Biological Design Argument?

[ngill09]

I’m beginning to doubt your sincerity. You seem insistent on misunderstanding everything I say.

Why not?

We are discussing whether this is the only universe, whether there are other (possible) universes, whether the laws of nature must be as they are and whether this universe is more adequately explained as the result of Chance or Design.

I referred to statistics when we were specifically talking about the probability of physical constants being what they are. People were asserting that they are extremely improbable and that inference cannot be made without more data.

Yet you seem to contend that no rational conclusions are possible about the nature of this universe without a statistical foundation.

No, no rational conclusions are possible about actual probabilities without a statistical foundation.

1. Induction is a proof technique, and usually does not involve stochastic elements.
   Do you mean that the principle of induction has nothing whatsoever to do with probability?

No, I said that that induction, at least in the mathematical sense, generally does not involve stochastic elements. This does not mean that induction cannot involve stochastic elements. There is such a thing as probabilistic induction, but it’s a special case, not the rule. In general, induction is a proof technique and proofs (in the mathematical sense) are usually necessarily true or false.

Then you agree that most of your decisions are not based on precise numerical values?

Yes, this does nothing to make it valid to claim valid inferences from insufficient data.

So you never claim to have knowledge about the nature of the universe?

No. I don’t know which orifice of yours you pulled that idea from, but it doesn’t appear in any of my writing.

 

[edwest2]

You can’t get something from nothing. Bottom line. God, and only God, can, but “natural” systems? No.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

In other words nothing will alter your confidence that the origin of life was fortuitous and Chance is the ultimate explanation of everything - including the power of reason!

I have supported my reasoning that fortuitous abiogenesis is highly improbable but you have rejected it without giving any reasons for an alternative explanation. In other words you imply that abiogenesis was fortuitous.

You need to explain why there should be such disparity between the two aspects of life given that there are no precedents on which to base your hypothesis.

They are two different things.
For example, why should a universe in which the laws of chemistry make it likely for complex self-replicators to arise not also have large numbers of asteroids smashing into it’s life-friendly niches?

You are assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for complex self-replicators to arise.

If the universe were not hostile to abiogenesis life would be far more widespread than all the evidence suggests. Scientists are not indulging in a guessing game when they refer to the likelihood of life on a rare number of specific planets.

We only have evidence from (really) one solar system so far. And that one has life, but the sample is admittedly biased.

Do you believe this is the only possible universe? If so why?

What do you mean by ‘scientists’ referring to “the likelihood of life on a rare number of specific planets”?

Scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist.

It is a simple statement not about what you would do but what you think is true…

Yeah - I think it is true that I would argue that!

Then it would have been simpler to admit it in the first place!

The best explanation satisfies the criteria of economy, adequacy, coherence, consistency, probability, intelligibility and fertility.

And how do you balance those?

Adequacy, coherence, consistency and intelligibility are essential - with economy, probability and fertility as important factors.

How ‘economical’ is the God Hypothesis?

One Supreme Being is the most economical explanation of all.

In short, are you arguing that you and I would agree on which is ‘the best’ explanation?

We disagree because you lack reasons for opting for Chance rather than Design.

“fine tuned” implies an intelligent cause - unless you resort to naturalism and the Chance hypothesis.

No it doesn’t. Other options are a universe where the constants vary over time and/or space, or a large number of cosmoses (cosmi?) with different laws.

That** is** a naturalistic view of the universe!

As I pointed out, the total number of possible universes far exceeds the possible universes with the specific conditions necessary to support advanced life as we know it.

‘Point out’ being another way of saying ‘make the unsupported assertion that this is true’ I take it?

Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

And why limit it to life as we know it?

So that you cannot evade the issue by saying that there may be many unknown forms of life!

You have not yet refuted my points…

You have not yet supported any of your assertions.

I have supported them with the reasons I have given above but you have rejected them without giving valid objections - or reasons for an alternative explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for complex self-replicators to arise.

You are also assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for living complex self-replicators to arise!

 

[rossum]

You are also assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for living complex self-replicators to arise!

What scientifically distinguishes a living complex self-replicator from a non-living complex self replicator?

Are the unaided laws of chemistry sufficient to form a non-living complex self-replicator?

rossum

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;10686092:

No - rather you just asserting that abiogenesis is ‘improbable’ will not convince me. You have to support your assertion if you want to convince me or, probably, pretty much anyone.

I have supported my reasoning that fortuitous abiogenesis is highly improbable but you have rejected it without giving any reasons for an alternative explanation.

You have not supported that assertion, you have simply repeated it over and over. I have explained (e.g. in this comment) why I think this is an almost impossible assertion to support, but you have not even tried to do so.

DrTaffy;10686092:

For example, why should a universe in which the laws of chemistry make it likely

for complex self-replicators to arise not also have large numbers of asteroids smashing into it’s life-friendly niches?
You are assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for complex self-replicators to arise.

No - only that they could be. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to my point that the probability of life arising and that of it surviving are two different things.

Do you believe this is the only possible universe? If so why?

Possible universe? Well, no - other universes are possible, unless you subscribe to something like an extreme version of the many worlds interpretation: i.e. that ‘the universe’ wavefunction consists of a superposition of every possible universe, and that we only observe and interact with that subsection that includes us.

Why?

Scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist.

So now you are saying that abiogenesis is likely on other planets? Either you and I have very different interpretations of these words or you are really not communicating.

DrTaffy;10686092:

Yeah - I think it is true that I would argue that!

Then it would have been simpler to admit it in the first place!

I did! I said, very clearly, “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one”

I have explained why this is relevant. In other words I have not made the bold unsupported assertion you want, nor am I going to run around shouting “There is no God, Jesus never had a beard, Mary Magdalene was an apostle!” just to give you an easy target to attack!

One Supreme Being is the most economical explanation of all.

No, by definition, a priori, no ‘Supreme Being’ is more economical than one.

We disagree because you lack reasons for opting for Chance rather than Design.

DrTaffy;10686092:

No it doesn’t. Other options are a universe where the constants vary over time and/or space, or a large number of cosmoses (cosmi?) with different laws.

That** is** a naturalistic view of the universe!

No - they are consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe (and so prove that you have not demonstrated the need for a supernatural explanation) but do not require naturalism.

Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

That depends entirely on the conditions. Restricting the number of integers to those divisible by 1 doesn’t restrict their number much. For that matter divinding infinity by anything is a question best answered by those mathematicians who need to be kept away from sharp objects.

Again, if you make the assertion, you have to support it.

DrTaffy;10686092:

And why limit it to life as we know it

?
So that you cannot evade the issue by saying that there may be many unknown forms of life!

But there may be. If you are asserting that life is unlikely without supernatural intervention, you need to address all possible forms of life.

You are also assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for living complex self-replicators to arise!

What rossum said. And that is a really nasty shade of green!

 

[tonyrey]

You have to support your assertion if you want to convince me or, probably, pretty much anyone.

No - only that they could be.You automatically equated living organisms with complex self-replicators without pausing to consider any other possibility - a common error in our secular society.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to my point that the probability of life arising and that of it surviving are two different things.

The origin and survival of life over billions of years are based on the same fundamental conditions. If it were for a relatively short period you might have a point.

Do you believe this is the only possible universe? If so why?

Possible universe? Well, no - other universes are possible, unless you subscribe to something like an extreme version of the many worlds interpretation: i.e. that ‘the universe’ wavefunction consists of a superposition of every possible universe, and that we only observe and interact with that subsection that includes us.How many other universes are possible?

Scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist.
So now you are saying that abiogenesis is likely on other planets? Either you and I have very different interpretations of these words or you are really not communicating.

False deduction! The fact that scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist doesn’t imply that abiogenesis is fortuitous.

Then it would have been simpler to admit it in the first place!

I did! I said, very clearly, "I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one"In that case your second statement was superfluous…

I have explained why this is relevant. In other words I have not made the bold unsupported assertion you want, nor am I going to run around shouting “There is no God, Jesus never had a beard, Mary Magdalene was an apostle!” just to give you an easy target to attack!

Your sarcastic comments are out of place on a philosophy forum, infringe the conduct rules and reveal more about your personality and antipathy to Christianity than anything else.

One Supreme Being is the most economical explanation of all.

No, by definition, a priori, no ‘Supreme Being’ is more economical than one.The notion that everything is derived from nothing is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and doesn’t qualify as a rational explanation - unless one is a self-contradicting nihilist.

That is a naturalistic view of the universe!

No - they are consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe (and so prove that you have not demonstrated the need for a supernatural explanation) but do not require naturalism.They **prove **nothing because they are unverified hypotheses.

Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

That depends entirely on the conditions. Restricting the number of integers to those divisible by 1 doesn’t restrict their number much. For that matter divinding infinity by anything is a question best answered by those mathematicians who need to be kept away from sharp objects.You have again evaded the question. Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

Again, if you make the assertion, you have to support it.

Your catch phrase merely reveals the lack of substance in your position.

If you are asserting that life is unlikely without supernatural intervention, you need to address all possible forms of life.

The issue is “design arguments based on biology” - which implies life as we know it (unless you are acquainted with others).

What rossum said. And that is a really nasty shade of green!

Yet another evasion! The outstanding impression you will leave on this thread is that you have nothing to offer - which is the inevitable outcome of making oneself invulnerable by failing to explain the basis of your reasoning (which appears to be no more than the product of chemical reactions. No wonder you have no time for Design: in your natural scheme of things reasons are reduced to physical causes, truth is no more than an isomorphism of atomic particles and persons are merely biological machines which only imagine they can understand themselves - or anything else. Garbage in garbage out…

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradski]

You’ll be using that icon quite a lot, bach.

I love dropping in to Tony’s discussions to see if anyone relatively new is about. And then watch as the posts move from standard debate to puzzlement, then bemusement (is he talking to me?), confusion, through incredulity on to frustration. How it pans out from there depends on one’s outlook.

I find a light hearted approach helps prevent an increase in blood pressure.

Your repetition doesn’t alter the fact that your criticisms have no rational foundation because you take the power of reasoning for granted as if it were the inevitable outcome of fortuitous abiogenesis - which is clearly a self-refuting hypothesis. …

As is said:

Garbage in garbage out…

 

[tonyrey]

No - rather you just asserting that abiogenesis is ‘improbable’ will not convince me.

I have supported my reasoning that **fortuitous **abiogenesis is highly improbable but you have given no reasons for an alternative explanation.

You have not supported that assertion, you have simply repeated it over and over.

False! I pointed out:
(i) Scientists are not indulging in a guessing game when they refer to the likelihood of life on specific planets.

(ii) If such ignorance existed scientists would be seriously mistaken not only for referring to physical constants but also in attempting to create life.

(iii) The total number of possible universes far exceeds the possible universes with the specified conditions to support life as we know it.

Your criticisms have no rational foundation because you assume the power of reasoning is the inevitable outcome of fortuitous abiogenesis - a self-refuting hypothesis.

You are assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for complex self-replicators to arise.

No - only that they could be.

You automatically equated living organisms complex self-replicators.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to my point that the probability of life arising and that of it surviving are two different things.

The origin and survival of life** over billions of years** are based on the same fundamental conditions.

Do you believe this is the only possible universe? If so why?

Possible universe? Well, no - other universes are possible, unless you subscribe to something like an extreme version of the many worlds interpretation: i.e. that ‘the universe’ wavefunction consists of a superposition of every possible universe, and that we only observe and interact with that subsection that includes us.

Precisely how many universes are possible?

So now you are saying that abiogenesis is likely on other planets?

False deduction! The fact that scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist does not imply that abiogenesis is fortuitous.

I have explained why this is relevant. In other words I have not made the bold unsupported assertion you want, nor am I going to run around shouting “There is no God, Jesus never had a beard, Mary Magdalene was an apostle!” just to give you an easy target to attack!

Your sarcastic comments are out of place on a philosophy forum, contravene the conduct rules and reveal more about your personality than the topic.

One Supreme Being is the most economical explanation of all.

No, by definition, a priori, no ‘Supreme Being’ is more economical than one.

The notion that everything is derived from nothing is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and doesn’t qualify as a rational explanation.

Other options are a universe where the constants vary over time and/or space, or a large number of cosmoses (cosmi?) with different laws.

That is a naturalistic view of the universe!No - they are consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe (and so prove that you have not demonstrated the need for a supernatural explanation) but do not require naturalism.

Consistency proves nothing nor do unverified hypotheses.

Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

That depends entirely on the conditions. Restricting the number of integers to those divisible by 1 doesn’t restrict their number much. For that matter divinding infinity by anything is a question best answered by those mathematicians who need to be kept away from sharp objects.

You have again evaded the question. Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

Again, if you make the assertion, you have to support it.

Your catch phrase merely reveals the lack of substance in your position.

But there may be. If you are asserting that life is unlikely without supernatural intervention, you need to address all possible forms of life.

The issue is “design arguments based on biology” - which implies life as we know it.

You are also assuming that the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for living complex self-replicators to arise!

What rossum said. And that is a really nasty shade of green!

Yet another evasion! You are still** assuming** the unaided laws of chemistry are sufficient for living complex self-replicators to arise.

The outstanding impression you leave on this thread is that you have nothing to offer - the inevitable outcome of making yourself invulnerable by failing to explain the basis of your reasoning - which appears to be no more than a series of chemical reactions. No wonder you have no time for Design: in your natural scheme of things reasons are reduced to physical causes, truth is no more than an isomorphism of atomic particles and persons are merely biological machines that only imagine they can understand themselves or anything else.

Garbage in garbage out…

 

[Bradski]

I’m calling Groundhog Day.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m calling Groundhog Day.

Good call.

(I speak from experience as well.)

 

[tonyrey]

You’ll be using that icon quite a lot, bach.

I love dropping in to Tony’s discussions to see if anyone relatively new is about. And then watch as the posts move from standard debate to puzzlement, then bemusement (is he talking to me?), confusion, through incredulity on to frustration. How it pans out from there depends on one’s outlook.

I find a light hearted approach helps prevent an increase in blood pressure.

As is said:

You obviously belong to the clan of those who derive their power of reasoning from
from the fortuitous permutations of atomic particles! A very substantial foundation for logic…

 

[tonyrey]

What? Ouch. I am afraid you neither have an understanding of fine-tuning nor of abiogenesis.

If you have any moral principles you will either substantiate that assertion or retract it…

 

[tonyrey]

I love dropping in to Tony’s discussions to see if anyone relatively new is about. And then watch as the posts move from standard debate to puzzlement, then bemusement (is he talking to me?), confusion, through incredulity on to frustration. How it pans out from there depends on one’s outlook.

I’m amused when I read Bradski’s posts because he prefers to make personal comments rather than respond to questions. It’s so much easier!

 

[CopticChristian]

Could you elaborate more on what “science-of-the-gaps” and “science-of-the foundations” are? What is this “theory of everything”?

What I am proposing, and what I think most scientists are proposing, is to recognize when we are ignorant of some facet of our universe and rather than say it therefore cannot have happened through natural means, to research and explore that area. We should suspend judgment until we know more.

It is one thing to attribute the unknown to the power of God. It is quite another to insist that what we do not presently understand must only have a supernatural explanation.

I am a scientist. I take walks, look at the trees, the birds, swallow, breathe, eat and imagine all the other things that have physiologic function and I ask myself…if this was the result of some big bang, then why can’t we reproduce that bang and reproduce some semblance of what we experience in the world, in our own life. I haven’t seen that happen and so I have awe and believe it is supernatural.

 

[ngill09]

I am a scientist. I take walks, look at the trees, the birds, swallow, breathe, eat and imagine all the other things that have physiologic function and I ask myself…if this was the result of some big bang, then why can’t we reproduce that bang and reproduce some semblance of what we experience in the world, in our own life. I haven’t seen that happen and so I have awe and believe it is supernatural.

Do you likewise think that the Sun most be powered by supernatural forces because human scientists can’t create a star?

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you likewise think that the Sun most be powered by supernatural forces because human scientists can’t create a star?

Explain what your question about the planets means?

 

[ngill09]

Explain what your question about the planets means?

I’m assuming English isn’t your first language.

Your original post:

I am a scientist. I take walks, look at the trees, the birds, swallow, breathe, eat and imagine all the other things that have physiologic function and I ask myself…if this was the result of some big bang, then why can’t we reproduce that bang and reproduce some semblance of what we experience in the world, in our own life. I haven’t seen that happen and so I have awe and believe it is supernatural.

Your argument seems to be “If [the universe] was the result of a big bang, then why can’t we reproduce the big bang? Therefore the universe must be the result of supernatural forces.”

Similarly: “If the sun was the result of natural processes, then why can’t we reproduce that process to create a star? Therefore, the sun must be the result of supernatural forces”.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m assuming English isn’t your first language.

Your original post:

Your argument seems to be “If [the universe] was the result of a big bang, then why can’t we reproduce the big bang? Therefore the universe must be the result of supernatural forces.”

Similarly: “If the sun was the result of natural processes, then why can’t we reproduce that process to create a star? Therefore, the sun must be the result of supernatural forces”.

The sun, along with the rest of physical nature, is a product of the big bang. The implications should be obvious enough.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your original post:

Your argument seems to be “If [the universe] was the result of a big bang, then why can’t we reproduce the big bang? Therefore the universe must be the result of supernatural forces.”

Similarly: "If the sun

I’m assuming English isn’t your first language.

I am assuming your assumption is not relevant to answering the question and your assumption is not correct.

I have no idea how the stars came into existence based on science. There are explanations that are interesting that do not answer the question. Creation is a simple way to view the world that I accept and the logic of what you suggest may mean something to you however not to me.