Those blind and stubborn scientists!

[Spock]

I will put the SETI guys on this.

The answer is obvious. To a mathematician. No need to use a microscope to crack a peanut - if you know what I mean.

 

[Spock]

I have not gone through many of the posts, but I think that your are quite confused about science and about religion.

I don’t think so. It seems that you did not realize that the OP was tongue in cheek, poking fun at the “not-so-smart” posters who keep on complaining that scientists do not take God seriously.

There is nothing wrong to do science as if it there were no God. Science is simply a method to create the simplest model to explain something. First that does not mean that the model is correct. Second a cause-effect relationship is created on step at the time. Bringing God into play does not make sense because He is the first and un-caused cause and true science knows that we still have to deal with a lot of caused causes to move up in the ladder of our understanding. A lot of the stuff that you hear of is not science but philosophical speculations in regard to physics and other subjects.

Actually bringing God into the picture is an error, because the God hypothesis does not explain anything.

Your pattern is the use of grouped symbols where the symbols are from the set 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0

It is a bit more complicated than that. There is a very important pattern “hidden” there (hidden in plain sight). The point was that that a pattern is not necessarily obvious. The posters asserted that a designed pattern must be obvious to recognize as such. I am giving an example to the contrary.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here. While I agree that design always contains patterns I still do not understand this first proposition. I tend to have the same reaction that Spock has, and my knee jerk reaction is that probably you are wrong. Can you please elaborate on you proposition?

The snowflake, ripples in the sand do not contain signs or symbols that communicate. Design conveys purpose or thought and incorporates patterns.

 

[Spock]

But the dogma does not say that laws of nature don’t exist. If you think it does, you have not understood it at all and you have given it a meaning that no Catholic and certainly no Catholic scientist gives it.

Of course it does not spell it out. It merely imples it. If God is needed to “hold everything in existence”, then it is superfluous to posit some natural law to do the same. If the Catholic Church would say that God set everything in motion, established the laws how matter would “behave”, then there would be no need for the “sustaining cause argument”. Since you claim to be a scientist, that should be obvious to you.

Just look at the next one from the same source: 70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.) - which means that God is an active participant in every murder and torture. Just because the dogma does not spell it out, it does not mean that it is not implied.

Why don’t you read the article and find out yourself? Studying it would also inform you about the science of abiogenesis.

Sure. Post the URL, please.

 

[Spock]

The snowflake, ripples in the sand do not contain signs or symbols that communicate. Design conveys purpose or thought and incorporates patterns.

Only because you are not “smart” enough to recognize the “communication”. Or there is no pattern there - which is possible, too. How do you know which one is true? I gave you a nice task above. Is there a pattern there? If there is, what is it? My point is that a pattern only makes sense in a communcation channel. If there is no recipient, there is no “pattern”.

Moreover, a “perfect” communication channel has absolutely no redundancy built into it, and as such it cannot be differentiated from “white noise”. I am afraid this will be meaningless to you, since you did not seem to have studied information science.

 

[buffalo]

Only because you are not “smart” enough to recognize the “communication”. Or there is no pattern there - which is possible, too. How do you know which one is true? I gave you a nice task above. Is there a pattern there? If there is, what is it? My point is that a pattern only makes sense in a communcation channel. If there is no recipient, there is no “pattern”.

Moreover, a “perfect” communication channel has absolutely no redundancy built into it, and as such it cannot be differentiated from “white noise”. I am afraid this will be meaningless to you, since you did not seem to have studied information science.

Communication requires a sender, receiver and a decoder/key . If it contains those three it is designed.

 

[Spock]

Communication requires a sender, receiver and a decoder/key . If it contains those three it is designed.

No doubt whatsoever! But you wish to establish the existence of the “sender” when you have only something you wish to call a “message”. There is no “key”, no “receiver”, no “sender”. Just something that you wish to declare a “message”. Did you figure out the pattern in those seemingly random numbers I presented for your edification?

 

[buffalo]

No doubt whatsoever! But you wish to establish the existence of the “sender” when you have only something you wish to call a “message”. There is no “key”, no “receiver”, no “sender”. Just something that you wish to declare a “message”. Did you figure out the pattern in those seemingly random numbers I presented for your edification?

What is the purpose of the number sequence?

 

[Cristiano]

…It is a bit more complicated than that. There is a very important pattern “hidden” there (hidden in plain sight). The point was that that a pattern is not necessarily obvious. The posters asserted that a designed pattern must be obvious to recognize as such. I am giving an example to the contrary.

I think that you are wrong here. You were asking for a pattern and you were given one. It was not the one that you thought of but if you look back the pattern that I indicated it is a necessary part of your design.

I think that I will stay out of the “pattern” conversation because I think that you can go anyway you want with it. As far as I can figure it out patterns by themselves are not a sufficient cause to show design; however, they are necessary.

 

[Spock]

What is the purpose of the number sequence?

It is the fractional part of the most important constant in mathematics. (What is it?) Purpose? That is yet another meaningless question. What is the “purpose” of the Ludolph’s constant = 3.141592653589…? Or the value of the golden-ratio 0.618033988…?

The point was that there is a pattern, which does not look like a pattern, and as such you cannot recognize it as a pattern. For a mathematician the regularity or pattern is obvious.

To repeat: “order does not imply design” and that is what you don’t seem to comprehend. Order does not imply an “orderer”, while design would imply a “designer”. And you guys are so adamant of trying to find a “designer” that you are desperate to declare “design” where there is none - where there is only order.

 

[buffalo]

It is the fractional part of the most important constant in mathematics. (What is it?) Purpose? That is yet another meaningless question. What is the “purpose” of the Ludolph’s constant = 3.141592653589…? Or the value of the golden-ratio 0.618033988…?

The point was that there is a pattern, which does not look like a pattern, and as such you cannot recognize it as a pattern. For a mathematician the regularity or pattern is obvious.

To repeat: “order does not imply design” and that is what you don’t seem to comprehend. Order does not imply an “orderer”, while design would imply a “designer”. And you guys are so adamant of trying to find a “designer” that you are desperate to declare “design” where there is none - where there is only order.

Absolutely not, but with a slight caveat. Order does not imply design, in our frame. However, looking at order from outside our frame order can certainly imply design.

Inside our frame design will contain patterns, purpose and communication.

By itself the golden ratio perhaps doesn’t communicate anything, but it is a ratio that is most pleasing to the eye.

So what natural patterns can you describe that communicate?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Of course it does not spell it out. It merely imples it. If God is needed to “hold everything in existence”, then it is superfluous to posit some natural law to do the same. If the Catholic Church would say that God set everything in motion, established the laws how matter would “behave”, then there would be no need for the “sustaining cause argument”. Since you claim to be a scientist, that should be obvious to you.

Just look at the next one from the same source: 70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.) - which means that God is an active participant in every murder and torture. Just because the dogma does not spell it out, it does not mean that it is not implied.

Your “Catholic theology” only exists as a figment of your own mind. No wonder that you reject it.

Sure. Post the URL, please.

Here it is:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Should give you plenty of ammunition against those “silly little theists” (the ID ones, that is).

 

[Spock]

Absolutely not, but with a slight caveat. Order does not imply design, in our frame. However, looking at order from outside our frame order can certainly imply design.

That makes no sense at all. What other “frame” are you talking about? And how can you suggest what is true or false from a different “frame”, that you have no idea about? This whole charade of “fine-tune argument” was built upon the assumption that the complexity of a pattern indicates that there is a “designer” somewhere in the background. Now you seem to comprehend that order does not imply design, which is a huge breakthrough.

The point is that just because we see a pattern, no matter how “improbable” it seems to be, it does not imply any design or designer. That is all I wanted to say.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your pattern is the use of grouped symbols where the symbols are from the set 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0

 

[Spock]

Your “Catholic theology” only exists as a figment of your own mind. No wonder that you reject it.

Really? So you don’t think that the sustaining cause makes the concept of laws of nature superfluous? What is the relevance of having independent laws of nature, if God MUST sustain everything in existence? Or conversely, why does God need to pay attention to all the existing atoms, if the laws of nature are sufficient to “maintain” them? One of them is not necessary. According to you, which one? And if both are “needed”, how do you explain that? Get down to the details.

Here it is:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Should give you plenty of ammunition against those “silly little theists” (the ID ones, that is).

Thanks. The ammo against the ID-ers is always welcome. Though I hardly ever conduct a conversation with them. They are simply too stupid to consider.

 

[buffalo]

That makes no sense at all. What other “frame” are you talking about? And how can you suggest what is true or false from a different “frame”, that you have no idea about? This whole charade of “fine-tune argument” was built upon the assumption that the complexity of a pattern indicates that there is a “designer” somewhere in the background. Now you seem to comprehend that order does not imply design, which is a huge breakthrough.

The point is that just because we see a pattern, no matter how “improbable” it seems to be, it does not imply any design or designer. That is all I wanted to say.

When we see a design we know it came from a mind. Designs contain patterns. The SOS conveys a message, it was designed and contains patterns.

 

[Spock]

When we see a design we know it came from a mind. Designs contain patterns.

Yes. But the opposite is not true. Patterns do not imply designs.

The SOS conveys a message, it was designed and contains patterns.

Again, only your supposition. It could have been the result of a some wind-wave configuration. I am not interested in going through this again. If you don’t understand, it is your problem. Obviously, the more complicated a “message” might be, the more probable that it was “designed”. But that is no “proof”. And since in the universe there is no “message” there is no reason to assume that there is a “meaning”. Case closed, I am not going to waste more time on this.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. But the opposite is not true. Patterns do not imply designs.

Again, only your supposition. It could have been the result of a some wind-wave configuration. I am not interested in going through this again. If you don’t understand, it is your problem. Obviously, the more complicated a “message” might be, the more probable that it was “designed”. But that is no “proof”. And since in the universe there is no “message” there is no reason to assume that there is a “meaning”. Case closed, I am not going to waste more time on this.

So your contention is the photo I provided is a wind-wave configuration? You might as well believe in the FSM.

We were discussing the odds of something being designed or the result of chance or necessity. You never did answer the recognized chance/design threshold value.

What value do you place on this threshold?

 

[danserr]

order does not imply design". Repeat it a few thousand times.
]

If you think mere repetition makes something true then I no longer wonder at your stubbornness when confronted with evidence that contradicts your ideas.

In your last post to me (number 28), you start to stretch to the point that it indicates a certain desperation in your attempt to avoid the design hypothesis.

1. You insist on continuing your radical challenge to the very idea of fine-tuning, and even challenge me to produce peer-reviewed papers that prove it. Unfortunately for you, I was not bluffing and can.

• John Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 1986)
• John Leslie, :The Pr-requisites of Life in out Universe," Newton and the New Direction in Science (1998)
• Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers (New York, 2000).

According to PCW Davies, a change in the gravitation constant by even one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

Please give up your absurd attempt to deny the fine-tuning of the universe for life. It seems too desperate.

1. I proposed two versions of the fine-tuning argument:

Demski version

1. the fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design
2. it is not due to chance or necessity
   3 therefore, design.

You accuse me of sweeping chance and necessity under the rug, but this is obviously wrong. I have given examples showing the problem with chance. Necessity is so improbable not many atheists accept it, so I left it alone. If you want evidence against that though, very well. This requires believing the dozen qualities and constants had to take the values they do, which flies in the face of what we currently know. And the most probable candidate to explain necessity, a TOE based on m-theory, fails to adequately predict our universe. Stephen hawking: “does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is, it does not.” So much for necessity.

It does not apply to my version:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly improbable on atheism
   2,. the fine-tuning is not improbable on theism
2. therefore, the fine tuning strongly confirms theism over atheism

Irrelevant. You walk of the beach and see 3 twigs forming a triangle. It may be more probable that those twigs were arranged on purpose, but probability does not count! As long as you cannot PROVE that it could not have happened by chance, you have no argument.

Now you are stretching and frankly, don’t seem to understand the argument. You are trying to claim I need 100% proof that the fine-tuning can’t have occurred by chance. This is pretty desperate. We operate by probability all the time. If you demanded 100% certainty that Holocaust really occurred before you would believe it, then you would not only be irrational and a terrible historian, but probably a bigot. All I have to do is show that the fine-tuning is very improbable on atheism (undeniable), and not improbable on theism (undeniable) . If this is so, then (by the principle of confirmation), the fine tuning is strong evidence of theism.

 

[danserr]

Now to consider the chance hypothesis further since this is the one you seem to be hanging your hat on.
-You have refused to answer every single example I have given you. I will list them again and this time want you to answer yes or no to each, whether if such an event happened, you would consider it the result of chance or design.

A. A classroom of a hundred students. Each is asked to write down a number at random without consulting the others. A professor, then goes around the room in order asking them to tell the numbers.
Situation A: the numbers are called out: 5, 56, 987, 43, 5/6, 382, 129893, 85…
Situation B: the numbers are called out: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12…99, 100.

• Would you think that situation B was the result of chance? yes or no? (in a previous thread, you agreed you would, “if you knew no cheating was going on,” which of course begs the question against the design hypothosis. Is this still your view?)

B
You and I are playing poker, I win with 4 aces 12 times in a row. Would you think this was the result of chance, or would you think I was cheating? (If you do think this was the result of chance, could we get together to play cards sometime? I am a poor grad student and need the money ).

C In my first lottery example. If out of a billion, billion, billion, white ping pong balls with only 36 black balls mixed in, I reached in 12 times and 12 times drew out 12 black balls, would you think that was the result of chance or that something was up?

If in any one of these circumstances, you would agree with me that the chance hypothesis is insufficient to explain the specified complexity of the situation, then you are admitting the design hypothesis.

No, it means that a-posteriori probabilities cannot be calculated if only one result is known

Now this is obviously wrong. You can also see some of the articles I mentioned above, but some very good physicists and mathematicians obviously disagree with you.

• Roger Penrose, the Oxford University physicist, calculates the the odds of the cosmological constant having arisen by chance are about one part in 10^10(120)
• Stephen Hawking calculates a decrease in the expansion rate of the universe of even one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the big bang would prevent life.
• By way of example of how we say the fine-tuning is improbable, try this. Take the 12 qualities and constants finely tuned for life. Alter one slightly. If this would allow a life permitting universe, put a red dot on paper, if a life prohibiting universe, put a blue dot. You will end up with a sheet full of blue dots and hardly any red. This is what I mean by the fine-tuning being improbable.

“order does not imply design”. Repeat it a few thousand times.

Yes, mere repetition would explain your dogmatic materialism. A materialism closed to considering evidence that does not fit with its preconceived notions.