tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post3174460847882662528..comments2023-08-11T04:59:57.364-04:00Comments on Sacerdotus: Evidence for God I - Philosophy Thought ExperimentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-57193330887056143502014-04-24T03:16:57.926-04:002014-04-24T03:16:57.926-04:00I do not think you understand the fallacy "ar...I do not think you understand the fallacy "argument from ignorance" You are not applying it correctly. This argument posits that something is true because there exists no contrary argument to it. For example, an atheist says, "there is no evidence for God, so there is no God." This is arguing from ignorance. We know that the universe had a beginning because of the "big bang theory" and cosmic radiation which shows the expansion of the universe from a single point. This post does not deal any singularity, so I do not know where you got this idea from. The universe was most likely not "there" for eternity because all matter, space, energy and time came into existence at the point of the big bang expansion. There was nothing before it. The laws of physics did not even exist prior to this, so the universe had no way of forming itself without the "instructions," so to speak. It would be like a computer booting up without an operating system. This post deals with the issue of design and order. It shows how things with order and purpose need an intelligence behind it. <br /><br />Our universe is indeed "mathematical" in that it is ordered in a specific manner to allow its own existence without error just like a math equation will provide a specific answer all of the time. There is no place for variation in mathematics. You either have a right answer or a wrong one. The idea is coined by Tegmark is used by physicists. I do not think there is any physicist in the world today that does not consider the universal "mathematical." Hawkings, Einstein, Lemaitre, Kaku, Strauss, Degrasse, Filipenko etc etc, all rely on math to come up with hypotheses or conclusions regarding the universe. The analogy you propose of leprechauns is a non-sequitur. Leprechauns have no authorship claim of the "Irish language" or Gaelic which I am assuming you are thinking about. The mathematical universe does show an intelligent designer because math is a "tool" or "language" as you put it and only a mind can create and make use of this. <br /><br />One of my professors in physics had this to say:<br /> <br />"All of a sudden we had super symmetric theories coming out of physics that then revolutionized mathematics, and so the goal of physics we believe is to find an equation perhaps no more than one inch long which will allow us to unify all the forces of nature and allow us to read the mind of God." - Dr. KakuSacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-40323182194362750552014-04-13T08:32:25.321-04:002014-04-13T08:32:25.321-04:00Just to elaborate on your comment about mathematic...Just to elaborate on your comment about mathematical nature of the universe, you state: "Due to the mathematical nature of the universe, it is obvious that this force is intelligent"<br />However, mathematics is not the nature of the universe. Mathematics is the tool, the language we use to explain the universe. To say that mathematics is evidence of an intelligent designer is like saying that the Irish language is evidence of leprechauns.Shoestringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13263290931875955838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-82320398068216204752014-04-13T05:54:18.309-04:002014-04-13T05:54:18.309-04:00With all due respect, you're using what's ...With all due respect, you're using what's known as an argument from ignorance. You state that "everything in this universe has a beginning and end" but how do you know that? The Big Bang is simply thought to be the point at which time and space started expanding from a singularity. Science is still trying to work out whether that singularity was "always" there, whether it spontaneously appeared, whether it's a bubble in a multiverse etc. The same applies to the universe's end. We don't know. Current train of thought is that it'll continue expanding indefinitely - getting darker and colder as it does. <br /><br />So, if we can't say for certain that everything has a beginning and end we can't assert that an external force is required or that due to the mathematical nature of the umuverse, intelligence is required. <br />With that in mind, it seems erroneous to compare "the universe and its contents" to an alien structure when evidence of design has still not satisfactorily been established. Shoestringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13263290931875955838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-46891547535239839302014-04-12T23:35:34.876-04:002014-04-12T23:35:34.876-04:00The flaw is in your understanding of the post. Yo...The flaw is in your understanding of the post. Your comment is already addressed in the objections/replies. I shall expound more. Yes, we have evidence of buildings having been designed and built, but we also have of nature as well. This is what scientists study in nature. How can scientists figure out how nature works if there is nothing to study? We have evidence of outside forces due to the contingent nature of things in nature. Things in nature do not exist on their own. They require a necessary factor that is not dependent of another factor for existence and existed prior to it. Everything in this universe has a beginning and end. Therefore, they require and external force that is not bound by contingency which gives them a beginning and end. Due to the mathematical nature of the universe, it is obvious that this force is intelligent. The universe and all its contents are the "alien structures" we are studying. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-82825294334433791142014-04-11T18:58:35.118-04:002014-04-11T18:58:35.118-04:00Interesting take on the watchmaker or tornado in a...Interesting take on the watchmaker or tornado in a junk yard arguments but the flaw in it is the same. <br />We know buildings have been designed and built because we have evidence of them being designed and built. The same can not be said of nature. Just because nature is complex, it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that it had to be designed and created. We have no evidence of outside forces such as a god designing nature so no reason to believe life occurred by anything other than natural means. <br />Take the alien buildings away in your story and you are simply left with a natural eco-system on a faraway world with exactly the same statistical chance of that forming as naturally as life on earth. Shoestringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13263290931875955838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-37481970285728107842013-08-08T03:29:12.018-04:002013-08-08T03:29:12.018-04:00What other leap can be made? If a "design&qu...What other leap can be made? If a "design" is observed, the only logical conclusion is that it has an intelligent designer. This is why I used the example of a city that is discovered in a distant galaxy on a distant world. Show me the lack of design in the universe. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-19486922597606488332013-08-08T03:27:23.726-04:002013-08-08T03:27:23.726-04:00The math does not show chance as an answer to the ...The math does not show chance as an answer to the creation of what we call "reality." No explosion can bring about ordered matter. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-53334863524895805692013-08-08T03:25:49.660-04:002013-08-08T03:25:49.660-04:00Yes, the way we observe it now which allows for li...Yes, the way we observe it now which allows for life here and possibly elsewhere that we have not detected - or maybe our governments have and are keeping it quiet. The circumstances that arose to allow life are extremely improbable based on chance. The math does not allow it. <br /><br />Yes, the variables for RNA to construct itself in the way that it has is not possible based on chance. Our genetic structure is indeed so advanced and complex that there is a discrepancy between the age of our universe and the time that it would take for our genes to sort themselves in the manner that they have. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-22451314445201324002013-08-02T15:28:14.579-04:002013-08-02T15:28:14.579-04:00Post on the blog post why. How is a discovery of ...Post on the blog post why. How is a discovery of a city not a sign of intelligent design? Post it.<br /><br />I don't disagree that the buildings are evidence of intelligent design. I simply disagree with your final conclusion; there you make the leap that everything is evidence of intelligent design.Agnostic Atheist UKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11101698226783303118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-56337311106194211562013-06-03T19:29:33.944-04:002013-06-03T19:29:33.944-04:00Of course it's POSSIBLE that an explosion in a...Of course it's POSSIBLE that an explosion in an airplane factory will produce a fully assembled and functional airplane. The point is that the probability of this occurring is so low, this eventuality must reasonably be regarded as zero.<br />Similarly, the probability of life capable of reproduction arising from random processes is virtually zero. Let's take the most optimistic course and assume that all past life is available for us to examine. Pick a species capable of reproduction. Follow a given individual backward in time, choosing the female progenitor as you progress through past generations. Since generation was produced by a DNA-based process, eventually your backward traverse must encounter an individual whose body at birth contained no DNA. After all, there are certainly times on Earth so primordial that no DNA molecules existed anywhere on the planet. Call this individual X, and the descendant that led us to X, let's call Y. Now tell me: X's body contained no DNA before Y was produced, but somehow produced enough DNA during the gestation process to furnish every cell in Y's body with DNA, and a brand new DNA-based reproductive system to boot.<br /><br />Now notice that this miraculous development didn't just occur with some ancestor of one present-day individual, it had to happen with some ancestor of EVERY present-day individual.<br /><br />It's more likely that an explosion in a watch factory will assemble a functioning Rolex.Kerry Soileauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09465585328563312869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-4106350094679444712013-05-29T01:33:56.019-04:002013-05-29T01:33:56.019-04:00When you say "universe in the way that it exi...When you say "universe in the way that it exists" and "state that we experience it," do you mean literally the observable universe in its present form (i.e. with planets like ours, rich in heavy elements) or do you mean our universe as generally amenable to human life (i.e. with sufficient dark matter to allow for galaxies to form, finely-tuned for organic life, etc.). <br /><br />I agree our circumstances on Earth are magnificently friendly to human life, but they arise naturally from the initial conditions of the universe. (Discussing the rarity of those initial conditions is another debate altogether!)<br /><br />As for nucleotides, "4^200-300" is not a probability, but I am curious about your meaning. Do you mean that there are 4^200 ways to combine GC and AT pairs to create a basic protein? Again I am a physics instructor so biology is not my strong suit. Yes our DNA and RNA are immensely complex, but its not as if our entire DNA sequence was randomly generated in a vacuum - rather we have genetic heritage from organisms who were more successful than others, natural selection in action.<br /><br />Also I had never commented on any stranger's personal blog before, thanks for your thoughtful response :)Mike Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01398378149641891360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-3183548765311323522013-05-28T12:49:50.137-04:002013-05-28T12:49:50.137-04:00Lawrence Krauss is just one counter opinion holder...Lawrence Krauss is just one counter opinion holder compared to the many who agree with me. The mathematical proof is in probability. What are the odds that this universe would appear randomly in the way that it exists which allows life, function and structure? The odds are pretty much non existent considering the magnitude and complexity of the universe, the age of it, and the time it would take for such a probability to take hold. As Paul A. M. Dirac said, “God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”<br /><br />Take nucleotides for example. These are so complex that the probability of them forming in a functional manner is about 4^200-300. This would take about 18 billion years to do so which would be longer than the age we believe the universe is. <br /><br />If the universe were easy to create in the state that we experience it, then it would be easy for physicists to create one with a collider using the power of computers which can calculate way more efficiently than the human brain. Moreover, I think you do not understand that evolution and inflationary cosmology have a causal element to them. These processes are not eternal. As a physics instructor I would assume that you are aware of this fact. Hence, why no physicists have ruled out God by using evidence. Even Hawkings has stated that while God may not be necessary for the universe to run, this does not mean that He does not exist. I am a physics student myself and it was this science which opened my mind to the possibility of a Creator. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-79527134378181254372013-05-27T19:41:42.799-04:002013-05-27T19:41:42.799-04:00"It is not logically nor (sic.) mathematicall..."It is not logically nor (sic.) mathematically possible for a universe like ours to appear randomly in such a way as to allow life and the maintenance of galaxies and other bodies in space."<br /><br />Lawrence Krauss would adamantly disagree. As a physics instructor, I would like to see your mathematical proof of this impossibility. Your writing is very passionate but I am not sure you understand evolution and inflationary cosmology as your opponents (like myself) do.Mike Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01398378149641891360noreply@blogger.com