Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[Lily_Bernans]

cont’d

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)

Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)

There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)

Thank you, Eric! I did not have the time or the patience to type all of that out!

I wish you could come speak to some of my classes!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You may be thinking the big bang theory says more than it really does.

No, I’m not thinking that, but thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No, I didn’t ask this, and I don’t need to be clued up on this particular bandwagon. I asked Lily Berlans to provide evidence for her claim that there is proof that the universe is intelligently designed.

I still appreciate your posting the list of quotations, though. I would have been more impressed if it had come from a scientific website, and not from a religious one. Nevertheless, it’s prompted several hours of interesting reading.

However, from what I’ve read so far about the scientists on this list, there’s no mention of anything approaching a proof of intelligent design. At best the scientists listed were/are proponents for an argument in favour of intelligent design, but none, as far as I can see, has come up with anything that can be called a proof, or even a scientific theory.

Many, perhaps most, of the views of the scientists expressed in these quotations can be boiled down, it seems, to the fine tuning argument or the anthropic principle. Detailed and cogent arguments against both of these are readily available (so I won’t list them here.). But in any case I’ve found no evidence that any of these scientists developed a ‘proof’ of intelligent design, as was claimed by Lily Berlans. If instead she had said ‘arguments in favour of’, then I would not have challenged her claim, just remained quietly sceptical.

My name is Bernans, not Berlans. Bernans is an ancient Latvian name.

I’m a professor of Christology and this semester, Moral Theology. I honestly don’t have the time to prowl the Internet for things we should all already know. It’s very easy for you to look up. In the previous case, Eric did the work. This time, since I’m on a lunch break, I did:

algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/#

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You’re describing confirmation bias - Christianity is widely accepted in America, so most Americans would need some very serious new evidence to start to doubt it. They’re doing exactly as you ask.

Very well said.

There is only one “little” problem here. The alleged evidence for Christianity is only accepted by Christians. Just like the evidence for Islam is only accepted by Muslims. And also the religious beliefs are not founded on evidence and reason, they are founded on “faith”. And faith is not amenable to testing and falsification. See Matthew 4:7. How many people changed their belief that God is good, even after looking at the pictures depicting the result of famine in Africa?

There are various possible reasons for confirmation bias, the simplest is that no one has anywhere near enough time to test everything as you suggest. But also, someone’s love for you or what Picasso’s Guernica says to you or even pop trivia like Cyndi Lauper’s Above The Clouds can’t be tested and analyzed that way. There may be some who think religion, literature, mountain climbing, dancing are now subservient to science, but it just ain’t so. Have a walk down to the art dept and talk to someone with paint on her nose.

Again, I am only interested in objective existence, not its subjective evaluation. In other words, what exists? And not how do we like it. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What is “heavy” for one person is “light” for another.

 

[ericc]

No, I didn’t ask this, and I don’t need to be clued up on this particular bandwagon. I asked Lily Berlans to provide evidence for her claim that there is proof that the universe is intelligently designed.

I was trying to be helpful to Lily in assembling all these references which she actually requested that you google for them. I happened to have it in front of my screen. That is not my favorite website either btw.

I still appreciate your posting the list of quotations, though. I would have been more impressed if it had come from a scientific website, and not from a religious one. Nevertheless, it’s prompted several hours of interesting reading.

I am not sure why the reluctance to piggy off the administrative effort of another. The webpage is just a collection of quotes, with the references duly quoted.

However, from what I’ve read so far about the scientists on this list, there’s no mention of anything approaching a proof of intelligent design. At best the scientists listed were/are proponents for an argument in favour of intelligent design, but none, as far as I can see, has come up with anything that can be called a proof, or even a scientific theory.

Many, perhaps most, of the views of the scientists expressed in these quotations can be boiled down, it seems, to the fine tuning argument or the anthropic principle. Detailed and cogent arguments against both of these are readily available (so I won’t list them here.). But in any case I’ve found no evidence that any of these scientists developed a ‘proof’ of intelligent design, as was claimed by Lily Berlans. If instead she had said ‘arguments in favour of’, then I would not have challenged her claim, just remained quietly sceptical.

Proof? What do you mean by proof? Not all sciences rely on “proof”. Ecological sciences, anthropology, geology, archaeology, artificial intelligence, medical research, cosmology, social sciences, philosophy of science and many others all use some form of abductive reasoning aka Inference to the Best Explanation to come to conclusions.

When these scientists came to a point where probability of events happening by natural causes is zero, they infer that there is an intelligence or mind behind it. Religious ones called that God, non-religious would leave it unnamed or decline to venture further.

Anthony Flew came to that conclusion after pondering over biological DNA. The probability of nature to assemble life( amino acids, nucleic acids, DNA, RNA) is practically zero. Nature just can not create informational intelligence out of nothing. Google for attempts to quantify it. Others look at physical constants, others looked at simple logic that nature does not pop out from nothing by nothing. Notice at this point, no one is naming God as the source yet. But they reason that this Intelligent Mind is uncaused, eternal, intelligent, spaceless, powerful etc to do all those things. Whereas the other explanation i.e. Nature does not have the intrinsic properties to do all these. Therefore, abductive reasoning kicks in.

 

[ericc]

Thank you, Eric! I did not have the time or the patience to type all of that out!

My pleasure to help a busy Professor with some administrative stuff

I wish you could come speak to some of my classes!

I wish I could ATTEND some of your classes!

 

[Elizium23]

You’re essentially saying you don’t want to learn how to salsa dance because it cannot be described in chemical formulae and proven empirically. Salsa dancers would simply laugh you off the floor.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

My pleasure to help a busy Professor with some administrative stuff

I wish I could ATTEND some of your classes!

I wish you could, too, Eric. It’s easy to see that you have a natural bent toward theology and philosophy (I don’t teach philosophy, though there is some philosophy contained in my theological classes, of course). I am sure in many areas, you could teach me, and teachers love having a student like that in their class.

Thank you again.

 

[Nixbits]

Lily, many apologies for getting your name wrong. I’ll try to get it right in future.
Lily Bernans:

I honestly don’t have the time to prowl the Internet for things we should all already know. It’s very easy for you to look up. In the previous case, Eric did the work.

I don’t agree that we should all already know that scientists have proved that the universe was intelligently designed. I think that I’ve kept up with current scientific thinking on this issue, and it seems to me that there are just as many scientists, perhaps more, that do not conclude that the universe is intelligently designed.

I agree it’s easy to look things up on the internet. So easy, in fact, that I’ve found many sources which argue against both the fine tuning argument and the anthropic principle, and which provide many arguments against the conclusion of intelligent design.

Whilst I’m grateful to ericc for providing the list, when I read further material about the scientists listed, I didn’t find any so-called proof for the assertion of intelligent design.

 

[Nixbits]

ericc:

When these scientists came to a point where probability of events happening by natural causes is zero, they infer that there is an intelligence or mind behind it.

My point is that these scientists inferred an intelligent design, they did not prove it. Other scientists, studying in the same scientific fields, have come to an entirely different conclusion. You’ll not be surprised to hear that I find the counter-arguments much more convincing.

I think here I’m considering ‘proof’ to mean a scientific interpretation of the evidence that is accepted as true or most likely true by an overwhelming proportion of the scientific community. But perhaps we should ask Lily. She was the one that used the word.

You mentioned Antony Flew. I confess that I’m perplexed by what I’ve read of him. He was a deist who admitted in 2004 that he only believed in a God because he did not believe the first reproducing organisms could have a naturalistic origin. In the same year, he admitted that he had not kept up with the most recent science and he later retracted his statement that an intelligent designer was the only explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. He stated that he realised he was wrong to think that there were no theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first reproducing organisms. Yet in 2007 he co-authored a book reaffirming his deism. Curious.

 

[ericc]

My point is that these scientists inferred an intelligent design, they did not prove it. Other scientists, studying in the same scientific fields, have come to an entirely different conclusion. You’ll not be surprised to hear that I find the counter-arguments much more convincing.

I think here I’m considering ‘proof’ to mean a scientific interpretation of the evidence that is accepted as true or most likely true by an overwhelming proportion of the scientific community.

I already mentioned that certain sciences use abductive reasoning due to the inability to recreate events such as the Big Bang, or appearance of first life or complex life plans. Obviously, the question is whose reasoning is more convincing, natural forces vs intelligent design.

Did these scientists prove that natural forces did it? Is the burden of proof applicable to those touting nature as the answer same for those touting design? Perhaps you would like to share those counter arguments that you find “much more convincing”. If those arguments are solid I can be persuaded too. I am not an unreasonable person. I am not married to any particular hypotheses, just the ones with better explanatory powers.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not married to any particular hypotheses, just the ones with better explanatory powers.

That is a most commendable and respectable attitude.

What do you mean that the God-hypothesis has any “explanatory power”? If you translate it into simple English, it would say: “There is this unknowable being, who has unimaginable powers, who snapped his imaginary fingers and made it somehow happen”. I this an explanation? The exact circumstances of the abiogenesis cannot be reproduced, but there are experiments which are quite promising. After all “life” is simply maintaining one’s homeostasis in a changing environment, or exhibiting complex behavior to complex stimuli. Nothing “magic” about it.

Another observation. If the God hypothesis would be proven, it would negate the need for faith. After all, if you KNOW that God exists, then only his particular attributes would require “faith”, his existence would be a certainty. When it comes to apologetics, some apologists say that God’s existence should remain “uncertain”, because a positive proof would “rob” us the freedom to believe or not. Total nonsense, of course, since beliefs are not under volitional control.

One cannot have both “knowledge” and “faith” at the same time in the same respect. One of them must go. Which one will it be?

 

[davidv]

That is a most commendable and respectable attitude.

What do you mean that the God-hypothesis has any “explanatory power”? If you translate it into simple English, it would say: “There is this unknowable being, who has unimaginable powers, who snapped his imaginary fingers and made it somehow happen”. I this an explanation? The exact circumstances of the abiogenesis cannot be reproduced, but there are experiments which are quite promising. After all “life” is simply maintaining one’s homeostasis in a changing environment, or exhibiting complex behavior to complex stimuli. Nothing “magic” about it.

Why don’t you let ericc answer the question rather than putting words in his mouth that are not even close to the Catholic explanation?

Another observation. If the God hypothesis would be proven, it would negate the need for faith. After all, if you KNOW that God exists, then only his particular attributes would require “faith”, his existence would be a certainty. When it comes to apologetics, some apologists say that God’s existence should remain “uncertain”, because a positive proof would “rob” us the freedom to believe or not. Total nonsense, of course, since beliefs are not under volitional control.

One cannot have both “knowledge” and “faith” at the same time in the same respect. One of them must go. Which one will it be?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is a most commendable and respectable attitude.

What do you mean that the God-hypothesis has any “explanatory power”? If you translate it into simple English, it would say: “There is this unknowable being, who has unimaginable powers, who snapped his imaginary fingers and made it somehow happen”. I this an explanation? The exact circumstances of the abiogenesis cannot be reproduced, but there are experiments which are quite promising. After all “life” is simply maintaining one’s homeostasis in a changing environment, or exhibiting complex behavior to complex stimuli. Nothing “magic” about it.

Another observation. If the God hypothesis would be proven, it would negate the need for faith. After all, if you KNOW that God exists, then only his particular attributes would require “faith”, his existence would be a certainty. When it comes to apologetics, some apologists say that God’s existence should remain “uncertain”, because a positive proof would “rob” us the freedom to believe or not. Total nonsense, of course, since beliefs are not under volitional control.

One cannot have both “knowledge” and “faith” at the same time in the same respect. One of them must go. Which one will it be?

Yes, please let Eric answer the questions you pose to him. Don’t go off on a tangent that he may agree with, agree with only in part, or not agree with at all. Let Eric answer: What do you mean that the God-hypothesis has any “explanatory power”?

 

[Aloysium]

FYI regarding proofs, a term that is being bandied about frequently here:

Proofs do not exist in science.
They are found only in mathematics and logic.
To have a proof, you need a self-contained system of propositions.
Science is empirical which means that there is an objective understandable reality that can be known ultimately through the senses and whose behaviour can be modelled.
Science deals with evidence, not proof.
It uses theories. They not only to make sense of the phenomena of nature, but are necessary to be able to detect them at all.
While proofs are forever true, theories come and go on the basis of the evidence.
Scientific knowledge is tentative; nothing is considered finally proven scientific knowledge.
At the same time, there can be several theories being bounced around to explain the same phenomenon.
When I was in public school the steady state theory of the universe was still in the text books although there was pretty conclusive evidence for the Big Bang.
In this regard, it is of interest that there are alternative theories, one of which involves the idea that it is an increase in overall mass rather than distance that causes the observed red shift.
So, scientific knowledge can be thought of as an ongoing work in progress, its limits, only those of the imagination.

TLDNR - Don’t use “proof” and “science” together.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

FYI regarding proofs, a term that is being bandied about frequently here:

Proofs do not exist in science.
They are found only in mathematics and logic.
To have a proof, you need a self-contained system of propositions.
Science is empirical which means that there is an objective understandable reality that can be known ultimately through the senses and whose behaviour can be modelled.
Science deals with evidence, not proof.
It uses theories. They not only to make sense of the phenomena of nature, but are necessary to be able to detect them at all.
While proofs are forever true, theories come and go on the basis of the evidence.
Scientific knowledge is tentative; nothing is considered finally proven scientific knowledge.
At the same time, there can be several theories being bounced around to explain the same phenomenon.
When I was in public school the steady state theory of the universe was still in the text books although there was pretty conclusive evidence for the Big Bang.
In this regard, it is of interest that there are alternative theories, one of which involves the idea that it is an increase in overall mass rather than distance that causes the observed red shift.
So, scientific knowledge can be thought of as an ongoing work in progress, its limits, only those of the imagination.

TLDNR - Don’t use “proof” and “science” together.

So true. I heard they were call “theories” not “proof”.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In one of my undergraduate classes, as I came into the room, the students were discussing what language Christ would speak when he returned. One boy said, “Mathematics! That’s the only universal language!” I agree with him.

Some believe there is mathematical proof for the existence of God:

spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

decodedscience.org/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801

 

[Frankenfurter]

FYI regarding proofs, a term that is being bandied about frequently here:

Proofs do not exist in science.
They are found only in mathematics and logic.

There you have the essence of the OPs problem. She demands proof for something that falls outside of mathematics and logic.

I could no more prove the existence of my daughter, then I could proof the existence of God. They are people, who need to be experienced, have a relationship with, come to understand. They are NOT mathematical or logical things. And if one were to insist that they be provable, one might come to the erroneous conclusion that they do not in fact exist.

 

[ericc]

That is a most commendable and respectable attitude.

What do you mean that the God-hypothesis has any “explanatory power”? If you translate it into simple English, it would say: “There is this unknowable being, who has unimaginable powers, who snapped his imaginary fingers and made it somehow happen”. I this an explanation? The exact circumstances of the abiogenesis cannot be reproduced, but there are experiments which are quite promising. After all “life” is simply maintaining one’s homeostasis in a changing environment, or exhibiting complex behavior to complex stimuli.

I think you are jumping the gun. I am not even close to the stage of invoking God, Christian or otherwise or gods to solve problems. Because we have not started talking about morality and human consciousness and meaning of life yet. We just started talking about the universe and how it come about.

My request to Nixbits is that since he claims there are more convincing counter arguments for intelligent design, I’d like to know what those arguments are, who has the proof. Since he demand proof for intelligent design, then I am also asking proof for the counter arguments. My “proof” is abductive reasoning since we can’t do empirical. I would love to see his sources.

My quest is that if we see something with the appearance of having being designed either by fine tuning or by the beauty of mathematics, or either it is a piece of art or music, or we see intelligence in biological codes, or we see something that has no reason for existence, isn’t it logical to postulate that something designed it or caused it to happen rather than a assigning the credit to random forces of nature when it has been shown that :

1. there is not enough probability resources for it to happen. Max. 14 billion years. For example the coded information in DNA. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. The life of the universe has 10 zeros. So it is 10 zeros vs 40,000.
2. there is no information or capability or mind in random forces of nature to cause events to happen such as causing existence of matter or energies or vacuum containing various sorts of elementary particles. Something caused the Big Bang. If there is no causative force, things should remain where it was, in a state of non-existence with no operating laws of nature.
3. there is no inherent capability for nature forces to create life. Something caused life to happen after the Big Bang. There is no intelligence or mind inherent in Nature than can cause and direct life to come into existence. There is no inherent intelligence in natural forces that can assemble body parts out of non-preceding body forms because the information to do that has to come from some where first. You need an architect to draw the blueprints i.e. the application of mind and you need a builder who has the capability to read the blue prints and to obtain materials and form it suitable for use and at the same time have the knowledge to build those body parts simultaneously. You can’t build a car from a pile of iron ore even with unlimited time using random forces of nature. And neither can time create life from lifeless elements.
4. The universe is like a house with a stack of cards. A slight misalignment the whole house comes falling down. This is the fine tuning problem. I’d like to know how natural forces has the knowledge and capability to tune the universe so that it permit us to live. How did “nature” do it.There are a number of physical constants of which if they are off by a minute bit, this universe as we know it will cease to exist. For example:

a. Physicists tell us that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had differed by 1 part in 10^16, no stars would have formed.
b. The ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be precisely balanced. If you increase it by only 1 part in 10^40 then only small stars will form. Decrease it by the same amount and only large stars will form. To have life there must be both large stars (to produce the elements) and small stars to burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
c.The universe had to start with low entropy to have galaxies, stars and life. To have this state, and the resultant second law of thermodynamics, a certain volume of ‘phase space’ has to be created which need to be accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10^123.

There are a few more but the general idea is that if it is off by the tiniest bit, there is nothing to talk about. How did this state of affairs come about naturally?

These are questions that I failed to see how nature by merely snapping its fingers can caused it to happen. You made it sound so easy to create life “simply maintaining one’s homeostasis in a changing environment”. Try keeping a body alive past its due date. If it is so easy, everyone would be living forever. I can give you everything, all the ingredients to create life and you’d still be clueless. A body, just a few seconds dead, contains everything for life , molecules, chemicals, the body still warm, and there is nothing you can do to bring it back to life.

Obviously I am asking for the same burden of proof. If one is so sure nature has the answer, prove it. If it can’t be proven, I can accept abductive reasoning or other logical methods to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. If the probability models can not support the evidence, shouldn’t a reasonable person look elsewhere? If there is no other place to look, a rational person has to consider a solution he so detested. You may not like it but you surely can not ignore it. Willful ignorance is devolution of the human mind which is capable of more than just mere science.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

1. there is not enough probability resources for it to happen. Max. 14 billion years. For example the coded information in DNA. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. The life of the universe has 10 zeros. So it is 10 zeros vs 40,000.

This argument is wrong. No one argues that the DNA just popped into being, like having an explosion in a paint factory and all of Shakespeare’s works appear on the wall.

What about an event where the probability is not a measly 40000 zeros, but over 4million ones? And it happened not in 14 billion years, but under 300 years?

The rest is just as incorrect.