Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[rossum]

1. A highly orderly universe is immensely improbable when there are immensely more disorderly alternatives.

There are a lot fewer alternatives than you may think. Remember the weak anthropic principle. The universe we live in is suitable for us to live in. The huge majority of those possible disordered universes are unsuitable for life. Hence, we can be sure that the universe we see is not a random selection from that whole range of universes, so probability calculations based on it being a random selection cannot tell us anything.

Any universe we live in must be suitable for life, otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it. We are not in a random universe, but at most in a random universe among the subset of possible universes suitable for life. Our universe is a member of a subset, by definition. Unless you know the size of that subset, then any estimates of probability are moot.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

So should we stop searching for Ultimate Truth because there is no Ultimate Truth?

And how can one verify that there is no Ultimate Truth?

 

[tonyrey]

1. A highly orderly universe is immensely improbable when there are immensely more disorderly alternatives.

Our existence doesn’t affect the calculations in the slightest. An imaginary observer would reach exactly the same conclusion. Nothing alters the fact that a highly orderly universe is immensely improbable given that there are immensely more possibilities of disorderly universes.

I regret to say that we count for precisely nothing where possible universes are concerned. We are minute specks in the vastness of eternity which have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of objective reality or possibility. Yet we have the consolation of knowing we are capable of spiritual development and fulfilment - Nirvana for Buddhists, Heaven for Christians and Paradise for Moslems.

 

[tonyrey]

The latest news about DNA further strengthens the evidence for Design:

The genetic “control panel” of the human body that regulates the activity of our 23,000 genes has been revealed for the first time in a scientific tour de force that could revolutionise the understanding and treatment of hundreds of diseases.
Scientists have once and for all swept away any notion of “junk DNA” by showing that that the vast majority of the human genome does after all have a vital function by regulating the genes that build and maintain the body.
Junk DNA was a term coined 40 years ago to describe the part of the genome that does not contain any genes, the individual instructions for making the body’s vital proteins. Now, this vast genetic landscape could hold hidden clues to eradicating human disease, scientists said.
Hundreds of researchers from 32 institutes around the world collaborated on the immense effort to decipher the hidden messages within the 98 per cent of the human genome without any genes and was thought, therefore, to have no function.
They have concluded in a series of 30 research papers published simultaneously today, in Nature, Science and other journals, that this so-called junk DNA is in fact an elaborate patchwork of regulatory sequences that act as a huge operating system for controlling the genome.
Knowledge gained from this important insight, which has been largely hidden from view ever since the structure of DNA was revealed nearly 60 years ago, will prove critical to the future treatment of more than 400 diseases, scientists said.
Ewen Birney of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Cambridge and one of the leaders of the international ENCODE consortium said the work has demonstrated conclusively that more than 80 per cent of the genome works as a kind of control panel packed with genetic dials.
“Our genome is simply alive with switches: millions of places that determine whether a gene is switched on or off,” Dr Birney said.
Deciphering the human genome revealed that less than 2 per cent of the 3 billion building blocks of human DNA actually consists of working genes. The ENCODE consortium has shown that the rest of the genome still has an active, biochemical function in the cells of the body.
“We see that 80 per cent of the genome is actively doing something. We found that a much bigger part of the genome - a surprising amount in fact - is involved in controlling when and where proteins are produced,” he said.
Defects in this part of the genome could be responsible for a range of illnesses, from diabetes and Crohn’s disease to disorders of the immune system, such as lupus. Knowing about them could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what goes wrong in scores of difficult conditons, said John Stamatoyannopoulous of Washington University in Seattle, another leader of the consortium.
“Genes occupy only a tiny fraction of the genome, and most efforts to map the genetic causes of disease were frustrated by signals that pointed away from genes,” Professor Stamatoyannopoulos said.
“Now we know that these efforts were not in vain, and that the signals were in fact hidden in millions of locations around the genome. The findings provide a new lens through which to view the role of genetics and genome function in disease,” he said.
Many of the genetic switches occur at sites on the long DNA molecule that are well away from the genes they control, which has hampered past attempts at identifying them. The new work exposes these hidden connections and lays bear the inner workings of the body’s genetic control panel, the scientists said.
“This is a major step toward understanding the wiring diagram of a human being [and] helps us to look deeply into the regulatory circuit that tells us how all the parts come together to make a complex being,” said Professor Michael Snyder of Stanford University in California and a principal investigator on the ENCODE project.”

guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

 

[farpinho]

rossum

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

So should we stop searching for Ultimate Truth because there is no Ultimate Truth?

And how can one verify that there is no Ultimate Truth?

The ultimate truth is the one truth that remains true even when you stop believing in it.

 

[tonyrey]

The ultimate truth is the one truth that remains true even when you stop believing in it.

If there is no ultimate truth there is either an infinite regress of truths - which is absurd - or there is no truth at all - which is also absurd! I am very interested to find out the solution to this dilemma (because I don’t believe there is one!

 

[rossum]

And how can one verify that there is no Ultimate Truth?

And how can one verify what you have found is the ultimate truth?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Our existence doesn’t affect the calculations in the slightest.

Our presence requires that the universe we are in is able to support us. That limits the number of possibilities for such a universe. A universe of just pure hydrogen is not observable by ourselves because we could not exist there. You have to limit the number of possible universes because we are in it.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

And how can one verify what you have found is the ultimate truth?

By highlighting the absurdity of the alternatives!

If there is no ultimate truth there is either an infinite regress of truths - which is absurd - or there is no truth at all - which is also absurd!

The ultimate truth is that truth is a fundamental reality like goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
And how can one verify what you have found is the ultimate truth?**

More easily than you can verify that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

At least believing there is an ultimate truth does not rest upon the contradiction you have posed.

 

[greylorn]

And how can one verify what you have found is the ultimate truth?

rossum

Just ask “tonyrey.”

 

[Jason_Firestone]

For the benefit of those who are not used to thinking about possibilties:

1. We are not entitled to assume this is the only possible universe.
2. There is no reason to believe the laws of nature couldn’t be different.
3. There is nothing in the universe that is essential.
4. The fact that things exist doesn’t imply that they must exist.
5. The universe itself need not exist.
6. The universe could be entirely different.
7. There are an immense number of ways in which the universe could be different.
8. The immense majority of those ways are disorderly.
9. The larger the universe the greater the amount of possible disorder.
10. The larger the universe the greater the improbability that it is orderly.
11. Events in this universe can be predicted with extreme accuracy.
12. Extremely accurate predictions imply a high degree of order.
13. A highly orderly universe is immensely improbable when there are immensely more disorderly alternatives.
14. The most reasonable explanation is that a highly orderly universe has a rational origin.
15. In other words the immense number of atomic particles in the universe could be distributed in an inconceivable number of ways, the vast majority of which are chaotic unless they are arranged for specific purposes…

The fallacy here, is that in 13, the probability of an event that has occurred, is 1.0, and the pre-extant probability is no longer operant. They are apples and oranges, and cannot be confused. No matter what the probability was, of a universe, (which could have been 1 in a gazillion), the fact is we are here observing this one, and would not be, it the one in a gazillion had not happened. The probability of an infinite number of universes, eventually producing one, in which there are internal observers is not zero, however small.

The most convincing argument against design, is that a perfect God, would have made a perfect universe. The fact that babies get cancer, tells me the ID thing is barking up the wrong tree. We know dinosaurs got cancer, so nature never was in a “perfect” state, pre-fall.

 

[tonyrey]

rossum
**
And how can one verify what you have found is the ultimate truth?**

More easily than you can verify that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

At least believing there is an ultimate truth does not rest upon the contradiction you have posed.

The dilemma remains unsolved!

If there is no ultimate truth there is** either** an infinite regress of truths - which is absurd - **or **there is no truth at all - which is also absurd!

The ultimate truth is that truth is a fundamental reality like goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

 

[tonyrey]

*For the benefit of those who are not used to thinking about possibilties:

According to that argument any event that has occurred must have occurred - which is obviously false because it attributes necessity to everything! The fallacy in your argument is that you have a retrospective view of reality. The wisdom of hindsight is being misapplied to that which was not inevitable. The fact that things have happened does not mean they had to happen.

The most convincing argument against design, is that a perfect God, would have made a perfect universe.

The assumption that it is possible to make a perfect **physical **universe is gratuitous, unverifiable and incoherent. Only the Creator is perfect in every respect because all other beings are contingent and limited in some respect. To postulate more than one absolutely perfect Being is to infringe the principle of economy.

The fact that babies get cancer, tells me the ID thing is barking up the wrong tree.

The demand for a disease-free world is based on the false assumption that there need be no element of chance in an immensely complex system subject to the laws of nature.

We know dinosaurs got cancer, so nature never was in a “perfect” state, pre-fall.

The assumption that cancer is attributed by** all** Christians to the Fall is false and therefore worthless.

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or** the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures**: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[Sair]

According to that argument any event that has occurred must have occurred - which is obviously false because it attributes necessity to everything! The fallacy in your argument is that you have a retrospective view of reality. The wisdom of hindsight is being misapplied to that which was not inevitable. The fact that things have happened does not mean they had to happen.

There is actually no assumption of necessity involved in the anthropic principle - merely an observation that since we are here observing the universe, its origin with all its parameters did, in fact, occur - regardless of what its probability would have been beforehand. Chance may not be a reliable feature of reality, but that does not mean it never operates in what we may consider, with hindsight, to be subjectively desirable ways. Just ask any lottery winner…

The assumption that it is possible to make a perfect **physical **universe is gratuitous, unverifiable and incoherent. Only the Creator is perfect in every respect because all otherbeings are contingent and limited in some respect.

The problem of evil does not stipulate a perfect universe, only one that is better than we find it. If physical perfection is not possible, why would a perfect god work with physical entities at all? Especially when there are supposed to be such things as angels, conscious beings who have no physical substance (incongruous though that notion is) yet still may aspire to perfect union with or perfect knowledge of god. The fact that god is limited by physical considerations in the act of creation seems to imply that god is likewise limited, in not being able to manifest a physical universe more favourable to beings to whom happiness and suffering matter.

 

[tonyrey]

And how can one verify what you have found is

And how can one verify that Greylorn has found the truth about God? Just ask him for all the physical details!

 

[tonyrey]

Our presence requires that the universe we are in is able to support us. That limits the number of possibilities for such a universe. A universe of just pure hydrogen is not observable by ourselves because we could not exist there. You have to limit the number of possible universes because we are in it.

Non sequitur. The issue is not the number of possibilities for universes such as ours but all possible universes regardless of whether they sustain life. Our point of view is irrelevant. It is either an imaginary observer’s or God’s point of view - depending on one’s beliefs.

 

[tonyrey]

According to that argument any event that has occurred must have occurred - which is obviously false because it attributes necessity to everything! The fallacy in your argument is that you have a retrospective view of reality. The wisdom of hindsight is being misapplied to that which was not inevitable. The fact that things have happened does not mean they had to happen.

In that case the anthropic principle has no implications for what may occur beyond our universe. It tells us precisely nothing about possible universes.

Chance may not be a reliable feature of reality, but that does not mean it never operates in what we may consider, with hindsight, to be subjectively desirable ways. Just ask any lottery winner…

The present issue is not improbability but the relative number of orderly and disorderly universes.

The assumption that it is possible to make a perfect physical universe is gratuitous, unverifiable and incoherent. Only the Creator is perfect in every respect because all other beings are contingent and limited in some respect.

The problem of evil does not stipulate a perfect universe, only one that is better than we find it.

Not according to the post to which I was responding:

The most convincing argument against design, is that a perfect God, would have made a perfect universe.

!!!

If physical perfection is not possible, why would a perfect god work with physical entities at all?

You are implicitly denying the immense value of physical existence to which you attach so much importance that you reject any other type of existence! Does physical imperfection outweigh the immense value of life?

Especially when there are supposed to be such things as angels, conscious beings who have no physical substance (incongruous though that notion is)…

Only incongruous in the opinion of those so deeply entrenched in material things they are incapable of appreciating spiritual values or recognising intangible realities such as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

… yet still may aspire to perfect union with or perfect knowledge of god.

Such issues are obviously totally beyond the comprehension of materialists limited to information from their eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin.

The fact that god is limited by physical considerations in the act of creation seems to imply that god is likewise limited, in not being able to manifest a physical universe more favourable to beings to whom happiness and suffering matter.

The Creator’s power is unlimited but all created beings are necessarily limited by their finitude and contingency. God alone is perfect in every respect.

Only hedonists believe suffering serves no useful purpose and outweighs the immense value of life. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing…

 

[rossum]

Non sequitur. The issue is not the number of possibilities for universes such as ours but all possible universes regardless of whether they sustain life. Our point of view is irrelevant. It is either an imaginary observer’s or God’s point of view - depending on one’s beliefs.

Since neither of us is God, then any argument purporting to be from God’s point of view is nugatory.

We exist in the current universe. That is a prior fact, and has an impact on any probability calculation. That is just elementary Bayesian probability. Compare the values “The probability that a random universe can support life” and “The probability that a universe containing humans can support life”. The value of the second probability is obviously 1.0. The value of the first probability is only known if you know the total number of possible universes and the number of those universes that can support life. Neither of those numbers is currently calculable, and neither can be derived from what we know of our current universe.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. The issue is not the number of possibilities for universes such as ours but all possible universes regardless of whether they sustain life

You conveniently omit the imaginary observer’s point of view because it doesn’t suit your argument. The issue is not the number of possibilities for universes such as ours but the relative distribution of possible orderly universes and possible disorderly universes..

We exist in the current universe. That is a prior fact, and has an impact on any probability calculation.

It does not have any impact whatsoever on the number of possible orderly universes and number of possible disorderly universes except by the grand total of one! It’s curious you should find that significant…

That is just elementary Bayesian probability. Compare the values “The probability that a random universe can support life” and “The probability that a universe containing humans can support life”. The value of the second probability is obviously 1.0. The value of the first probability is only known if you know the total number of possible universes and the number of those universes that can support life. Neither of those numbers is currently calculable, and neither can be derived from what we know of our current universe.

If estimates of probability were restricted to those that are calculable neither you nor I would be alive now! The sheer complexity of events even on this planet renders such a restriction absurd.

It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to realise that the immense number of atomic particles in a universe could be distributed in an inconceivable number of ways, the vast majority of which are chaotic **unless they are arranged for specific purposes.
**