Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Gracchus]

The problem is the fine tuning argument shows us that there are some set parameters for how things has been setup for life and even the universe itself.

You have not shown that any parameters were "set up". It is what it is. No set-up needed.

But this is only part of a bigger picture of design in nature. As we look into things more and more such as with genetics and physics and especially quantum physics now we begin to see a world that science is not able to have the answers for.

What world is that?

Its not so much that these answers may come. Its that the type of evidence we see isn't in the scientific realm to deal with.

What evidence do you see that science can't deal with?

Some phenomena appear orderly. These can be noted and sometimes explained by explicit mathematics. Some phenomena seem disorderly. To concentrate only on the orderly while ignoring the disorderly might lead a sloppy thinker to claim intelligent design.

As a side note, did you know that most of the mass of a baryon is the mass of "empty" space? That means that most of the mass of the universe is virtual particles popping into and out of existence. And that includes us.

"it is not surprising that the bear dances badly, it is only surprising he dances at all." --- Russian proverb

 

[stevevw]

If you find a lake where fish can survive, you do think that the lake formed through natural processes. You don't have to invoke a deity to explain where lakes come from.

Also, would you say that the house itself is finely tuned for fish?

This is another poor example. The Lake is an end result of another process. The lake would be like evoking multiverses as its the product of many lakes and an ocean. The fish tank stands on its own with no connection to anything else. Its origin has to be considered on its own and there is nothing that can be connected to it to do this. The house is also irrelevant as the tank is the universe and the fish are the life. The tank stands alone as the only things we can use for the example. Otherwise you are appealing to extra dimensions once again for which scientists do to try and dismiss the fine tuning. By introducing these extra dimensions it takes the focus away from our universe and planet as being the things to consider only.

If moss only exists on one planet out of 10 billion planets in our galaxy, and in only one galaxy out of 10 billion galaxies, why would you ever think the universe was designed for moss?

It can be argued that moss being a form of life can have a certain amount of fine tuning just like many things on earth such as our atmosphere or our particular type of water which sustains life. But we are talking about an extra ordinary fine tuning to make an extraordinary case that gives impressive odds. Though moss requires certain conditions it doesn't require the refined conditions for life that humans need.

Well yes that is sort of how it goes.The universe so far hasn't been able to find life anywhere except earth. So thats what makes it so incredibly high odds that it ended up happening only on earth. If life still happened in an entire universe that doesn't have any other life anywhere in it then things would have to be very specially setup to have it against those odds. So its not so much that the universe fine tuned for life but the universe is fine tuned for life in one place on earth.

It shows no such thing. 400 years ago we had no scientific explanation for lightning. Did this mean that lightning was produced by a deity? NO!!

As far as I understand it electricity could be tested becuase it happened in our world. Thanks to being able to use an experiment with a kite and key we could directly test things and discover how electricity worked. But we cant go to a multiverse dimension of a hologram world and test things. That is what I mean by the evidence is beyond testable science. All the ideas to address what scientists are finding in physics now stem back to quantum physics. They are all based in ideas of other dimensions and where things act weirdly different to how our reality in this world works. Science can do some calculation based on how things should behave and what the end results should be. But they cant verify this without directly having that other dimension there to test things. So its all about theoretical ideas which are all about far our worlds and dimensions.

Also, you haven't shown us any evidence for the actions of a deity, other than to just assert it.

At this stage as I said before we dont have to state what deity does what. We just have to show that there is some form of intelligent agent that may be behind things that cases the fine tuning and design in life. This can be put forward as one possible hypothesis just like scientists do with their ideas of other dimensions. Afterall God is also based in another dimension beyond our world.

You, apparently, just need to believe something without proof in order for it to be considered valid.

Yes when it comes to faith according to the bible we should trust God and believe in what He promised. This is the essence of faith and if we had all the evidence then it would be faith. But like I said it isn't blind faith either as their is certain evidences that are personal to the believer that wont be testable in a scientific way but still give the believer assurance. But there are good supports for those who want to go into more detail about how God make work in life and nature. Its not the criteria for salvation but it can add some deeper meaning to our belief. So we can find some proof if we want as well that is just as good as the level of proof that science has for ideas such as multiverses, hologram worlds and other ideas beyond out world.

That's what science is, trying to find ways to verify hypotheses. Your method appears to be to believe in something without proof and never try to verify it.

An untestable and unsupported hypothesis is completely unreasonable, by every measure.

Like I said faith isn't based on science. But if you want to find some extra support you can. So it isn't entirely without proof. You can form a hypothesis and then make predictions to test. That is what some are doing. So dont shoot down an idea before it has a chance to be tested. It is no different to some of the ideas that science has that haven't been verified at the moment.

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis): (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

So peer reviewed papers are now an argument for ignorance.

That is pareidolia, not evidence.

These paper if you read have scientific calculations that show how design is in nature. They dont just make assertions without any evidence. This is the idea and why Ive chosen them because they are about the science and not just from a philosophical view point. But it seems you can make assertions and be dismissive with evidence yourself. Its easy to make dismissive statements without any support.

Where is the evidence for a supernatural nature?

If you read the papers they also showing and supporting a non material cause of design in nature. They are making a case for design in nature that goes beyond the material world which they say cannot be explained and accounted for by scientific evidence alone.

That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

How is it an argument form ignorance when they are showing some scientific support through calculations and logical reasoning for design in nature. They use the same approach as humans use for design in how we make things and apply this to nature.

 

[stevevw]

There was a great quote a while back about how we are simultaneously completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but extremely meaningful to ourselves. The Universe may not care about us, but we care about us, and we are the scope that matters for us. (If that makes any sense.)

Yes it makes sense. But I think it also moves outside ourselves as well. We have this natural inclination to make connection between what we see in nature such as the universe and some sort of agent that designed things. We find it easy and natural to believe that there is more to things that what we see.

Oh, we're doing this dance again? Great! Can you propose a condition by which your hypothesis would by falsified? Doesn't have to be anything that actually applies, but it must at least in theory be possible for your idea to be false in some hypothetical reality. What would a hypothetical reality that wasn't designed look like?

I don't think there's really an answer to this question. After all, the designer could be explicitly deceptive, and form a reality that has none of what you consider "hallmarks of design".

Like I said it doesn't have to be a particular designer. We are just talking about purposeful and intelligent design in nature. The papers I included earlier on another post in this thread have plenty of scientific support and explain how we can show and test design in nature through methods such as reverse engineering.

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

No, of course not, because all examples of glass/plastic manipulation we have ever observed have come from humans, and no examples have ever come from nature. We can't really pull any analogy to reality as a whole, though, as we have no such basis for comparison. It's not like we've been inside a world factory to watch gods build all kinds of worlds. The comparison doesn't work

The idea is to show intelligent design. To show that something was setup on purpose to achieve an end result and didn't happen by itself or by chance. Its the odds for it happening that make it impressive. When we see something like a fish tank setup we immediately know that someone had to be involved to set it up and it couldn't have happened on its own. Just like life on earth where the conditions for life need to have certain levels of air, atmosphere, type of water ect a fish tank needs the water to be a certain temp, the water to be oxygenated, the PH balance to be a certain level, ect.

How about a Koi Pond? Imagine you come across a small pond in the wilderness filled with Koi and surrounded by beautiful plant life. How would you go about determining whether this was designed by humans or not?

This once again as far as I have read is a man made structure. So you are using a similar idea to the fish tank. It needs filters and certain conditions to exist which can only be made by an intelligent designer.. But even so you could show an example of something natural that has intelligent design. If you found a pond or pool of water in the desert that normally doesn't sustain life like the universe then this could be argued it has an intelligent agent behind it that has setup the condition to specially allow for life. If that pond has seasons of rain and the right atmosphere for it and other condition were just right to sustain life just for that little spot in the desert you would immediately think who set this up. You would think it naturally occurred because it is very unlikely to happen in the desert like that where the rest of the environment was hostile to life.

(Notice how I always say "designed by X". This is because our ability to detect design is necessarily contingent on who the designer is. We can spot design by humans, or design by beavers, or design by honeybees pretty well, but as of yet, I'm not aware of any heuristic to spot design independent of who made the object.)

WE can spot design whether its by a beaver or a bee or human. But its the level of design that makes it special and amazing to be to great to come from chance. A beaver can make their dam anywhere along that river. Well there are several places anyway. There may be suitable places on other rivers throughout the world. Or there may be similar living creatures that do similar things. In fact any living creature on earth that makes their home from natural material like logs or twigs for nests or piles of wood for dens ect are similar to different forms of life.

That would equate to different forms of intelligent life throughout the universe making their homes on different planets. They all may not be the same type of intelligent life or build the same homes but they are more or less the same type of living thing. But as we see with humans so far we are the only ones in the universe. Not only this our planet which is our home seems to be the only type so far which has many specific conditions that allow life. It goes back to the desert example. If that pond in the desert has some sort of life in it and it was the only life on earth then that would be impressive.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

Are you saying that your god is forced to design by the rules that we see from natural, non-omnipotent processes? Seems like a weird theology to base your ideas of the limits for your god on what we see from the designs of mere mortal humans.

But in any case, given how the items on this list are contradicted by the evidence, we can dismiss ID as a failed hypothesis. As if that wasn't clear enough already given its failures in both the scientific and legal fields.

 

[stevevw]

You have not shown that any parameters were "set up". It is what it is. No set-up needed.

the odds for it to happen naturally are so great that this becomes the evidence that it must have been setup be an intelligent source. Just like finding a watch on the beach. You dont say it naturally happened. The odds for that go beyond it happening without some intervention from a designer.

What world is that?

It depends what you looking at. If its genetics or biology we see complex systems, codes, algorithms and info that is beyond what science can explain through a natural process. If its astrophysics then its about what happened before the big bang. Can something come from nothing. Its the quantum effect and how this evokes worlds that go beyond our reality. This is the same for general physics and quantum mechanics. The ideas that scientists have to appeal to to explain things which include the quantum effect are beyond what they can understand. So it seems we are reaching a point where we have to step outside the verifiable science and our world to explain things. Isn't that what some say those who believe in God do. maybe science is just starting to come full circle but form a different road to where religion has been saying is the meaning for life. Maybe they both are needed and work together.

What evidence do you see that science can't deal with?

Multiverses, hologram worlds, time travel, string theory, the big bang, black holes, dark matter, the expanding universe, even gravity when it comes to uniting it with quantum physics. There are many more examples that are associated with the quantum world. Science can make some theoretical proposals that may add up to a point but they can prove them and never will because they are based in dimensions outside our world. You have to directly test something to ensure its correct. As far as I know we cant travel through worm holes yet to get to these other dimensions to test them.

Some phenomena appear orderly. These can be noted and sometimes explained by explicit mathematics. Some phenomena seem disorderly. To concentrate only on the orderly while ignoring the disorderly might lead a sloppy thinker to claim intelligent design.

Thats why we need to test the hypothesis as best we can. Some of the evidence I have posted with the papers on design in nature cover some of that scientific support. There are many scientific supports out there. You just have to read them to find out.

The problem is many in the scientific world are dismissive and reject this before it even has a chance to be considered because they lump everything in the delusional and unreal basket. But like many of the ideas that are proposed by science ID will never be able to be completely verified. All people are asking is that it be a hypothesis that is worth consideration to be tested. It doesn't make any claims about God. That is a separate debate.

As a side note, did you know that most of the mass of a baryon is the mass of "empty" space? That means that most of the mass of the universe is virtual particles popping into and out of existence. And that includes us.

Yes just ask Lawrence Krauss, thats one of his favorites. Or should I say one of Richard Dawkins favorites on behalf on Mr Krauss. There are many ideas that stem form this. The observer is what may create our reality. This then brings in that our consciousness may be an independent thing that can live on. That our world is like a 2D hologram that we only see and create.

This is where ideas like string theory, multiverses and hologram theories stem from. But once again like so many ideas with quantum physics this is not completely verified. It only states it should happen according to the maths. But as we have seen in the past whats on paper doesn't equate to what happens. This is where we are at now and the aim is to unite general relativity and the quantum world into a theory of everything. Its what Stephen Hawkins said that when we discover the theory of everything then we will know the mind of God. Even though he was only using a metaphor I believe that there is a some truth in that.[/QUOTE]

 

[KCfromNC]

the odds for it to happen naturally are so great

What model are you using to predict these odds, and how well has that model held up when tested?

 

[The Cadet]

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology.

So if we did not find "specified complexity" (whatever that means) in biology, could we then conclude that the universe was not intelligently designed?

No. Because it would be simple for a being capable of creating worlds to create a world that does not have specified complexity. It may be barren of life, but it would still be intelligently designed.

2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record

So if we found a gradual, slow appearance of complexity in the fossil record, could we then conclude that the universe was not intelligently designed?

No. Same problem - the intelligent designer could easily have stretched the "cambrian explosion" to billions and billions of years (not that there aren't serious problems with this argument anyways, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument).

All of your "predictions" are not predictions of intelligent design. It may be convenient for intelligent design that they were applicable, but the universe could be absolutely free of re-used parts, rapid complexity, or complexity at all, and that would not mean it was not intelligently designed.

In other words, the hypothesis fits the data no matter what the data is. This allows it no predictive or explanatory power, and as the universe is exactly the same regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is true, it is a useless hypothesis that can be shaved off with Occam's Razor.

The idea is to show intelligent design. To show that something was setup on purpose to achieve an end result and didn't happen by itself or by chance. Its the odds for it happening that make it impressive. When we see something like a fish tank setup we immediately know that someone had to be involved to set it up and it couldn't have happened on its own. Just like life on earth where the conditions for life need to have certain levels of air, atmosphere, type of water ect a fish tank needs the water to be a certain temp, the water to be oxygenated, the PH balance to be a certain level, ect.

But again, you're comparing apples to oranges. We know that the fish tank is designed (by humans) because there is no known natural mechanism for producing those conditions. Outside of humans, nature just doesn't do sheet glass and metalworking. However, we can observe humans doing such things on a near-constant basis. Yeah, a fish tank is complex, but unguided natural processes can produce stunningly complex objects, as evolution (or, if that's not good enough for you, evolutionary algorithms) demonstrates very effectively. It's not the complexity that tells us that it is designed by humans.

This once again as far as I have read is a man made structure.

Well then, just any small pond with fish in it in a beautiful environment. It could be designed, but how can we tell? What method do we use?

If you found a pond or pool of water in the desert that normally doesn't sustain life like the universe then this could be argued it has an intelligent agent behind it that has setup the condition to specially allow for life.

But desert springs and oases form naturally on a regular basis. There's no reason to believe that simply because something is rare and the conditions for it unlikely, it must therefore come from intelligence. How many planets are there in the universe? Sure, the odds of an earth-like planet are fairly small when talking about any specific planet, but change the denominator to "every planet in the universe", and the odds become nearly guaranteed.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is another poor example. The Lake is an end result of another process.

Our universe could be the same. As the lake illustrates, there is no reason to invoke an intelligence simply because you don't know how something came about.

The house is also irrelevant as the tank is the universe and the fish are the life.

False. The house is the universe and the Earth is the tank. How can you say that the universe was finely tuned for life when life is only found on one planet (according to you) out of billions in our galaxy, and only in one galaxy out of billions?

It can be argued that moss being a form of life can have a certain amount of fine tuning just like many things on earth such as our atmosphere or our particular type of water which sustains life. But we are talking about an extra ordinary fine tuning to make an extraordinary case that gives impressive odds. Though moss requires certain conditions it doesn't require the refined conditions for life that humans need.

In a universe finely tuned for humans, those conditions should be found throughout the universe.

These paper if you read have scientific calculations that show how design is in nature.

How do they show design?

If you read the papers they also showing and supporting a non material cause of design in nature.

How do they show this?

They are making a case for design in nature that goes beyond the material world which they say cannot be explained and accounted for by scientific evidence alone.

That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

How is it an argument form ignorance when they are showing some scientific support through calculations and logical reasoning for design in nature. They use the same approach as humans use for design in how we make things and apply this to nature.

". . . which they say cannot be explained and accounted for by scientific evidence alone."

It boils down to, "Science can't explain it, so God must have done it". That is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology.

Let's start with the first step.

Show us how to measure specified complexity in biology. How is it detected? Why won't natural processes produce specified complexity?

 

[[serious]]

How is that two contradictory arguments?

If life was miraculously created, the universe need not be fine tuned for the natural emergence of life. If the universe was fine tuned for the emergence of life, then life need not be miraculously created.

 

[[serious]]

Took me a while to get back and reply. I don't have a ton of time at the moment, so I can't address everything though.

I have only posted what the scientists have said about the cosmological constant. Most have said it is the hardest of all the constants to explain. There have been some ideas through quantum physics to address the cosmological constant problem such as through string theory and multiverses. But these are theoretical ideas that haven't been proven and bring up other problems that need to be addressed. The point is its the scientists who are making these calculations. As far as I can understand it they can calculate the values of the vacuum energy ie dark energy (cosmological constant) to within a close range. They know it has to be above zero and very small.

One running error I see in many of these treatment, which you appear to have gotten caught by as well, is the difference between precision and magnitude. I was addressing the cosmological constant claim from both perspectives:
1. The precision to which the current observed values would appear to be turned is only an order of magnitude
2. The backward tracing which gets larger tuning requirements assumes no inflationary period. When factoring in the inflationary period, virtually any initial state tends towards what we observe.
3. Even if we were to conflate magnitude with precision, predicted values of the cosmological constant from different areas of physics disagree by a lot. experimental measurement seems to favor the small number, but we are not certain if we are really able to determine the full scope of it, so we can't rule out larger values.

It seems the link I posted had these calculations but I could not completely understand them as I am not a physicists. But other sites have similar calculations so I would assume they are what many have come up with and are the common knowledge. The other point is that many mainstream scientists such as Steven Weinberg, Brian Green, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawkins, Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) and many more. They each have stated that the universe looks fine tuned for life. Some have singled out the cosmological constant as a major fine tuning that is hard to explain.

No worries, The math is well beyond me as well. I understand enough to get the gist of the results, but I am far from an expert on it. We both must rely on people who have significantly more training and experience in modern physics.

I wont re-post any links as you said you didn't want a bunch of them. I will post 1 or 2 at the end of this post. One of which I had already posted but you must have not seen it which deals with the cosmological constants calculations and some of the other fine tuning constants that have been brought up..

Appreciated

Then why do many scientists keep quoting this magnitude of 10/120. It seems to be the value they have put on dark energy so that this can explain how the universes kept in balance as well as expanding faster all the time. It was the value needed when the big bang started so that it didn't cause the universe to collapse in on itself or keep expanding until there was nothing. Anyway the link I will post shows the calculations for you to look at.



OK well I cant remember linking a video so maybe I posted something else that I didn't intend to. But I think if its associated with the paper the the PDF link was the one I posted below that link. The PDF on the link itself wasn't there or I couldn't get into it so I included another site with the PDF. I included the first link to show it came from a good journal source as the PDF link had no source fro what journal it was or where it came from.


You only have to read a certain section. I did read the relevant parts of the paper that referred to what we were debating. Thought the paper covers the fine tuning argument I brushed over most of the other parts as it was a very long and complicated journal of around 80 pages. But the relevant parts from item number 2 (evidence of fine tuning) on page 10 to about page 26 should cover what we are talking about. The paper tries to support fine tuning scientifically so it goes into some detail and if your not a scientists like me then its a bit much. It has a lot of calculations for the cosmological constant which was pretty hard to get my head around. It brings up possible objections and explains how these do not hold water as far as the fine tuning is concerned.



Yeah sorry about that. I included a few different ones as I thought it would cover different aspects. The wiki one was mainly because it wasn't religious and a common one that people use and is accepted. But it really didn't say much in detail. The best one was actually the one you didn't read, the 80 page paper. But you only have to read a small section which I pointed out above.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

Had to skip a bit to get to what you said is the most relevant link. Looking at the referenced section, there are three aspects:
1. The existence of the laws of nature. This one is unhelpful, as if we postulate what would happen if a law of nature didn't exist, we must likewise take into account that nonexistent laws must them be possible in such scenarios. Under such situations, life as it exists here might not exist, but we cannot even begin to consider what other forms of life could emerge in such drastically different universes which would be impossible in ours.

2. The fine tuning of the physical constants. (the most relevant one)

Fine tuning of gravity: He begins by comparing the strength of gravity to the strong force. This is not a tuning argument but a magnitude argument. Yes, if gravity was a billion time stronger than it is, earth would be uninhabitable (though other rocks might still be) but "can't be a billion times larger" is a FAR cry from "fine tuned"

I've got to stop there, but if you would like to point me to a specific case in either that paper or another in which tuning, rather than magnitude is addressed, I'll focus on that one when i get back.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If life was miraculously created, the universe need not be fine tuned for the natural emergence of life. If the universe was fine tuned for the emergence of life, then life need not be miraculously created.

You are making some assumptions here that are not warranted. The first that if the universe was miraculously created in would not need to be fine tuned, why do you feel that due to the universe being created it would not have the exact necessary elements for life which is the purpose of the universe according to the Christian worldview. Secondly, if it were not created for a purpose and still had life, one would have to explain just how the remarkable number of necessary elements would come together the way they do to allow for life to exist. That is miraculous in itself considering the vast number of unrelated parameters and the fact that life has never been shown to come into existence from non-life.

 

[stevevw]

You have not shown that any parameters were "set up". It is what it is. No set-up needed.

I guess it comes down to odds and there are scientists who say that things seem setup and the odds for it all happening by chance seem unlikely. Some scientists find the finely tuned physical constants in our universe astonishing and cannot explain how this might be unless they appeal to ideas that are beyond what we can prove like multiverses. So all I am saying is why cant we at least use one of the possibilities for what we observe Fine tuning and design as a possible hypothesis that needs further testing and verification. Just like the other ideas that are yet to be verified in science. No idea has been verified at the moment and I doubt that any ever will so all we can do is postulate about which one best fits the evidence we observe.

What world is that?

What evidence do you see that science can't deal with?

Any world that is being observed at the moment that cannot be explained by verifiable evidence. Such as with astrophysics and the discoveries of a increasingly faster expanding universe or with something like dark energy and matter. Especially the world of quantum mechanics which is throwing up things that cannot be answered by the way we measure our macro world and trying to unite that with relativity. But even in genetics where we are finding more and more complexity that is going beyond the capabilities of evolution to explain.Its not so much that we may find the answer some day. Its more like the answer is beyond what science can verify. So therefore at some stage an appeal to something beyond science may have to be considered. That is happening now in many areas of theoretical science and metaphysics.

Some phenomena appear orderly. These can be noted and sometimes explained by explicit mathematics. Some phenomena seem disorderly. To concentrate only on the orderly while ignoring the disorderly might lead a sloppy thinker to claim intelligent design.

An explanation only describes what is. It doesn't tell us how it came about and it certainly hasn't proven anything or has any creative powers. I agree we must look at everything that is happening and not assume things. But that also applies to a world view of things. Just because it has the label of science behind it doesn't mean that humans can use that to push a particular view of things. We may be able to describe gravity but we dont know the overall role it plays in things or how it came about. It seems quite magical and has many aspects about it that defy a scientific explanation. So for all we know in the big picture of things or in the theory of everything that gravity may have a completely different explanation and role to what we think it is now. In fact that is the way things seem to be going now anyway.

As a side note, did you know that most of the mass of a baryon is the mass of "empty" space? That means that most of the mass of the universe is virtual particles popping into and out of existence. And that includes us.

Yes this is the fascinating world of quantum physics or even beyond that world. But how would that come about. Just because science can come to understand or make calculations that this is the case doesn't mean that they have discovered how that happened naturally. Its just an explanation of what they see and doesn't have any creative ability. In fact the explanations they are coming up with are hard to fit in with the way science calculates things in our physical reality. That is why some science is saying that we are the product of our consciousness and reality is what we observe.

 

[stevevw]

Are you saying that your god is forced to design by the rules that we see from natural, non-omnipotent processes? Seems like a weird theology to base your ideas of the limits for your god on what we see from the designs of mere mortal humans.

But in any case, given how the items on this list are contradicted by the evidence, we can dismiss ID as a failed hypothesis. As if that wasn't clear enough already given its failures in both the scientific and legal fields.

Thats just being dismissive. Could it be the other way around. That a world view from science is interpreting the things they see as having happened by a naturalistic process when nothing has really been proven. Could it be that they are doing exactly what they accuse religion of doing and making what they see fit a world view of things. So I guess its how you interpret the evidence. I think that there are many things that a naturalistic explanation cannot account for. Even their current explanations are not validated and based on a lot of assumption happening. I think a lot is up for grabs and has not been completely verified. I think the more we come to know about what is going on in the world the more we will see that we dont know and that there is something beyond the science and a naturalistic world view at work.

 

[Gracchus]

I guess it comes down to odds and there are scientists who say that things seem setup and the odds for it all happening by chance seem unlikely.

Shuffle a deck of cards and the order of the cards will be 1/52! This is approximately 1 in 8.06X10^67. The odds against any particular outcome could approach 1 in infinity, and yet there is a probability of one that there will be an almost infinitely improbable outcome. Nor is it a given that the universe happens by chance. There seem to be laws obeying a necessary, underlying mathematical structure.

Some scientists find the finely tuned physical constants in our universe astonishing and cannot explain how this might be unless they appeal to ideas that are beyond what we can prove like multiverses.
So all I am saying is why cant we at least use one of the possibilities for what we observe Fine tuning and design as a possible hypothesis that needs further testing and verification. Just like the other ideas that are yet to be verified in science. No idea has been verified at the moment and I doubt that any ever will so all we can do is postulate about which one best fits the evidence we observe.

Alas, there seems to be no way to test the multiverse hypothesis.

I asked what science can't deal with.

Any world that is being observed at the moment that cannot be explained by verifiable evidence.
Such as with astrophysics and the discoveries of a increasingly faster expanding universe or with something like dark energy and matter.

Dark matter and energy are labels for observed phenomena. There have been several ideas put forth as explanation. The problem is how to test them. But science is dealing with them. Perhaps scientists will be successful, perhaps not. But even if there are things we can never know, that ignorance does not constitute evidence for the existence of a god.

Especially the world of quantum mechanics which is throwing up things that cannot be answered by the way we measure our macro world and trying to unite that with relativity.

And yet quantum mechanics has provided us with very reliable predictions. Some reality is unintuitive. Feynman, I believe, pointed out that a positron is indistinguishable from an electron travelling backward in time.

But even in genetics where we are finding more and more complexity that is going beyond the capabilities of evolution to explain.
Its not so much that we may find the answer some day. Its more like the answer is beyond what science can verify.

And how do you know that we won't find the answer tomorrow?

So therefore at some stage an appeal to something beyond science may have to be considered.

It's boojums! It's leprechauns! We don't have to appeal to anything else. We can just say we don't know.

That is happening now in many areas of theoretical science and metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the science of the undermonstrable, and probably non-existent.

An explanation only describes what is.

No! The record of an observation describes what is.

It doesn't tell us how it came about and it certainly hasn't proven anything or has any creative powers.

An explanation is not a proof. An explanation is an attempt to relate the causal chains that link observations. "Creative powers" is just balderdash.

I agree we must look at everything that is happening and not assume things.

We have to assume some things if we are to get beyond "Cogito ergo sum." What we must determine is whether our assumptions are consistent with reality.

But that also applies to a world view of things. Just because it has the label of science behind it doesn't mean that humans can use that to push a particular view of things.

We can and we do. Science works. Science has reduced the incidence of smallpox. Thousands of years of prayer by millions of people did not do that.

We may be able to describe gravity but we dont know the overall role it plays in things or how it came about.

We know the role that gravity plays. Gravity sucks. It came about because mass is twisted space and so distorts spacetime.

It seems quite magical and has many aspects about it that defy a scientific explanation.

And there is the root of your misunderstanding, the flaw in your reasoning. You don't know, therefore: magic.

So for all we know in the big picture of things or in the theory of everything that gravity may have a completely different explanation and role to what we think it is now. In fact that is the way things seem to be going now anyway.

We could be wrong. It is unlikely however that we are completely wrong. (That is a non-inclusive we. You are probably very wrong. )

Yes this is the fascinating world of quantum physics or even beyond that world. But how would that come about. Just because science can come to understand or make calculations that this is the case doesn't mean that they have discovered how that happened naturally.

It is, I would submit, strongly suggestive that they got it at least partially right.

Its just an explanation of what they see and doesn't have any creative ability.

"Creative ability" is just the ability to synthesize new combinations of existing ideas.

In fact the explanations they are coming up with are hard to fit in with the way science calculates things in our physical reality.

You're back to, "We (I) don't know, therefore balderdash."

That is why some science is saying that we are the product of our consciousness and reality is what we observe.

Our senses take in data. Our minds organize patterns of data and react with responses to perceived patterns, but those patterns are neural activity. There is a pattern in the brains of self conscious entities that we designate as "me". It is not really what I am, it is just a simplified and often inaccurate model. What is perceived as the self or any phenomenon is the model; the reality is a dynamic pattern of matter-energy flows inseparable from the reality that is the universe.

I think, therefore I am, but I am not what I think am, unless I think that I am merely part of all.

 

[The Cadet]

That a world view from science is interpreting the things they see as having happened by a naturalistic process when nothing has really been proven.

Do you know why science does this?

It's because the supernatural is an epistemological dead end. It's because the moment we say, "God did it" or "Magic did it" or "The supernatural did it", we lose all of the things that make the knowledge valuable. We lose the ability to form predictive models about reality. We lose the ability to determine any cause beyond "it wasn't natural". We lose any value we could possibly have from this knowledge.

And of course, there's an additional component. We used to accept the supernatural as answers. Rainbows used to be a sign from god that he would forgive us. Volcanic eruptions were caused by the gods being mad. Lightning was Zeus throwing a party in the clouds. We ascribed meaning and purpose to these events, and we had a 0 batting average. Claims of supernatural causation have, in every single case, either been unverified or proven wrong. Usually the latter. And in many cases, they actively held us back. The belief that epilepsy was demon possession actively stopped us from finding the real causes and real treatments for the disease.

So why in the world should we accept a supernatural "explanation"? We have no mechanism to legitimately establish if something is supernatural or not. Clarke's Third Law states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and it's true - if you were to show someone from the dark ages a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion, they may very well be convinced that they were seeing something supernatural. We know better, but if aliens were to show up and start using star-trek-esque technology to ressurrect the dead or turn lead into gold, would we not also be fooled if they claimed to be gods?

And even if we could establish that something actually is impossible to explain by naturalistic processes, we would still be stuck on the problem of which supernatural entity was responsible - a question that is even more impossible to answer. We would have no way of determining that entity's thought process, and no way of making any testable predictions based on that model. Indeed, the whole of science would collapse in on itself. Maybe aspirin only works because God wants it to work, and tomorrow it will stop working for no reason. Maybe the earth is only created with the semblance of age, but it was really created two seconds ago by a supernatural being. The possibilities and pointless thought experiments that make no sense are endless if we allow for baseless claims of supernatural agency. That's why we don't.

 

[stevevw]

Shuffle a deck of cards and the order of the cards will be 1/52! This is approximately 1 in 8.06X10^67. The odds against any particular outcome could approach 1 in infinity, and yet there is a probability of one that there will be an almost infinitely improbable outcome. Nor is it a given that the universe happens by chance. There seem to be laws obeying a necessary, underlying mathematical structure.
Alas, there seems to be no way to test the multiverse hypothesis.

I'm glad you said seem to be laws obeying an underlying mathematical structure. And thats the crux of the matter. Science can come up with the mathematical equations but that doesn't tell us how this came about. What was the underlying cause, where di it come from and out of what. This seems to be the big brick wall that science keeps hitting. It turns what is just an calculated equations according to a naturalistic world view into something that has creative power. They use what nature has already been able to do and assume that this is the god itself that can create things. But maybe all science is doing is describing what a intelligent creator has done and is trying to give the credit to the creation itself.

I asked what science can't deal with.
Dark matter and energy are labels for observed phenomena. There have been several ideas put forth as explanation. The problem is how to test them. But science is dealing with them. Perhaps scientists will be successful, perhaps not. But even if there are things we can never know, that ignorance does not constitute evidence for the existence of a god.

I'm not saying that we should revert to God did it alone. I am talking about design in life and existence. Science will try to describe something and they will put a calculation on it and they may predict what will happen to prove that hypothesis. But that doesn't mean they have discovered what caused it or that it happened by a naturalistic cause. Thats where I think some get confused and give the scientific answers more creative power than what is there. Often what science describes with the maths needs an intelligent mind to work it out. So they are actually putting the design into what they see.

I like what Maths Professor John Lennox says about maths and calculations that scientists sometimes use as the explanation for what caused something from nothing. The maths doesn't come tumbling out of nothing. It takes a creative mind to develop the mathematics to develop for what science say comes from nothing. So the analogy would be that the universe can be created by a creative mind out of absolutely nothing. The universe reflects mathematical structure but it doesn't cause anything. Newtons laws describe what will happen but they wont cause motion. He says the mistake many scientific books make is that they think mathematics could cause the universe. That all our exploration and calculations are pointing to a mind behind what we see.

And yet quantum mechanics has provided us with very reliable predictions. Some reality is unintuitive. Feynman, I believe, pointed out that a positron is indistinguishable from an electron traveling backward in time.

Yes but all those predictions do is show that we understand how it may work. It doesn't tell us anything about what causes it or where it came from. But the new thing about the quantum world is there is something that goes beyond the normal way we calculate our material world. This evokes other aspects like non materialism so the answers may lie outside what science can deal with.

And how do you know that we won't find the answer tomorrow?

Because it may lie in something that science does not and cannot work with ie metaphysics or a non material dimension. This seems to be what some are saying. But even the main stream science is hinging on the same things. Many of the ideas they come up with can never be validated.

It's boojums! It's leprechauns! We don't have to appeal to anything else. We can just say we don't know.

True but thats not whats happening even in mainstream science. They dont want to say they dont know.Lawrence Krauss's attempt to answer nothing is one example. Richard Dawkins jumped straight on it and hailed it the great discovery that give physics the same credibility as evolution and shows there is no need for God.

Metaphysics is the science of the undermonstrable, and probably non-existent.

It is still something that is being turned to more and more. Why because what is observed is causing scientists to look that way because all the hallmarks of what is happening seem to fit with something that is beyond conventional science. Some of the ideas that main stream science comes up with borders on the science fiction itself. The only difference is that they claim to have some science behind it. But it is very open to interpretation and theoretical ideas as we have seen with the quantum world..

No! The record of an observation describes what is.

Ok but thats still just a description. Description dont tell us what caused anything or have any creative power.

An explanation is not a proof. An explanation is an attempt to relate the causal chains that link observations. "Creative powers" is just balderdash.

Well something had to cause what happens. It doesn't just happen out of thin air. I notice that a lot of explanations leave the beginning out and several gaps along the way. Those gaps are normally crucial points that need to explain how something naturally occurred from something less complex.

We have to assume some things if we are to get beyond "Cogito ergo sum." What we must determine is whether our assumptions are consistent with reality.

Yes I agree. I just think sometimes assumptions get left in the mix and become reality. They become an important part of the explanation. Take them out and things begin to fall apart.

We can and we do. Science works. Science has reduced the incidence of smallpox. Thousands of years of prayer by millions of people did not do that.

I'm not saying science is totally useless and never have. It plays an important role. I am saying that there comes a point where it cant be the answer. Both have to be included. Science can get us to the point where we can see that it can go any further. Some may see that intuitively anyway. So I believe that the more we delve into life and existence the more we will see that there is something beyond the science. That there is design behind things that is beyond a naturalistic cause.

We know the role that gravity plays. Gravity sucks. It came about because mass is twisted space and so distorts spacetime.

Yes but now we are having to unite this with quantum physics. So gravity may need changing in the overall scheme of things. What role does dark energy play and what are the interactions between dark matter and ordinary matter. How everything works together to hold everything in place. This is where string theory comes in. But this has been around now for over 40 years and still cant give us the proper answers.

[/quote]And there is the root of your misunderstanding, the flaw in your reasoning. You don't know, therefore: magic.[/quote]I dont think you can really say that I am thinking that way. I spend a lot of time on the science side of things and rarely mention anything about magic or God. As you will notice I purposely said seems like magic. As this is what it does seem like. That doesn't mean I think it is. But it denotes that there may be something at work beyond the science that we will never know. But I am sure science will come up with some sort of answer. If science tried to describe telepathy in a mathematical equation does that make it seem any less magical like.

We could be wrong. It is unlikely however that we are completely wrong. (That is a non-inclusive we. You are probably very wrong. )

It is, I would submit, strongly suggestive that they got it at least partially right.

I am not saying that science is wrong in what they are describing now. But that is with a limited view of things. Like Newtons observations Einstein found that he was incorrect about gravity in the light of relativity. So the calculations may be right according to what is seen at that time. But that doesn't make it right in the scheme of all that is out there. There maybe another revelation in the future to do with quantum physics or dark energy that causes our understanding to completely change.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-dark-matter-just-us-being-wrong-about-gravity

"Creative ability" is just the ability to synthesize new combinations of existing ideas.

Sometimes it require new info that wasn't there to begin with.

You're back to, "We (I) don't know, therefore balderdash."

No thats your projection. I am saying that we do know but its not in the realm of the way science is done and thats why some are coming up with ideas that are out of the norm.

Our senses take in data. Our minds organize patterns of data and react with responses to perceived patterns, but those patterns are neural activity. There is a pattern in the brains of self conscious entities that we designate as "me". It is not really what I am, it is just a simplified and often inaccurate model. What is perceived as the self or any phenomenon is the model; the reality is a dynamic pattern of matter-energy flows inseparable from the reality that is the universe.

Yes it is very interesting. But do you think that our minds are capable of changing reality or even the material world around us. Have you ever seen any of the research about the mind and belief and what it is capable of.

I think, therefore I am, but I am not what I think am, unless I think that I am merely part of all.

Yes the mind may be very capable of doing more than we think. Belief is powerful. Even if you call it mind over matter or the pseudo effect. It still can change things physically and maybe materially. or at least have some connection with the material world. We dont know yet and are only beginning to learn about these things. But thanks for you insight it is interesting.

[/QUOTE]

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry, didn't read the whole post (it wasn't addressed to me anyways), but I do feel the need to point out a few things...

I'm glad you said seem to be laws obeying an underlying mathematical structure. And thats the crux of the matter. Science can come up with the mathematical equations but that doesn't tell us how this came about. What was the underlying cause, where di it come from and out of what. This seems to be the big brick wall that science keeps hitting.

You're right. If you keep asking "how how how how how" to each further thing, it becomes harder and harder to answer the question. But just because it's hard, just because we may never find an answer, does not excuse inventing an answer. It does not make it okay to say, "The answer is X!" without providing any justification.

If you think you have an answer, then by all means, provide the evidence for that answer, and we can have a discussion about it. But you don't just get to say, "My answer wins by default." No, I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't win by default. No answer wins by default. If we don't know, then we don't know. And until you can provide some evidence for your explanation, then your answer loses by default.

But maybe all science is doing is describing what a intelligent creator has done and is trying to give the credit to the creation itself.

Maybe so. Can we prove it? Can we provide any form of testable, demonstrable evidence that this is the case?

True but thats not whats happening even in mainstream science. They dont want to say they dont know.

They don't want to say they don't know, or they want to find an actual answer? Those are two very different things.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, didn't read the whole post (it wasn't addressed to me anyways), but I do feel the need to point out a few things...

You're right. If you keep asking "how how how how how" to each further thing, it becomes harder and harder to answer the question. But just because it's hard, just because we may never find an answer, does not excuse inventing an answer. It does not make it okay to say, "The answer is X!" without providing any justification.

I agree and havnt been proposing any answers. My main point has been that we dont really know and that some of the ideas we see from scientists are out there as much as what some may claim about God or in metaphysics. Part of the issue is that we are now having to include the effects of the quantum world and most of the ideas are theoretical ones trying to unite quantum physics with relativity. But I have only said that why cant we include a God or ID as a hypothesis because it can answer some of the issues just as good as anything. It may not be verified completely and is based on indirect evidence but to an extent neither is some of the ideas that science has been coming up with lately.

If you think you have an answer, then by all means, provide the evidence for that answer, and we can have a discussion about it. But you don't just get to say, "My answer wins by default." No, I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't win by default. No answer wins by default. If we don't know, then we don't know. And until you can provide some evidence for your explanation, then your answer loses by default

I havnt tried to say that anyway. I am suggesting that God and/or ID or design in nature can be another idea that has some merit in describing what we see. As far as proving this well that can be a work in progress. Some predictions have been made which stand up and there are many papers out there to support design in nature beyond chance. But because its not completely verified doesn't mean it should be thrown out.

As far as 100% proof I dont think any of the ideas from science or religion will pass that test. Even many of the more out there ones from science are nowhere near verified and may never be able to be verified. In fact some scientists want to lesson the strict criteria for verification so they can have their ideas verified and move on. But when you talking about the effects of quantum physics and other dimensions it is hard to prove these things. I guess time will tell when we get more info and understanding. My belief is it will show that there will be even more unusual things that cant be answered with classical science and the way they verify things.

Maybe so. Can we prove it? Can we provide any form of testable, demonstrable evidence that this is the case

Like I said there are some papers out there and other supports that can show that there is design in life and existence. Then there is the big questions about how something can come from nothing and life from non life. But they are not going to prove a particular creator. All we can do is look for the indirect evidence.

They don't want to say they don't know, or they want to find an actual answer? Those are two very different things.

I am not sure but the amount of ideas I have seen science come up with that are shown to be wrong I begin to wonder if they try to much to make something fit rather than hold back and wait for more evidence. Sometimes I think they see the problems and then bend the maths around it to make it fit for that time. Anything to deal with a problem they have with a theory so that they can say they have solved it.Only to find soon afterwards it brought up other problems. Its like a continual Papier-mâchéing of the idea to patch it up so that it works. There have been reports of a lot of peer reviewed work that has been either sloppy of just wrong. This idea that science is just after the truth is a bit out of date now. There are a lot of other things influencing it like funding and personal recognition ect.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thats just being dismissive.

Dismissive of a "scientific" model whose supporters say isn't science (at least when they're under oath)? You say that like it is a bad thing.

That a world view from science is interpreting the things they see as having happened by a naturalistic process when nothing has really been proven. Could it be that they are doing exactly what they accuse religion of doing and making what they see fit a world view of things.

I don't know. Could it?

So I guess its how you interpret the evidence.

I wasn't discussing the evidence. I was talking about how your model seems to have some internal inconsistencies.

I think that there are many things that a naturalistic explanation cannot account for. Even their current explanations are not validated and based on a lot of assumption happening. I think a lot is up for grabs and has not been completely verified. I think the more we come to know about what is going on in the world the more we will see that we dont know and that there is something beyond the science and a naturalistic world view at work.

To simplify my response, I've highlighted in blue everything which is an unsupported guess of yours.