Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[Perfection]

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

Sorry I'm not following you

Here's the basic point, to alter the placement of the optic nerve you'd have to simultaneously alter the location of the optic stalk and the developmental process of the eye, which is a tall order (and it may not stop there as the genes may effect other areas as well). Also you still haven't demonstrated that having not a blind spot is a singificant improvement, I have a blindspot, and yet in my 18 years of existance I have not had one problem because of it.

 

[Perfection]

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.

We have some somewhat questionable evidence, but the main point is that it demonstrates that god is not a neccesity from imporbabilistic phenomena

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)?

Actually if stars couldn't form it would still be above absolute zero, but perhaps electrical impulses traveling through superconductive liquid helium

what life could exist if the universe had collapsed in a fireball at the big bang?

Intricate networks of flowing plasma perhaps.

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.)?

That's wrong! It would be no physics as we know it, it could operate on a completely unusual set of laws and life in some bizarre form may arise.

Oh and, complex behavior has already been observed in computer simulated universes with physics completly unlike the physics on earth.

 

[Uiler]

God (no pun intended), this argument is so old. It's interesting how the early Church thinkers (I think someone mentioned Thomas Aquinas?) came up with the opinion that science/logic/whatever since every-one is screwing up the terms anyway points to a creator when the Taoist philosophers (probably from around the same era) came up with a different conclusion:

[EDIT: Removed this bit because I just came across a better translation of this passage and it wasn't actually talking about what I thought it was talking about. Damn. God I hate Taoist philosophers sometimes...Oh and 19th century Jesuit monks who are translating them...]

During the late Han period (during the time of the early Church), an extremely influential movement in Taoism arose called the Hsuan-hsueh movement. This movement would influence Taoist and hence Chinese thought for the rest of Chinese history.

Kuo Hsiang, one of the two most important Taoists of this movement wrote commentaries on important Taoist texts like the Chuang-tzu where he argued against the existence of a Creator. When you look at his importance, think of him as the guy who put together the version of the New Testament that we know today. He selected what chapters were going to go into it and in what arrangement, edited the text etc. and wrote one of the most important religious/philsophical commentaries in Chinese history.

Kuo Hsiang argued that there either we can trace things back to infinity (in which case what need of a Creator?), or we can trace it back to a first cause. If we take our universe and let us assume that there a first cause and this first cause is a creator? If there is a creator, where did he come from? If he is there, then he himself must have been spontaneously created. Or if he was not spontaneously created then he must have been created. Then who was the guy who created the creator? Thus a search for a creator is a search for "emptiness" or something which spontaneously arises. Therefore, everything occurs by an uncontrolled improvisation whether there is a creator or not.

You know, this *is* actually the traditional Chinese creation myth. There was nothing. Then there was yin and yang. And then from yin and yang was born some guy. He hammered togethered the foundations of heaven and earth and then he died. Various parts of his body became various parts of everything else.

The Chinese idea of the universe encompasses everything - heaven and earth. Being and not being are all part of the Chinese idea of the universe. There is no concept of being "outside". Note this idea is flexible enough to encompass multiple universes as can be seen from other Taoist writings so it is not saying there is only one universe. Just that it is all part of the Tao. Multiple realities, multiple universes are all part of the Tao.

Other arguments of his:

"What does not exist cannot produce things that exist. How, then, is existence possible? Things spontaneously produce themselves. That's really all there is to metaphysics. The self cannot produce things, and it cannot be produced. Things are not created intentionally. The self exists for itself, in itself, simply in virtue of being what it is. That means there are no overall explanations, because the principle of existence and action in each thing is inherent in that thing and emerges spontaneously. The word "t'ien" (nature or heaven) means the spontaneity or play of things, not the blue sky, though the sky too might be a place to play."

"Look. Not only is it impossible for not-being to become being, it is impossible for being to become not-being. So from where and how do things and for that matter the absence of things arise? What came first? If we say yin and yang came first, how did they come? From where? Maybe nature came first. But nature is only another name for beings. Suppose I say the Tao came first. But the Tao is only another name for not-being, so how can it arise? There must be another thing or not-thing and so on infinitely. When you get down to it, we cannot say anything except that things just are, that they arise spontaneously and spontaneously disappear."

"Everything is alike in that it is part of nature, but nothing knows itself or commands itself consciously. Everything changes all the time; the world is always in process. But nothing commands things to change. They change themselves and one another spontaneously, by the simple emergence of their own nature, of the nature in them. Leave things alone and things will be perfectly realized without your help. Things seem to be directed by an intelligence, but in fact each simply does what it does. Let that happen; it will happen in any case."

"When a man is born, insignificant though he is, he is already what he has to be. The whole universe as it exists is the condition of his own existence. Nothing could cease to exist without having an effect on him. If one thing were different, perhaps he would be annihilated."

"When you get right down to it, there is no genuine distinction between right and wrong. Every one listens to his own opinion: he thinks what he thinks is right is right, and, if anyone disagrees, that they're wrong. Now first of all, if the distinction were evident, we'd agree more often, as we agree that the sky is blue. The distinction between right and wrong actually arises from partiality. Find a point of view on which the universe is a finger and all things are one horse. Then just let judgment go and live in peace. All things enact what they are. All things enjoy themselves. There is no distinction between right and wrong."

"Moral principles do emerge from human nature, but human nature changes in response to its situation. If you accept the principles of the past provisionally or experimentally, you can stay flexible. But if you get rigid, you'll be broken."

"Actually, it's easy to do nothing. What's hard is to do something without harming anything."

 

[Uiler]

OK, the better translation of the passage I edited out is:

"'Chi Chen', said Shao Chih, 'taught Chance; Chieh Tzu taught Predestination. In the speculations of these two schools, on which side did right lie?'

'The cock crows', replied T'ai Kung Tiao, 'and the dog barks. So much we know. But the wisest of us could not say why one crows and the other barks, nor guess why they crow or bark at all.

'Let me explain. The infinitely small is inappreciable; the infinitely great is immeasurable. Chance and Predestination must refer to the conditioned. Consequently, both are wrong.

'Predestination involves a real existence. Chance implies an absolute absence of any principle. To have a name and the embodiment thereof, ‹ this is to have a material existence. To have no name and no embodiment, ‹ of this one can speak and think; but the more one speaks the farther off one gets.

'The unborn creature cannot be kept from life. The dead cannot be tracked. From birth to death is but a span; yet the secret cannot be known. Chance and Predestination are but a priori solutions.

'When I seek for a beginning, I find only time infinite. When I look forward to an end, I see only time infinite. Infinity of time past and to come implies no beginning and is in accordance with the laws of material existences. Predestination and Chance give us a beginning, but one which is compatible only with the existence of matter.

'Tao cannot be existent. If it were existent, it could not be non-existent. The very name of Tao is only adopted for convenience sake. Predestination and Chance are limited to material existences. How can they bear upon the infinite?

'Were language adquate, it would take but a day to fully set forth Tao. Not being adequate, it takes that time to explain material existences. Tao is something beyond material existences. It cannot be conveyed either by words or by silence. In that state which is neither speech nor silence, its transcendental nature may be apprehended.' "

http://www.galileolibrary.com/ebooks/as07/chuangtzu_page_27.htm

 

[cgannon64]

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

I do not understand science's story correctly, then. Am I wrong in saying that, at one point, there was nothing - no energy, no matter - and then there was an explosion of energy?

Or does the theory say that there was always a ball of energy, and it exploded? I'm confused...I was always under the impression that there was nothing, and an explosion, and then something:

Carlos: The creation of a universe out of nothing is a miracle. (Unless I am wrong about the "nothing" part.) The creation of life out of not-life is a miracle. Science has not yet been able to explain it. I'm pretty sure they have created amino acids and such in labs, but not life. And, the creation of creative intelligence out of noncreative intelligence is, well, its miraculous. Its explainable by science, obviously, but it also has the hint of a miracle.

 

[carlosMM]

Carlos: The creation of a universe out of nothing is a miracle. (Unless I am wrong about the "nothing" part.) The creation of life out of not-life is a miracle. Science has not yet been able to explain it. I'm pretty sure they have created amino acids and such in labs, but not life. And, the creation of creative intelligence out of noncreative intelligence is, well, its miraculous. Its explainable by science, obviously, but it also has the hint of a miracle.

why do you use the word 'creation'? there is no indication whatsoever anything was 'created'. 'Came into being (as defined by our possibilities of eprception)' is mroe like it.

no energy, no matter, no time doesn't mean there wasn't something .


As for 'intelligence' - you should have read enough about evolution on this forum to know it is no miracle at all, but rather a must if you just 'roll the dice' often enough. What 'hint' of a miracle? it call it more of a miracle if an intelligent being was creating something whent ehre is no matter, no energy, no time, no intelligence for the intelligent being to consist of!

 

[Uiler]

What the theory says is that we can't explain what happened at the singularity that was the Big Bang because our laws of physics do not work at this point in space and time. Since we cannot describe the singularity nor anything that occurred prior to the singularity we cannot know if it affected anything which occurred after the Big Bang. Actually saying prior is wrong because basically time as we know it started at the Big Bang.

I do not understand science's story correctly, then. Am I wrong in saying that, at one point, there was nothing - no energy, no matter - and then there was an explosion of energy?

Or does the theory say that there was always a ball of energy, and it exploded? I'm confused...I was always under the impression that there was nothing, and an explosion, and then something:

Carlos: The creation of a universe out of nothing is a miracle. (Unless I am wrong about the "nothing" part.) The creation of life out of not-life is a miracle. Science has not yet been able to explain it. I'm pretty sure they have created amino acids and such in labs, but not life. And, the creation of creative intelligence out of noncreative intelligence is, well, its miraculous. Its explainable by science, obviously, but it also has the hint of a miracle.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Existence is infintite, and in infinity everything is possible. There are probably plenty of universes that can't support life or anything at all. We just happen to live in one that can.

 

[cgannon64]

why do you use the word 'creation'? there is no indication whatsoever anything was 'created'. 'Came into being (as defined by our possibilities of eprception)' is mroe like it.

no energy, no matter, no time doesn't mean there wasn't something .

Yeah. And your 'something' is starting to be very very vague. It exists outside of time, outside our laws of physics; it is not energy or matter. It sounds very mysterious. And...godlike.

As for 'intelligence' - you should have read enough about evolution on this forum to know it is no miracle at all, but rather a must if you just 'roll the dice' often enough. What 'hint' of a miracle? it call it more of a miracle if an intelligent being was creating something whent ehre is no matter, no energy, no time, no intelligence for the intelligent being to consist of!

What do you mean by that last statement? Are you saying that if God created the universe out of nothing, that would be miraculous? If you are, then you would be right!

 

[carlosMM]

Yeah. And your 'something' is starting to be very very vague. It exists outside of time, outside our laws of physics; it is not energy or matter. It sounds very mysterious. And...godlike.

The last part is the one that doesn't follow - 'we have no clue' means 'we have no clue', not 'God did it'!

What do you mean by that last statement? Are you saying that if God created the universe out of nothing, that would be miraculous? If you are, then you would be right!

No, I am saying that it sounds very weird that something that CAN create something like the universe or so while it itself is lacks matter, time, intelligence, energy makes a bible- or quran-like god quite illigocal. Its very existence would require a miracle, thus it's own existence to work that miracle

not a good base for reasoning!



Your argument goes a bit like this: if it is a miracle, then a god must have worked it, whose existence would be a miracle, thus requiring it to have been done by a God, whose existence then is a miracle.....

see the circle?

so saying that the existence of intelligent life smells like a miracle, then using that as the reason for the existence of God is nothing but a circlular argument with no proof or indication going for it.

 

[cgannon64]

The last part is the one that doesn't follow - 'we have no clue' means 'we have no clue', not 'God did it'!

When science cannot provide an answer, God is a possible one. It follows quite well. Science has no way (at least that I can see) of figuring out what created the universe, if it is beyond time, and thus beyond any realm of observation.

No, I am saying that it sounds ve4ry weird that something that CAN create something like the universe or so while it itself is lacks matter, time, intelligence, energy makes a bible- or quran-like god quite illigocal. Its very existence would require a miracle, thus it's own existence to work that miracle

not a good base for reasoning!

I suppose God does sound illogical, if you imagine him to be a person, who makes something with his hands, or a force, which creates the universe through an explosion. But if you imagine him as a being above this universe, physical manifestation, and energy; imagine that he is pure conciousness (you were wrong in saying he lacks it). Why can he not create the universe? He is not physically present, and he lacks energy, because he is above it. He is the creator of it.

To put the question back to you: It seems quite illogical to me that a force of nature could create nature itself. What physical law exists that allows for the creation of physics? What force could create time, if not God?

 

[carlosMM]

When science cannot provide an answer, God is a possible one. It follows quite well. Science has no way (at least that I can see) of figuring out what created the universe, if it is beyond time, and thus beyond any realm of observation.

that argument is so old it has a rancid stink to it. Science could not explain a LOT, combustion, gravity, light fraction, Doppler shift, etc, and always it was 'God did it'.

I suppose God does sound illogical, if you imagine him to be a person, who makes something with his hands, or a force, which creates the universe through an explosion. But if you imagine him as a being above this universe, physical manifestation, and energy; imagine that he is pure conciousness (you were wrong in saying he lacks it). Why can he not create the universe? He is not physically present, and he lacks energy, because he is above it. He is the creator of it.

Why should anyone in any way care about something to theoritical and useless?

To put the question back to you: It seems quite illogical to me that a force of nature could create nature itself. What physical law exists that allows for the creation of physics? What force could create time, if not God?

oh, hehe, that pitfall: because there is no force in your definition that could create physics there cannot be a force in it (yet unknown that can!

What god could create time if there isn't a physical law that governs the forces and effects working on said god? If there is SOMETHING (what you insist must be a god) beyond OUR ability to emasure and explain atm - that may well be something totally un-god-ish!

quit trying to save that lost concept of the almighty creator (historically with direct influence on our lives) by simply encompassing all we know, then saying 'but outside of THAT.......'. it sounds a bit too apologetic and righteous. 'Oh, OK, no literal Genesis, but you have to INTERPRET it.
Oh, OK, no interpretation of Genesis, but who created life?
Oh, OK, abiogenesis, but who made the universe sucha great place to life.
Oh, OK, chances ARE good with so many planets, but who MADE the universe?'


you cna go on forever and still will never get to a point where a god is more likely than everything else.



EDIT: to get back to the point: there is NO scientific argument for a creator, and most philosophical ones are dumb.

 

[cgannon64]

that argument is so old it has a rancid stink to it. Science could not explain a LOT, combustion, gravity, light fraction, Doppler shift, etc, and always it was 'God did it'.

But in this case, how can science possibly explain it? We are talking about explaining something that happened before the invention of time. It is completely outside of what we can observe! How can any theory rise above being just that - a theory?

Why should anyone in any way care about something to theoritical and useless?

Scientists have probably come up with more useless theories than theologians.

you cna go on forever and still will never get to a point where a god is more likely than everything else.

I do not care about what is most likely, I care about what is most sensible.

And, you keep on saying that we cannot know "atm", and comparing it to theories that were once unknowable, but now are known. But, tell me, how can we know anything about the period that existed before time itself??

EDIT: As for your edit: I honestly cannot retort to that. I beleive in something that is "dumb". The case is put to rest, and you are victorious, able barrister!

 

[carlosMM]

But in this case, how can science possibly explain it? We are talking about explaining something that happened before the invention of time. It is completely outside of what we can observe! How can any theory rise above being just that - a theory?

For one thing, we can't know what we will know.
For another - if we will never know, does that make a god likely?

Scientists have probably come up with more useless theories than theologians.

Yes, they try different hypotheses until they hit the right one and can call it theory.
Theologists tend to be incapable of shifting their positiona ccording to evidence.

I do not care about what is most likely, I care about what is most sensible.

So you know what is sensible before the creation of time, matter and energy?

Right!

And, you keep on saying that we cannot know "atm", and comparing it to theories that were once unknowable, but now are known. But, tell me, how can we know anything about the period that existed before time itself??

AS I said - no telling at all!



you missed my edit

 

[Uiler]

The problem is - let's say there are two options. Something created the universe and the other is the universe arose without a creator, by whatever process. Let us say that by the universe had to be created by a creator, that it cannot arise without a creator. Then how did the creator come about? If you say he arose by some process which did not involve a creator then if the creator could arise from a process which did not involve an intelligent creator then what stops the universe from arising without an intelligent creator? If the creator was created by a creator then just go back further and further until we get to the initial creator.

The argument you are saying is that the creator is not part of the universe such that even the laws of logic about creation no longer apply to him. What proof do you have of this? What logical process leads this conclusion? What evidence is there? The only logical process which leads to this conclusion is the assumption that someone must have created the universe and since if the laws of the logic of creation apply to him it leads to a circular argument then he must be outside the universe where these laws do not apply. However this is in itself a circular argument.

There is none, but your faith. Then now your argument is no longer based on logic but on sheer faith. Therefore you can no longer say your argument is based on logic, evidence or proof. If your belief that God is so far outside the universe that logic no longer applies to him, a belief which you have no logical argument for mind you, fails so does your entire argument.

When science cannot provide an answer, God is a possible one. It follows quite well. Science has no way (at least that I can see) of figuring out what created the universe, if it is beyond time, and thus beyond any realm of observation.



I suppose God does sound illogical, if you imagine him to be a person, who makes something with his hands, or a force, which creates the universe through an explosion. But if you imagine him as a being above this universe, physical manifestation, and energy; imagine that he is pure conciousness (you were wrong in saying he lacks it). Why can he not create the universe? He is not physically present, and he lacks energy, because he is above it. He is the creator of it.

To put the question back to you: It seems quite illogical to me that a force of nature could create nature itself. What physical law exists that allows for the creation of physics? What force could create time, if not God?

 

[cgannon64]

For one thing, we can't know what we will know.

No. I am pretty sure we can say confidently that we will never know, and never have any evidence concerning, what happened before the creation of time and universe itself. We can observe the universe, and deduce that it came from an explosion. But what happened before the explosion, and what caused it, we can NEVER know, because it is outside of what we can observe.

Theologists tend to be incapable of shifting their positiona ccording to evidence.

What evidence? Theologians accept that there is no evidence regarding God.

So you know what is sensible before the creation of time, matter and energy?

Right!

I know which theories seem sensible to me.

AS I said - no telling at all!

Good! Then accept that your faith in future theories that can be proven is as unprovable as my faith in God!

you missed my edit

No, no, I got it; I beleive in something dumb, etc.

 

[cgannon64]

The argument you are saying is that the creator is not part of the universe such that even the laws of logic about creation no longer apply to him. What proof do you have of this? What logical process leads this conclusion? What evidence is there?

There is no evidence, and I accept that.

The only logical process which leads to this conclusion is the assumption that someone must have created the universe and since if the laws of the logic of creation apply to him it leads to a circular argument then he must be outside the universe where these laws do not apply. However this is in itself a circular argument.

I don't understand how it is a circular arugment. I acknowledge that it may seem irrational to beleive that the universe needs a creator, but God does not. But, this is because God is, essientially, the irrational. The eternal, unchangable, uncreated - all these things seem irrational to us, because we only know that which is the opposite of those things - the mortal, the changable, the created. The universe must have been created, because it is rational. Because, as we all know, physical things must have a creator. But, when you begin to form an idea of God, you accept that he is not physical, and as a result, does not require a creator. I am not holding God to a different standard than the universe. Actually, I am. But it is because God requires a different standard. When you look at a physical universe, you have to look for a creator. When you look at the idea of a God, you do not.

I also accept that God is conjecture.

Btw, this arguments tend to pull people down into the mud and beat them with sticks, and when they try to call out for context, they just seem silly. Uiller, you managed to avoid the series of quote and responses, and I like that, because those limit one to arguing about the unneccessary details, and are filled with exclamations and smilies.

 

[carlosMM]

No. I am pretty sure we can say confidently that we will never know, and never have any evidence concerning, what happened before the creation of time and universe itself. We can observe the universe, and deduce that it came from an explosion. But what happened before the explosion, and what caused it, we can NEVER know, because it is outside of what we can observe.

a lot of smart people in physics disagree - they say we may well get clues by recreating a big bang in a particle collider. That's why e.g. CERN works on it.

What evidence? Theologians accept that there is no evidence regarding God.

see! no evidence. So there cannot be (topic of this thread) any indication for the presence of any god by science.

I know which theories seem sensible to me.

a classic case of erraneoud conclusion: if, as you sa,y we can't know anything about it, how can we make a SENSIBLE guess?

Good! Then accept that your faith in future theories that can be proven is as unprovable as my faith in God!

No, as a lot of experts say it is well possible - and science has a history of finding evidence while theology has a history of being smack wrong.

No, no, I got it; I beleive in something dumb, etc.

No, not dumb - you just refuse to do the one last mental step: accepting that human nature induces us to believe dumb things and thus leads us into danger of using 'common sense' where common sense can't help

If you'd say. OK, we have no clue, and I personally for my well-being chose to believe there is one - fine. But you claim to make a SENSIBLE decision on this based on your common sense interpretation.

and yes, a believe in a god such as yours does strike me as a weird case of logic and reasoning breaking down - so close to the finish!
A lot of people believe singularily stoopid stuff - Noah's ark, Jona and the whale, WMD in Iraq.
I know you (and this thread proves it again) as someone who approaches these things with logic - but here you suddenly jump to 'sense' - WHY??????

 

[carlosMM]

I also accept that God is conjecture.

Missed that, was already replying to your previous post. Ignore my previous post, you say here exactly what I wanted to read

 

[cgannon64]

see! no evidence. So there cannot be (topic of this thread) any indication for the presence of any god by science.

There cannot be any evidence for God, but you can look at he evidence and make sure that it fits into your theory about God, rather than clash with it.

a classic case of erraneoud conclusion: if, as you sa,y we can't know anything about it, how can we make a SENSIBLE guess?

I'm not making an educated guess. I am making a guess, and I am trying to confirm that it is a sensible one. Sensible doesn't mean supported by evidence, it means that it makes sense.

No, as a lot of experts say it is well possible - and science has a history of finding evidence while theology has a history of being smack wrong.

Oh, yes, the myth of the march of science, progressing onward and in every battle smashing the darkness and mystery of the priests, destroying their instruments of delusion! Oh, you romantic, I hope your light of truth keeps on shining and destroying every bastion of manmade gods!

I know you (and this thread proves it again) as someone who approaches these things with logic - but here you suddenly jump to 'sense' - WHY??????

Because, you get to the end, and nothing is there. You must jump to something. You jump to disbelief, and insistence on hard facts, and you find you never reach the finish. You find that this is the end, if you insist upon that. I decide, being so close to the finish, I must leap.