In which buffalo schools Touchstone on CSI

[Touchstone]

buffalo, please insert your formulae and math models for CSI here : =====>

Once we have that, we can apply them to real world phenomena, and test the results of your math as applied. I might be scared of where this leads, but we won’t know until you lead us there.

-TS

 

[wanstronian]

 

[rossum]

buffalo, please insert your formulae and math models for CSI here : =====>

Once we have that, we can apply them to real world phenomena, and test the results of your math as applied. I might be scared of where this leads, but we won’t know until you lead us there.

In order to assist Buffalo, I shall calculate the CSI of a 100 gram pebble from a river. The pebble is made of silica, SiO2, which has a molecular weight of 28 + 2 x 16 = 60. Hence, by Avogadro’s number there are 6 x 10^23 molecules in a 60 gram pebble. Our 100 gram pebble will contain (6 x 10^23) x 5 / 3 = 1 x 10^24 molecules.

The radius of the visible universe is about 45 x 10^9 light years, or 4.5 x 10^22 kilometres. This gives it a volume of 3.8 x 10^65 cubic kilometres or 3.8 x 10^74 cubic metres. The chances of a given molecule being in a given cubic metre is therefore 1 in 3.8 x 10^74. Since we have 10^24 molecules in our pebble, and they are all in the same cubic metre of the universe the chances of our pebble assembling by random processes is 1 in (3.8 x 10^74) ^ (10^24). This number is immense, it has about 10^24 trailing zeros and will not fit into the post size limit which only has 3 trailing zeros. The number is also greater than Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10^150

So, our pebble is complex. Is it specified? The mind of God has known the position of every molecule in the universe from start to finish since even before He created the universe. This knowledge in the mind of God constitutes an exact prior specification of our pebble. Hence this pebble is both complex and specified. Since it is both complex and specified we can calculate its CSI.

Dr Dembski defines CSI as the inverse log of the probability. The CSI of the pebble is -log2((2.6 x 10^-73) ^ (10^-24)).

There is a similar treatment of this topic on the web at Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

rossum

 

[wanstronian]

Looks like Buffalo’s got nothing to contribute after all. Why am I not surprised?

 

[AntiTheist]

No matter how improbably a natural event may or may not be, it is always more probably than a supernatural event, which are events that we have no good evidence ever occur.

 

[tonyrey]

No matter how improbably a natural event may or may not be, it is always more probably than a supernatural event, which are events that we have no good evidence ever occur.

You are assuming you **know **what a natural event is… How would you prove it is more probable - once you have succeeded in defining it? And, last but not least, what is your definition?

 

[rossum]

No matter how improbably a natural event may or may not be, it is always more probably than a supernatural event, which are events that we have no good evidence ever occur.

Correct. Given that God is omniscient we can always show that God contains more information than any specific event we choose. Hence God is more improbable than that event.

As with my pebble calculation, God already contained all the information (= improbability) of the pebble and of every other pebble in the universe as well. God is always the least probable explanation because God contains more information than anything else in the universe.

ID’s own calculation methods show that God is Himself designed.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. Given that God is omniscient we can always show that God contains more information than any specific event we choose. Hence God is more improbable than that event.
As with my pebble calculation, God already contained all the information (= improbability) of the pebble and of every other pebble in the universe as well. God is always the least probable explanation because God contains more information than anything else in the universe.

ID’s own calculation methods show that God is Himself designed.

rossum

The fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that God is no more than an event comparable to other events! Do you really believe any rational person holds that view?

 

[wanstronian]

The fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that God is no more than an event comparable to other events! Do you really believe any rational person holds that view?

That is the rational view to hold, in the absence of evidence to support your “Special Pleading” implication. If there’s a fatal flaw, it’s in the inability of ID proponents to explain why the designer is somehow exempt from the laws that allegedly prove his existence.

Incidentally, your tacit acceptance that when we refer to ‘designer,’ we’re really talking about ‘God,’ demonstrates ID’s intrinsic Creationism foundation.

 

[awatkins69]

No matter how improbably a natural event may or may not be, it is always more probably than a supernatural event, which are events that we have no good evidence ever occur.

That’s Hume. That’s been completely destroyed.

Please, explain to me why a supernatural event ever happening is improbable, i.e. why a supernatural event can simply not be put into terms in a probability calculus equation.

 

[rossum]

The fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that God is no more than an event comparable to other events! Do you really believe any rational person holds that view?

ID asserts that life requires a designer. The Bible tells us that God is alive. Hence ID asserts that God requires a designer.

Since we all know that ID is science and nothing at all to do with religion, no siree Bob, then there is no special exemption allowed for deities since that would give the game away and bar ID from science classrooms.

ID claims that its methods are general and hence that they can be applied to anything. Indeed I can refer to God and the Explanatory Filter as an example of just this sort of thing.

ID’s own methods show that God is designed.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

ID asserts that life requires a designer. The Bible tells us that God is alive. Hence ID asserts that God requires a designer.

The Bible tells us that God is “He Who Is”, i.e. the Source of existence and therefore does not require a designer - or a creator for that matter…

Since we all know that ID is science and nothing at all to do with religion, no siree Bob, then there is no special exemption allowed for deities since that would give the game away and bar ID from science classrooms.

“we all know that ID is science” is an assumption which is clearly false because the Argument from Design is a** metaphysical** explanation which transcends scientific theories.

ID claims that its methods are general and hence that they can be applied to anything. Indeed I can refer to God and the Explanatory Filter as an example of just this sort of thing.

ID’s own methods show that God is designed.

You are confusing ID with a metaphysical explanation…

 

[tonyrey]

The fatal flaw in your argument is your assumption that God is no more than an event comparable to other events! Do you really believe any rational person holds that view?

It can be argued with equal facility and far more cogency that your materialism is a case of Special Pleading given its inadequacy - and inconsistency with the way materialists live. In daily life they don’t treat others as material objects!

If there’s a fatal flaw, it’s in the inability of ID proponents to explain why the designer is somehow exempt from the laws that allegedly prove his existence.

It is absurd to apply the criteria of physical laws to the Creator of those laws.

Incidentally, your tacit acceptance that when we refer to ‘designer,’ we’re really talking about ‘God,’ demonstrates ID’s intrinsic Creationism foundation.

If by Creationism you mean " belief in instant Creation" you must be unaware that Creation is more intelligible as a continuous process in which everything is sustained, controlled and directed rather than a unique event which launched the universe and left it to run under its own steam.

It is certainly more economical and more intelligible to unite the concepts of Creation and Design than to separate them. Creation entails Design - unless the product is chaos. And Design implies Creation. The immense wisdom required to design such a universe as this implies the power to create the universe. It is precisely the order, harmony and beauty of the universe that refute the notion that it was not created or designed but just happens to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian rossum

That is the rational view to hold, in the absence of evidence to support your “Special Pleading” implication. If there’s a fatal flaw, it’s in the inability of ID proponents to explain why the designer is somehow exempt from the laws that allegedly prove his existence.

The rational view is to hold that if God created the universe, He certainly would be exempt from the laws that allegedly prove His existence. You, following Bertrand Russell’s absurd argument, want to reduce God to the laws of His creation. He is bigger than His creation, and therefore is not subject to the laws of nature. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

 

[rossum]

The Bible tells us that God is “He Who Is”, i.e. the Source of existence and therefore does not require a designer - or a creator for that matter…

ID constantly tells us that it is scientific, not religious. Hence any religious argument is not relevant to ID. Even if you want to use the Bible, I can quote Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” The Bible tells us that God is alive and ID claims to be able to discern design in living things.

The book which describes God tells us that He is a “living God” and so we can legitimately apply the ID methods to this living being. In science, which ID aspires to be, no special exceptions are allowed. We can equally well apply the ID methods to Allah, Vishnu or Amaterasu.

“we all know that ID is science” is an assumption which is clearly false because the Argument from Design is a** metaphysical** explanation which transcends scientific theories.

ID does not use the argument from design. It uses the Argument from CSI, the Argument from IC and the Explanatory Filter. These are scientific arguments, based on scientific data and not metaphysical or philosophical arguments. The ID arguments involve the calculation of various probabilities, which the Argument from Design does not.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The rational view is to hold that if God created the universe, He certainly would be exempt from the laws that allegedly prove His existence.

ID does not hold that God created the universe. It holds that the universe in general, and life in particular, was designed by an unspecified designer who may, or may not, have been one of the many gods worshipped by humans. This is required if ID is ever to get into science class.

Remember that the purpose of ID is primarily political and not scientific and for that reason God is kept behind the curtain.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The Bible tells us that God is “He Who Is”, i.e. the Source of existence and therefore does not require a designer - or a creator for that matter…

Do you think the Argument from Design does not claim that we can discern design in living things?

The book which describes God tells us that He is a “living God” and so we can legitimately apply the ID methods to this living being. In science, which ID aspires to be, no special exceptions are allowed. We can equally well apply the ID methods to Allah, Vishnu or Amaterasu.

We **cannot **legitimately apply ID methods to God because He is the Source of existence but we can apply them to what He has designed.

“we all know that ID is science” is an assumption which is clearly false because the Argument from Design is a** metaphysical**

explanation which transcends scientific theories.
ID does not use the argument from design. It uses the Argument from CSI, the Argument from IC and the Explanatory Filter. These are scientific arguments, based on scientific data and not metaphysical or philosophical arguments. The ID arguments involve the calculation of various probabilities, which the Argument from Design does not.

The Argument from Design encompasses ID - just as metaphysics encompasses physics, biology and the other sciences. It is based on logical rather than statistical probability.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Remember that the purpose of ID is primarily political and not scientific and for that reason God is kept behind the curtain.

Ahem. Wasn’t it Richard Dawkins who said that the theory of evolution made atheism respectable?

Tit for tat?

 

[JDaniel]

ID asserts that life requires a designer. The Bible tells us that God is alive.

Rossum:

Very clever, Rossum. Very clever! You know as well as everyone else, in these forums, that the predicate alive, referred to God, is very, very different from predicating alive to plants and animals.

God is One, Simple, Changeless exigency, not in need of anything from his exterior, as do plants and animals, in order to live. Design, in the sense it is being used here, refers to that which is complex; that which consists of parts. What could possibly design that which is one and infinite? Something more one than one, and more infinite than infinite?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

ID does not hold that God created the universe. It holds that the universe in general, and life in particular, was designed by an unspecified designer who may, or may not, have been one of the many gods worshipped by humans. This is required if ID is ever to get into science class.

Remember that the purpose of ID is primarily political and not scientific and for that reason God is kept behind the curtain.

rossum

Rossum:

You are Buddhist, and Buddhism acknowledges no God. So, it goes without saying that you would purposefully straw man the meaning of living, as stated in a translation in the Bible.

God bless,
jd