Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Keyword: YET.

Just because we haven't yet figured something out doesn't mean it is necesarilly the result of supernatural or guided agencies. Nor does it mean it is necesarilly a more complex process than building a space shuttle - just a more elusive one.

Well, which is more plausible? First off, as I keep stating, one human cell is more complex than a space shuttle. This is a brute fact. Second, a space shuttle is one of the most complex (if not the most complex) thing that man has ever built to date. If it takes intelligence to built something that complex, then why are we hesitate to conclude that something extremely more complex was also a product of I.D?? Makes no sense.

Designing something based on what we already understand about the physical laws of this Universe is always going to be easier than piecing together an event (or numerous events) that took place over a billion years ago. That's just basic logic.

This would be a good point, if it were actually the case. We do know what a human cell consist of, and what it takes to make it. We just dont know how it could have occurred from a naturalistic process, given the early conditions of the earth.

And what happens when they do figure it out? Would you take that as proof that you are wrong?

If they do figure it out, guess what, it would take intelligence right?? So therefore, it would still be a produce of intelligent design. They have to provide an answer as to how life could have originated from nonliving material, naturally, with no intelligent design involved. I don't think they can do that. They have two problems, the first one is to figure out how did it get to where we could beat the Penrose odds, which is a huge problem for naturalism itself, then they have to figure out how did the amino acids that make up the proteins configure itself in a way to form a living cell, despite the early earths conditions. Two huge problems that I don't think will ever be answered from a naturalistic POV.

Hold on, you just said we don't know how to make a single living cell, so how can you make any assertions whatsoever about how "complicated" the process of making a cell is?

Hmm, wouldnt the fact that we dont know how to make it mean that it is extremely complicated?? Maybe its just me.

Can you build a space shuttle?

No, I cant.

I love how you keep saying that, as if it means anything.

It means a lot. You are basically saying that long ago, when no one was around to see it, living cells were originating. Cells, which are more complex in their nature than a space shuttle, were originating, long, long, ago. Fast forward to the present. Human intelligence, which can build everything from a mousetrap to a space shuttle, are capable of building and creating these things, but we can't figure out a way to produce a living cell. So we cant do today, with intelligence, what was done billions of years ago, with no intelligence. If you dont see the faith in this belief system, then I really cant help you.

Completely nonsensical. Just because we currently can do something and can't do something else doesn't mean it's more complex - it just means it's harder to figure out. The fact we discovered fire before we discovered the wheel does not make a wheel "more complicated" than a fire.

First off, um, if it is hard to figure out, guess what, it is complex. The definition of "complex" is...(difficult to understand, analyze, or solve).

And how do you demonstrate that this requires inherent design? Note that I will not accept "well, since it's complex" or "blueprints need design".

How do I demonstrate inherent design?? 10:10(123), that's how. Show me any natural process that can be as precise as the Penrose equations.

I probably wouldn't have the foggiest clue. But how is that relevant? We're not living 3,000 years ago. We're living in the 21st century, when our understanding of natural and unnatural phenomena is far more comprehensive. Why would what somebody thinks 3,000 years ago be the least bit relevant?

Ok, how about modern times? If you go through a field TODAY, IN 2012, and see a huge unidentified object with blue and red lights glazing from it, and it begins to float up and down, and you can feel it and touch it, would you not recognize intelligent design?? You may not know what it is, or where it came from, but you would recognize it as intelligent design. Thats the relevance.

This is another red herring. Whether or not we can identify one thing as being designed does not mean another must also be identified as having been designed. Comparing organic, biological life forms to space ships is completely eroneous and inane.

Um no it isn't. In order to assemble a living cell, you would have to find the right amino acids that make up the protein molecule. They come in eighty different types, but only twenty are found in living organisms. Then you have to separate the correct ones from the rest....then you have to link them together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. It may not sound difficult, if you are applying your INTELLIGENCE to the problem...but on your view, there IS no intelligence involved, there is no mind involved, so that makes this process EXTREMELY difficult. This is just a small step in a complicated process, all with no intelligence involved. Now compare this to a space shuttle. A space shuttle has to have the right parts, the right wiring, the right engineering to perform its function, and the same thing goes for a living cell. A human cell is specifically coded to perform certain functions, just like the blueprint for a space shuttle. I cant even begin think of how this could have been done naturally. And this is just one small step during a long and complicated process.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You've completely ignored my arguments.

1) How do you quantify how one thing is more objectively "complex" than another thing. And no, "we haven't figured it out yet" is not a suitable (or even relevant) answer.

So lets see how my logic and reasoning works. Lets say me and you were in a competition. The winner of this competition gets a billion dollars. Lets say there is this large box, a box that contains building projects. Each one of us is to reach our hand in the box, and whatever project we pull out, that is the one we have to build, and we will be timed, and whoever builds the project the fastest gets the billion dollars. Lets say you reach your hand in the box, and you pull out a blueprint on how to build a mousetrap (the simple, $2 mousetrap). And I reach my hand in the box, and I pull out the blueprint on how to build a space shuttle. Who do you think will win the billion dollars, and why? Why would you get finished before me?? Could it be because your project is more...shall we say...complex than mines??? Hmmm, if you dont understand how we can look at two things and tell which is more objectively complex, then I think you are being disingenuous.

2) What evidence do you have that complexity specifically requires design? Once again, a snowflake is more complex than a brick, so does this mean that a snowflake is more likely to be designed by a brick?

Once again, I said that the complexity that I am speaking of is more than just design, it is design and purpose. The design detail of a snowflake and a brick has no purpose. But the heart that pumps blood in our body, that is design with purpose. The eyes that we use to see, that is design with purpose. The reproductive system that we use to produce offspring, that is design with purpose. Do you not see the difference??? Do you think that these questions you are asking is that big of a threat against my position???

Prove it.

Show me anything that has a specified purpose that isn't attached to intelligence. Please. I will wait.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the pattern of a snowflake is not complex, or that it is irrelevant? Only a fool would look at the crystalline formation of a snowflake and say it is less complicated than a brick.

Is there purpose to the design of a snowflake?? You are taking subjective things and passing it off as objective value. The waves of an ocean forms a design, but there is no purpose to the design. This is apples and oranges.

Garbage. How do you quantify "purpose" as in inherent quality of DNA?

Because the cells in our body performs specified FUNCTIONS. A function is a role, a purpose, an agenda. These are FACTS. You are asking me these questions as if I am making this stuff up. These are brute facts, and you can look in any textbook in biochemistry and you will see the same thing.

If you say so, but what does purpose have to do with complexity.

In my opinion, with the odds of 10:10(123), I cant believe that this kind of complexity could have occurred naturally by a blind, unguided, and mindless process.

If that's what you honestly think, then you're incredibly arrogant and close-minded. Do you think I live a life of lust, sex, money and power? I'm willing to bet I live just as good (if not better) a life than you. In fact, I'm willing to put money on it.

Ok.

So? Do you still not understand how evolution works? The idea that everything has to happen for a pre-planned "reason" is utterly naive and childish.

I understand how evolution works, which is why I cannot believe in it. I cant believe I can have eyes to see from something that doesn't have eyes to see or would have known that I needed eyes to see. A process that didn't know anything, or cant THINK of anything, gave me eyes, which is for the PURPOSE of sight. Makes no sense, so no, I cant believe in evolution.

Priveleged? No. Why would you consider it a privalege to be born with those things rather than, say, a fully functioning body? I have several friends and cousins who were disabled from birth. I know many people who need corrective glasses or even surgery in order to enable them to see properly. I know people born with severe breathing issues. Is it a "privelage" for them to be born with these traits? Just because you lack the perceptive ability to understand how these things came about through evolution, does not make it untrue. It just makes you seriously lacking in understanding.

Well, lets see, I had asthma very bad as a child, and I still have it til this day, and I also wear glasses. You completely missed the point. If my sister doesn't have a car, and she has to go to work everyday, and I buy her a car, I am privleged enough to give her a car, and she is privlege enough to have a car. The point is, I know she needs a car, and she know she needs a car. On your view, the process of evolution doesn't know we are gonna need anything, and yet we have eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. Makes no sense.

Says you, and yet you seem incapable of pointing exactly what I am relying on "on faith".

Never mind then, if you dont see the faith in that, then i cant help you

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It took me a while to find, but I think what Call_of_the_Wild is referring to is the find-tuning argument. Apparently Roger Penrose looked at all the physical constants and at all the possible values and on which combinations produce a universe where life as we know it is possible. Then he devided the number of outcomes where life is possible with the number of all possible outcomes.
Apparently this number turned out to be 10:10(123).

How he decided the ranges of the different physical constants I do not know, and really whitout knowing what the possible outcomes of the constants are the above calculation seem really silly to me.

But anyway, that is the underlying argument as far as I can tell; that the universe is fine tuned for life.
Again I find this silly. It seems far more likely to me that life is fine tuned for the universe which exists than the other way around.

Well, however you want to put it, whether the universe is fine tuned for life or whether life is fine tuned for the universe, the key point is, it is finely tuned. The possibility of a fine tuned universe to be life permitting is more improbable than a universe that is not fine tuned and therefore life prohibiting. Lets say you have a favorite book, like....Animorphs (used to read when i was a kid lol), and you cut every single word in the book out of the book, and put them in a box. Lets say you shake the box, so that the words will scramble randomly inside it, and lets say you stood on top of a 50 foot tree with the box of words, and poured the words to the ground. Now what is the probability of each word randomly falling to the ground in perfect sequence order to form the right sentences of the book, with absolutely no mistakes??? Isn't it more probable that you will just get randomly words fallen to the ground other than a fully functional book?? The same thing with the universe, its low entropy condition had to be placed in the singularity (if one accepts the Standard Model) as an initial condition. Makes more sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is silly.
How can he account for all possible outcomes?

I suspect that Call-of the wild merely parrots the number because he finds really big numbers impressive.

I like the number because it supports the theistic position, that the fine tuning of the universe is best explained by intelligent design. Only an intelligent designer can beat those kinds of odds.

 

[lunakilo]

So lets see how my logic and reasoning works. Lets say me and you were in a competition. The winner of this competition gets a billion dollars. Lets say there is this large box, a box that contains building projects. Each one of us is to reach our hand in the box, and whatever project we pull out, that is the one we have to build, and we will be timed, and whoever builds the project the fastest gets the billion dollars. Lets say you reach your hand in the box, and you pull out a blueprint on how to build a mousetrap (the simple, $2 mousetrap). And I reach my hand in the box, and I pull out the blueprint on how to build a space shuttle. Who do you think will win the billion dollars, and why? Why would you get finished before me?? Could it be because your project is more...shall we say...complex than mines??? Hmmm, if you dont understand how we can look at two things and tell which is more objectively complex, then I think you are being disingenuous.

Funny why you chose a moustrap and not a single celled organism which was what the complexity of the space shuttle was being compaired to.
So say I reach in and pull out the blue print for a space shuttle and you reach in and pull out the blue print for a single celled organism ("wow" I would think, "does a single celled organism really have a blue print?") Now how would you compare the complexity of a space shuttle and a single celled organism?

And by the way, just because somthing is complicated does not mean it was designed.
Imagine tying long strings to the tails of 20 rats.
let them run around a cage for 24 hours.
Come back and and examine the knot thay made.
Is the knot designed? If so by who? By the person who tied the strings to the tails or the rats? What was the knot designed for, what is its purpuse?
Could it be that the knot is just a complicated knot of strings tied together at random with no design in mind?

 

[lunakilo]

Well, however you want to put it, whether the universe is fine tuned for life or whether life is fine tuned for the universe, the key point is, it is finely tuned. The possibility of a fine tuned universe to be life permitting is more improbable than a universe that is not fine tuned and therefore life prohibiting. Lets say you have a favorite book, like....Animorphs (used to read when i was a kid lol), and you cut every single word in the book out of the book, and put them in a box. Lets say you shake the box, so that the words will scramble randomly inside it, and lets say you stood on top of a 50 foot tree with the box of words, and poured the words to the ground. Now what is the probability of each word randomly falling to the ground in perfect sequence order to form the right sentences of the book, with absolutely no mistakes??? Isn't it more probable that you will just get randomly words fallen to the ground other than a fully functional book?? The same thing with the universe, its low entropy condition had to be placed in the singularity (if one accepts the Standard Model) as an initial condition. Makes more sense.

No, you are missing the point.

wordarray= {all words in box}
story="";

while(not wordarray.empty)
{
sentence="";
while(sentence does not make sence)
{
sentence = random_words_from(wordarray);
if(sentence makes sence)
{
outputarray.add(sentence);
wordarray.remove('words in sentence');
}
}
}

enjoy(story);

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, which is more plausible? First off, as I keep stating, one human cell is more complex than a space shuttle. This is a brute fact.

And, as I have repeatedly said, no it is not and you have yet to demonstrate exactly how and why it is.

Second, a space shuttle is one of the most complex (if not the most complex) thing that man has ever built to date. If it takes intelligence to built something that complex, then why are we hesitate to conclude that something extremely more complex was also a product of I.D?? Makes no sense.

Because this is seriously flawed logic. Just because we don't know how to make something yet doesn't mean it is necesarilly more "complicated" to make than something we do already know how to make. Your argument is entirely fallacious. I've explained this repeatedly.

This would be a good point, if it were actually the case. We do know what a human cell consist of, and what it takes to make it. We just dont know how it could have occurred from a naturalistic process, given the early conditions of the earth.

We're not talking about a "human cell". We're talking about the initial organisms formed through abiogenesis.

If they do figure it out, guess what, it would take intelligence right??

So, your argument is unfalsifiable. If they can't make life from non-life, it's proof that intelligence made it. If they make life from non-life, it's proof intelligence made it.

So therefore, it would still be a produce of intelligent design. They have to provide an answer as to how life could have originated from nonliving material, naturally, with no intelligent design involved.

And they could do that through replicating such events that would occur naturally.

I don't think they can do that.

So then all your posturing about how science hasn't yet been able to make life being proof that life was necesarilly made was nothing but hot air? Why even make the argument in that case if this is what you honestly believe?

They have two problems, the first one is to figure out how did it get to where we could beat the Penrose odds, which is a huge problem for naturalism itself, then they have to figure out how did the amino acids that make up the proteins configure itself in a way to form a living cell, despite the early earths conditions.

The Penrose odds are based on entirely erroneous assumptions and can be freely disregarded.

Two huge problems that I don't think will ever be answered from a naturalistic POV.

I seriously doubt that what "you think" will be a problem for science.

Hmm, wouldnt the fact that we dont know how to make it mean that it is extremely complicated?? Maybe its just me.

Nope. Us not knowing how to make it does not make it more complicated, it just means we don't know how to make it. We cannot say how complex the process is until we actually know what the process is. Do you understand?

No, I cant.

And why is that? Other people can.

It means a lot. You are basically saying that long ago, when no one was around to see it, living cells were originating. Cells, which are more complex in their nature than a space shuttle, were originating, long, long, ago.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't make it any more true.

Fast forward to the present. Human intelligence, which can build everything from a mousetrap to a space shuttle, are capable of building and creating these things, but we can't figure out a way to produce a living cell. So we cant do today, with intelligence, what was done billions of years ago, with no intelligence. If you dont see the faith in this belief system, then I really cant help you.

Again, this argument is based on entirely fallacious reasoning that because we can't do something yet it necesarilly requires complex, inherrent design. This is simply not true, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever that it is. The fact that we don't know how to create life indicates nothing more than that we don't know how to create life. It lends no credibility whatsoever to the notion that life must have been specifically designed.

First off, um, if it is hard to figure out, guess what, it is complex.

No, it isn't. Working out who committed a murder can be "hard to figure out" but that doesn't mean that committing a murder is more complicated than building a space shuttle.

How do I demonstrate inherent design?? 10:10(123), that's how.

The Bible is not a book of facts, until proven otherwise.

Show me any natural process that can be as precise as the Penrose equations.

Penrose equations are entirely erroneous because they are based on pure chance alone and take no account whatsoever of natural laws, chemical processes and statistical thermodynamics which render the equation meaningless.

Ok, how about modern times? If you go through a field TODAY, IN 2012, and see a huge unidentified object with blue and red lights glazing from it, and it begins to float up and down, and you can feel it and touch it, would you not recognize intelligent design??

That depends what distinct features it was showing of design. I know that some insects can emit light. Does it have any biological features?

You may not know what it is, or where it came from, but you would recognize it as intelligent design. Thats the relevance.

See above.

Um no it isn't. In order to assemble a living cell, you would have to find the right amino acids that make up the protein molecule. They come in eighty different types, but only twenty are found in living organisms. Then you have to separate the correct ones from the rest....then you have to link them together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. It may not sound difficult, if you are applying your INTELLIGENCE to the problem...but on your view, there IS no intelligence involved, there is no mind involved, so that makes this process EXTREMELY difficult.

Unless there are natural, chemical and physical processes which result in the amino acids comings together and forming over millions of years.

This is just a small step in a complicated process, all with no intelligence involved. Now compare this to a space shuttle.

Here we go again...

A space shuttle has to have the right parts, the right wiring, the right engineering to perform its function, and the same thing goes for a living cell. A human cell is specifically coded to perform certain functions, just like the blueprint for a space shuttle. I cant even begin think of how this could have been done naturally. And this is just one small step during a long and complicated process.

Says you - the non-expert on biology, genetics and microbiology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So lets see how my logic and reasoning works. Lets say me and you were in a competition. The winner of this competition gets a billion dollars. Lets say there is this large box, a box that contains building projects. Each one of us is to reach our hand in the box, and whatever project we pull out, that is the one we have to build, and we will be timed, and whoever builds the project the fastest gets the billion dollars. Lets say you reach your hand in the box, and you pull out a blueprint on how to build a mousetrap (the simple, $2 mousetrap). And I reach my hand in the box, and I pull out the blueprint on how to build a space shuttle. Who do you think will win the billion dollars, and why? Why would you get finished before me?? Could it be because your project is more...shall we say...complex than mines??? Hmmm, if you dont understand how we can look at two things and tell which is more objectively complex, then I think you are being disingenuous.

But now you have just illustrated my problem with your claim. You are saying that a single-celled life-form is more complex than a space shuttle, but your analogy here requires us both to have a working understanding how exactly how the two objects being compared are formed. We do not yet know how the first living organisms formed, and without, as you put it, a blueprint for life, how can you make the assertion that the initial living organisms are "more" complex than a space shuttle?

Also, you are comparing objects which we know to be man-made to organic, biological systems. Using your analogy, let's say one of us got the blueprint for a moustrap and the other got a blueprint for a tree. Which is more complex? We already know trees grow and propagate entirely naturally without inherrent design, and yet I very much doubt you would be able to use whatever is in the box to create an actual, living tree. Is the tree therefore more complex - because it cannot be made by human hands, or less complex - because it can be the result of entirely natural, unguided processes? This is the distinction you keep failing to make, and you also keep failing to take account of the fact that natural and physical laws are somethings extremely dificult for humans to emulate. But that doesn't mean that the end result can be accurately compared in terms of it's complexity to a non-living, non-organic system. A comparison simply cannot be made.

Once again, I said that the complexity that I am speaking of is more than just design, it is design and purpose.

Then your argument is veering away from science and towards philosophy. How do you measure and quanitfy "purpose"?

The design detail of a snowflake and a brick has no purpose. But the heart that pumps blood in our body, that is design with purpose. The eyes that we use to see, that is design with purpose. The reproductive system that we use to produce offspring, that is design with purpose. Do you not see the difference??? Do you think that these questions you are asking is that big of a threat against my position???

Well, the fact that you are entirely ignoring my question and moving the goalposts certainly indicates that your position is straining under my questioning, yes.

Show me anything that has a specified purpose that isn't attached to intelligence. Please. I will wait.

Define "specified purpose". Specified by what, exactly?

Is there purpose to the design of a snowflake?? You are taking subjective things and passing it off as objective value.

Actually, no. That's what you're doing with your constant claims of comparative complexity and purpose. Both are subjective, not objective, values.

The waves of an ocean forms a design, but there is no purpose to the design. This is apples and oranges.

So, you're saying that there is no purpose to the tide? Surfing, surely.

Because the cells in our body performs specified FUNCTIONS. A function is a role, a purpose, an agenda. These are FACTS. You are asking me these questions as if I am making this stuff up. These are brute facts, and you can look in any textbook in biochemistry and you will see the same thing.

But how do you quantify purpose as an inherent quality of something? You don't seem to understand my wording. Look it up if it helps. How can you MEASURE "purpose" as an objective quality? It's an entirely subjective concept.

In my opinion, with the odds of 10:10(123), I cant believe that this kind of complexity could have occurred naturally by a blind, unguided, and mindless process.

Penrose equation is irrelevant.

I understand how evolution works, which is why I cannot believe in it. I cant believe I can have eyes to see from something that doesn't have eyes to see or would have known that I needed eyes to see.

Then you don't understand evolution.

A process that didn't know anything, or cant THINK of anything, gave me eyes, which is for the PURPOSE of sight. Makes no sense, so no, I cant believe in evolution.

See above.

Well, lets see, I had asthma very bad as a child, and I still have it til this day, and I also wear glasses. You completely missed the point. If my sister doesn't have a car, and she has to go to work everyday, and I buy her a car, I am privleged enough to give her a car, and she is privlege enough to have a car. The point is, I know she needs a car, and she know she needs a car. On your view, the process of evolution doesn't know we are gonna need anything, and yet we have eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense, provided you understand how evolution works. It doesn't need to "know" anything, and we didn't "need" anything. We are simply the natural result of chemical processes acting in a system enhanced by environmental entropy. That's all.

 

[lunakilo]

How do I demonstrate inherent design?? 10:10(123), that's how. Show me any natural process that can be as precise as the Penrose equations.

You have demonstrated nothing.
You do not convience anybody by throwing a big number around without more explanation than 'Roger Penrose is smart'.

I get the idea behind the calculation, but as I mentioned before if we don't know the ranges of possible values of the physical constants then the calculation is meaningless, and so is the number. A smart person like Roger Penrose presumably wrote an article describing how he calculated the number, but despite my google attemts I have not been able to find it. I would like you to provide a link to anywhere explaining how he got this number. If you cannot do that then I would say you have failed in your attempts to demonstrate inherent design.

In fact, how can you know that any of the constants can have any other value than the ones they have?
What is the argument for that? It is a constant after all, not a variable

We know of only one possible set of values for the physical constants.
So if you take the number of outcomes we know of which produce a universe capable of supporting life (=1), and compare it to all the possible set of values for the physical constants which we know of(=1), you will get a life supporting universe in 1 out of 1 cases, that is 100% probability.

 

[johnhanks]

I get the idea behind the calculation, but as I mentioned before if we don't know the ranges of possible values of the physical constants then the calculation is meaningless, and so is the number. A smart person like Roger Penrose presumably wrote an article describing how he calculated the number, but despite my google attemts I have not been able to find it. I would like you to provide a link to anywhere explaining how he got this number. If you cannot do that then I would say you have failed in your attempts to demonstrate inherent design.

The calculation appears at the end of chapter 7 of Penrose's 1989 book 'The Emperor's New Mind', in a section entitled 'How Special was the Big Bang?'. Penrose concludes that from the phase space of all possible universes, ours occupies 1/10-to-the-10-to-the123 of the total. He goes on to say (p.446) that a necessary constraint on the value of the Weyl curvature tensor in an initial (though not a final) singularity "seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space".

No, nor do I.

(It is important to add, I think, that Penrose is using the word Creator in a fanciful way, as many physicists do; he is a self-declared atheist.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

10:10(123)......that is a 10 as the base, and 123 as the exponent, which is a 10 followed by 123 zeros. Those are the odds against our universe being permitted for human life. You are right, I dont see how an unguided process can beat those astronomical odds. And not just that, as I stated, the more complex something is, the more evident that there is design.

I don't think I'm going to accept that number until you show your work for how you got it.

But in any case, it's not really relevant on its own. The real question is the relative probability of that versus the alternative.

So... please repeat the exercise, only for the odds against a god capable of creating the universe, "fine tuning" it for life, and intentionally designing and creating us using the processes that gave rise to us.

Once you figure out that, we'll take the ratio of your odds for an "unguided process" (once you've demonstrated that it's valid, of course) against the ratio of the odds of the god I just described. That will give us the true measure of which option is more likely.

This game of "option A is unlikely, so we have to accept option B without considering how likely it is" is poor use of logic at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[PolyHedral]

The calculation appears at the end of chapter 7 of Penrose's 1989 book 'The Emperor's New Mind', in a section entitled 'How Special was the Big Bang?'. Penrose concludes that from the phase space of all possible universes, ours occupies 1/10-to-the-10-to-the123 of the total. He goes on to say (p.446) that a necessary constraint on the value of the Weyl curvature tensor in an initial (though not a final) singularity "seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space".

No, nor do I.

(It is important to add, I think, that Penrose is using the word Creator in a fanciful way, as many physicists do; he is a self-declared atheist.)

It's really, really hard to construct that question in a way that gives you a finite answer. As mentioned, AFAIK, there are no known constraints on the constants of the universe, and also no known limit to their resolution. As an example of why this is a problem, I can produce 10^10^123 universes just by varying the speed of light by 10^-10^123m/s, either up or down, or varying the electron mass some similarly tiny value. A universe with a speed of light of 300,000,001m/s will probably work just as well as ours does. The more constants I can find to vary in that way, the less each one has to vary.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Funny why you chose a moustrap and not a single celled organism which was what the complexity of the space shuttle was being compaired to.

Because I was drawing the distinction between a simple design and a complicated design, thats why.

So say I reach in and pull out the blue print for a space shuttle and you reach in and pull out the blue print for a single celled organism ("wow" I would think, "does a single celled organism really have a blue print?") Now how would you compare the complexity of a space shuttle and a single celled organism?

And I would answer "yes, a single celled organism does have a blueprint".

And by the way, just because somthing is complicated does not mean it was designed.

That is not my argument, my argument is, if something is complex with a purpose, then it is designed.

Imagine tying long strings to the tails of 20 rats.
let them run around a cage for 24 hours.
Come back and and examine the knot thay made.
Is the knot designed? If so by who? By the person who tied the strings to the tails or the rats? What was the knot designed for, what is its purpuse?
Could it be that the knot is just a complicated knot of strings tied together at random with no design in mind?

This is my point exactly. If you tie long strings to the tails of 20 rats and let them run around in a case for 24 hours, and by the time you come back you notice that there is a knot, you probably wouldnt think anything of it. But if you came back after 24 hours and noticed that the rats made a "string house" with the string, then you would not take this lightly, now would you. The human body is not an accident. It is a system, made up of complex and purposeful parts, each part serving a specific function. This is complexity+purpose. Name me anything that has a purpose behind it....that wasn't the product of a intelligent mind?? I dont think you can do that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And, as I have repeatedly said, no it is not and you have yet to demonstrate exactly how and why it is.

And as I have repeatedly said, yes it is. Our DNA is complex, and the process in which it was made is complex. You people act like you are so scientific minded, but once science presents a problem for your belief system, now all of a sudden it is cool to deny science. Every biochemist know and recognize the complexity of our genetic code. To even produce one single cell is hard enough with the help of intelligent design, and even more so by a random, blind, and unguided process. Our DNA code is specific, and had to be produced under the right circumstances, circumstances that goes in the opposite direction of what the scientific findings have indicated. If I build a human robot that can walk and talk, I would still be more complex than the robot that I built. If it takes intelligent design for me to built a robot with two legs, two feet, two arms, fingers, and to be programmed to get it to resemble a human as close as possible, if this process takes intelligence, then how the heck does it not take intelligence for humans to exist, when we are more complex than the robot??? Makes no sense.

Because this is seriously flawed logic. Just because we don't know how to make something yet doesn't mean it is necesarilly more "complicated" to make than something we do already know how to make. Your argument is entirely fallacious. I've explained this repeatedly.

Heres a newsflash for you buddy, when someone is trying to do something, and he/she doesn't know how to do it, and is failing in the process of trying to do it, that usually means that whatever they are trying to do is complicated. Im just saying..

We're not talking about a "human cell". We're talking about the initial organisms formed through abiogenesis.

See, this is where you clearly dont know what you are talking about. Figuring out how life could have come from non-living material (abiogenesis) goes hand in hand with human cells, because humans cells are in fact the basic unit of a living thing.

So, your argument is unfalsifiable. If they can't make life from non-life, it's proof that intelligence made it. If they make life from non-life, it's proof intelligence made it.

Even if they did find out a way to determine how life could have come from nonlife (which they wont, but hypothetically speaking), that would still be an example of intelligent minds producing life. They have to determine how life could have came from nonlife by a blind, unguided, and natural process. You dont get specified complexity from a mindless entity.

And they could do that through replicating such events that would occur naturally.

Why hasn't it been done yet?

So then all your posturing about how science hasn't yet been able to make life being proof that life was necesarilly made was nothing but hot air? Why even make the argument in that case if this is what you honestly believe?

I dont believe that a mindless, unguided, and blind process could have given me a heart with the task of pumping blood through my body....eyes to see.....ears to hear....etc. Even if i wasn't a Christian I wouldnt believe that.

The Penrose odds are based on entirely erroneous assumptions and can be freely disregarded.

Of course, freely disregard anything that doesn't support your presuppositions.

I seriously doubt that what "you think" will be a problem for science.

:beach:

Nope. Us not knowing how to make it does not make it more complicated, it just means we don't know how to make it. We cannot say how complex the process is until we actually know what the process is. Do you understand?

Thats the problem, we do know what the process is. We just cant duplicate the process. What do you think the Miller experiment was?? It was heck of a try, but it ultimately failed. Science will always fail with it trys provide an answer for absolute origins. It is in no position to do so.

Again, this argument is based on entirely fallacious reasoning that because we can't do something yet it necesarilly requires complex, inherrent design. This is simply not true, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever that it is. The fact that we don't know how to create life indicates nothing more than that we don't know how to create life. It lends no credibility whatsoever to the notion that life must have been specifically designed.

The point is, anytime we see specified complexity, complexity with a purpose, it is always attached to intelligent design. Your computer, it has specified complexity, it is complexity with a purpose, it was designed. The same thing goes for your car, your tv, your dishwasher, your refrigerator, machines at factories, airplanes, etc. All of these things are systems, systems with a purpose. Our human body is no different. It is specified, it is complex, it has purpose. Our DNA code has information. The process in which this information was produced could not have been a random event by a blind process that didnt know what the heck it was doing. The reason why we dont know how to create life is because the act itself transcends nature. It is like asking how was the game of chess created before humans came along to create it. Its not happening, not in our lifetime, or anyones lifetime.

No, it isn't. Working out who committed a murder can be "hard to figure out" but that doesn't mean that committing a murder is more complicated than building a space shuttle.

If you are in a geometry class, and you are trying to figure out the pythagorean theorem, but you just cant grasp it, i would say that this is a complex problem for you, wouldn't you agree??

The Bible is not a book of facts, until proven otherwise.

You didn't think those numberse were scriptures, did you?? Wow.

Penrose equations are entirely erroneous because they are based on pure chance alone and take no account whatsoever of natural laws, chemical processes and statistical thermodynamics which render the equation meaningless.

What? This is just not true. The Penrose equations are based on the universal constants, and these constants hold true and cannot be changed and for them to change mean that the universe would not be life permitting. So if the laws cannot be changed, then that would mean that these are the only natural laws in town, so therefore it is more probable to get a life prohibiting universe than a life permitting one. To change the laws to any other law would mean there would be no life, so compare this one law that is life permitting with the countless other laws that are not life permitting, and you will see how much the odds are actually AGAINST us finding ourselves in a life permitting universe. Read brother, read.

That depends what distinct features it was showing of design. I know that some insects can emit light. Does it have any biological features?

Never mind...

Unless there are natural, chemical and physical processes which result in the amino acids comings together and forming over millions of years.

But there isn't, thats the problem

Here we go again...


Says you - the non-expert on biology, genetics and microbiology.

I am drawing conclusions based on my studies. The stuff is out there, read.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But now you have just illustrated my problem with your claim. You are saying that a single-celled life-form is more complex than a space shuttle, but your analogy here requires us both to have a working understanding how exactly how the two objects being compared are formed. We do not yet know how the first living organisms formed, and without, as you put it, a blueprint for life, how can you make the assertion that the initial living organisms are "more" complex than a space shuttle?

We do know how cells are formed, what are they made of, etc. What we dont know is how they could have resulted from a natural process, with the early earth not being life permitting friendly at all. The process is so complicated that all experiments thus far has failed, and I dont think it will ever succeed. Even if it does, wouldn't show how life formed naturally without intelligent design.

Also, you are comparing objects which we know to be man-made to organic, biological systems. Using your analogy, let's say one of us got the blueprint for a moustrap and the other got a blueprint for a tree. Which is more complex? We already know trees grow and propagate entirely naturally without inherrent design, and yet I very much doubt you would be able to use whatever is in the box to create an actual, living tree. Is the tree therefore more complex - because it cannot be made by human hands, or less complex - because it can be the result of entirely natural, unguided processes? This is the distinction you keep failing to make, and you also keep failing to take account of the fact that natural and physical laws are somethings extremely dificult for humans to emulate. But that doesn't mean that the end result can be accurately compared in terms of it's complexity to a non-living, non-organic system. A comparison simply cannot be made.

The tree is not specified complexity!!!! A tree grows naturally, there is no purpose to it. But if the tree was to grow arms, legs, and began talking, then that would be a completely different story, now wouldn't it. The only reason why I keep comparing man-made systems to biological systems is because man-made systems are the only things that I know to be things that have specified complexity. This is my point, specificed complexity can only come from intelligent things. Humans are intelligent, right (some, at least). Humans have created complex things with their intelligence, right?? Now if you go back in time to before there were no humans, no intelligence, no mind, no living organisms, how the heck do you go from non-living, non-thinking, mindless, blindless material, to thinking, breathing, living material? This makes no sense to me.

Then your argument is veering away from science and towards philosophy. How do you measure and quanitfy "purpose"?

By how specified it is and how complex it is, I think.

Well, the fact that you are entirely ignoring my question and moving the goalposts certainly indicates that your position is straining under my questioning, yes.

Never that.

Define "specified purpose". Specified by what, exactly?

Purpose......is anything that has an agenda...objective...goal....target....that is purpose..our reproductive system was made for us to reproduce.....our digestive system was made for us to digest......our circulatory system was made for blood circulation....this is specified.....complexity.....how can a process that doesnt have eyes to configure....a mind to think and reason......give us these specified systems....Makes no sense whatsoever to me...

Actually, no. That's what you're doing with your constant claims of comparative complexity and purpose. Both are subjective, not objective, values.

Well, whether or not you think a snowflake is designed our not is up to you, but you will be hard pressed to find the answer to "What are your eyes for" anything other than "to see". Any 4 yr old will tell you that.

So, you're saying that there is no purpose to the tide? Surfing, surely.

But the tides are not specifically there for surfing. That is the problem, our eyes are specifically there for us to see. Big difference.

But how do you quantify purpose as an inherent quality of something? You don't seem to understand my wording. Look it up if it helps. How can you MEASURE "purpose" as an objective quality? It's an entirely subjective concept.

I will "look it up" once you look up the Penrose equations. I've already answered this anyway. There is nothing subjective about our reproductive system being there for us to reproduce. This is an objective truth.

Penrose equation is irrelevant.

10:10(123).

Then you don't understand evolution.

It is my understanding of it that allows me to logically reject it.

Makes perfect sense, provided you understand how evolution works. It doesn't need to "know" anything, and we didn't "need" anything. We are simply the natural result of chemical processes acting in a system enhanced by environmental entropy. That's all.

My point exactly. We have this complex body with its complex systems, and it all came from something that didn't know we were going to need it. Gotcha.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't think I'm going to accept that number until you show your work for how you got it.

But in any case, it's not really relevant on its own. The real question is the relative probability of that versus the alternative.

So... please repeat the exercise, only for the odds against a god capable of creating the universe, "fine tuning" it for life, and intentionally designing and creating us using the processes that gave rise to us.

Once you figure out that, we'll take the ratio of your odds for an "unguided process" (once you've demonstrated that it's valid, of course) against the ratio of the odds of the god I just described. That will give us the true measure of which option is more likely.

This game of "option A is unlikely, so we have to accept option B without considering how likely it is" is poor use of logic at best and dishonest at worst.

Ive done this already.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The calculation appears at the end of chapter 7 of Penrose's 1989 book 'The Emperor's New Mind', in a section entitled 'How Special was the Big Bang?'. Penrose concludes that from the phase space of all possible universes, ours occupies 1/10-to-the-10-to-the123 of the total. He goes on to say (p.446) that a necessary constraint on the value of the Weyl curvature tensor in an initial (though not a final) singularity "seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space".

No, nor do I.

(It is important to add, I think, that Penrose is using the word Creator in a fanciful way, as many physicists do; he is a self-declared atheist.)

This is a good point. As an up and coming Christian Apologist, I have come to find out that it is more better to provide sources from those that dont share your belief (not that it matters, the truth is the truth regardless of source), but just so people wont accuse the source as a biased one. As you said, Penrose is not a theist, so these are calculations from someone who does not share a belief as my own. The equations speak for itself.

 

[George-ananda]

As to the original question: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

No Physical Science cannot.

This does not mean we can then have no opinion on the matter. Spirituality, at least at this point in time, can be viewed as a different field.

Physical Science cannot prove/disprove many theories/ideas in psychology, sociology and economics but we can still study these fields with methods different than those used in Physical Science.

 

[PolyHedral]

Physical Science cannot prove/disprove many theories/ideas in psychology, sociology and economics...

Yes it can. It's merely excessively difficult to get reliable evidence out of those fields.

 

[outhouse]

I still feel the fact humans have always created deities at will!, is all the evidence required to prove there is no such thing as a god.

gods have been created to fill th egaps in our knowledge, and done so, soley based on where you were born