Science and Random Chance

[geoformeo]

Well, there’s no real answer to this.

Really, no real answer? Is there a fake answer? So let me get this straight–you have an answer to the “Does God exist?” question, but you have no answer to the purpose of consciousness in a non-random world?

You have assumed that purpose exists to support a belief that you already had.

And you came to this conclusion how? How do you know I am not a convert to Catholicism from atheism? I couldn’t have come to the conclusion on my own through logic? Or is my logic faulty only because it differs with your own?

You’ve started with your assumption then made your worldview fit it.

You sure seem to like to play that card. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Aren’t your assumptions about the purposelessness of existence based upon your atheistic worldview?

It’s clearly a benefit, I’m amazed you can’t see this. As for how it arose - the currently accepted theory of evolution is that random mutations occur and if they provide a survival benefit for their host, then that host survives to propagate the mutation. As for why it arose - there doesn’t need to be a reason.

I certainly do see the benefit to consciousness-but only if there is a God, as I explained. You didn’t answer the question. What would be the benefit to evolving consciousness if there isn’t a God? And I know my evolution by natural selection, by the way. Mutations are only beneficial if there are corresponding selection pressures that prove the mutation advantageous. What selection pressures would be so great to evolve consciousness? And why hasn’t the evolution of consciousness happened more than once, like the evolution of eyes or wings has? Or do you think there hasn’t been enough time for such an occurrence to take place over the past 4.6 billion years? There most certainly is a reason for its existence–the exact same one why there is existence in the first place rather than non-existence.

Again, you’re starting with your supernatural conclusion then finding reasons why natural phenomena support it. You’re basing your entire argument on an unproven assumption. You are being irrational.

Ah yes, the infamous atheist retorts when they don’t have a valid response. You’re beginning to sound like a broken record. And of course I’m the one being irrational, because my position differs from yours.

What’s troubling to me is that people can say, “If something exists that could cause an effect that I can see, then that something MUST exist because I can see the effect,” and not see the gargantuan logical fallacy. It never occurs to them that the thing they happen to believe in might not actually be the thing that caused the effect, particularly as there’s no evidence that the thing they believe in, actually exists. It’s narrow-minded dogma at its worst and it hinders the progress of knowledge and discovery. It’s limiting behaviour that has no place in a modern intellect.

Do you believe in the reality of gravity? Or air? Or your mind? These things MUST exist because we see their effects. Now I am not saying it applies in all circumstances, but you cannot run out your blanket statement that it is a “gargantuan logical fallacy” in reasoning that way. I’m glad you’re the authority on what behavior belongs in modern intellect.

You would do well to take your own advice.

I most certainly do.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

"I don’t really think you can reject a theory on the basis of a hypothesis. At least the former has some weight of evidence! "

Do you consider abiogenesis (the chance emergence of life) to be a theory or a hypothesis?

It’s a theory because it has been partially re-created in the lab.

If a theory, what evidence is there that it happened by chance?

No evidence.

What statistical probability, if any, would you allow that it happened by chance?

Extremely remote by human comprehension. Possibly not so remote on a multi-aeonic scale.

Considering you asked these questions in response to my theory vs hypothesis statement above, do you consider my statement to be wrong? If so, why?

 

[wanstronian]

Really, no real answer? Is there a fake answer?

What I was saying is that there’s no real answer to your statement as to the point of consciousness. There’s no need to be sarcastic, particularly as you don’t seem very good at it.

So let me get this straight–you have an answer to the “Does God exist?” question, but you have no answer to the purpose of consciousness in a non-random world?

The theory of natural selection, which is the generally-accepted theory for the process of evolution by most rational people who understand the theory, holds that there is no purpose in any evolved charateristic. Why should consciousness be any different?

And you came to this conclusion how? How do you know I am not a convert to Catholicism from atheism? I couldn’t have come to the conclusion on my own through logic? Or is my logic faulty only because it differs with your own?

You’re quite right. I made an assumption that may well be wrong. Apologies. Can you guide me through your logical process that resulted in a belief in God? Who knows, you may convert me!

You sure seem to like to play that card. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Aren’t your assumptions about the purposelessness of existence based upon your atheistic worldview?

No, they’re based on an absence of evidence for God’s existence, and a documented history of ‘supernatural’ events being explained in scientific terms. Also on the widely accepted theory of natural selection, which has no credible opposing theory.

I certainly do see the benefit to consciousness-but only if there is a God, as I explained. You didn’t answer the question. What would be the benefit to evolving consciousness if there isn’t a God? And I know my evolution by natural selection, by the way. Mutations are only beneficial if there are corresponding selection pressures that prove the mutation advantageous. What selection pressures would be so great to evolve consciousness? And why hasn’t the evolution of consciousness happened more than once, like the evolution of eyes or wings has? Or do you think there hasn’t been enough time for such an occurrence to take place over the past 4.6 billion years? There most certainly is a reason for its existence–the exact same one why there is existence in the first place rather than non-existence.

It’s difficult to argue with such strong dogma. I don’t see any real benefit in pointing out - again - your circular reasoning, so I won’t bother. Likewise, no real point in highlighting your bare assertions, so again I won’t bother. You are clearly convinced that what you believe is true, to the point where you won’t even consider questioning it.

Ah yes, the infamous atheist retorts when they don’t have a valid response. You’re beginning to sound like a broken record.

You are very aggressive. It’s all very well stating this is the ‘infamous atheist retort,’ but you seem blissfully unaware that the lack of evidence is the reason why atheists are atheists. We’re not being unreasonable by pointing out this lack of evidence, or by pointing out that theism depends on unproven conjecture. It’s not a case of atheists not having a response, it’s a case of theists not having any evidence to support their claims. Blaming atheists for pointing out the flaws in theistic belief is, if you like, the ‘infamous theist’s retort.’

And of course I’m the one being irrational, because my position differs from yours.

No, correlation does not imply causation. My position has nothing whatsoever to do with your irrationality. You’re being irrational purely because there is no rational basis for a belief in God. If you don’t mind my saying so, you are the worst kind of theist because by default you take exception to anybody challenging your faith. You seem to think that your beliefs should have some kind of exemption from critical analysis, purely by virtue that “it’s religion.”

Do you believe in the reality of gravity? Or air? Or your mind? These things MUST exist because we see their effects. Now I am not saying it applies in all circumstances, but you cannot run out your blanket statement that it is a “gargantuan logical fallacy” in reasoning that way. I’m glad you’re the authority on what behavior belongs in modern intellect.

Here you’re just misrepresenting my statement. The obvious difference is that, to take gravity as an example, Newton didn’t just say, “Woo-hoo, I’ve discovered gravity, everyone just believe what I tell you about it.” No - many, many experiments have been done to prove its consistency, predict and demonstrate its effect on real-world objects, and so on. Your comparison is naive and fatuous, and just illustrates how closed-minded you are when it comes to consideration of your dogmatic beliefs.

I most certainly do.

The evidence CLEARLY shows otherwise, I’m sorry to say.

 

[geoformeo]

Wanstronian,

Let me begin by apologizing for my condescending post last night. I was having a rough night, and I took it out on you in my post. I hope you will accept my sincere apology, and will come to see that I am not “the worst kind of theist.”

Rather than going down the same path as yesterday, I’d like to take some time to answer your one question:

Can you guide me through your logical process that resulted in a belief in God?

Absolutely. This post may be fairly brief, but I’d be happy to elaborate where you request.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing you’re starting assumption about reality and truth is akin to Richard Lewontin’s “science as the only begetter of truth.” So if a discussion on immaterial truth will fall on deaf ears, I can hold off on that until later. I have no problem beginning with physical truth, as God is the creator of the heavens and the Earth.

To begin, we must cast aside all preconceived notions about the existence or lack thereof of God, and just look at our physical existence as is. We exist in a universe that is governed by intelligible natural laws that provide order, structure, and functionality to our existence. It is these laws and their products that provide us with physical reality, which is what we base our “proof” and “evidence” off of. The logical starting point would be to ask the question, “Where did these natural laws come from?” Either they have existed from eternity, or they had an origin (are contingent entities). According to modern cosmology, the former is rejected (unless you adhere to oscillating universe hypothesis, which is mere pseudoscience), while the latter is accepted, having occurred some 13.7 billion years ago.

If we accept the evidence for the Big Bang, and that the natural laws as we know them were created at that time, then we must reason about such an event taking into consideration that the laws themselves were not present prior to their origin, and therefore there is nothing that can be discovered through modern science that could provide us any sort of picture about how and why such an event occurred in the first place. You can’t have the cart (scientific discovery) in front of (before) the horse (the natural laws). Because this event that instituted the natural laws occurred without the help of and despite the absence of the natural laws, it was, by logical necessity, a supernatural event. The contingent nature of the natural laws requires a Being that is in and of itself not contingent. So right from the get-go, your sole basis for reality and truth (science) falls short of being able to answer the question of its own origin. You can answer the question as to your own origin, can you not? As we can for all contingent entities. The universe and the natural laws are contingent entities. Therefore, there must be Something that caused/created them. That Something is God.

This Creator God that instituted the natural laws can never be in conflict with any part of science, as it was His design, by intention. You obviously put a lot of stock in evolution by natural selection, as do I. Such an amazing process has allowed the continuation of life for nearly 4 billion years, despite asteroid impacts, global climate change, disease, natural disasters, and the like. It has also allowed for the creation of complex, intelligent organisms. Two questions come to mind. First, if we consider evolution a universal biological “law,” then it too was determined at the Big Bang. Why would such a law that promotes life even exist, if life wasn’t even around at that time, unless the universe knew life was coming? And of all the laws that could have been created to govern life, why one that perpetuates life’s existence and trends toward complexity? Sure seems fishy. The same is true for all of the natural laws, for that matter.

There’s much, much more that I could go into, but it’s late and I’m tired. I hope you have a great day, and I’d be more than happy to continue if you are so interested. Check out the second quote of my signature; it gives the gist of my position.

 

[Geremia]

Addressing the question “Whether all things are subject to the Divine government?”—i.e., by a Λόγος (Logos) as John 1 puts it, a “Divine Logic” or a “reason-abiding God”—in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, he raises the objection:

It would seem that not all things are subject to the Divine government. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 9:11): “I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favor to the skillful, but time and chance in all.” But things subject to the Divine government are not ruled by chance. Therefore those things which are under the sun are not subject to the Divine government.

To which he responds:

These things are said to be under the sun which are generated and corrupted according to the sun’s movement. In all such things we find chance: not that everything is casual which occurs in such things; but that in each one there is an element of chance. And the very fact that an element of chance is found in those things proves that they are subject to government of some kind. For unless corruptible things were governed by a higher being, they would tend to nothing definite, especially those which possess no kind of knowledge. So nothing would happen unintentionally; which constitutes the nature of chance. Wherefore to show how things happen by chance and yet according to the ordering of a higher cause, he does not say absolutely that he observes chance in all things, but “time and chance,” that is to say, that defects may be found in these things according to some order of time.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian,

Let me begin by apologizing for my condescending post last night. I was having a rough night, and I took it out on you in my post. I hope you will accept my sincere apology, and will come to see that I am not “the worst kind of theist.”

Apology readily accepted!

Rather than going down the same path as yesterday, I’d like to take some time to answer your one question: Absolutely. This post may be fairly brief, but I’d be happy to elaborate where you request.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing you’re starting assumption about reality and truth is akin to Richard Lewontin’s “science as the only begetter of truth.” So if a discussion on immaterial truth will fall on deaf ears, I can hold off on that until later. I have no problem beginning with physical truth, as God is the creator of the heavens and the Earth.

To begin, we must cast aside all preconceived notions about the existence or lack thereof of God, and just look at our physical existence as is. We exist in a universe that is governed by intelligible natural laws that provide order, structure, and functionality to our existence. It is these laws and their products that provide us with physical reality, which is what we base our “proof” and “evidence” off of. The logical starting point would be to ask the question, “Where did these natural laws come from?” Either they have existed from eternity, or they had an origin (are contingent entities). According to modern cosmology, the former is rejected (unless you adhere to oscillating universe hypothesis, which is mere pseudoscience), while the latter is accepted, having occurred some 13.7 billion years ago.

If we accept the evidence for the Big Bang, and that the natural laws as we know them were created at that time, then we must reason about such an event taking into consideration that the laws themselves were not present prior to their origin, and therefore there is nothing that can be discovered through modern science that could provide us any sort of picture about how and why such an event occurred in the first place. You can’t have the cart (scientific discovery) in front of (before) the horse (the natural laws). Because this event that instituted the natural laws occurred without the help of and despite the absence of the natural laws, it was, by logical necessity, a supernatural event. The contingent nature of the natural laws requires a Being that is in and of itself not contingent. So right from the get-go, your sole basis for reality and truth (science) falls short of being able to answer the question of its own origin. You can answer the question as to your own origin, can you not? As we can for all contingent entities. The universe and the natural laws are contingent entities. Therefore, there must be Something that caused/created them.

Apart from the somewhat implicative nature of the capitalised word “Being” rather than “thing” or “event,” I’m fine up to this point. It’s your next statement that I disagree with.

That Something is God.

How do you know? Something had to kick it off, I agree - why does that something have to have been sentient? This is a bare assertion - there is no evidence that “God did it.”

This Creator God that instituted the natural laws can never be in conflict with any part of science, as it was His design, by intention. You obviously put a lot of stock in evolution by natural selection, as do I. Such an amazing process has allowed the continuation of life for nearly 4 billion years, despite asteroid impacts, global climate change, disease, natural disasters, and the like. It has also allowed for the creation of complex, intelligent organisms. Two questions come to mind. First, if we consider evolution a universal biological “law,” then it too was determined at the Big Bang. Why would such a law that promotes life even exist, if life wasn’t even around at that time, unless the universe knew life was coming?

I think it’s a bit naive to assume that the universe knew anything at all. It’s kind of a circular reasoning - you start by strongly implying that all natural laws were created for a purpose. Your conclusion guides your reasoning, rather than the other way around. Here, you are indeed putting the cart before the horse.

And of all the laws that could have been created to govern life, why one that perpetuates life’s existence and trends toward complexity? Sure seems fishy. The same is true for all of the natural laws, for that matter.

There’s much, much more that I could go into, but it’s late and I’m tired. I hope you have a great day, and I’d be more than happy to continue if you are so interested. Check out the second quote of my signature; it gives the gist of my position.

And check out mine; the same is true!

 

[edwest2]

It’s a theory because it has been partially re-created in the lab.No evidence.Extremely remote by human comprehension. Possibly not so remote on a multi-aeonic scale.

Considering you asked these questions in response to my theory vs hypothesis statement above, do you consider my statement to be wrong? If so, why?

“partially created in the lab”? What? How do you know if anyone has even a partial answer if you don’t know what the actual answer is? Partially created. I can’t give a partial answer on a test. I have to give the full, complete answer. But back to the OP. The answer is, according to science, a faith statement based, so far, on imagination and unproven assumptions.

Peace,
Ed