Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[ericc]

This argument is wrong.

How did you ascertain that it 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.

I didn’t argue that DNA just pop into existence . The explosion in a paint factory with Shakespeare’s work on the wall is indicative that an intelligent and powerful artist was at work that can direct the paint to the right places at the same time. Same logic with DNA.

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?

If you are using a probabilistic model to explain your theory, then you are subscribing to the likelihood of the event happening for your hypothesis. Hence for an unlikely event to happen, you ought to conclude it happen unnaturally. That would be many many many Standard Deviations area under the curve. Tossing a coin 14 billion times and it came up heads each time for example. It would be indeed surprising for a scientist or a statistician or just an ordinary person to conclude the coin turn up heads 14 billion times naturally. Anyone who propose that as a natural event should have their educational degrees revoked and checked for validity to ensure those weren’t bought off the internet. And sent back to kindergarten to start all over again. Or we can credit them with extreme faith alternatively. What strong irrational faith indeed!

The rest is just as incorrect.

The rest? You didn’t touch the rest. Attempting to answer the first question in the exam paper didn’t mean you answer the rest of the paper. But if you are going to turn in your paper with the same answer for all the questions, what are your chances of passing? You didn’t score any points in the first question.

Perhaps Lily may wish to grade your paper…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The explosion in a paint factory with Shakespeare’s work on the wall is indicative that an intelligent and powerful artist was at work that can direct the paint to the right places at the same time. Same logic with DNA.

That is NOT what I say, that is what the “intelligent design” proponents say.

 

[ericc]

That is NOT what I say, that is what the “intelligent design” proponents say.

The paint example is the one that YOU brought up. And since the probability model doesn’t work for you, where are you going to get your answer? Get more degrees that teach you that unlikely events are the most likely explanation? Or increase your faith levels?

Or expand your exploration levels which previously you didn’t dare to boldly go before.

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” Star Trek

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The paint example is the one that YOU brought up.

Yes, as an example of how NOT to reason.

 

[ericc]

Yes, as an example of how NOT to reason.

The standalone statement itself makes no claim. You provide no reason for its purpose. You didn’t demonstrate why it is not a good example for reason.

It was actually quite good for an intelligent design angle which I managed to to improvise to say something out of it though, which you didn’t really like.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How did you ascertain that it is wrong?
I didn’t argue that DNA just pop into existence . The explosion in a paint factory with Shakespeare’s work on the wall is indicative that an intelligent and powerful artist was at work that can direct the paint to the right places at the same time. Same logic with DNA.

If you are using a probabilistic model to explain your theory, then you are subscribing to the likelihood of the event happening for your hypothesis. Hence for an unlikely event to happen, you ought to conclude it happen unnaturally. That would be many many many Standard Deviations area under the curve. Tossing a coin 14 billion times and it came up heads each time for example. It would be indeed surprising for a scientist or a statistician or just an ordinary person to conclude the coin turn up heads 14 billion times naturally. Anyone who propose that as a natural event should have their educational degrees revoked and checked for validity to ensure those weren’t bought off the internet. And sent back to kindergarten to start all over again. Or we can credit them with extreme faith alternatively. What strong irrational faith indeed!

The rest? You didn’t touch the rest. Attempting to answer the first question in the exam paper didn’t mean you answer the rest of the paper. But if you are going to turn in your paper with the same answer for all the questions, what are your chances of passing? You didn’t score any points in the first question.

Perhaps Lily may wish to grade your paper…

Superb!

Right now I’m only grading the papers of upper level students. PA does not fit in that category.

You could outdo most of them, Eric!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The standalone statement itself makes no claim. You provide no reason for its purpose. You didn’t demonstrate why it is not a good example for reason.

Simple enough for those who understand probability theory. You cannot just look at some “outcome” and declare that it was “improbable” without knowing its Kolmogorov space. That is why I am not interested in going into details because the opponents simply do not know what they are talking about, and I don’t want to waste long months and years to educate them (especially without being paid for the efforts).

One example, which you can use to investigate further, if you are interested. There is a bag loaded with different colored balls. You reach is and pull out one, and it happens to be a red one. It is an invalid question to ask: “what was the probability of this event”? You need to know the a-priori distribution of the balls before you can ask such questions.

The same applies to abiogenesis. Also the so-called “intelligent design”.

Right now I’m only grading the papers of upper level students. PA does not fit in that category.

What about the rule that you should not discuss other posters? Rather concentrate on the topic at hand?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Simple enough for those who understand probability theory. You cannot just look at some “outcome” and declare that it was “improbable” without knowing its Kolmogorov space. That is why I am not interested in going into details because the opponents simply do not know what they are talking about, and I don’t want to waste long months and years to educate them (especially without being paid for the efforts).

Oh, a mercenary, eh?

Funny how you waste long months on CAF without being paid and yet when some crucial point is at issue you bow out on the pretext that it would be a waste of time to explain.

Haven’t you already been wasting “long months” trying to “educate” those on CAF “without being paid for the efforts?” Why not, at least, go into the details so your long months of investing in CAF won’t be wasted effort?

Why not do it on principle!

 

[Aloysium]

Simple enough for those who understand probability theory. You cannot just look at some “outcome” and declare that it was “improbable” without knowing its Kolmogorov space. That is why I am not interested in going into details because the opponents simply do not know what they are talking about, and I don’t want to waste long months and years to educate them (especially without being paid for the efforts).

One example, which you can use to investigate further, if you are interested. There is a bag loaded with different colored balls. You reach is and pull out one, and it happens to be a red one. It is an invalid question to ask: “what was the probability of this event”? You need to know the a-priori distribution of the balls before you can ask such questions.

The same applies to abiogenesis. Also the so-called “intelligent design”.

What about the rule that you should not discuss other posters? Rather concentrate on the topic at hand?

I understand you do not want to take the time to provide the background which would make your post intelligible to random internet idiots like myself.
You should be aware that in doing so, you are abandonning your argument.
You offer no opportunity for people to examine your sources and their relevance to the discussion.
There’s supposedly something you know that some smart guys have discovered or developed that would prove your “opponents” wrong.
Actually, there is nothing in what you say above that is so esoteric as to not to be understood, if stated in a clear reasoned fashion relating back to the argument you were trying to make.

I gather that your post was in reference to considerations that the complexity of life has great relevance to the understanding of how it originated in the universe.
The generally accepted scientific claim is that this has been and is happening randomly and spontaneously.
This assumption seems, by pretty much everybody who is not in that business, too far-fetched and simplistic to be taken seriously, given not only the improbability, but the impossibility that from nothing, any structure could make itself appear.

But then, skeptics will believe anything that is a negative of what anyone else knows, believes, realizes or discovers.

To be taken seriously, if it is your position, that life is a chance phenomenon, it is up to you to provide evidence that the complex organic molecules which compose the physical attributes of living organisms organize themselves spontaneously in such a fashion.
You should demonstrate that these random events are on top of what would be the randomly appearing attributes of carbon atoms that are determined by their sub-atomic substrates, as well as the general constants and relationships that govern the behaviour of all matter.

Whatever. The whole point of this exercise called life is to be good.
I’m not sure why I bothered to respond to your post.
Trying to get a point across, when I don’t know the Kolmogorov space - probably a waste of time.

 

[Nixbits]

ericc:

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.

sigh Eric, you keep misrepresenting my position. I didn’t demand proof for intelligent design. Lily Bernans said that scientists had proved that the universe was intelligently designed, and I asked her to justify this claim.

And what on earth do you mean by proof for the counter-arguments? They are arguments, not proofs. But I’d be pleased to summarise some of them, if they might be of interest.

 

[ericc]

sigh Eric, you keep misrepresenting my position. I didn’t demand proof for intelligent design. Lily Bernans said that scientists had proved that the universe was intelligently designed, and I asked her to justify this claim.

And what on earth do you mean by proof for the counter-arguments? They are arguments, not proofs. But I’d be pleased to summarise some of them, if they might be of interest.

I most certainly did not misrepresent anything. All I am asking is you use the same standard of proof/evidence/whatever that you demand of proponents of intelligent design. One has to be fair when doing comparison. In post #121 you said:

I asked Lily Berlans to provide evidence for her claim that there is proof that the universe is intelligently designed

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.

If you were not asking for proof , what were you asking for then? But whatever it is you have in your mind, all I am asking is then than you provide the same standard of “requirement” that you ask of for intelligent design. Since you are asking for “proof” of intelligent design, then I am asking for the equivalent for non intelligent design, supposedly, the random forces of nature.

 

[ericc]

Simple enough for those who understand probability theory. You cannot just look at some “outcome” and declare that it was “improbable” without knowing its Kolmogorov space. That is why I am not interested in going into details because the opponents simply do not know what they are talking about, and I don’t want to waste long months and years to educate them (especially without being paid for the efforts).

The same applies to abiogenesis. Also the so-called “intelligent design”.
?

This series of statements

"like having an explosion in a paint factory and all of Shakespeare’s works appear on the wall. "

“That is NOT what I say, that is what the “intelligent design” proponents say.”

Yes, as an example of how NOT to reason""

does not lead to a Kolmogorov space argument conclusion. If you want to present a coherent argument, then do it logically. If you want to use big words and complex sounding words, fine, we can accept it. You just need to explain in layman’s terms what it means. This is after all not a mathematicians gathering water hole. If you want to run away hiding behind complex words claiming we are too ignorant, that is also fine. All you need to do is come in here throw a few hefty sounding words around and leave, ensuring that most of us with no idea what you are sprouting.

As the OP you started with very fine logic challenging us. Couldn’t you just maintain the same standard of presentation and logic?

If you are starting with a hypothesis that it is more probable that life started under random conditions, then when the calculations come in, you shouldn’t work backwards to find a theory that fits your data. Just conclude that it is highly unlikely that life/universe started randomly. With many many zeros of improbability.

Many scientists initially thought that the universe is eternal. Then when the evidence for the Big Bang came in, they postulate it started naturally. It is when they look at the details did many start to question the likelihood of it under random conditions. Then the computations follow. Then the unpalatable conclusions. This universe is simply not randomly created. The fine tuning is so precise. They did not know the conclusion beforehand that it is improbable.

So as with life. Many scientists started with the assumption that there is certainty of other life out there based upon the sheer numbers of stars/planets. Most thought it is just some glob and really easy to start life. But when the details come in, more and more scientists are realising that it is not so simple after all. It is definitely not looking at the end result and concluding it is improbable. It is after the Frankenstein type Miller-Urey experiments that they realise it is not so simple as putting a bunch of cocktails and one has life. You have it backwards.

But if the calculations were to indicate that universe/life is most probable as a result of random natural forces, would you have pulled out your Kolmogorov space defense? Only you can answer that.

One example, which you can use to investigate further, if you are interested. There is a bag loaded with different colored balls. You reach is and pull out one, and it happens to be a red one. It is an invalid question to ask: “what was the probability of this event”? You need to know the a-priori distribution of the balls before you can ask such questions.

Fine. Then construct an argument for

1. the creation of the universe using this logic and arriving at the conclusion that the fine-tuned universe came about most likely under the random forces of nature.
   2)the creation of biological life/DNA using this logic and arriving at the conclusion that life came about most likely under the random forces of nature.

You can use any probability methods you wish. I won’t hold you back. All I am asking is that you construct and declare the hypothesis before you start so that you avoid the appearance of data fitting or theory fitting. And that should be easy for science/maths geeks to do. These are all approved science syllabus funded by tax payers monies. There should be lots of successful examples of such work done?

If the calculation is in your favour, then many physicists and cosmologists will not be desperately looking for alternative answers such as the non-provable multiverse. Like I said before, I am not married to any theory, just show me inference to the best explanation. I can be persuaded.

Most of us are not paid for participating in this forum. We are here to learn and exchange and debate ideas using basic rules of logic and inference. Complex subjects can be simplified to layman language so that more people can participate. If you need help to present your argument rationally, I am sure there are some folks here who can help. But you have shown that you can present your premises clearly if you choose to. But you have not shown that you can be persuaded by improbability. It is unfortunate that you are married to your shaky foundations.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Simple enough for those who understand probability theory. You cannot just look at some “outcome” and declare that it was “improbable” without knowing its Kolmogorov space. That is why I am not interested in going into details because the opponents simply do not know what they are talking about, and I don’t want to waste long months and years to educate them (especially without being paid for the efforts).

One example, which you can use to investigate further, if you are interested. There is a bag loaded with different colored balls. You reach is and pull out one, and it happens to be a red one. It is an invalid question to ask: “what was the probability of this event”? You need to know the a-priori distribution of the balls before you can ask such questions.

The same applies to abiogenesis. Also the so-called “intelligent design”.

What about the rule that you should not discuss other posters? Rather concentrate on the topic at hand?

Weren’t you discussing me when you said I didn’t provide the kind of answer you expected from a theology professor? Let’s both refrain from discussing each other. Okay? Okay.

Why not defend your position whether the majority of posters understand it or not? There are plenty of posters here who understand what a Kolmogorov space is. Even I do, and I’m not great at math. I’m sure there is plenty about it on the Internet. Interested posters can educate themselves if they need to. You don’t have to do it. Please, go into details. Those of us who understand are interested in the details you provide. We can’t really have a conversation about this if you don’t provide them.

I don’t think what applies to abiogenesis, which has been discredited by the scientific community and fallen by the wayside, also applies to intelligent design, which has not been discredited.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily Bernans said that scientists had proved that the universe was intelligently designed, and I asked her to justify this claim.

Justify it how? From biology, from physics, from cosmology, etc.? Each discipline provides a different answer and offers different evidence as proof.

For proof I would refer you to William Dembski and the “explanatory filter.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Fine. Then construct an argument for

1. the creation of the universe using this logic and arriving at the conclusion that the fine-tuned universe came about most likely under the random forces of nature.
   2)the creation of biological life/DNA using this logic and arriving at the conclusion that life came about most likely under the random forces of nature.

What “random forces” of nature? The laws of nature are not “random”. It is no accident that the different values we observe are called “constants”, and not variables.

The problem is much more fundamental than constructing an argument. The whole “probabilistic” approach is incorrect. I already presented the argument against it in the form of the random pulling a ball out of a bag. Why don’t you concentrate on that one?

You cannot ask for the probability of an event in an unknown Kolmogorov space.

The whole approach toward the “intelligent design” or the “fine tuning” argument is based upon the “odometer symptom”. Let’s consider two results of 10 coin tossing (H represents “heads”, T is for “tails”). One sequence is H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H. The other one is H, T, T, H, T, H, T, T, T, H. The question is: “which is the more probable outcome?”

If you can answer this question correctly, then we might continue. So, go ahead.

---

It is funny that you guys try to argue both sides of a coin. On one hand you point to some alleged “miracle”, and exclaim: “Look, a miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Then you point out the order in the universe and exclaim: “Look, NO miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Don’t you realize how ridiculous this is?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What “random forces” of nature? The laws of nature are not “random”. It is no accident that the different values we observe are called “constants”, and not variables.

The problem is much more fundamental than constructing an argument. The whole “probabilistic” approach is incorrect. I already presented the argument against it in the form of the random pulling a ball out of a bag. Why don’t you concentrate on that one?

You cannot ask for the probability of an event in an unknown Kolmogorov space.

The whole approach toward the “intelligent design” or the “fine tuning” argument is based upon the “odometer symptom”. Let’s consider two results of 10 coin tossing (H represents “heads”, T is for “tails”). One sequence is H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H. The other one is H, T, T, H, T, H, T, T, T, H. The question is: “which is the more probable outcome?”

If you can answer this question correctly, then we might continue. So, go ahead.

Equally probable, but so what?

The fine-tuning argument doesn’t rely on “unknown Kolmogorov space,” it relies upon an explanation of the tuning of the constants to each other. It isn’t that each possibility in a series has only one of two possibilities H or T. The setting of each constant (strong nuclear force constant, expansion rate, ratio of electron to proton mass, gravitational force constant, and some 30 more constants) was not merely one of two possibilities (H or T) but, rather. an infinite number of possibilities along an infinite possible range. In addition, the setting of those 34 constants relative to each other also needs to be explained – any one of them could have been set differently and still affected the outcome. It is their “tuning” to each other which is critical to the argument.

The “unknown Kolmogorov space” is clearly known to be approaching infinity FOR EACH CONSTANT since many of those constants can now be calculated to dozens of decimal places and the setting of each constant relative to all the others multiplies those probabilities exponentially by a factor of at least 34.

The fine tuning argument, clearly depicted, would be more like this…

We have 34 dice, each with an infinite number of faces. Those 34 dice are rolled in an instant after the Big Bang. Inexplicably, the possibilities that “come up” on those dice permit life. If even one of the 34 had landed on a different face the universe would have been, for some reason or other – dissipation, collapse, no fundamental elements, etc.) life prohibiting rather than life permitting.

The existence of the universe is a “one-off” event. There isn’t in all the Kolmogorov space you want to imagine the possibility for the universe to have been different without completely removing the possibility of life. That has to be explained. There was a virtually infinite possibility for life not to exist – those 34 infinite-sided dice should have been different, yet they weren’t – THAT has to be explained.

---

It is funny that you guys try to argue both sides of a coin. On one hand you point to some alleged “miracle”, and exclaim: “Look, a miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Then you point out the order in the universe and exclaim: “Look, NO miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Don’t you realize how ridiculous this is?

No, actually. It is your misunderstanding of what constitutes a “miracle” that is the problem. I view everything as a miracle precisely because the likelihood of any of it was clearly miraculous. You want to assume the miraculous to be mundane and then insist everything that follows must also be since it was “NO miracle!” This is you reading what you suppose into what others think.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It is funny that you guys try to argue both sides of a coin. On one hand you point to some alleged “miracle”, and exclaim: “Look, a miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Then you point out the order in the universe and exclaim: “Look, NO miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Don’t you realize how ridiculous this is?

I must have missed something. I didn’t notice anyone saying anything was miraculous. I sure never did. Would you please be more specific and tell us who said what was miraculous? Thanks in advance.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I must have missed something. I didn’t notice anyone saying anything was miraculous. I sure never did. Would you please be more specific and tell us who said what was miraculous? Thanks in advance.

You mean, you NEVER encountered the “argument” that there are miracles, and they are evidence of God’s existence? How strange.

And also that the “design” (usually confused with order) which is exhibited in the universe also points to a “designer”? Very strange, indeed.

You stated several times that the concept of abiogenesis was “discredited”. Any evidence for thus claim? I can hardly wait. Names, peer reviewed articles in respected, actual publications. Please spare me of “idvolution” and similar jokes.

 

[ericc]

What “random forces” of nature? The laws of nature are not “random”. It is no accident that the different values we observe are called “constants”, and not variables.

You can’t be serious! When scientists write about origin of life or creation of the universe by “chance” they are very well aware that they are not talking about the random changes in the physical constants. (That’s why they are called “constants”. )They are referring to random or so-call “chance” events operating via the laws of nature. You knew that when we talk about fine tuning, we are talking about those constants and the questions why/how nature got to that level of accuracy fit for life.

The problem is much more fundamental than constructing an argument. The whole “probabilistic” approach is incorrect. I already presented the argument against it in the form of the random pulling a ball out of a bag. Why don’t you concentrate on that one?

You cannot ask for the probability of an event in an unknown Kolmogorov space.

The whole approach toward the “intelligent design” or the “fine tuning” argument is based upon the “odometer symptom”. Let’s consider two results of 10 coin tossing (H represents “heads”, T is for “tails”). One sequence is H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H. The other one is H, T, T, H, T, H, T, T, T, H. The question is: “which is the more probable outcome?”

If you can answer this question correctly, then we might continue. So, go ahead.

I already told you can go ahead and formulate your hypothesis to show that 1)universe was most likely a chance event and 2)creation of life is most likely a chance event. This is what scientists pro materialism are saying. Agree? Use any ball example YOU like but tell us beforehand what your hypothesis is all about before you do your calculations. Presumably you will invite us to critique your methodology so that we can see clearly what you are trying to prove.

You tell us that our way of doing probability is incorrect. Therefore show us how to do it the proper way. At the same time, please also show that your method you are planning to use is mainstream by the scientific community. No point in demonstrating anything even your fellow comrades don’t agree. Correct? Better still, if you don’t wish to do unnecessary work, you can bring in the existing work done by your fellow believers to show that chance is the best explanation. They did that Kolmogorov space thingy, didn’t they?

Once you get the methodology right, then perhaps you can recommend your methods to others. You wouldn’t recommend something that you are not sure of yourself or getting it to work would you?​

It is funny that you guys try to argue both sides of a coin. On one hand you point to some alleged “miracle”, and exclaim: “Look, a miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Then you point out the order in the universe and exclaim: “Look, NO miracle! Surely that is evidence for God’s existence!”… Don’t you realize how ridiculous this is?

It is funny that you keep on bringing God up. I keep on reminding you that I haven’t brought in God at all. There is no miracle at work here. Just trying to get you to show dumb me how to do probability properly that will lead you to the answer than “chance” is the best explanation for the universe and life. If you can’t , then we can talk about other solutions. But if you can, God is not needed in this conversation at all. So at this point, don’t bring God in. He is not a fan of yours anyway but you keep on dragging him in. You will have a date with him eventually. So be patient.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You mean, you NEVER encountered the “argument” that there are miracles, and they are evidence of God’s existence? How strange.

And also that the “design” (usually confused with order) which is exhibited in the universe also points to a “designer”? Very strange, indeed.

You stated several times that the concept of abiogenesis was “discredited”. Any evidence for thus claim? I can hardly wait. Names, peer reviewed articles in respected, actual publications. Please spare me of “idvolution” and similar jokes.

I said, I, myself, never mentioned “miracles.” Much happens in the world that seems to be miraculous. My own belief in God has nothing to do with miraculous happenings.

I personally never said design had anything to do with the designer.

I stated one time, not several, that abiogenesis has been discredited and discarded by the scientific community.

Please stop saying I said things I did not say.

Like Eric, I’m waiting on your hypothesis. The ball is in your court now.