some thoughts on creationism

[Twilight Hue]

Entropy as the mechanic of probability relating to how energy operates or functions? I'll need to look it up. It's funny though, how intelligence can design things utilizing us as the vehicle for the designs we create. Is this entropy at play also?

Edit: From chaos comes order - This is also true with thought processes.

It's one of the hardest things to wrap your head around in physics, but reading about entropy never ceases to fascinate me, and it's even helped me understand quantum mechanics a bit as well as a better understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, for the most part they are still a mystery to us as well. We see the results of the design and like to pretend we see the design. But we don't. That's just human fear and ego talking.

Since we have no clue as to it's content or origin, we cannot possibly know that to be so.

But we do have 'clues' as to its content and origins. I don't think you've kept up with current abiogenic research.

But those "laws" are just our observing the expression of the design. This has nothing to do with the possibilities involved in the fact of the design, or of the question of a designer.

Wow, you're really trying to bolster that belief, aren't you. Unfortunately, it's completely unfounded.

And your belief in an interventional God is well founded?
"We don't know" does not equal God. The most likely explanation lies in the physical and chemical interactions we are familiar with; which can actually be observed.
Your argument from incredulity is unfounded.

I'm not arguing at all. I'm simply pointing out the fact of our reality. And that is that we humans have no knowledge or understanding of why or how of from what source everything that exists, exists as it does. We are all fundamentally clueless.

We may be clueless as to the origins of the universe and the laws ordering it, but knowing those laws, and accompanying physics, we can understand why and how things came to be as they are.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's one of the hardest things to wrap your head around in physics, but reading about entropy never ceases to fascinate me, and it's even helped me understand quantum mechanics a bit as well as a better understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I've heard the term but had to look it up for the definition. I guess it makes some sense, at least how it might relate to the development of the mind and intellect. We venture from unknowing to knowing and from not understanding to understanding, so if entropy has any relation to this, then I can relate to its validity.

 

[Valjean]

By operational mechanics of physics, it is safe to suggest that given their reliability, it would be considered an intelligent way to fashion or form a system through which many types of manifestations of matter are enabled to form. For this reason, I would view existence to be intelligent as itself. Whether we take the position of the universe being created by an intelligent designer or the position that it just happened and the natural laws inherent to the system enabled it, is a fairly moot variance. The fact that it functions as it does should be enough to get past our beliefs in how it all came to be, specifically as this corresponds to there being a creator who designed it all or no creator, and intelligence being a product of non- intelligence.

This posits an unconscious, unintentional intelligence, though. The God concept, at least the Abrahamic God concept, is of a purposive, conscious personage.

 

[Balthazzar]

This posits an unconscious, unintentional intelligence, though. The God concept, at least the Abrahamic God concept, is of a purposive, conscious personage.

Developing over time like we do, yes. Jesus would be that representation, or so it's stated in the bible, growing in stature and wisdom. The Old Testament would allude to this being the case for God in Proverbs 8. Having a similar discussion concerning entropy, it seems a valid enough stance either way. It is sorta moot if you think about it. Truth is, we came from where intelligence already existed, so it could be true for God that God is intelligence and the substance of existence itself, specifically.

 

[gnostic]

First, he used the wrong word. What he was actually referring to was chaos. Randomocity. Not chance. Chance can't occur until there is already a set order.

Wow

You are really something, PureX.

Not only have you being putting words in Valjean’s mouth, something which he didn’t say…hence, strawman. And, you are also trying to redefine words ad hoc to suit your whatever fantasy world you live in.

The word “chance”, is only something that are “likely” to occur (hence, it’s another word for “probable”) as oppose to what are “unlikely” to occur (hence its another word for “improbable”).

Even the “least likely”, can still happen, as it is still within the realm of probability. It is only the improbable (or unlikely) will not occur.

Chances can be understood through Statistics and Probabilities.

Random is simply something that that can occur without conscious decision. But there can also be randomness even in likely events.

Chances, can be random, but sometimes it is not, even in biology.

For instance, I have already given you example in my previous reply, where gen X - the 4 grandparents in which 3 of them had brown eyes, but the maternal grandmother has green-coloured irises. Her children (gen Y, on the maternal side) all have brown eyes, so the green eyes have skipped a generation. So of gen X’s grandchildren, only one of them have the green eyes.

All 4 grandparents have added their genes into the gene pool. But as only one of them, have green eyes, the majority of children (gen X) and grandchildren (gen Z) are “more likely” to have brown eyes than green. But even if least likely to, there are still probable or “chance” that one of them will inherit the green eyes from gene of the maternal grandmother.

The point is that gene pool can offer all sorts of varied physical traits (genetic variance), not just the colour of the eyes, that future generations could inherit. That’s chance based on pool genes, there are no chaos here.

And it is the same Evolution, biodiversity occurred due to genetic variance…not through chaos. And due to Natural Selection, the reasons why humans are mammals, why humans don’t grow wings, capable of powered flight, or don’t grow gills, so they can live underwater; if they did, then it would be chaos governing Evolution. not Natural Selection.

But this thread should about creationism (eg divine entity (God or gods) to create life with supernatural powers or magic), as opposed to through natural processes that understood in biology (eg reproduction, genetics, evolutionary processes)…the topic isn’t about mathematics.

Given that we talking about biology, there are vast array of life form on Earth, today, as tiny as a single-celled bacteria, to as large as a multicellular blue whale.

What give life to these 2 vastly different organisms, are 3 common things:

1. all organisms are made of cells; these cells contained 4 common biological macromolecules: proteins, nucleic acids (RNA, DNA), various forms of carbohydrates, & lipids...and even these macromolecules are made of smaller molecules.
2. they require energy to sustain life and to cause growth...this process is called metabolism, eg animals consume other organism, the metabolism turn food into energy source, like glucose;
3. and their abilities to reproduce (eg asexual reproduction vs sexual reproduction).

There existence (organisms from unicellular Prokaryota (domain Bacteria & domain Archaea), the unicellular & multicellular domain Eukaryota (kingdom Protista, kingdom Fungi, kingdom Plantae & kingdom Animalia), are evidence that life have been around.

If that makes you happy.

Biology isn’t about making one “happy”, PureX.

Biology, as all other sciences in Natural Sciences (thus physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy & life sciences), are attempts to understand & explain our world (everything that exists naturally on earth, including life) and this Universe: these explanations are proposed explanations in models for hypotheses, that attempt to -

• WHAT (each) natural phenomena are? (This question is also about understanding WHAT the properties of phenomena?)
• HOW do the phenomena work? (This question is about understanding the mechanisms of the phenomena.)

And if one could explain or answer the above questions, then that might possibly leads to the following questions -

1. WHAT applications one would have (having answering the above questions)?
2. HOW would one implement (#1) the applications?

Finding answers or solutions to the problems or to the physical phenomena, is to UNDERSTAND & if possible, to EXPLAIN the WHAT (eg WHAT does it do?) and the HOW question (eg HOW do they work?)

With the above 4 questions (those in bullet points), these proposed answers or proposed explanations, must then be tested, either separately or simultaneously, through the following observations:

1. evidence finding & evidence gathering (this usually involved field works);
2. performing experiments that will either verify the model or refute the model (this is where the variables are controlled, so it usually take place in labs).

Now it would be ideal, if you could do both - acquiring evidence and doing lab experiments…but sometimes that’s not possible. But acquiring evidence from the fields, might also be leading to further testing in the laboratory.

The question to life being "designed", "intelligently", that would indicate purpose, intention and plan. The problems with using words, like design or plan, it is because they implied there are some sorts of master blueprints, the very idea is simply lubricious.

So if life were all planned down to level to the cells and the even smaller, the molecules that make up the cells, then the questions are:

Why there are healthy and unhealthy organisms, organisms that have defects or abnormalities, or diseases?​

​

Why do some cells become malignant, like tumors or cancers?​

​

Were all these planned too?​

 

[Valjean]

If the liklihood of an occurrence is a million to one, after half a million chances -- generations, cell mitosis, &c. -- there is a 50% probability. After a hundred million chances the liklihood of the unlikely occurrence is 100:1 in favor.
Cells can reproduce very frequently, splitting in as little as 20 minutes, and there might be a million cells in a single square meter of water. That's a lot of variation generated in very few years on a water world like Earth. Add selection to the mix, and life and increasing complexity is nigh-on inevitable.

 

[PureX]

If the liklihood of an occurrence is a million to one, after half a million chances -- generations, cell mitosis, &c. -- there is a 50% probability. After a hundred million chances the liklihood of the unlikely occurrence is 100:1 in favor.
Cells can reproduce very frequently, and there might be a million cells in a single square meter of water. That's a lot of variation in very few years on a water world like Earth. Add selection to the mix, and life and increasing complexity is nigh-on inevitable.

Nothing will EVER occur that was not already possible. And clearly everything was not possible, because if it were, everything would be occurring. So the "creation" real question is: what determined what was possible to occur, and what was not? This is not a biological question because it precedes and determined the mechanisms of biology, as well as all other existential mechanisms.

Bio-evolution did not create life. It's simply the mechanism. Whatever determined that mechanism to be possible is what "created life". Or rather, enabled live to create itself.

 

[Valjean]

Nothing will EVER occur that was not already possible. And clearly everything was not possible, because if it were, everything would be occurring. So the "creation" real question is: what determined what was possible to occur, and what was not? This is not a biological question because it precedes and determined the mechanisms of biology, as well as all other existential mechanisms.

The mechanisms and fact of evolution were operating long before biology ever 'determined' anything.
The laws and constants of nature were "created" at the Big Bang, by means unknown. They are what determines the unfoldment of the universe and the reality we experience. I see no evidence of any conscious, intentional personage in this process.

Bio-evolution did not create life. It's simply the mechanism. Whatever determined that mechanism to be possible is what "created life". Or rather, enabled live to create itself.

What does that mean? "Determined the mechanism to be possible????"
So what created life? Show us the evidence.

 

[PureX]

The mechanisms and fact of evolution were operating long before biology ever 'determined' anything.
The laws and constants of nature were "created" at the Big Bang, by means unknown.

What is known is that the Big Bang was not just an epression of random chaos. There were determined possibilities and impossibilities at work from the beginning creating order from within the chaos, or no order could ever have occurred. ALL the natural mechanisms of existence are expressions of that order. We can study the mechanisms, and that's fine. But let's stop pretending that the mechanisms of creation are the origin of creation. Because they aren't.

They are what determines the unfoldment of the universe and the reality we experience. I see no evidence of any conscious, intentional personage in this process.

The evidence is that the result of these design parameters (possibility and impossibility) is so "intelligent" that we cannot comprehend it. Inferring that the source of them, whatever that source is, is likewise also immensely intelligent.

What does that mean? "Determined the mechanism to be possible????"
So what created life? Show us the evidence.

Life created itself, because it could. Because the mechanisms involved were all existentially possible, not impossible. So the question is, what set those possibilities and impossibilities? Because that's what ultimately allowed life to exist.

Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a philosopher, because this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can only explore the mechanics. It can't explore the origin of the mechanics.

 

[Pogo]

What is known is that the Big Bang was not just an epression of random chaos. There were determined possibilities and impossibilities at work from the beginning creating order from within the chaos, or no order could ever have occurred. ALL the natural mechanisms of existence are expressions of that order. We can study the mechanisms, and that's fine. But let's stop pretending that the mechanisms of creation are the origin of creation. Because they aren't.

The evidence is that the result of these design parameters (possibility and impossibility) is so "intelligent" that we cannot comprehend it. Inferring that the source of them, whatever that source is, is likewise also immensely intelligent.

Life created itself, because it could. Because the mechanisms involved were all existentially possible, not impossible. So the question is, what set those possibilities and impossibilities? Because that's what ultimately allowed life to exist.

Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a philosopher, because this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can only explore the mechanics. It can't explore the origin of the mechanics.

this isn't philosophy, it is word salad to make you feel better about your a priori beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

What is known is that the Big Bang was not just an epression of random chaos. There were determined possibilities and impossibilities at work from the beginning creating order from within the chaos, or no order could ever have occurred. ALL the natural mechanisms of existence are expressions of that order. We can study the mechanisms, and that's fine. But let's stop pretending that the mechanisms of creation are the origin of creation. Because they aren't.

Uderstood.
How the order emerged from the initial singularity or whatever is unknown. Whether there was any 'why' to it is also unknown. Perhaps the laws and constants that shook out were entirely chance; a dice roll. Perhaps there was some preëxisting ordering factor. We don't even know at what point in the expansion the laws became fixed, but fixed they are, and have been for billions of years.

The evidence is that the result of these design parameters (possibility and impossibility) is so "intelligent" that we cannot comprehend it. Inferring that the source of them, whatever that source is, is likewise also immensely intelligent.

This depends how one defines "intelligent." Theists infer per-planning and intentional design. I see no real evidence of that.

The universe is as the laws of nature dictate. Had other laws shaken out, some other universe might exist, and the inhabitants might be marveling at its sublime design. Still, no cause to infer intentionality or conscious design.

Life created itself, because it could. Because the mechanisms involved were all existentially possible, not impossible. So the question is, what set those possibilities and impossibilities? Because that's what ultimately allowed life to exist.

Unknown, but no reason to infer intentionality or conscious design. Conflating our familiar world of cause-and-effect, and intentional, goal-directed actions, with blind physics and chemistry leads to irrational attribution.

Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a philosopher, because this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can only explore the mechanics. It can't explore the origin of the mechanics.

It does explore origins, but can only go as far as objective evidence allows.
Philosophy without evidence and logical reason is mere speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

There have been quite a few creationism threads here lately and all of them were tediously similar to each other...........

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

The evidence alone does not point to God or anything like that, God is a total non sequitur, you may as well go about saying "Mr Potato Head did it!" that would be just as valid

Nobody who had never heard of God would see the evidence and then conclude that some entity with the features of God created it, the evidence does not lead to God, God is an enormous assumption

The bible is the only reason to think that God created reality, none of the evidence points to that and I think the reason the so-called "creationists" have it in for things like evolution is because evolution shows us that their dear book is not a literal scientific account, which is what they think it is

As such, believing God did it has nothing to do with evidence, it is a fantasy and the evidence does not naturally lead to the idea of there being a God - unless you already believe that

This is the sentiment I wanted to express in this thread:

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence, I would have much more respect if they said this instead of pretending to be interested in science in a pathetic attempt to beat their opponents at their own game

I don't even think creationism should be called something with an "ism" at the end as that bestows undue dignity on it, I think "willful ignorance" is a more accurate term

I found this picture earlier today and it reminded me of some of the threads we've had here on RF recently, I thought I'd share it here:

View attachment 86588

Edit: I found this as well

View attachment 86595

Meantime while Darwin wrote origin of species, scientists have a bit of struggle determining what a species is.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is known is that the Big Bang was not just an epression of random chaos. There were determined possibilities and impossibilities at work from the beginning creating order from within the chaos, or no order could ever have occurred. ALL the natural mechanisms of existence are expressions of that order. We can study the mechanisms, and that's fine. But let's stop pretending that the mechanisms of creation are the origin of creation. Because they aren't.

The evidence is that the result of these design parameters (possibility and impossibility) is so "intelligent" that we cannot comprehend it. Inferring that the source of them, whatever that source is, is likewise also immensely intelligent.

Life created itself, because it could. Because the mechanisms involved were all existentially possible, not impossible. So the question is, what set those possibilities and impossibilities? Because that's what ultimately allowed life to exist.

Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a philosopher, because this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can only explore the mechanics. It can't explore the origin of the mechanics.

What happened to the amino acid formed in the test Urey Miller contrived? Did it keep forming, evolving, or did they throw the junk out.

 

[PureX]

Uderstood.
How the order emerged from the initial singularity or whatever is unknown. Whether there was any 'why' to it is also unknown. Perhaps the laws and constants that shook out were entirely chance; a dice roll.

No, that just isn’t logically possible. Abject chaos cannot “shake out” any form of order (by definition). It is a singular absolute. There had to be open pathways of opportunity, and closed pathways of no opportunity For any form of order or complexity to occur from within it.

Perhaps there was some preëxisting ordering factor. We don't even know at what point in the expansion the laws became fixed, but fixed they are, and have been for billions of years.

Not perhaps. What was possible and what was not possible determined what occurred. Not chance, nor abject chaos. And those possibility parameters are still evident as the existential event unfolds.

This depends how one defines "intelligent." Theists infer per-planning and intentional design. I see no real evidence of that.

I agree that pre-planning is not a logical necessity of an intelligent result. But it clearly is implied. And perhaps even likely. Though my money would be on it not being an ‘intent-to-result’ scenario so much as an emergent manifestation of possibility. But don’t ask me to explain that.

The universe is as the laws of nature dictate. Had other laws shaken out, some other universe might exist, and the inhabitants might be marveling at its sublime design. Still, no cause to infer intentionality or conscious design.

No other laws did nor could “shake out”, because they are and were never possible. What “shook out” was what could, and did. This is as self evident as, “I think therefor I am”. To presume otherwise is just not logical or rational.

Unknown, but no reason to infer intentionality or conscious design.

There clearly is good reason to be found in the fact that anything exists at all; … but this is not proof.

Conflating our familiar world of cause-and-effect, and intentional, goal-directed actions, with blind physics and chemistry leads to irrational attribution.

Presuming philosophical insight from blind physics and chemistry would be an ever greater mistake.

It does explore origins, but can only go as far as objective evidence allows.
Philosophy without evidence and logical reason is mere speculation.

We humans live in a world created by our speculation, and not even science can change that.

 

[Valjean]

Meantime while Darwin wrote origin of species, scientists have a bit of struggle determining what a species is.

So? Slicing a gradual continuum into distinct subsections is a problem when there is no clear distinction between adjoining slices. Determining cut-off points can be pretty arbitrary.

https://cdn-0.ourplnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/red-to-blue-micro-macro-evolution.webp

 

[Valjean]

n

No, that just isn’t logically possible. Abject chaos cannot “shake out” any form of order (by definition). It is a singular absolute. There had to be open pathways of opportunity, and closed pathways of no opportunity For any form of order or complexity to occur from within it.

Abject chaos? Where did you come up with that, and are you trying to apply intuition of commonsense to quantum mechanics?
Again, Big Bang physics is largely unknown, and there's no reason to assume open, closed or any sort of pathways existed till the expansion had begun.

Not perhaps. What was possible and what was not possible determined what occurred. Not chance, nor abject chaos. And those possibility parameters are still evident as the existential event unfolds.

We know nothing of the nature of the pre bang (?) continuum. You're speculating about parameters we've no reason to expect existed. You're applying Newtonian observations to a reality of potentiality.

I agree that pre-planning is not a logical necessity of an intelligent result. But it clearly is implied. And perhaps even likely.

Are we talking evolution again, or cosmogeny?

If evolution, No and no. Observed, understood and well-evidenced alternate mechanisms exist.

Though my money would be on it not being an ‘intent-to-result’ scenario so much as an emergent manifestation of possibility. But don’t ask me to explain that.

No other laws did nor could “shake out”, because they are and were never possible. What “shook out” was what could, and did. This is as self evident as, “I think therefor I am”. To presume otherwise is just not logical or rational.

The "other laws" are potentialities in the analogy. They did not shake out, and noöne is presuming they did. What this universe got was the physics we're familiar with, with no evidence of intention, planning or any divine planner.

There clearly is good reason to be found in the fact that anything exists at all; … but this is not proof.

Not even good reason. How do you conclude that?

Presuming philosophical insight from blind physics and chemistry would be an ever greater mistake.

"Philosophical insight?"
I'm saying presuming God or intent from blind physics and chemistry is a mistake. I thought you had issue with that.

We humans live in a world created by our speculation, and not even science can change that.

??? -- Are you proposing some sort of metaphysical idealism?

 

[PureX]

Abject chaos? Where did you come up with that, ...

Before there was order, that is all that logically could occur.

... and are you trying to apply intuition of commonsense to quantum mechanics?

Logical reasoning is our best cognitive tool for understanding the mechanisms WITHIN existence, so why would we abandon it when contemplating the origin of existence as we know it?

And are you trying to suggest some sort of "quantum magic" is responsible just because you don't want to accept that "God magic" could be? In either case the argument is just a fantasy based on our ignorance. So why should your fantasy usurp anyone else's? Because it involves "scientific jargon"?

Again, Big Bang physics is largely unknown, and there's no reason to assume open, closed or any sort of pathways existed till the expansion had begun.

Well, you keep saying this, but again, we use logic and reason on THIS side of the big bang quite effectively. So why should we abandon it when contemplating the source side of it? And logical reasonng would clearly dictate that something did not come from nothing, and that order cannot spring spontaneously from chaos.

We know nothing of the nature of the pre bang (?) continuum. You're speculating about parameters we've no reason to expect existed. You're applying Newtonian observations to a reality of potentiality.

So are you.

Are we talking evolution again, or cosmogeny?

Both of these existential mechansisms are expressions of the same origin mystery. That mystery being the source of this ordered event we call existence.

The "other laws" are potentialities in the analogy. They did not shake out, and noöne is presuming they did.

They were "built in" by the fact that they were possible, and there were no alternatives. The "laws" we see are just our awareness of the physical mechanics of existential possibility.

What this universe got was the physics we're familiar with, with no evidence of intention, planning or any divine planner.

You have no way of knowing that. So why are your pronouncements any different from the theist pronouncing that an intelligent God did it?

"Philosophical insight?"
I'm saying presuming God or intent from blind physics and chemistry is a mistake. I thought you had issue with that.

Presuming that the logic and reasoning that we use to understand physics and chemistry should be applicable to understanding the mystery source of existence is logically reasonable. But not provable.

??? -- Are you proposing some sort of metaphysical idealism?

I would propose that since we cannot grasp existence beyond what we experience of it, that we are left with an array of imagined possibilities. You imagine that some sort of quantum magic is responsible for existence as we know it, while theists claim some sort of intelligent God is responsible for it. While I might suggest that both of those can be true as they are not incompatible, or neither can be true. And since we will likely never know which, or what else, we are left with this array of imagined possibilities, and therefor choices, regarding how we conceptualize the origin and purpose of all that is.

There is no right or wrong, true or untrue from our perspective, except as personal preference.

 

[Valjean]

Before there was order, that is all that logically could occur.

Order emerged from the Big Bang inflation. Why do you think there was a before?

Logical reasoning is our best cognitive tool for understanding the mechanisms WITHIN existence, so why would we abandon it when contemplating the origin of existence as we know it?

We don't, but neither do we have much to go on. There's not much evidence of mechanism.

And are you trying to suggest some sort of "quantum magic" is responsible just because you don't want to accept that "God magic" could be? In either case the argument is just a fantasy based on our ignorance. So why should your fantasy usurp anyone else's? Because it involves "scientific jargon"?

Because the 'commonsense' laws of physics become pretty obscure on close examination at the quantum level. It's not known that any even existed in the initial singularity.
"God magic," if I understand correctly, would be inexplicable effect without mechanism, by a conscious, intentional personage. I know of no evidence or need of any such thing.

Well, you keep saying this, but again, we use logic and reason on THIS side of the big bang quite effectively. So why should we abandon it when contemplating the source side of it?

Because it's in a whole different ball park, with unknown, if any, laws or discernable order. We can try, but so far our logic and reason have nothing to get a grip on.

And logical reasoning would clearly dictate that something did not come from nothing, and that order cannot spring spontaneously from chaos.

At the quantum level, thing do appear to come from nothing.
As for origins or Big Bang, nobody's claiming something came from nothing, but so far we don't understand where or how 'something' came to be.
Order from chaos? Was there 'chaos???" Unknown. But order did emerge at some point.
Me, I'm comfortable not knowing for now. I see neither need nor evidence of any conscious plan or planner.

So are you.

Both of these existential mechansisms are expressions of the same origin mystery. That mystery being the source of this ordered event we call existence.

They were "built in" by the fact that they were possible, and there were no alternatives. The "laws" we see are just our awareness of the physical mechanics of existential possibility.

What makes you say there were no alternatives in a mystery process? I don't understand your determinism at this level.
"Physical mechanics of existential possibility"? Could you expand on that?

You have no way of knowing that. So why are your pronouncements any different from the theist pronouncing that an intelligent God did it?

Presuming that the logic and reasoning that we use to understand physics and chemistry should be applicable to understanding the mystery source of existence is logically reasonable. But not provable.

I would propose that since we cannot grasp existence beyond what we experience of it, that we are left with an array of imagined possibilities. You imagine that some sort of quantum magic is responsible for existence as we know it, while theists claim some sort of intelligent God is responsible for it.

We have an actual understanding of quantum mechanics. We work with it. It makes your computer work. But an intelligent god?! There's no evidence of any such thing. Goddidit! is an empty, fantastical claim.
As Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

While I might suggest that both of those can be true as they are not incompatible, or neither can be true. And since we will likely never know which, or what else, we are left with this array of imagined possibilities, and therefor choices, regarding how we conceptualize the origin and purpose of all that is.

There is no right or wrong, true or untrue from our perspective, except as personal preference.

There are degrees of confidence. All imagined possibilities are not equal.

 

[gnostic]

We humans live in a world created by our speculation, and not even science can change that.

I think we all know that just about most humans speculate, they also think, don’t think, act, react, like, dislike, err, and so on.

The problems aren’t that people speculate, is when they don’t know if their speculations are true or false, or knowing what are probable or improbable, or can’t distinguish between facts and fiction.

In sciences, particularly Natural Sciences (particularly with physics, chemistry & biology), it observations, understanding and logic, to present the models that are testable, and can be tested, tested through more observations, namely EVIDENCE and/or EXPERIMENTS, & the all-important observations - DATA.

These evidence, experiments & data, provide the means to determine which models are correct/true/probable and which are incorrect/false/improbable.

That’s how scientists find out which hypotheses are based on solid & factual foundations…and which are wrong or speculative.

The Scientific Method may not mean much to most people, but it is a set of processes or procedures in which scientists are trying to be objective when understanding nature and the natural processes - WHAT the phenomena are, or HOW the phenomena work.

The real problems to sciences, are not just speculations, but with people that allow their personal beliefs or likes & dislikes to influence & bias science findings (evidence and test results from experiments).

Sure, scientists don’t have the ALL THE ANSWERS, but that’s why scientists are attempting to learn about nature.

But surely understand, PureX, that philosophers and religion followers do as much as speculations, with no means to test and verify what they believe in to be true or accurate. THEY DON’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TOO…not philosophies, not religions, and not mysticisms…not any schools of thought.

But at least, with sciences, scientists that followed the requirements of Falsifiability, Scientific Method & Peer Review, hypotheses and scientific theories can corrected, amended, expanded, and if necessary, discard them if the evidence, experiments & data have refuted these models. Existing theories can be replaced by better alternative models, as long as these alternatives hold up during rigorous testing.

I think you are obsessing over the wrong things, and you seemed to be ignoring when you do a lot of speculations, yourself.