Chance vs Intelligent design

[exchemist]

And when you see design nowhere then you are saying that chance produced this sentence and the computer I am using.
But you have a criterion for human design you say, but the big picture is that chance produced this universe and everything in it, including humans and their intelligence and so all the things they invented,,,,,,,,,,,, even if you want to deny it, that is what it comes down to.
Intelligence invents and makes things, chance does not and cannot do that.

BINGO!

This is exactly the sort of basic error I had in mind when composing post 13 q.v.

It didn't take long!

 

[PureX]

Chance is part of the design.

 

[exchemist]

Sometimes you hear people say that there is no evidence of design in the universe, but that is a lie, as evidence of design is all around us if we have eyes to see it.
Sometimes you hear people say that there is no need of a designer but that is a product of not having eyes to see the design and it is a lie from a scientific perspective since science cannot say that all this could have happened by itself.
It is interesting to consider that by "all this" I mean this sentence also. This sentence happened by chance when we look at the big atheist picture. I know an atheist would say that is BS because we know that a human with at least a smidgen of intelligence types this sentence. But that is not looking at the big picture. With atheism the big picture is that this sentence happened by chance.

Do not conflate a reasonable and widely held view with a "lie". A lie involves dishonesty. There is nothing dishonest or unreasonable about the view that there is no scientific evidence of design in nature.

@Heyo is spot-on: there is no objective criterion for determining the presence of design. Without such a criterion, any attempt to determine, objectively, whether there is design in nature is futile.

And beware the lazy use of the idea of "chance". See my other posts.

 

[Brian2]

BINGO!

This is exactly the sort of basic error I had in mind when composing post 13 q.v.

It didn't take long!

Glad to help.
But the laws happened by chance and so everything in the universe happened by chance when a purpose is not there behind anything.

 

[Brian2]

Chance is part of the design.

Yes and without any design it is all chance.

 

[wellwisher]

Recapping to make sure i understand
Chance makes more sense from a scientific view point is what you are saying?

Chance is an approximation method that is used when you don't fully understand how something works in a natural logical way.

When you buy a lottery ticket is that based on an intelligent choice? Or is that based on imagination, emotions and a hunch? Why would science depart from the riggers of logic in favor of faith in the lottery, and call that a solid basis for science? The science casino is designed, so the house can appear to win with nothing more than luck.

Gambling goes back to the ancient times. Dice were used in Ancient Greece as far back as 500BC; whims of the gods. Gambling was also in China about the same time. Dice are manmade inventions. They are not natural to the earth or the universe. Dice do not grow on trees, but are manufactured. I can see how the theory behind the behavior of manufactured things like dice, may be preferred when discussing new manmade objects made in factories, since neither are natural, so do not have to obey natural laws.

When one is learning about statistics and probability, the lessons for the theory uses manmade objects like coins, dice and cards as teaching aids. I can see how this manmade foundation may be useful in factories. But when discussing nature, one should not be allowed to base natural theory on the behavior of manmade objects, like dice. Does anyone see a potential problem? It is like saying we should model the behavior of animals on robots, and not the other way around; cart before the horse.

The hydrogen atom has energy levels. It does not randomly move between these energy levels, since each side of this natural dice, is loaded differently by nature. Based on an energy context, one side will be favored. Dice are designed by man, not to have any differences between the sides. If a dice did have differences, like the hydrogen atom dice, that would be called cheating in a casino, since it would default closer to the natural logic of the hydrogen atom. This will take away the fantasy reinforcements of manufactured dice.

If you go to a casino and play cards, card counting is illegal and one will be black balled. What does card counting do? It tells us which cards are left, making the new final result more logical and less based on manufactured rules; all is still in play allowing the house to win. I would send Science to Gamblers Anonymous to help ween them away so we can get back to the world of science outside the casinos.

What I think happened is what had been and understood to be an approximation method, lost its original common sense. Later generations of scientists, who had to learn the technique apart from its inception, began to assume that the approximation was real and not just a method. It was was easier, since it did not require as much rational thinking. Here we are.

When I was a grad student in engineering, if if tried to mathematical model a chemical process, setting up the equations was easy, compared to solving all the equations. Approximation methods were developed by mathematicians that allowed one to solve all the equation using computers. The math models did not reflect reality, but were tools to help simplify the math solution. This appears to be the case with statistics, with the approximation now assumed to be more that it ever was intended to be. It was not designed to replace logic but to help logic get through math bottlenecks.

 

[exchemist]

Glad to help.
But the laws happened by chance and so everything in the universe happened by chance when a purpose is not there behind anything.

There is no explanation in science for the order in the universe as expressed in the laws and theories of physics. It is a curtain science cannot look behind. If there is a designer, that is what has been designed, it seems to me. And as @PureX also comments, chance or randomness also plays an equal role.

I have been very fortunate to be given some insight into how the interaction of underlying order and chance, between them, construct the world we see around us. (It is worth noting that Darwin's idea about the development of life employs the same creative tension.)

 

[PureX]

Yes and without any design it is all chance.

Which is abject chaos. Nothing could exist in abject chaos but chaos. Noting could happen in abject chaos but chaos. Fortunately, that is not where we are. We exist within a very orderly and organized existential event. Though that event does allow for chance to occur under specific conditions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Chance or intelligent design

And why?

If the mind shapes reality, would that qualify as intelligent design?

Let's look at the last dream you remember. Did the events in that dream happen by chance or were they created intelligently while you slept?

Focus at the dot on your left. Is the object on your right moving diagonally? Now focus on the object on the right. Trace it with your finger if you have to.

The answer to your question, as I see it, lies in one's perception of "reality." If you take what you see at face value, then the universe occurs by chance. But if you don't trust your perception of reality to be real, then it's quite possible it's intelligent design.

 

[ChristineM]

Chance things happen to us all, but is everything by chance?

Is seems that everything related to the evolution of the universe is chance. Much of it directed by entropy and the randomness (chaos) brought by every source of gravity interacting with every other source of gravity.

These are observed, measurable phenomenon... Or you could say your god (or one of the other 3800ish creator gods) did it

 

[RestlessSoul]

If the mind shapes reality, would that qualify as intelligent design?

Let's look at the last dream you remember. Did the events in that dream happen by chance or were they created intelligently while you slept?

Focus at the dot on your left. Is the object on your right moving diagonally? Now focus on the object on the right. Trace it with your finger if you have to.

The answer to your question, as I see it, lies in one's perception of "reality." If you take what you see at face value, then the universe occurs by chance. But if you don't trust your perception of reality to be real, then it's quite possible it's intelligent design.

Or we might infer, from the role of perception in framing reality, that we as observers are ourselves co-designers of that reality. Which may seem to lead in the direction of idealism or even solipsism, but not according to physicist and philosopher Christopher Fuchs. Fuchs is a proponent of QBism - Quantum Bayesianism - Wikipedia - which he categorises as ‘participatory realism’.

This is a collective process whereby the universe, which is never static and in which there are no fixed points or privileged perspectives, evolves according to those laws, patterns, and regularities applied by it’s multiple observers. Fuchs calls all laws of nature and of science, “tools God [sic] has provided for agents to navigate the world, to survive in the world.”

So it may be that there is an irreducible lawlessness in nature, and that laws, patterns, and observed regularities are emergent properties of the underlying randomness which appears to be intrinsic to the quantum world; and further and more radically, that these properties emerge within the consciousness of we who inhabit the world. Which then begs the question, From where, and how, did consciousness emerge?

 

[joelr]

There are approximately 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

Our Milky Way has at least 100 billion planets.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

So...

Everything here on planet earth makes sense. Like, everything down to an atomic level works rather perfectly. One needs to only examine the human body to be amazed at all of the hundreds of thousands of inner and microscopic processes going on at once in our body.

Like, the whole world works. The whole universe works. It works rather perfectly it seems. Some might say, it works intelligently.

Perhaps it makes sense that this whole get up was designed by a higher intelligence.

But then we look at the stats listed at the top of the OP.

Not every planet supports life. Like perhaps just Earth works.

There are bazillions and bazillions of planets. And there has been plenty of time. Enough time and enough particles have slammed into each other and eventually life happened. There is so much space and time that it was bound to happen. Something was bound to work.

So it also makes sense that chance brought us here. It is reasonable.

Both sides are reasonable I think.

Im not trying to create another "evidence for god" thread. I'm trying to focus on a particular aspect of that argument. I'm just curious what you guys think is more reasonable.

Chance or intelligent design

And why?

It isn't "chance" it's probability. It's been long establishes that nature works with probabilities. The entire quantum realm is based on probabilities and this reality is probabilistic. So if something can happen. it will given enough time depending on the probability.
We know life is an option so it's only a matter of time before it happened. Given the vast size of the universe and vast time it isn't strange that life emerged. It probably also happened in many other locations as well.

Why it's like this we don't know.

 

[Audie]

I think the point is that, for some reason, there is an underlying order in the universe. This order is at least partially captured in our "laws" and theories of physics, and hence of chemistry and hence of biology and the other natural sciences, which account for what we observe in nature.

So called "intelligent design", a notion invented by a dead American lawyer for social engineering purposes, proposes that there have been miraculous interventions in nature from time to time, to overrule the workings of this order. Unsurprisingly, there is neither any evidence of this nor need for it.

The question, though, is why there is this order. Science can't answer that.

" Why" questions don't tend to have
answers as anyone who's been around a 3yr old knows

 

[Audie]

Or we might infer, from the role of perception in framing reality, that we as observers are ourselves co-designers of that reality. Which may seem to lead in the direction of idealism or even solipsism, but not according to physicist and philosopher Christopher Fuchs. Fuchs is a proponent of QBism - Quantum Bayesianism - Wikipedia - which he categorises as ‘participatory realism’.

This is a collective process whereby the universe, which is never static and in which there are no fixed points or privileged perspectives, evolves according to those laws, patterns, and regularities applied by it’s multiple observers. Fuchs calls all laws of nature and of science, “tools God [sic] has provided for agents to navigate the world, to survive in the world.”

So it may be that there is an irreducible lawlessness in nature, and that laws, patterns, and observed regularities are emergent properties of the underlying randomness which appears to be intrinsic to the quantum world; and further and more radically, that these properties emerge within the consciousness of we who inhabit the world. Which then begs the question, From where, and how, did consciousness emerge?

Can that be said without the contrived jargon?

 

[exchemist]

" Why" questions don't tend to have
answers as anyone who's been around a 3yr old knows

Without "why" questions, we would have no science, surely?

 

[Heyo]

Intelligence invents and makes things, chance does not and cannot do that.

Just to be clear, what are things that are not "made"? Can you give examples?

 

[cladking]

I do not believe reality includes a referent for our word "chance". I do not believe reality includes a referent for our word 'intelligent" or "intelligent design". Everything is determined the moment before it happens and we mistake language for "intelligence".

I believe reality arose naturally through processes and events that were chaotic and appeared to obey what we call "the laws of physics" which also has no referent. Even if there were a referent for such "laws" we still don't know most of them.

Our minds and our science strive to reduce reality to something we can comprehend but reality is far too complex for this or to ever be able to make predictions. We still have to keep trying since more and more things can be "predicted" (estimated in advance) with more and more accuracy.

 

[cladking]

Focus at the dot on your left. Is the object on your right moving diagonally? Now focus on the object on the right. Trace it with your finger if you have to.

Interesting. I'm not certain I'm familiar with this effect. Note that no matter where you look the "object" appears to be moving nearly horizontally and across your field of vision. The brain operates digitally and very little input is necessary to "see" things. I would guess that just as a moving object attracts your attention one moving across your field of vision is seen preferentially to one moving straight to you. If this object is a threat it will catch your attention (ancient people described this "coming to the center of your eye") better if it appears to be moving across your field of vision.

Things coming straight toward you mostly just change their apparent size so the brain is programmed to perceive it otherwise in order to draw your attention.

Most threats to most individuals are moving straight toward them and must be seen. It's less important what direction they seem to move when "not in the middle of your eye" (not looking at them).

We see what we expect, not what's real. Our genes also dictate what way we look and how we act.

 

[Ponder This]

There are approximately 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

Our Milky Way has at least 100 billion planets.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

So...

Everything here on planet earth makes sense. Like, everything down to an atomic level works rather perfectly. One needs to only examine the human body to be amazed at all of the hundreds of thousands of inner and microscopic processes going on at once in our body.

Like, the whole world works. The whole universe works. It works rather perfectly it seems. Some might say, it works intelligently.

Perhaps it makes sense that this whole get up was designed by a higher intelligence.

But then we look at the stats listed at the top of the OP.

Not every planet supports life. Like perhaps just Earth works.

There are bazillions and bazillions of planets. And there has been plenty of time. Enough time and enough particles have slammed into each other and eventually life happened. There is so much space and time that it was bound to happen. Something was bound to work.

So it also makes sense that chance brought us here. It is reasonable.

Both sides are reasonable I think.

Im not trying to create another "evidence for god" thread. I'm trying to focus on a particular aspect of that argument. I'm just curious what you guys think is more reasonable.

Chance or intelligent design

And why?

When someone wins the lottery, is it because he bought a ticket.

 

[F1fan]

There are approximately 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

Our Milky Way has at least 100 billion planets.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

So...

Everything here on planet earth makes sense. Like, everything down to an atomic level works rather perfectly. One needs to only examine the human body to be amazed at all of the hundreds of thousands of inner and microscopic processes going on at once in our body.

Like, the whole world works. The whole universe works. It works rather perfectly it seems. Some might say, it works intelligently.

Perhaps it makes sense that this whole get up was designed by a higher intelligence.

But then we look at the stats listed at the top of the OP.

Not every planet supports life. Like perhaps just Earth works.

There are bazillions and bazillions of planets. And there has been plenty of time. Enough time and enough particles have slammed into each other and eventually life happened. There is so much space and time that it was bound to happen. Something was bound to work.

So it also makes sense that chance brought us here. It is reasonable.

Both sides are reasonable I think.

Im not trying to create another "evidence for god" thread. I'm trying to focus on a particular aspect of that argument. I'm just curious what you guys think is more reasonable.

Chance or intelligent design

And why?

The universe works so well that there are mosquitoes that carry diseases that kill us. There is deadly bacteria and virus that kills us. Our genes that make our bodies work can be defective and cause defects and cancers, that often kill us. It used to be our defective members would just die off before they reproduced, but since we are special we have developed healthcare that keeps us alive even with bad genes and we can pass them off to new generations, just as the universe planned.

So let's talk about intelligent design, and why it is all about we special humans living in a remote trailer park of the universe.