according to Einstein's equation) exists, and at one point did not.

The problem is the "at one point did not exist" part. As far as I know there is no evidence for that premise.

 

[carlosMM]

That is one miracle. And there was unintelligent life, and then there was intelligent life. That is another miracle.

Why are these in ANY way miracles?

 

[ybbor]

What you are talking about is fundamentally the Anthopic principle. Universe is exquisitely tuned for life hence purpose of universe must be life. It smells a bit like the arguments aimed against Evolution doesn't it?

While it is possible that some laws of physics cannot be explained without at least a small support from the weak version of the Anthropic principle, that does not mean that it proves a creator. Our universe can be one of the vast numbr of universes. We just happen to live in one because this one happens to have the right set of laws that support life. Where else could we live?

I suggest you read the Wiki article i linked to. It does a good job of showing all the weak points in the argument.

i didn't read the entire thing but i read the first 2-3 parts (if you count the intro or not). i didn't entirely understand what those principals were staing by their feintions, but i defintly got a really good feel for them in the explinations. one thing you (and the article) mentions is the posible existance of other universes. why? how? when? you know how much data we have to support that theory? none. do we have any evidence besides someone's creative mind? no. also the weak anthrothingamuwatzee was critized for "lack of creativity" that may hod true if it was describing the earth or materials in the universe, but it's talking about the overall laws, what life could exist in absolute zero (which there would be if stars couldn't form)? what life could exist if the universe had collapsed in a fireball at the big bang? what life could exist if E =/= Mc^2 (and hence there is no equal and opsite reaction, and thus no physics, no friction, no traction, no stoping, etc.)?

 

[WillJ]

one thing you (and the article) mentions is the posible existance of other universes. why? how? when? you know how much data we have to support that theory? none. do we have any evidence besides someone's creative mind? no.

Not quite true.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=51522

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

 

[Blasphemous]

Let's put it this way:
Let's say, you're gambling in Vegas. You go up to the roulette, and bet $100 on the number 7. You get lucky - the ball stops at 7 and you get a bunch of money. You use this money to buy a new bike rack for your car, among other things. Thanks to this, your bikes are safely secured the next weekend when you go somewhere for a biking trip.
But what if the ball had stopped just a bit before, or a bit later? You wouldn't have gotten the money, and you would still have that rickety old bikerack, and your bikes could fall off of the car if you went on a biking trip.
With this logic of yours, if you win the money at the roulette in Vegas, that's a perfect situation for you to go on a biking trip a week later. If the situation were even just a tiny bit different, you would have lost those $100 and not felt safe to go on that biking trip.
But this situation is just as likely as the ball stopping just a bit earlier or a bit later. Nothing at all special at it.
FredLC once posted a story that he translated, that his friend wrote. This story makes my point much better. I'll go look for it in the old Prove God Exists thread.