Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

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.
**

Other universes need not be composed of atomic particles or have any intelligible structure at all. Their size could range from one submicroscopic entity to a countless number. They could be different in a countless variety of unimaginable ways but one fact is indisputable. I don’t think I need repeat it for anyone who has followed the most recent posts on this thread!

Here is a clue for those who haven’t:

It is probably the most difficult thing to achieve in this world if we are to judge by the colossal amount of needless conflict and suffering. The term will always be associated with Leibniz - although in a different context…

 

[Peter_Plato]

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…

This is actually a false analogy. The fine tuning of the universe involved not just one chance event as in winning the lottery, but involved the coordination of at least twenty universal constants coming together in the first moments of the Big Bang.

Constants of space and time
(Planck minimums)

1. minimal interval of space
2. minimal interval of time
3. minimum unit of energy
4. velocity of light

Constants of Energy
5) gravitational constant
6) weak force attraction coupling
7) strong nuclear force coupling

Individuating Constants
8) rest mass of protons
9) rest mass of electrons
10) electron/proton unit charge
11) minimum mass

Large scale and fine structure constants
12) visible rest mass
13) Boltzmann’s constant
14) Hubble’s constant
15) Cosmological constant
16) cosmic photon/proton ratio
17) permittivity of free space
18) electromagnetic fine structure constant
19) weak fine structure constant
20) gravitational fine structure constant

A winner of a single lottery might chalk it up to chance, and s/he would be correct to say there had to be a winning number so that was in a sense determined. However, the fine tuning of the universe, involving, minimally, those 20 constants, none of which (unlike the winning lottery number) “had to be” and each could have been anywhere within an indeterminate range (again unlike the lottery number), would be more like winning twenty lotteries in the same instant (the constants were set within the first moments of the Big Bang), where the winning numbers of each lottery were within a wide indeterminate range and there was no prior indication that any of the lotteries would even occur, i.e., you didn’t even buy any of the tickets because they never existed beforehand.

A winner of this kind of cosmological “lottery” would simply be dumbfounded and as Fred Hoyle observed could only think of it as “a put-up job.”

Winning one time at the roulette wheel could be considered luck, but after winning time after time in succession you would be compelled to wonder whether the game was “fixed” in some way. Certainly, the security team at the casino wouldn’t hesitate to make that their assumption.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I neglected to provide sources.

The list of constants given above is from New Proofs for the Existence of God by Robert Spitzer.

 

[greylorn]

This is actually a false analogy. The fine tuning of the universe involved not just one chance event as in winning the lottery, but involved the coordination of at least twenty universal constants coming together in the first moments of the Big Bang.

Constants of space and time
(Planck minimums)

1. minimal interval of space
2. minimal interval of time
3. minimum unit of energy
4. velocity of light

Constants of Energy
5) gravitational constant
6) weak force attraction coupling
7) strong nuclear force coupling

Individuating Constants
8) rest mass of protons
9) rest mass of electrons
10) electron/proton unit charge
11) minimum mass

Large scale and fine structure constants
12) visible rest mass
13) Boltzmann’s constant
14) Hubble’s constant
15) Cosmological constant
16) cosmic photon/proton ratio
17) permittivity of free space
18) electromagnetic fine structure constant
19) weak fine structure constant
20) gravitational fine structure constant

A winner of a single lottery might chalk it up to chance, and s/he would be correct to say there had to be a winning number so that was in a sense determined. However, the fine tuning of the universe, involving, minimally, those 20 constants, none of which (unlike the winning lottery number) “had to be” and each could have been anywhere within an indeterminate range (again unlike the lottery number), would be more like winning twenty lotteries in the same instant (the constants were set within the first moments of the Big Bang), where the winning numbers of each lottery were within a wide indeterminate range and there was no prior indication that any of the lotteries would even occur, i.e., you didn’t even buy any of the tickets because they never existed beforehand.

A winner of this kind of cosmological “lottery” would simply be dumbfounded and as Fred Hoyle observed could only think of it as “a put-up job.”

Winning one time at the roulette wheel could be considered luck, but after winning time after time in succession you would be compelled to wonder whether the game was “fixed” in some way. Certainly, the security team at the casino wouldn’t hesitate to make that their assumption.

Good information and thoughts. Having never actually looked up the “20 constants” before, I was surprised that the “Permeability of free space” was omitted from the list, in favor of the “speed of light,” Any clues?

Everyone on this thread, yourself included, is overlooking an important point. The arguments presented prove, or strongly indicate, that we live in an engineered universe. However they do not speak to the characteristics of the engineer or other aspects of the problem.

These arguments only provide evidence of “design,” or, since I prefer to include the hard part of creation, “engineering.” There is no evidence, for example, that the engineer was omnipotent, omniscient, or even singular. In fact, the evidence from biology suggests that none of those properties apply to the real Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

This is actually a false analogy. The fine tuning of the universe involved not just one chance event as in winning the lottery, but involved the coordination of at least twenty universal constants coming together in the first moments of the Big Bang.

Constants of space and time
(Planck minimums)

1. minimal interval of space
2. minimal interval of time
3. minimum unit of energy
4. velocity of light

Constants of Energy
5) gravitational constant
6) weak force attraction coupling
7) strong nuclear force coupling

Individuating Constants
8) rest mass of protons
9) rest mass of electrons
10) electron/proton unit charge
11) minimum mass

Large scale and fine structure constants
12) visible rest mass
13) Boltzmann’s constant
14) Hubble’s constant
15) Cosmological constant
16) cosmic photon/proton ratio
17) permittivity of free space
18) electromagnetic fine structure constant
19) weak fine structure constant
20) gravitational fine structure constant

A winner of a single lottery might chalk it up to chance, and s/he would be correct to say there had to be a winning number so that was in a sense determined. However, the fine tuning of the universe, involving, minimally, those 20 constants, none of which (unlike the winning lottery number) “had to be” and each could have been anywhere within an indeterminate range (again unlike the lottery number), would be more like winning twenty lotteries in the same instant (the constants were set within the first moments of the Big Bang), where the winning numbers of each lottery were within a wide indeterminate range and there was no prior indication that any of the lotteries would even occur, i.e., you didn’t even buy any of the tickets because they never existed beforehand.

A winner of this kind of cosmological “lottery” would simply be dumbfounded and as Fred Hoyle observed could only think of it as “a put-up job.”

Winning one time at the roulette wheel could be considered luck, but after winning time after time in succession you would be compelled to wonder whether the game was “fixed” in some way. Certainly, the security team at the casino wouldn’t hesitate to make that their assumption.

In this case it is not due to human conspiracy but divine supremacy!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has detailed 34 universal constants and scores of other more local ones that “could have been different” so the case is much stronger.

See reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Good information and thoughts. Having never actually looked up the “20 constants” before, I was surprised that the “Permeability of free space” was omitted from the list, in favor of the “speed of light,” Any clues?

More people have heard of the speed of light as compared to the permeability of free space; since the two are related to each other (see here), I imagine that more known constant would be the more optimal choice.

Everyone on this thread, yourself included, is overlooking an important point. The arguments presented prove, or strongly indicate, that we live in an engineered universe. However they do not speak to the characteristics of the engineer or other aspects of the problem.

These arguments only provide evidence of “design,” or, since I prefer to include the hard part of creation, “engineering.” There is no evidence, for example, that the engineer was omnipotent, omniscient, or even singular. In fact, the evidence from biology suggests that none of those properties apply to the real Creator.

It is a good thing that this thread is titled Overwhelming evidence for Design and not Characteristics of the Designer.

I am also curious as to how biology can determine that the grand “engineer” is not singular (though if it requires reading your pseudo-science book, nevermind).

 

[tonyrey]

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has detailed 34 universal constants and scores of other more local ones that “could have been different” so the case is much stronger.

See reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998

Many thanks for that reference, Peter.

I for one am overwhelmed by the sheer precision of so many factors essential for life on this planet. There may well be other forms of life but if they were less demanding they would be more abundant and their existence would have been more likely to have been observed. What is certain is that life as we know it is the most astonishing feature of the universe - apart from the fact that anything exists at all. Even if philosophy does nothing else it should at least evoke a sense of awe and wonder…

“Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty…”

Wordsworth: “Composed upon Westminster Bridge, Sept. 3, 1802”

He was referring to London but his words are even more applicable to the universe.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good information and thoughts. Having never actually looked up the “20 constants” before, I was surprised that the “Permeability of free space” was omitted from the list, in favor of the “speed of light,” Any clues?

Dr. Spitzer highlighted these 20 but makes it clear that there are numerous others. Perhaps #17 permittivity of free space is relational to permeability of free space so this constant (17) may account for, in some way, the omitted one.

I am not an astrophysicist so any more speculation on my part would be nonproductive.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

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

Design. “Designed” for what ? Certainly NOT designed for life and for us. Life will exist in the universe, (to 80 decimal places) “0” part of the time the universe will exist. THAT’'S not designed for life. So tell us, “designed” for what ?

The fact that “all Christians” do not hold a position is irrelevant, and a nice dodge there. Deflection.

Define “chance”. There IS no such scientific term. Only probability. The word “chance”, is normally used, in these arguments as a pejorative term, but in fact, if YOUR Creator created the structure of Reality, probabilities it’s HOW HE wanted things to work.

You are STILL mixing up pre-event probability with post event probability. They are NOT the same. The ID argument also assumes, without explanation, that Bayesian statistics are applicable to the problem, in the first place. No one is saying they HAD to occur. The pre-event probability says what the non-certain pre-event probability may have been. The post event probability is 1.0. They are two entirely different concepts.

All your “Perfect Creator” stuff is a corruption of the ID argument with YOUR FAITH position, and is not useful. If you NEED evidence for your faith, it bespeaks only your weak faith. Nothing more. Your statement that disease is a result of chance, and not the actions of God, is ASTOUNDING for a person of faith. OMG. I cannot believe you actually admitted that. Christian theology teaches nature was in a “preternatural” sate of perfection, until the Fall. Deflecting the argument, by saying it’s not held by “all”, has not answered the argument. You’re really very good at that sort of thing.

ID is interesting as in a scientific age, science is what is held in highest regard, so obviously people want to use it, so their positions appear to be supported by the popular paradigm/world view. In this case, it simply doesn’t work. “Design” assumes that what my brain sees as “designed”
a.( as Sair just reminded us), was MY concept of the Designer, (which it cannot address)
b. that the proximate designer, was the ultimate designer, (which is not established or even addressed, in the argument
c. that the reality, or a substantial portion of it, is apprehend-able to my brain,
d. that what makes intuitive sense to my brain, IS both real, and necessary. We know that ois NOT the care, (Dirac, Heisenberg, and Einstein).

The “contingent/non-contingent” argument is NOT what the ID argument is about.
a. Despite the cop-out in Aquinas’ “perfection” argument, (created being are not perfect because perfection exists only in the mind of God), a Perfect Creator, using this argument WOULD have created perfect creations, and anything less, implies a less than perfect Creator. So that argument is out.
b. “Contingency” presumes an already extant structure, (contingency vs non-contingency), in Reality. A Being who, of necessity is non-contingent, participates in only PART of that structure, and cannot be the Creator of the larger structure.

The argument : “The fine tuning of the universe involved not just one chance event as in winning the lottery, but involved the coordination of at least twenty universal constants coming together in the first moments of the Big Bang” is "god of the gaps’’, AND just a more complicated, but essentially the SAME mix-up, of pre event probabilities, with POST event probabilities.
From a scientific view, we simply don’t know, (yet). If there were a very very large number of universes which come and go, eventually one which has the properties of this one would “crystallize” out. The pre-event probability is low, but not zero. The more universes which pop into existence, the higher the probability one, or some “could”.

Faith stands or falls on it’s own. Ultimately, this argument is answered ONLY by a faith position of the “designer”, of (your), choice. The ultimate question has not been answered here, by this argument.

 

[Sair]

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?

And you are sidestepping the assumption implicit in all supernaturalist views of reality, that however valuable physical existence may be, there is a form of existence beyond it that is immeasurably more valuable. The above is a bit like asking whether I deny the immense value of diamonds whilst at the same time claiming there is some other precious stone so rare and so beautiful that it eclipses the value of all earthly gems, even though no-one has ever seen it.

The denigration of physical existence, though you claim it is so valuable, is revealed by the following:

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.

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

Of course I believe physical existence is immensely valuable to us, primarily because I also believe it is the only existence we have. But that is arguing on my terms. On your terms, since you are a supernaturalist, you must acknowledge that you value supernatural existence more highly than physical existence. On your terms, therefore, there is no real justification for your God to ever have dabbled in physical creation at all.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

The supernaturalist view is irrelevant to the fact that you attach so much importance to physical existence that you reject any other type of existence and yet you implicitly deny its immense value by asking why it was created…

The above is a bit like asking whether I deny the immense value of diamonds whilst at the same time claiming there is some other precious stone so rare and so beautiful that it eclipses the value of all earthly gems, even though no-one has ever seen it.

The denigration of physical existence, though you claim it is so valuable, is revealed by the following:

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.

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

Of course I believe physical existence is immensely valuable to us, primarily because I also believe it is the only existence we have.

That is a devaluation of physical existence! To argue that something is primarily valuable because it is unique throws doubt on its intrinsic value. It is more reasonable to believe life is immensely valuable for its own sake - regardless of any other consideration. To think otherwise amounts to believing in survival at all costs, no matter how miserable you are…

But that is arguing on my terms. On your terms, since you are a supernaturalist, you must acknowledge that you value supernatural existence more highly than physical existence. On your terms, therefore, there is no real justification for your God to ever have dabbled in physical creation at all.

A false dilemma based on the assumption that there is no link between natural and supernatural existence, understandable when one rules out spiritual values in favour of animal pleasures. The materialist’s parochial mindset rejects all goals, ideals or principles unrelated to information from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin.
The absurd demand for economy (in forms of existence) demonstrates that the richness of both spiritual and physical reality is beyond the comprehension of a person so totally immersed in earthly things that any other form of existence is inconceivable…

 

[ReapReason]

Design. “Designed” for what ? Certainly NOT designed for life and for us. Life will exist in the universe, (to 80 decimal places) “0” part of the time the universe will exist. THAT’'S not designed for life. So tell us, “designed” for what ?

What kind of design are you talking about?

 

[buffalo]

to add to the mix:

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA

This week, 30 research papers, including six in *Nature *and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.

---

see genetic piano post

 

[farpinho]

to add to the mix:

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA

This week, 30 research papers, including six in *Nature *and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.

---

see genetic piano post

I never had any problem with “junk DNA”. One could argue that “junk DNA” was God’s mechanism to protect the species’ DNA from the adverse effects of random mutation, making it less vulnerable to such. But, as the scientists say, just because they realized the “junk DNA” is doing something, it doesn’t mean it’s doing “something useful”.

 

[buffalo]

I never had any problem with “junk DNA”. One could argue that “junk DNA” was God’s mechanism to protect the species’ DNA from the adverse effects of random mutation, making it less vulnerable to such. But, as the scientists say, just because they realized the “junk DNA” is doing something, it doesn’t mean it’s doing “something useful”.

To prevent mutations DNA goes through several iterations of correction.

If as you say it was God’s mechanism to protect the species - then it has useful function.

 

[ReapReason]

ID theory is dead.

 

[buffalo]

ID theory is dead.

 

[farpinho]

To prevent mutations DNA goes through several iterations of correction.

If as you say it was God’s mechanism to protect the species - then it has useful function.

You are right, protection mechanism is a useful function. I mean, it may not be related to the synthesis of any protein or such.

 

[tonyrey]

ID theory is dead.

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless.