Outline
I. A logical argument of how the organizing principle of the universe confirms God's existence
II. Multiple signs that there is an overall organizing principle in the universe
A. An ordering principle has overcome a relentless entropy
B. Hierarchy is evident on all levels.
C. Hierarchy and order are embedded in the physical world
D. Hierarchy points towards simplification and unification
E. A fixed reference point is required for practical 3D mathematics
F. Physical laws, logic and mathematics correspond to each other
III. Cosmological evolution is an inadequate explanation
IV. What is the most logical interpretation of the organizing principle?
A. Is Christianity any more valid than other religions?
I. A logical argument of how the organizing principle of the universe confirms God's existence
Argument from a created, unique, hierarchical and interdependent universe
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) function together in the universe in a manner that allows for life.
P2. Either (A) are the result of intelligent creation, the result of chance, or of necessity.
P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with, or aided by, the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
P4. No new forms of (A) that we observe are systems that have occurred by chance or necessity.
P5. Therefore, the best explanation is that the (A) of the universe have been created by a powerful and intelligent being.
P6. The only being that could have created the universe is a supremely powerful and intelligent one.
C. Therefore, God exists.
This logical summary outlines my argument, which is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with biological evolution, but addresses the fallacy of presupposed cosmic evolution. Because the argument focuses on the origination of a unique new system, it is not an argument for intelligent design, per se, but for intelligent creation. It's not related to the cosmological arguments that focus on a first cause. Nor is it a fine-tuning argument focusing on the extremely minimal probability of a life-sustaining universe forming through random processes. This teleological argument is simply based on the fact that the organization of any new and unique, non-living, highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
As a mechanical system, the Earth depends on the Sun and the Moon (and specific natural laws) for life sustaining qualities. The Sun depends on atomic energy (and specific natural laws) in order to produce heat and light. Matter, energy and precise natural laws work together uniquely in hierarchical, interdependent relationships that allow for life. Whether these systems emerged quickly or slowly is not the ultimate issue. Whether or not we saw the beginning of the universe is not the issue. This argument is based on reliable mathematical proofs and present-day empirical observations with regard to the beginnings of complex systems.
According to mathematical proofs by Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, the universe, as a hierarchical collection of (A) type systems, did have a definite beginning point. And Premise 3 is positively supported by the fact that humans do regularly produce (A) type systems. Consider a wristwatch as one example out of many. Empirical observation underscores that there are no new and unique examples of such systems (A) appearing spontaneously today on any scale at any speed and, therefore, there is no reason to expect they would have occurred previously as such.
Based upon these two facts, 1) that the (A) rich universe had a beginning, and 2) that all new and original (A) type systems we observe empirically are a result of purposeful design, then it is logical to conclude that the ultimate beginning of the universe was based on the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
The initial conditions of the universe were supposedly random and purposeless for the atheist-materialist. No random and purposeless condition has ever been noted to produce a non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent system. On the contrary, all of known history and empirical observation conclusively demonstrates that all new Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems have been produced by the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
The most common objection to such a proof would perhaps be a 'taxi-cab fallacy' type of response. In this case, the taxi-cab fallacy would go something like this: "We don't see one instance of any new and unique non-living system arising today, but the conditions were different when the universe emerged and, therefore, such a system as our universe could have emerged back then. According to the taxi-cab fallacy, the exact conditions for creating our universe supposedly existed and got us to where we are now. But, now that we're here, the 'taxi' must not only be ignored, but it does not even have to be logically explained.
II. Multiple signs that there is an overall organizing principle in the universe
A. An ordering principle has overcome a relentless entropy
The universe is perhaps more complex than we tend to realize on a day to day basis. There are laws and forces that help to keep the universe ordered and there are also forces that work towards dispersing the energy and practical order of the universe. The following is a list of physical and natural laws.
Natural laws
Newton's 3 laws:
- Law of Gravity,
- Conservation of Mass-Energy,
- Conservation of Momentum.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
- zeroeth law of thermodynamics,
- the first law of thermodynamics,
- the second law of thermodynamics,
- third law of thermodynamics.
Electrostatic Laws:
- Coulomb's law
- Gauss's law.
Other laws
- Invariance of the Speed of Light
- Wave Particle Duality of Matter
- Electromagnetic Induction: Faraday's Law
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Three Laws of Motion
- Maxwell's Equations (see our article on the electromagnetic spectrum)
- Noether’s Theorem About Symmetries and Conserved Quantities
- Schroedinger’s/Dirac’s Equation
- Wavelength = h/momentum
- Heisenberg Uncertainty Relations
- Square of Wave Amplitude = probability
- Law of Biogenesis
Most of these laws do not work directly with each other, but do work in a general overall hierarchical relationship that allows our solar system and subsystems related to the Earth's ecosystem to function together. Added to this list of physical laws would be laws of chemistry and many other categories. How did these laws come into existence and come together as a hierarchical organization in order to support the solar system and life on Earth? This question is even more intriguing when you consider that the universe began in a low entropy state.
The law of entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, basically offers that there is a tendency over time for differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential to even out in an isolated physical system. In other words, there is a tendency for everything in the universe to become randomly evened out. However, the universe began with the energy of the sun and stars concentrated, and this organization of energy is opposed to the law of entropy. This is a puzzle because many scientists consider the overall entropy in the universe to be an irreversible law and an overriding physical law of the universe. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington described the one directional flow of time and entropy as "time's arrow." Eddington emphasized the overriding effects of the law of entropy: "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. ..if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."[1] Jeremy Rifkin noted that other scientists have been in agreement with Eddington, "The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science: Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe."[2]
Despite the strength and apparent irreversibility of entropy, scientists have noted the order that exists in the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "We find in the objective world a high degree of order."[3] Max Planck noted how a mysterious organizing principle which has overcome entropy. He states "order prevails" over entropy in the grand scheme: "At all events, we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails - one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."[4]
English physicist Paul Davies explains the conquest of order over entropy in this way: "Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order... Central to the idea of a very special, orderly Universe is the concept of information. A highly structured system, displaying a great deal of organised activity, needs a lot of information to describe it. Alternatively, we may say that it contains much information. We are therefore presented with a curious question. If information and order always has a natural tendency to disappear, "where did all the information that makes the world such a special place come from originally? The Universe is like a clock slowly running down. How did it get wound up in the first place?"[5]
B. Hierarchy is evident on all levels.
The subject of hierarchy relates to both how we organize our thoughts logically and practically and how the physical world is organized physically. In a recent article on Stephen Law, I noted how a hierarchy of concepts of logical consequences helps to affirm the reliability of the Law of Non Contradiction, thus, affirming the existence of absolute truth.[6]
The physical world is organized into hierarchical relationships, including governing qualities and nesting qualities. There is hierarchy from small to large but there is also quantum hierarchy. The sun, which allows for life on earth, sustains an orbiting solar system even as the atoms that produce the heat and light of the sun sustain an orbiting system. The law of gravity sustains the macro-solar system while the nuclear strong and weak forces sustain the atomic orbits on a microcosmic scale.
Macro-hierarchy is described as such, "Humankind's gaze into the universe--aided by telescopes--has revealed a vast hierarchy of structure and motion. Planets moving around stars; stars grouped together, moving in a slow dance around the center of galaxies. ...But the largest structures of all are the superclusters, each containing thousands of galaxies and stretching many hundreds of millions of light years across space. These superclusters are arranged in filament or sheet-like structures, between which there are gigantic voids of seemingly empty space."[7] It's not just a case of micro and macro hierarchy in Euclidean space, but quantum nesting is also noted, "It is a central question of quantum chaos, how the hierarchical structure and the dynamics of a generic classical phase space show up in quantum properties."[8]
In between the quasar and quantum hierarchy, the ecosystem of the Earth includes multiple levels of hierarchy, as described, "Ecosystems are hierarchical systems that are organized into a graded series of regularly interacting and semi-independent parts (e.g., species) that aggregate into higher orders of complex integrated wholes (e.g., communities). Ecosystems are sustained by the biodiversity within them."[9] The laws of physics are hierarchical: "There is a hierarchy in physics: some laws of physics can be derived from other laws of physics. For example, Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 can be derived from the principles and equations of special relativity. Conversely, there are many laws of physics that cannot be derived from other laws of physics; many of these are suspected to be derivative principles, but scientists have not yet deduced their derivation."[10] A system of hierarchy is also required for the establishment of judicial laws and penalties. There is a gradation of petty crimes, misdemeanors and felonies. Legal penalties are based on ethical principles and values hierarchies. The fact that societies agree that a stratification of penalties is logical and fair underscores the fact that there is an objective basis for making moral decisions. The question is, "What is the ultimate objective basis for moral decisions?"
C. Hierarchy and order are embedded in the physical world
Why do certain chemicals and elements readily bond and organize themselves together into the necessary building blocks for life and the physical world? This has to do with the very nature of the elements themselves. Each element of the periodic table has a specific atomic number and some elements and chemicals are more "active" and are thus more likely to bond with others. "The more stable the resulting molecules are, the more likely these molecules are to form. "For example, an atom that "needs" two electrons to completely fill the valence shell would rather react with another atom which must give up two electrons to satisfy its valence."[11]
Carbon is one of the main building blocks of life, and it is unique among the elements with regard to the vast number of variety of compounds it can form, up to 1.7 million. Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes. All together there are 117 elements on the periodic table. Because the combination tendencies are embedded in the elements themselves, the Periodic Table of the elements helps to represent the hierarchical structuring of molecules: "It is not a human-devised structure but a fundamental picture of nature disclosed by human investigation. ...It is worth reiterating that those individuals who deny the existence of hierarchical structure and firm taxonomies, and some current humanists do, are denying the very basis of both modern chemistry and modern biology."[12] The periodic law has been found to correlate a great many different properties of the elements, including such physical properties as melting and boiling points, densities, crystal structures, hardness, electrical conductivity, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity, and such chemical properties as reactivity, acidity or basicity, valence, polarity, and solubility.[13]
A study from Japan published May 11, 2011 outlined the hierarchical structure of small molecules.[14] Proteins, the building blocks of life, were at one time determined to have a four-level hierarchy, but that has been refined to a six-level hierarchy. "The implications of this hierarchy are that: (1) each level of the hierarchy is 'held together' by characteristic interactions and forces. (2) higher levels of structure in the hierarchy are composed of the structural entities (also called elements) of the lower levels."[15] When there is a greater stratification of hierarchy, there is a greater potential for usefulness: "Proteins are designed to bind every conceivable molecule—from simple ions to large complex molecules like fats, sugars, nucleic acids, and other proteins."[16] A random scattering of elements or forces has little use. But in the universe we see a very efficient hierarchy.
D. Hierarchy points towards simplification and unification
If there are multiple physical laws and forces acting upon the universe, why would it make sense to use the phrase 'organizing principle' as opposed to 'organizing principles'? Firstly, hierarchical systems function as a network that gradually reduces to a singularity. This has been noted by physicists as a basic convention of the physical laws: "Simplification and unification have emerged as the basic trait of physics. There are only a few laws to define a wide variety of natural phenomena – a fact that underlines the simplification of governing laws in physics."[17] Secondly, it has been noted in multi-dimensional mathematics that a fixed reference point or 'origin point' is required for practical purposes.
E. A fixed reference point is required for practical 3D mathematics
Cartesian coordinate systems incorporate an organizing principle in that a fixed origin point (and axis) must be used in order to calculate and represent spaces that are three dimensions and higher. For practical purposes, the location of the origin point may change and the system may rotate, but, nevertheless, a fixed origin point is required in order to act as a reference for the entire system at any given moment. In architectural CADD, the fixed coordinates are referred to as absolute coordinates and the coordinates relative to objects are referred to as relative coordinates or user coordinates.
The necessity of an "absolute" origin point as a fixed reference point has philosophical implications. If people were to be liked to points on a 3D grid, it would be possible for people to enjoy meaningful relationships relative to each other. For example, three points could form a triangle, four points could form a square, and so on. Each point has a 'relative value' as recognized in comparison to other points. However, the ultimate value of each point and the relationships between all points is ultimately determined by understanding the relationship to the origin point. Because abstract mathematics works and corresponds to the real world, the fact that a fixed origin point is required as a reference point and ordering principle for practical math implies that there is an ultimate central truth, an absolute reference point that acts as an ordering principle as it informs all aspects and dimensions of reality.
E. Physical laws, logic and mathematics correspond to each other
Some may claim that mathematics has been created by men and is an arbitrary system, but this is not so. Distant galaxies may be observed with incredibly high powered telescopes and mathematically analyzed because mathematics is based on a correspondence between the universal, unchanging laws of physics (all factors taken into account) and the basic, universal and unchanging laws of logic. Because this correspondence is universal and unchanging, mathematics may be used to accurately describe properties anywhere in the universe.
III. Cosmological evolution is an inadequate explanation
When atheists are committed to their worldview, they will not necessarily examine and choose the most logical worldview, but will simply cling to their preconceptions. A published materialist scientists, Richard Golden, has admitted this is the case with his beliefs. In his book, Self-Organizing Systems: a resource for teachers, Golden states, "Order in nature is the result of underlying principles of organization." Then, according to his assumption of "cosmic evolution" Golden admits, "We are forced to the view that there is a tendency for parts to spontaneously assemble into systems that have order and internal cooperation and there is a tendency for such systems to combine."[18] Unfortunately, public secular school students are in fact "forced" into the view that Golden and other materialists hold, but, by virtue of the fact that he uses the word forced, this implies this is neither the most expedient nor logical answer. The forcing of views on students is merely political atheist hegemony. The fact is, it is illogical to assume that cosmological evolution is true, that parts will "spontaneously assemble into systems", especially when the systems are hierarchical, interdependent and extremely complex.
In general, there is an emphasis on the philosophy of logical positivism in academia today, which emphasizes empirical science over logical deduction. As an organizing principle, logical positivism is based on a "bottom-up" approach to understanding truth. This emphasizes specialization and avoids the need for examining the nature of truth itself. But this approach has resulted in a lack of true critical thinking and holistic understanding. Pubic school textbooks, for example, tend to present the Stanly Miller experiment as an example of great promise towards eventually proving abiogenesis empirically. However, the many negative aspects of the experiment leading up to the production of amino acids are usually not even touched upon. And, even if all these negative aspects are ignored, the resulting amino acids in the experiment were not organized in a fashion close to the kind of organization it would take in order for life to exist. Some have claimed that Miller's experiment has refuted premise P3 of the logical argument. However, the Miller experiment was in fact "aided by the purposeful use of intelligence and energy" thus it is irrelevant to the argument.
IV. What is the most logical interpretation of the mysterious organizing principle?
The late Alan Sandage, who received many awards for outstanding achievement in science, stated, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."[19] He is combining a few different arguments in his comment, but his conclusion seems to be much more in keeping with the evidence around us than Richard Golden's. In considering the nature of hierarchy and order embedded in the physical world, the conclusion of God's existence as the central truth and central organizing principle is the most logical.
The word hierarchy is of Greek origin: (Greek: hierarchia (ἱεραρχία), from hierarches, "leader of sacred rites") is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another. Because hierarchy is one of the main messages the physical world offers to us, it is useful to contemplate it. If new and complex non-living hierarchical systems do not just materialize on their own without an intelligent cause, and materialists cannot explain the hierarchy in the universe, the logical conclusion is that an intelligent cause embedded this hierarchy and order in the universe. The Greek word for hierarchy describes a "leader of sacred rites" who, all things considered, would best be recognized as an intelligent Creator. The purpose of the hierarchy in this case would be quite simple, to allow for an ordered, functioning world and also as a reflection of God's glory. David the psalmist declared in Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The acknowledgement of God's existence is likened to acknowledging that an origin point is required in a 3D coordinate system. Once this reference point is recognized, then seemingly difficult questions have answers and the logical contradictions materialists face disappear. Proverbs 9.10 states: "The
fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."(NIV)
A. Is Christianity any more valid than other religions?
Because truth and logic have absolute qualities, only one of the many religions that exist could possibly be true. There are many reasons why Christianity may be demonstrated to be the most valid religion and the following points relate specifically to this article. First, consider how Theism is in keeping with the physical laws. One of the aspects of the Theist worldview is the concept of the fallen world. Essentially, death, decay and disease began as a result of man's sin. In studying thermodynamics and the nature of time's arrow, Arthur Eddington came to the conclusion that time's arrow is a property of entropy alone. In other words, other laws of physics have no bearing on the direction of time. Time could be reversed and it would not logically effect, for example, the law of gravity in our world. However, the reversal of time is very problematic with regard to the law of Entropy. This fact is in keeping with the concept of the fallen world in that the ideal condition of the Garden of Eden did not have death or entropy and, thus, was a mysterious timeless condition. I say mysterious because it was a physical world with fruit growing and fruit eating, but there was no entropy. This aspect of a non-entropy state has many implications. Conceivably, Adam and Eve could have lived a million or billion years, relatively speaking, in the Garden before they fell into sin. We have no record of the exact time of this period or the nature of time during this period. The relative nature of time and this period of non-entropy in the Garden may help to explain discrepancies in the the age of the Earth.
Another aspect of theism is the concept of a reference point of truth. In Psalm 51.4 it is noted that King David stated that he sinned against God alone when he sinned with Bathsheba. At first this does not seem very logical. David sinned against Bathsheba's husband also. But when you consider that God is the reference point of all moral truth, then it is understood that David was simply emphasizing his point that our relationship to God supersedes all other relationships. In a similar manner, points of a mathematical coordinate system have relative value to each other, but have an absolute relationship to the absolute origin point. When you understand this concept it helps to shed light on the seriousness of sin. We don't recognize the seriousness of sin because we mainly understand our sins as relative to other sinners. however, God is absolutely holy and our sins against an absolutely holy God require an absolute solution, and that is the absolute propitiation that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, wrought on the cross of Calvary.
No other religious leader has claimed the authority that was claimed by Christ. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”[20] Jesus lived without sin as the physical representation of God on earth. Truth is more than having the right answer, it's having the right heart. For example, a motive is not considered data that may be measured, but, none the less, a motive of murder can make the different between an accidental death and a vicious murder, all circumstances being equal. There are logical proofs which show the connection between truth and morality. While most philosophers believe the correspondence theory of truth, secular philosophers tend to truncate the true 'state of affairs' of the world and so the application of a Deep Correspondence Theory is necessary.[21]
Christianity emphasizes the reality of the Trinity which many cults deny, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Though the concept of the Trinity is a difficult concept to fully understand, it may be noted that the origin point in a 3D coordinate system is defined as (0,0,0). It is only point but it has three aspects. This may help to understand how the three personalities of the Father, the Son and the Spirit may be one compound unity and at the same time have three very unique aspects.
References
[1] Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927), http://www.todayinsci.com/E/Eddington_Arthur/EddingtonArthur-Quotations.htm
[2] Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p. 6., Sourced:
http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/order_skies_04.html
[3] Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine, 1956, p. 114-115
[4] Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.
[5] New Scientist 16 лис. 1978 - article: Chance or Choice? Is the Universe an accident? Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, (1982) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Preface
[6] Templestream, Stephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
[7] NCSA's Multimedia Online Expo, "Science for the Millennium.", Our Hierarchical Universe, http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HierarchUni.html
[8] Max Plack Institute & University of Göttingen, Conductance fluctuations of generic billiards:
Fractal or isolated? http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~yast/Articles/Ketzmerick/HKW_01.pdf
[9] The Tonic Books, Ecology: Relation to the environment, http://www.tonicbooks.com/?tag=/Philosophy+of+environment
[10] Answers in Genesis, God & Natural Law, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/god-natural-law
[11] Nuclear Power Training, CHEMICAL BONDING, http://nuclearpowertraining.tpub.com/h1015v1/css/h1015v1_45.htm
[12] Stephen Kline, Conceptual foundations for multidisciplinary thinking - Publication Date: January 1, 1995, p.202
[13] David W. Brooks, Periodic Law, http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c04/c04links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/p/p019000875f.html
[14] Hierarchical Structure of Small Molecules, Toyoko Imae, Toshiji Kanaya, Michihiro Furusaka, Naoya Torikai, Tsang-Lang Lin, Published Online: 11 MAY 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470933886.ch15/summary
[15] Curtin University, Hierarchy of Protein Structure, http://biomedapps.curtin.edu.au/biochem/tutorials/prottute/hierarchy.htm
[16] Molecular Cell Biology. 4th edition. Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al.
New York: W. H. Freeman; 2000, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21581/
[17] Connections, What is Physics, http://cnx.org/content/m13250/latest/
[18] Golden, Richard Self-Organizing Systems: a resource for teachers 1997, http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Golden_orgPrin_css.html
[19] God and Science, Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe, http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
[20] John 14.6-7, NIV
[21] Templestream, The Nature of Truth as a Logical Proof of God's Existence, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/nature-of-truth-as-logical-proof-of.html
(article revised 01/05/13)
Tags: logic contortionist, time's arrow, entropy and order, the central truth, hierarchy in nature, hierarchy in physics, hierarchy in chemistry, hierarchy in ethics, What is the objective basis for moral decisions?, entropy and the age of the Earth, list of laws of physics, apologetics, how do we justify an organizing principle of the universe
Related
Vilenkin's Math Supports Creation Model of Universe
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s ExistenceHow Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence
All's quiet on the atheist front.
ReplyDeleteStill not one logical comment from the usual atheist critics. When the mocking, spam and ad hom attacks are set aside, there does not seem to be much to offer.
There was one bite at the other blog, however. A blogger named Lovegrove stated the second premise of my syllogism was "unsupported":
“P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.”
I gave a simple example showing it is supported:
"Is it not possible to organize a "new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system"? A new wristwatch design would meet this criteria. Thus, the premise is both verifiable and supportable."
But then he said he had to "ignore" the fact a new system was specified:
"Ignoring your requirement of such an example
being “new” then the present universe appears to be an example of a highly complex and independent physical system."
The fact that no new inanimate hierarchical system has ever spontaneously appeared since the founding of the universe tends to imply the founding of the universe was highly unique. The implications are so powerful that Lovegrove had to cut and run. Nevertheless, the hook has been set. You can run from the truth but you cannot hide from it.
R:The fact is, the physical world will eventually pass away, but true principles and their transcendent cause will remain.
ReplyDeleteExplain what you mean by true principles and transcendent cause. If you mean laws of physics, then do explain why they need a transcendent cause.
R:the organization of any new highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
Afain, explain what you mean by that word salad. Would a ruby or volcano fit the definition? You are talking about man-made artifacts and the Universe, but why do you exclude other systems? Is a beehive made with intelligence?
R:How did these laws come into existence and come together as a hierarchical organization in order to support the solar system and life on Earth?
You assume that these laws have come into existence. However, they might have always been there. You also assume they came together to support the solar system and life on Earth. You have no basis for such a claim.
You also use the God of the gapes argument with your entropy principle. It does not take into account QM and we have no knowledge how a system will behave at max entropy lvl.
R:The fact that societies agree that a stratification of penalties is logical and fair underscores the fact that there is an objective basis for making moral decisions. The question is, "What is the ultimate objective basis for moral decisions?"
No, it does no such thing. The hiearchy is still different. One can get the death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbat or just pay a small fine for rape. There is no objective basis for moral decisions independent from human society.
R:Proteins, the building blocks of life, were at one time determined to have a four-level hierarchy, but that has been refined to a six-level hierarchy.
Doesn t this statement undermine your creationist views? )
R:Firstly, hierarchical systems function as a network that gradually reduces to a singularity.
This still does not mean that there is a singularity. That is only an assumption from your part. A tendecy for simplification and unification does not presume a singularity.
R:For practical purposes, the location of the origin point may change and the system may rotate, but, nevertheless, a fixed origin point is required in order to act as a reference for the entire system at any given moment.
Yes, a fixed origin point is needed for practical reasons. You need it for comparison. I tell you to look left, which direction are you going to look? Your left or my left? You cannot calculate the coordinates of an object without a reference point. Is my laptop moving if I do not touch it? Is it still moving when I am with it in a train? Is it still moving compared to me? What is the origin point? Why one point is more important than another?
damnmit...again the second half got swallowed... will try again later
ReplyDeleteSince you're gloating about "atheists not showing up" -- I figure I'll point out the errors in your position, whether I qualify or not.
ReplyDeleteP1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.
1) Parts of the material universe are animate. Strike 1.
2) I don't know what you mean by "hierarchical" in this case, save that perhaps you mean that, say, stars are made up of elements, which are made up of particles, which are made up of quarks/etc. In which case, I'll agree with you -- but you are opening yourself up to the charge, logically made, that the complexity you seek is an emergent behavior.
Indeed -- look at the dance of a many-body orbital problem in physics, emerging from repeated application of *1* equation.
P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
You go on to cite the wristwatch as an example that "A new wristwatch design would meet this criteria. Thus, the premise is both verifiable and supportable."
That there exists a HCHIAAPS that was designed is not a reason to presume the correctness of the statement that they *require* design.
"An A is B -- therefore all A must be B" is, I'm sure you'll realize, a ludicrous leap of logic.
Now; setting aside the fact that you don't have an inanimate system -- I refer you back to the complexity of patterns that emerge under very simple conditions. For that matter, I refer you to the Miller-Urey experiments, in which there is a massive leap in "complexity" due to random interactions under physical law.
So: P1 is an incorrect definition, and P2 is an unsupported assertion. Let's move onward:
P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
Well, since P3 supposedly follows from an incorrect definition and an unsupported assertion, I see no reason to accept it at all. Indeed, we have plenty of examples of complicated systems emerging, perfectly explicably, from interactions of simple processes.
Since the rest of your argument relies on P3, and P3 shows no sign of being supportable, I'll skip the rest.
imnotandrei,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comments.
>1. Parts of the material universe are animate. Strike 1.
- I agree, I should have been more precise. I've revised premise one to clarify that I'm only referring to non-living systems:
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
>2. I don't know what you mean by "hierarchical" in this case...but you are opening yourself up to the charge, logically made, that the complexity you seek is an emergent behavior.
- I added a new brief summary to the article addressing your points here:
As a mechanical system, the earth depends on the sun and the moon (and specific natural laws) for life sustaining qualities. The sun depends on atomic energy (and specific natural laws) in order to produce heat and light. Matter, energy and precise natural laws work together uniquely in hierarchical, interdependent relationships that allow for life. Whether these systems emerged quickly or slowly is not the ultimate issue. But, according to mathematical proofs by Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, the universe did have a definite beginning point.
There are no new and unique examples of such systems (A) appearing spontaneously today on any scale at any speed and, therefore, there is no reason to expect they would have occurred previously as such. Premise 3 is positively supported by the fact that humans do regularly produce such systems (A). Consider a typical wristwatch is one example of many.
>"An A is B -- therefore all A must be B" is, I'm sure you'll realize, a ludicrous leap of logic.
- I had not proposed "an" A is B, but, rather, "any A" is B. Nevertheless, I have tweaked the argument to include more definitive variables (A) or non (A) and "All new (A)" as clearly definitive sets.
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
P2. Either (A) are the result of intelligent, purposeful creation or they are the result of chance.
P3. All new (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
P4. No new (A) are systems that have occurred by chance alone.
P5. Therefore, the best explanation is that the (A) of the universe have been created by a powerful and intelligent being.
P6. The only being that could have created the universe is a supremely powerful and intelligent one.
C. Therefore, it is most probable explanation is that God exists.
If you wish to challenge the premises again, you are welcome to.
OK. From the start:
ReplyDeleteP1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
It's actually quite impressive how *simple* most of the systems are, their complexity emerging from repeated application of simple rules. You didn't address this point, and I'll expand below.
P2. Either (A) are the result of intelligent, purposeful creation or they are the result of chance.
Or they are the result of the working out of natural law, with a random influence. Given a random starting place, some configurations of bodies in a gravitational field will end up in a central star orbited by smaller non-stellar bodies; and some are all we need.
P3. All new (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
This does not follow from your previous statements, nor does it appear to be true -- as stated above, given the workings-out of gravitational forces and heat pressure, an accretion disk can become a solar system. No purpose required.
P4. No new (A) are systems that have occurred by chance alone.
Note the caveat above regarding "chance alone". Given that, P4 is simply false, as the solar system formation example shows.
Hence, P5, P6, & C don't follow.
As a side note: Matter, energy and precise natural laws work together uniquely in hierarchical, interdependent relationships that allow for life.
Despite the claim of your article above, this is a fine-tuning argument, and thus is old familiar ground.
There are no new and unique examples of such systems (A) appearing spontaneously today on any scale at any speed and, therefore, there is no reason to expect they would have occurred previously as such. Premise 3 is positively supported by the fact that humans do regularly produce such systems (A). Consider a typical wristwatch is one example of many.
There are millions of such examples; every new star formation, every new solar system formation, is *precisely* the sort of thing you use as an example yourself, and therefore your premise 3 is not only undercut, it is demolished.
And, again, saying "A produces B" is not the same as "Only A can produce B", which is what you're trying to derive.
imnotandrei
ReplyDelete>It's actually quite impressive how *simple* most of the systems are, their complexity emerging from repeated application of simple rules.
- Hierarchical systems may appear to be simple when they work together in harmony. But, the fact is, the inter workings of the orbiting solar system and orbiting atomic electrons that make up the sun, the Earth and all matter have numerous features that must work together within a very narrow range of variability in order for life to be able to exist.
The linked article compares the hierarchical mechanics of atomic orbits and orbits of the solar system:
"ELECTRONS can orbit the nucleus of an atom in the same way a class of asteroids orbits the sun. The work could allow for new levels of control over chemical reactions."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328505.100-asteroid-orbits-modelled-in-a-single-atom.html
I'll offer a few quotes supporting the acknowledgement of "complex" systems.
"Within our own solar system there are a broad range of intriguing and mysterious chemical systems of a complexity well deserving of close scrutiny."
http://www.geochemsoc.org/publications/geochemicalnews/gn142jan10/complexorganiccarbononabio.htm
The above article describes organic chemistry, a branch of chemistry that deals with the structure, properties, and reactions of compounds that contain carbon. This is a building block of life, but not life itself.
P2. Either (A) are the result of intelligent, purposeful creation or they are the result of chance.....Or they are the result of the working out of natural law, with a random influence.
- I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you proposing that the formation of non-living systems, including the workings of natural laws and random influences, is not based on chance? What exactly is the cause of the "working out of natural law, with a random influence" if it is not by chance? Please clarify and define exactly what you mean. According to definitions of chance, the word random is synonymous:
"Caused by or ascribable to chance; unexpected, random, or casual..."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chance
>P3. All new (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy...given the workings-out of gravitational forces and heat pressure, an accretion disk can become a solar system. No purpose required.
- Isn't the force of gravity a physical force that has been a part of the physical world since the universe began? I believe so.
Please read premises 1 and 3 again, but carefully this time:
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
P3. All new (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
What you have described, "the workings-out of gravitational forces and heat pressure, an accretion disk..to form a solar system" is a unique system, but it is not new. Apparently solar systems form regularly. This is a repeating pattern of the universe that has existed since the beginning of the universe. I suppose I need to further clarify this point so it reads as follows:
P3. All new forms of (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
This is what I meant to say, but I just wasn't clear enough.
In this case your example fails to meet the criteria of P3. However, a wristwatch, wind up or battery operated, a new car, electric or hybrid, all of these do meet the criteria.
Would you like to have another go at it?
As a general note:
DeleteYou do need to work on clarity; I don't know how many times you and I have been around on "What I meant was..."
Part of this, I think, is that your propositions tend to be very densely packed; there's a reason that mathematical proofs run for pages and pages, and there the objects are often much simpler. ;)
I would recommend that if you're going to aim for the level of rigor needed for proving the existence of God, you stop trying to use 5-6 step proofs, and realize you're looking at 20-30 step ones, that will be easier to follow for someone who's interested.
ReplyDelete>It's actually quite impressive how *simple* most of the systems are, their complexity emerging from repeated application of simple rules.
- Hierarchical systems may appear to be simple when they work together in harmony. But, the fact is, the inter workings of the orbiting solar system and orbiting atomic electrons that make up the sun, the Earth and all matter have numerous features that must work together within a very narrow range of variability in order for life to be able to exist.
And we're back to a fine-tuning argument. But just bear in mind; if the odds are one in a billion that a given solar system would produce a planet that could support life, one would expect 300 in the Milky Way Galaxy alone.
There are an infinite number of ways to generate an "orbiting solar system" -- so long as the basic forces of the universe behave as they do, that will *tend* to happen. What you're asserting here, in essence, is that "Hey, nature exists in such a way that things happen in nature -- therefore God!"
The linked article compares the hierarchical mechanics of atomic orbits and orbits of the solar system:
"ELECTRONS can orbit the nucleus of an atom in the same way a class of asteroids orbits the sun. The work could allow for new levels of control over chemical reactions."
Macrophysical and quantum systems are at best linked by metaphor.
"Within our own solar system there are a broad range of intriguing and mysterious chemical systems of a complexity well deserving of close scrutiny."
The above article describes organic chemistry, a branch of chemistry that deals with the structure, properties, and reactions of compounds that contain carbon. This is a building block of life, but not life itself.
Trying to bury me under verbiage isn't going to work.
I think you'd find the authors of the article you cite would laugh at the notion that "because it's complex, it has to be designed". Part of what *makes* the complexity intriguing is the knowledge that it emerged from basic chemical processes -- the question, the puzzle, is how.
P2. Either (A) are the result of intelligent, purposeful creation or they are the result of chance.....
[added to clarify that the following is my comment, not yours] Or they are the result of the working out of natural law, with a random influence.
- I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you proposing that the formation of non-living systems, including the workings of natural laws and random influences, is not based on chance? What exactly is the cause of the "working out of natural law, with a random influence" if it is not by chance? Please clarify and define exactly what you mean.
Initial conditions can be random; the workings out from those initial conditions are not. Clear enough?
Saying "The atoms of hydrogen and oxygen began in these locations" is random. Saying "The hydrogen rapidly oxidized" is the working out of natural law on an initial condition.
Saying "It was designed or it happened by chance" implies no role for the deterministic working out of natural law on an initial condition; it is a false dichotomy, and one that (not surprisingly) would lead one to tilt towards accepting your position.
Part 2 ;)
ReplyDeletePlease read premises 1 and 3 again, but carefully this time:
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
P3. All new (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
What you have described, "the workings-out of gravitational forces and heat pressure, an accretion disk..to form a solar system" is a unique system, but it is not new. Apparently solar systems form regularly. This is a repeating pattern of the universe that has existed since the beginning of the universe. I suppose I need to further clarify this point so it reads as follows:
P3. All new forms of (A) are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
In other words, "If it existed as part of the material universe pre-intelligence, it's not new; only systems created by intelligence are new."
That is, to put it mildly, verging on the circular; of defining your question to get your answer.
In this case your example fails to meet the criteria of P3. However, a wristwatch, wind up or battery operated, a new car, electric or hybrid, all of these do meet the criteria.
Actually, according to your definition, only the *first* wristwatch meets your criterion, at best.
All the rest are not "new"; they're a repeating pattern within the universe.
Would you like to have another go at it?
Your P3 continues to fail, due to your highly specific definition of "new". All of the "new" systems you describe were created within a pre-existing one, and do not provide the kind of logical support you need to leap from the existing to the pre-existing. Indeed, what it appears to support is precisely what's being argued in your Circadian Rhythms thread -- that something needed to create the creator, and so on, ad infinitum.
(We also notice that your A above do not, apparently, include people; intelligent life is outside your system, which is, again, I suppose, your point; you want to exclude intelligence so you can point to some theoretical hyper-intelligence. This still leads to an infinite regress.)
And, indeed, I find it interesting that you are specifically excluding life from your "A"; even though it is that life that creates (and is altered by) the As you deal with.
In essence, what your entire argument boils down to is "The universe is a tool; only intelligences make tools; therefore an intelligence made the universe."
Of course, #1 is an unsupported presumption.
Indeed, let's go back to P1:
P1. Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems (A) work together in the universe to allow for life.
Other problems: You have committed an intentional fallacy. The systems "work together" in the sense that they continue to exist. Arguing that they do so for a purpose is not at all an obvious leap.
P2 remains incorrect, as described above; you created a false dichotomy.
P3 requires a clearer definition of "new" -- was 'intelligence' required for the first star to form, but not any star thereafter? Or was the "intelligence" in the theoretical 'setting-up' of the natural laws?
At this point, I'd just like to read the clarification:
ReplyDeleteMr. Warden, are you saying that a new car, or a new wristwatch of the type not encountered before does meet your criteria of "created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy", but a new solar system of the type not encountered before doesn't?
Yes, according to the tenets of my argument regarding new and unique forms of complex systems, that's correct. See the notes below I wrote to Imnotandrei for clarification. (May 9, 2012 10:04 AM)
DeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteImnotandrei,
>And we're back to a fine-tuning argument.
- My argument does acknowledge the fact that that the universe is finely tuned. Complex interdependent systems are as such. Most atheist cosmologists do acknowledge the universe is finely tuned. But my argument is not about mathematics and probability, things the typical fine tuning arguments are based upon. Apart from the creation of the universe, whether slow or fast, I'm arguing that new and unique forms of complex hierarchical systems simply do not appear at all, never. But they are produced today with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
>There are an infinite number of ways to generate an "orbiting solar system"
Again, you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that the laws of nature do not work together in ways that help to produce complex systems. I'm arguing that the laws of nature are a part of the physical world, and that there is no reason to assume that new complex systems combining matter and physical laws would come together by chance, not as a question of probability, but by virtue of the fact that no new forms of complex systems ever appear in our world.
>Trying to bury me under verbiage isn't going to work.
- Forget the verbiage. I offered an example of an interdependent hierarchical system of the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. These two systems mirror each other on two different scales and work together to allow for life.
>Part of what *makes* the complexity intriguing is the knowledge that it emerged from basic chemical processes -- the question, the puzzle, is how.
- You are right to point out that the question of “How” is truly a valid and important question. The problem with methodological naturalism is that it preemtively decides what the allowable philosophical parameters are for the answer to this question. This is not very objective.
>In other words, "If it existed as part of the material universe pre-intelligence, it's not new; only systems created by intelligence are new." ...That is, to put it mildly, verging on the circular; of defining your question to get your answer.
- Your statement here is based on a preconception and is not quite correct. Scientists such as Alexender Vilenkin have mathematically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning and it seems highly likely that time itself had a beginning at the moment of this creation of the material universe, as time is a physical property.
This statement of yours includes a preconception of intelligence: “If it existed as part of the material universe pre-intelligence, it's not new...” Perhaps a more objective statement would be, “If it existed prior to humans, it's not a new system” Though, more objective, however, this statement is still false, as the beginning of the universe predates human intelligence. I do not see any circular reasoning here, just a non-objective philosophical bias on your part.
>Indeed, what it appears to support is precisely what's being argued in your Circadian Rhythms thread -- that something needed to create the creator, and so on, ad infinitum.
This is a separate argument which I will address soon, perhaps in another new article.
cont...
Replying inline to each piece.
DeleteMy argument does acknowledge the fact that that the universe is finely tuned.
No; the universe exists in a narrow set of boundary conditions. That is *not* the same thing; and using phrases such as "tuning" is, whether or not you mean it this way, smuggling in intentionality as a presumption.
Saying "The universe is finely tuned" implies a tuner. Saying "Without the conditions in which the universe exists, it would not exist" implies that, funny that, it wouldn't exist without existing, which is a true statement.
Apart from the creation of the universe, whether slow or fast, I'm arguing that new and unique forms of complex hierarchical systems simply do not appear at all, never.
You dropped a word -- "inanimate". New, never-before-seen animate complex hierarchical systems, a.k.a. new species, come into existence all the time.
But they are produced today with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
You are once again engaged in an intentional fallacy; "We do X this way; therefore this is how X must be done."
I offered an example of an interdependent hierarchical system of the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. These two systems mirror each other on two different scales and work together to allow for life.
A metaphorical mirror is not proof of interdependence. The "orbit" of a planet around the sun is not bound by the constraints of an "orbit" of an electron around a nucleus; they bear a metaphorical and linguistic resemblance, but that is all.
You are right to point out that the question of “How” is truly a valid and important question. The problem with methodological naturalism is that it preemtively decides what the allowable philosophical parameters are for the answer to this question. This is not very objective.
Methodological naturalism does, indeed, do that; because no other answer is determinate. Once you accept a single supernatural explanation, *all* explanations become theoretically valid; there is no reason to pick or choose any one. Similarly, if something *can* be explained naturalistically, why go to the extent of handwaving required to bring in the supernatural?
(Continued in part 2.)
Part 2,
ReplyDelete>Please clarify and define exactly what you mean...Initial conditions can be random; the workings out from those initial conditions are not. Clear enough?
- I don't find your reasoning to be very clear or logical. You seem to want to completely divorce initial conditions from “the workings out” of those condition. If initial conditions supposedly “can be random” in what possible sense would any proceeding conditions not ultimately and metaphysically be based upon that same initial randomness?
In a philosophical sense, I believe you need to justify your demand for a metaphysical divorce from the initial conditions and the present reality. You have not in any logical manner justified your position as far as I can see.
>Other problems: You have committed an intentional fallacy. The systems "work together" in the sense that they continue to exist. Arguing that they do so for a purpose is not at all an obvious leap.
- I'm not assigning an intention, just observing a result. Life is allowable because these interdependent systems exist. Is it necessary to appeal to some intention to make such an observation?
>P2 remains incorrect, as described above; you created a false dichotomy.
- As I noted, you need to logically demonstrate why you believe there is a false dichotomy. Impulsively demanding a metaphysical divorce between “initial conditions” and “present conditions” does not work very well for materialist atheists.
>P3 requires a clearer definition of "new" -- was 'intelligence' required for the first star to form, but not any star thereafter? Or was the "intelligence" in the theoretical 'setting-up' of the natural laws?
- The word new refers to something original, such as an original idea or an original piece of art or a new form of transportation. Your question, “was 'intelligence' required for the first star to form, but not any star thereafter?” ultimately relates to the question of “How” you had noted earlier in your comments.
One of the points of my argument is that it really doesn't matter how fast or slow a system may be put together or constructed, what matters most is the set of variable working together in the equation. In your materialist equation, there is randomness, no intelligence. And there is no magical natural selection to appeal to in non-living cosmology for the complex systems that exist, thus you might find this problem a bit more difficult to try and rationalize.
In summary, you have randomness as an atheist, and that's all you have. But you somehow believe that randomness has produced what only the purposeful use of intelligence and energy can produce, as empirically demonstrated.
I don't find your reasoning to be very clear or logical. You seem to want to completely divorce initial conditions from “the workings out” of those condition. If initial conditions supposedly “can be random” in what possible sense would any proceeding conditions not ultimately and metaphysically be based upon that same initial randomness?
DeleteBecause "random" initial conditions can easily fall into ordered patterns; look at mathematical descriptions of chaos for an example.
Similarly, barring an extraordinarily unlikely perfectly even distribution of matter, natural law suggests that you will get accretion objects in a gas cloud.
In a philosophical sense, I believe you need to justify your demand for a metaphysical divorce from the initial conditions and the present reality. You have not in any logical manner justified your position as far as I can see.
There will be initial conditions. Natural law present a means to turn most sets of initial conditions into a more complicated and ordered structure. In order for us to be having this discussion, events need to have transpired in such a way as to have gotten us here. ;)
I do not see this as any less justified than presuming a massively complex system, that then produced the conditions in which we now exist, that came from nowhere.
>Other problems: You have committed an intentional fallacy. The systems "work together" in the sense that they continue to exist. Arguing that they do so for a purpose is not at all an obvious leap.
- I'm not assigning an intention, just observing a result. Life is allowable because these interdependent systems exist. Is it necessary to appeal to some intention to make such an observation?
You have to be very careful with your language, as I have observed above with respect to "fine tuning". Asserting that "Systems work together to allow something" is perilously close to assigning them a goal -- which is an intentional fallacy. They work together. Their workings happen to provide us the conditions that we need to survive; but there is no "allow" in it.
>P2 remains incorrect, as described above; you created a false dichotomy.
- As I noted, you need to logically demonstrate why you believe there is a false dichotomy. Impulsively demanding a metaphysical divorce between “initial conditions” and “present conditions” does not work very well for materialist atheists.
Actually, it suits us just fine; because our mechanisms do *not* rely on a narrow set of initial conditions; the mechanisms, as we've seen billions of times, continue to generate stars. ;)
But saying "It's designed by an intelligence" or "It's all random", which is what you're doing, is a false dichotomy. "It began in a random state, and then followed laws"? That's in the middle. Hence, false dichotomy.
Part 2: (Yes, we're both verbose.)
Delete>P3 requires a clearer definition of "new" -- was 'intelligence' required for the first star to form, but not any star thereafter? Or was the "intelligence" in the theoretical 'setting-up' of the natural laws?
- The word new refers to something original, such as an original idea or an original piece of art or a new form of transportation.
And here we hit the core of your argument, and why it's circular. What you're saying here, in essence, is that to be "original" it requires intelligence -- since all the examples you gave are things that are created. To be new, it has to be original. Therefore, to be new, it has to be created.
But that's part of your definitions. I could equally well define "new" as "not previously existing in this form" -- at which point a new star qualifies.
Your very construction of what it means to be "new" requires an intelligence. So claiming "This is new, therefore an intelligence created it!" is hardly a useful logical statement.
Smuggling in your answers in your definitions is an easy trap to fall into, which is why I recommended greater clarity, above; this is the 3rd or 4th time we've been around and around, with you continually revising your premises as it becomes clear what you've left out. Try for more rigor at the start.
Your question, “was 'intelligence' required for the first star to form, but not any star thereafter?” ultimately relates to the question of “How” you had noted earlier in your comments.
You see, I have a model that says "these two things happened the same way; their "newness" should be identical." This is not your model, but there is no a priori reason to prefer your model (which requires an uncreated creator) to mine.
One of the points of my argument is that it really doesn't matter how fast or slow a system may be put together or constructed, what matters most is the set of variable working together in the equation. In your materialist equation, there is randomness, no intelligence.
At least, until intelligence (of whatever sort) evolved. Since there is definitely intelligence around now. ;)
Part 3:
DeleteAnd there is no magical natural selection to appeal to in non-living cosmology for the complex systems that exist, thus you might find this problem a bit more difficult to try and rationalize.
Well, except that until you get to the point of the Miller-Urey experiment, things fall together surprisingly well with the natural laws we have now. We've pushed ideas about the beginning of existence back to the initial fractions of a second. We know how stars form. We know how planets form. We know how elements form, and how organic soups can be created on planets. We know that said organic soups can produce amino acids.
We don't need to rely on creative intelligences to get us there. The *most* we would require is the Setter of Initial Conditions, and even that is presuming something vastly complex in order to explain what are systems far less complicated.
In summary, you have randomness as an atheist, and that's all you have. But you somehow believe that randomness has produced what only the purposeful use of intelligence and energy can produce, as empirically demonstrated.
As I've said several times now, you've demonstrated that purposeful intelligence and energy *can* produce these effects. That's not at all the same as *only* these things can produce these effects, and you keep trying to slide that under the rug.
And, as I'll repeat, "random initial conditions + laws" is not the same thing as "randomness". We're not talking thousands of monkeys trying to generate Shakespeare; we're talking about the simple and repeated action of natural law, over a nearly uncountable number of events, over a massive timespan, producing effects that build on one another. That's not random.
Two things to think about that might help: 1) We didn't have to end up where we are. It seems massively unlikely that we did, until you realize that *something* was going to happen, and 2) geophysical and astrophysical processes don't erase; they accrete over time. If your random monkey types "To be or not to be that ibghrhekjrh", you're back to the start. Once a sun has started to accrete, one particle slipping past its gravitational field does not cause it to collapse back into nothingness.
In summation: At the moment, you are engaged in a false dichotomy (intelligently created vs. random), veering towards an intentional fallacy (working together to allow), circular argument by definition (defining "new" to require intelligence, then saying that new things require intelligence as a proof of God), and bringing in extra, and unnecessarily complicated, entities. ;)
Man, that's detailed and good. An excellent take down.
DeletePart 1
DeleteImnotandrey,
I has asked you a question, “in what possible sense would any proceeding conditions not ultimately and metaphysically be based upon that same initial randomness?”
You agreed with me that you consider initial conditions to be in fact random, and this is what your worldview is ultimately based on. But, you again reply that “because "random" initial conditions can easily fall into ordered patterns” as though that changes the reality of the initial randomness.
>Natural law present a means to turn most sets of initial conditions into a more complicated and ordered structure.
This is possibly true, but it seems you still aren't addressing the ultimate condition of randomness.
I've listed 20 natural laws in the article above. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that these 20 natural laws have somehow always existed eternally.
If that is the case, do you believe that the relationship between these 20 fixed natural laws is initially anything but a random relationship?
>You have to be very careful with your language, as I have observed above with respect to "fine tuning". Asserting that "Systems work together to allow something" is perilously close to assigning them a goal -- which is an intentional fallacy.
The term “fine tuning” is used by well-respected atheist speakers today. Atheist physicist Brian Green uses the phrase freely:
http://www.crazyengineers.com/community/threads/why-is-our-universe-fine-tuned-for-life-brian-greene-ted-talk.54013/
Green is not a lightweight. At Columbia, Greene is co-director of the university's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP), and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions.
> Actually, it suits us just fine (a metaphysical divorce between “initial conditions” and “present conditions”) because our mechanisms do *not* rely on a narrow set of initial conditions; the mechanisms, as we've seen billions of times, continue to generate stars. ;)
- A key point for you seems to be the element of time. Because time is added to the mix and exists, in the “middle” as you say, between randomness and order, then there is no metaphysical problem for you.
>"It began in a random state, and then followed laws" - That's in the middle. Hence, false dichotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your thesis seems to be:
1. The initial arrangement of all the physical laws may be completely random.
2. But, given enough time, the interrelationship of all these random laws would eventually produce ordered patterns, hierarchical systems and even life.
3. The formations of stars are proof that the laws of nature produce ordered patterns.
You still haven't given any sufficient reason to believe premise 2 is in any way viable.
Time alone as a factor does not justify a jump from complete randomness to simple forms and then complex, interdependent hierarchical systems that can allow for life.
We do see the formation of stars, yes, that's true, but stars are not new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems.
These stars really only demonstrate that the present laws of physics have some kind of effect. The laws of physics (plus time) still have not been shown to produce the kinds of new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems we see between the quantum world, the solar system and the Earth's life sustaining systems.
You'll need to provide some other evidence to offer a reasonable basis for assuming premise 2.
Part 2
Delete>And here we hit the core of your argument, and why it's circular. What you're saying here, in essence, is that to be "original" it requires intelligence -- since all the examples you gave are things that are created.
I didn't specifically state that “to be "original" it requires intelligence"
>Your very construction of what it means to be "new" requires an intelligence.
>If I clarify “All new forms of (A) *that we observe* are created systems” would it make very much difference for you? I can add it, but you will still be in the same predicament.
If you consider the main points from a different perspective, perhaps you will see the argument is not circular:
Whether these systems emerged quickly or slowly is not the ultimate issue. Whether or not we saw the beginning of the universe is not the issue. This argument is based on reliable mathematical proofs and present-day empirical observations with regard to the beginnings of complex systems.
According to mathematical proofs by Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, the universe, as a hierarchical collection of (A) type systems, did have a definite beginning point. And Premise 3 is positively supported by the fact that humans do regularly produce (A) type systems. Consider a wristwatch as one example out of many. Empirical observation underscores that there are no new and unique examples of such systems (A) appearing spontaneously today on any scale at any speed and, therefore, there is no reason to expect they would have occurred previously as such.
Based upon these two facts, that 1) the (A) rich universe had a beginning, and 2) that all new and original (A) type systems we observe empirically are a result of purposeful design, then it is logical to conclude that the ultimate beginning of the universe was based on the purposeful use of energy and intelligence. This is not circular reasoning.
Part 3
Delete>...There is no magical natural selection to appeal to in non-living cosmology for the complex systems that exist ...Well, except that until you get to the point of the Miller-Urey experiment, things fall together surprisingly...
- You seem to be missing my point here. Evolutionists claim that complexity in biology is due to natural selection. Non-living matter does not have this appeal. Yet, non-living matter has complex type A systems.
>We've pushed ideas about the beginning of existence back to the initial fractions of a second. We know how stars form. We know how planets form. We know how elements form, and how organic soups can be created on planets. We know that said organic soups can produce amino acids....
You claim that ideas about the “beginning of existence” are well known. You've repeated the phrase “we know” several times. But you have yet to account for a very simple metaphysical problem.
Please explain how randomness can ultimately produce complex type A systems simply because time exists? We have plenty of time on our hands right now. And we have all of human history to refer to. But, as far as I know, no such type A system has ever spontaneously formed. It's an empirical fact, unless you can offer at least one example that will prove me wrong.
As far as I can see, you haven't made a dent in any of the premises. I apologize that I had to make a few adjustments to the argument. I never claimed I was perfect. That is in the realm of the divine.
Physicist Brian Green, Richard Dawkins and others are aware of the incredible fine-tuning of the universe, and thus they feels the need to imagine a 'multi-verse' - a practically infinite number of imaginary universes that they imagine exist in order to somehow justify the speculation that one life-sustaining universe could exist by chance.
My hierarchy argument offers empirical justification to show that chance alone never has and never will produce non-living hierarchical interdependent systems. But the universe is a collection of such systems on a vast hierarchical scale and humans create such systems.
At the moment, let me just say two things:
ReplyDeleteLaws of physics are not random, Mr. Warden. If I drop an apple on Earth, it will fall down. That's not random.
And two, under your system, I really can't see much difference between newly created solar system and newly created car. I freely confess, it probably means that I do not fully comprehend your argument, but still...
Kazeite,
Delete>Laws of physics are not random, Mr. Warden. If I drop an apple on Earth, it will fall down. That's not random.
- I did not write that the laws of physics change and are not timeless. But I would ask, Do you believe the 20 laws of physics mentioned in the article have a purposeful relationship with each other, or a random relationship?
purposeful relationship with each other, or a random relationship?
DeleteHere's your false dichotomy in a clear form, so I'll dissect it here. (Hope you don't mind, Kazeite)
There's at *least* a third choice you're missing; there's a genetic, or epiphenomenal one -- that the "20 laws" are 20 different ways of stating a much smaller number of fundamental facts. It wouldn't matter if it was 20 or 3,000 -- they boil down to a few fundamental interactions.
By saying "purposeful", again, you are implying an intent, where there does not need to be one. Things are not "random" or "intended" -- a gas giant's formation is not random, given the right initial condition, but there is no need for a guiding will.
OK: Stepping back from the cascade of comments, since it was looking odd... ;)
ReplyDeleteImnotandrey,
Minor detail: There's an i at the end, not a y. ;)
I has asked you a question, “in what possible sense would any proceeding conditions not ultimately and metaphysically be based upon that same initial randomness?”
You agreed with me that you consider initial conditions to be in fact random, and this is what your worldview is ultimately based on. But, you again reply that “because "random" initial conditions can easily fall into ordered patterns” as though that changes the reality of the initial randomness.
Then fine; we had a random start. I'm willing to accept that.
>Natural law present a means to turn most sets of initial conditions into a more complicated and ordered structure.
This is possibly true, but it seems you still aren't addressing the ultimate condition of randomness.
I've listed 20 natural laws in the article above. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that these 20 natural laws have somehow always existed eternally.
If that is the case, do you believe that the relationship between these 20 fixed natural laws is initially anything but a random relationship?
Given that your laundry-list of laws (some of which are repeats of previous ones, and show all the signs of copy-pasting from an encyclopedia entry or two) are related to the same few fundamental forces, no, I don't think it's completely random. I also don't think that the fact that things that derive from a few fundamental qualities are linked is evidence for design, either.
>You have to be very careful with your language, as I have observed above with respect to "fine tuning". Asserting that "Systems work together to allow something" is perilously close to assigning them a goal -- which is an intentional fallacy.
The term “fine tuning” is used by well-respected atheist speakers today. Atheist physicist Brian Green uses the phrase freely:
You know -- I was trying to help you refine your terms and see where you'd smuggled in assumptions. If you want to persist in going "You use the phrase too, so it must be OK", go ahead.
> Actually, it suits us just fine (a metaphysical divorce between “initial conditions” and “present conditions”) because our mechanisms do *not* rely on a narrow set of initial conditions; the mechanisms, as we've seen billions of times, continue to generate stars. ;)
- A key point for you seems to be the element of time. Because time is added to the mix and exists, in the “middle” as you say, between randomness and order, then there is no metaphysical problem for you.
Considering that all events we are and can be aware of persist in that element, yes. Only people who insist on an external, eternal Other should get het up about it.
>Then fine; we had a random start. I'm willing to accept that.
DeleteYes, for the atheist, a basically random and arbitrary beginning of the universe is a logical assumption. And yet, you believe that Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems have arisen from such a condition because time is involved.
>Given that your laundry-list of laws ...are related to the same few fundamental forces, no, I don't think it's completely random.
- Randomness and chaos are a contrast to order and determinism. Both aspects are evident in nature, but both also have an ultimately arbitrary and undirected starting point in accordance with materialistic non-religious atheism.
>You know -- I was trying to help you refine your terms (fine tuning) and see where you'd smuggled in assumptions. If you want to persist ...OK", go ahead.
- All things considered, I agree with atheist physicists such as Greene that the term fine tuning is the best description of the ordered and hierarchical logic of the universe.
>Time is used as a metaphysical grab bag "….Only people who insist on an external, eternal Other should get het up about it.
- "het up???" Did you mean get "bent" up about it? Or what?
And yet, you believe that Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems have arisen from such a condition because time is involved.
DeleteFor the reasons stated elsewhere.
Both aspects are evident in nature, but both also have an ultimately arbitrary and undirected starting point in accordance with materialistic non-religious atheism.
Indeed.
"het up???" Did you mean get "bent" up about it? Or what?
Wound up might be different word you would get.
#2:
ReplyDelete>"It began in a random state, and then followed laws" - That's in the middle. Hence, false dichotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your thesis seems to be:
1. The initial arrangement of all the physical laws may be completely random.
2. But, given enough time, the interrelationship of all these random laws would eventually produce ordered patterns, hierarchical systems and even life.
3. The formations of stars are proof that the laws of nature produce ordered patterns.
You still haven't given any sufficient reason to believe premise 2 is in any way viable.
1) Premise #1 is a flawed statement. A few physical constants and characteristics may be random.
2) Given enough time, some sets of those physical constants will produce ordered patterns, etc. The fact that we exist in one such system suggests it is, as you are so fond of putting as your conclusions, "most probable", because
2a) If the initial conditions didn't permit life, we wouldn't be here. ;)
3) The formation of stars is a single, simple example.
Time alone as a factor does not justify a jump from complete randomness to simple forms and then complex, interdependent hierarchical systems that can allow for life.
You don't get it, do you; a random initial condition, an asymmetric one, combined with the action of natural law, *does* allow time to produce those results, because time allows for the accretion of change and complexity.
We do see the formation of stars, yes, that's true, but stars are not new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems.
These stars really only demonstrate that the present laws of physics have some kind of effect. The laws of physics (plus time) still have not been shown to produce the kinds of new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems we see between the quantum world, the solar system and the Earth's life sustaining systems.
You'll need to provide some other evidence to offer a reasonable basis for assuming premise 2.
That's because we're in the "non-reproducible experiment" place when it comes to evolving universes. Certainly, we've had experiments that show that time and the laws of physics produce multiple stages along the path (indeed, far *less* time than we actually have. I mean, come on; Miller and Urey did it in how long to go from primordial soup to amino-acid precursors?) We see crystallization happen in the lab all the time, whether we want it to or not.
You're forgetting that things ratchet, as I described above; we aren't just rerollign the cosmic dice every second and waiting for them to come up DNA, say.
Furthermore, your argument from ignorance: "I don't see it, therefore it can't happen" is hardly a persuasive one.
>You don't get it, do you; a random initial condition, an asymmetric one, combined with the action of natural law, *does* allow time to produce those results, because time allows for the accretion of change and complexity.
Delete- This is pure speculation. We have no empirical evidence that any non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent system has been produced as such. On the contrary, all empirical evidence shows that intelligence only produces such systems.
>We see crystallization happen in the lab all the time, whether we want it to or not.
- These types of phenomena are based on the inherent design within matter itself. The elements have an atomic frequency which helps to orchestrate the formation of compounds and crystals.
We have no empirical evidence that any non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent system has been produced as such
DeleteI have repeatedly offered you examples of such things, and you change your definition to exclude them. We have continued this argument on another thread.
These types of phenomena are based on the inherent design within matter itself.
And here you are presuming your answer again, by speaking of the "inherent design" within matter.
If you can't make your argument without loaded language, it's a sign your argument is flawed.
>And here we hit the core of your argument, and why it's circular. What you're saying here, in essence, is that to be "original" it requires intelligence -- since all the examples you gave are things that are created.
ReplyDeleteI didn't specifically state that “to be "original" it requires intelligence"
Then give an example of something "original" that was not intelligently created. Oh, wait -- you can't; your entire argument hinges on the *presumption* that to be "original" requires that.
>If I clarify “All new forms of (A) *that we observe* are created systems” would it make very much difference for you? I can add it, but you will still be in the same predicament.
No, because you're still caught in what it means to be "new" there; that's where your assumption is sneaking in.
If you consider the main points from a different perspective, perhaps you will see the argument is not circular:
Whether these systems emerged quickly or slowly is not the ultimate issue. Whether or not we saw the beginning of the universe is not the issue. This argument is based on reliable mathematical proofs and present-day empirical observations with regard to the beginnings of complex systems.
Considering that a) present-day empirical observations are on a timescale vastly shorter than we are presuming for the creation of such systems, time *is* an issue.
And Premise 3 is positively supported by the fact that humans do regularly produce (A) type systems. Consider a wristwatch as one example out of many. Empirical observation underscores that there are no new and unique examples of such systems (A) appearing spontaneously today on any scale at any speed and, therefore, there is no reason to expect they would have occurred previously as such.
You're still not getting it. "Some A are Y" is not anything like sufficient evidence for the statement "No A are not-Y". Indeed, when we are surrounded by examples of "A that might be not-Y, unless we agree with your presumptions", your evidence falls vastly short.
Based upon these two facts, that 1) the (A) rich universe had a beginning, and 2) that all new and original (A) type systems we observe empirically are a result of purposeful design, then it is logical to conclude that the ultimate beginning of the universe was based on the purposeful use of energy and intelligence. This is not circular reasoning.
Fair enough; by that standard, it's not circular. IT's just critically flawed, since your #2 is fallacious in the extreme.
Of course, when your definition of "new and original" means that nothing fits it that is not intelligently created (since it requires a purpose), then it returns to presuming the thing you set out to prove.
>Fair enough; by that standard, it's not circular. IT's just critically flawed, since your #2 is fallacious in the extreme.
Delete-2) That all new and original (A) type systems we observe empirically are a result of purposeful design
How is 2 fallacious? You haven't shown one example to disprove it.
>your definition of "new and original" means that nothing fits it that is not intelligently created
- My premises are perfectly valid. It seems you don't like them because you cannot disprove them:
P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
P4. No new forms of (A) that we observe are systems that have occurred by chance alone.
You haven't shown one example to disprove it.
DeleteAs stated, every time I give an example, you redefine your terms to try and exclude it. Your definition of A-type systems is continuously shrinking, which leads one to believe it will soon become a useless definition.
And before you ask, "leads one to believe" is as valid a claim in a proof as "most probable".
Pt. 4
ReplyDelete>...There is no magical natural selection to appeal to in non-living cosmology for the complex systems that exist ...Well, except that until you get to the point of the Miller-Urey experiment, things fall together surprisingly...
- You seem to be missing my point here. Evolutionists claim that complexity in biology is due to natural selection. Non-living matter does not have this appeal. Yet, non-living matter has complex type A systems.
And non-living matter can become increasingly complexly organized, due to interactions of natural law. Or are you denying that?
This isn't about evolution; this is about matter organizing due to the interactions of natural law.
>We've pushed ideas about the beginning of existence back to the initial fractions of a second. We know how stars form. We know how planets form. We know how elements form, and how organic soups can be created on planets. We know that said organic soups can produce amino acids....
You claim that ideas about the “beginning of existence” are well known. You've repeated the phrase “we know” several times. But you have yet to account for a very simple metaphysical problem.
Please explain how randomness can ultimately produce complex type A systems simply because time exists?
Random initial conditions -- i.e. not knowing whether a particular particle pair will emerge and survive from the quantum foam -- permit asymmetries. Natural law permits the persistence of asymmetries and the development of complicated structure -- as we have observed from the way planets develop, the way solar systems are born, and as we have experimental verification of in the Miller-Urey experiment, for example.
Because time allows for the ordering of events, and the preservation of order and structure. That's how.
We have plenty of time on our hands right now. And we have all of human history to refer to. But, as far as I know, no such type A system has ever spontaneously formed. It's an empirical fact, unless you can offer at least one example that will prove me wrong.
And here we return to the argument from personal ignorance: "I don't know it, therefore it can't be true."
All of human history is a truly trivial amount of time compared to the timescales we have to work with. Human history is, say, 10,000 years. If we compressed the history of the earth into a 365-day year, human history fits in the time between 11:58 P.M. and midnight, Dec. 31st. And that's just the planet, let alone the universe.
We don't have plenty of time on our hands. We're in a faint moment, and claiming that "we don't see it right now, therefore it didn't happen" is beyond risible.
(Please explain how randomness can ultimately produce complex type A systems simply because time exists?)
Delete>Random initial conditions -- i.e. not knowing whether a particular particle pair will emerge and survive from the quantum foam -- permit asymmetries. Natural law permits the persistence of asymmetries and the development of complicated structure -- as we have observed from the way planets develop, the way solar systems are born, and as we have experimental verification of in the Miller-Urey experiment, for example.
- As I mentioned before, even if scientists could document the formation of a solar system or a star, this is not a new form of a system, as this has been apparently occurring on an ongoing basis. My premises are quite specific:
P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
P4. No new forms of (A) that we observe are systems that have occurred by chance alone.
>And here we return to the argument from personal ignorance: "I don't know it, therefore it can't be true."
- No, P3 is empirically demonstrable and knowable.
>We're in a faint moment, and claiming that "we don't see it right now, therefore it didn't happen"
- It would seem as though you are implying that the formation of the universe was an exception to the rule, that things somehow operate in a different manner today. Why should we believe an exception to the rule we cannot see when we can empirically see how such systems come into being today on a regular basis?
P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.
DeleteThis remains an argument from ignorance; "We haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist." Which, when you're talking about something as old as the universe, is a rather silly argument, to say the least.
It would seem as though you are implying that the formation of the universe was an exception to the rule, that things somehow operate in a different manner today. Why should we believe an exception to the rule we cannot see when we can empirically see how such systems come into being today on a regular basis?
Because you are talking about two (potentially) different mechanisms of creation. Deliberate intelligence can create something new in an eyeblink, since you have counted "ideas" as something new. Even a "new A" might not take very long.
If you don't have intelligence behind it, it can take a little while longer, to put it mildly. Things don't have to operate in a different manner today for the "I didn't see it, therefore it didn't happen" to be invalid.
Pt. 5
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, you haven't made a dent in any of the premises. I apologize that I had to make a few adjustments to the argument. I never claimed I was perfect. That is in the realm of the divine.
You've managed to dodge the words "Miller-Urey experiment" over and over and over again, which shoots a huge hole in your premise. You've managed to redefine your premises to the point of circularity. I account these not dents, but demolitions. Your entire argument boils down to "Everything we see that's complicated and non-biological, we built, therefore something intelligent must have built the universe."
Physicist Brian Green, Richard Dawkins and others are aware of the incredible fine-tuning of the universe, and thus they feels the need to imagine a 'multi-verse' - a practically infinite number of imaginary universes that they imagine exist in order to somehow justify the speculation that one life-sustaining universe could exist by chance.
And why this is inherently any less likely than a supercomplex being that created this universe, given that we have *seen* the way the workings of natural law produce a whole lot of misses and a few wildly successful hits, I fail to see. (Is this the moment, BTW, where I point out that "proofs" rarely end with the phrase "most probable that..."
My hierarchy argument offers empirical justification to show that chance alone never has and never will produce non-living hierarchical interdependent systems. But the universe is a collection of such systems on a vast hierarchical scale and humans create such systems.
Your "hierarchy argument" consists, as far as I can tell, of listing a whole bunch of things and claiming "They couldn't all work together unless they were designed to". While, instead, many items on your (often redundant) list are different ways of stating results from a few fundamental principles (There is a reason that work has been successful on combining fundamental forces, and the idea of a Grand Unified THeory is not too far-fetched.)
So, given that we are talking about chance only in initial conditions, and a set of principles that produce local order from those conditions, which *will* and *has* produced non-living heirarchical interdependent systems, your argument is, as they say, invalid.
>You've managed to dodge the words "Miller-Urey experiment" over and over and over again, which shoots a huge hole in your premise.
ReplyDelete-I've addressed this is a new article:
First, it should be noted that even if the experiment did happen to produce positive results, the experiment needs to be understood in context. As I pointed out earlier, the elements of the Periodic Table are already embedded with their own erector-set technology that 'motivates' just the right elements to join together in just the right manner (through an electrostatic attraction) in order to form just the right compounds to allow for life. In this light, the the Miller-Urey experiment can be likened to scientists putting male and female rabbits together and claiming, “Look, I've joined two rabbits together and cared for them. They've produces a litter. So, I've helped to create life in a laboratory!” The hard work of forming compounds has already been done, that is, the creation of the self-joining building-block properties of the elements themselves has already been embedded in matter itself.
The basic elements of the amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment are described as follows: “Each molecule contains a central carbon (C) atom, termed the α-carbon, to which both an amino and a carboxyl group are attached. The remaining two bonds of the α-carbon atom are generally satisfied by a hydrogen (H) atom and the R group.”[14]
Cont..
Cont...
ReplyDeleteThe study of carbon compounds continues because they are extremely versatile and prolific, as noted: “A second reason for the study of carbon compounds is the sheer number of organic compounds. Chemists have discovered or synthesized more than 10 million of them, an estimated 10,000 new ones are reported each year.”[15] And remember how the nuclear strong force of the universe has a plus-minus tolerance of only 1% and 2% with regard to the formation of atomic bonds.
Considering these things, and even if we were to completely disregard the fact that most of the work has already been done in the fine-tuning of carbon compounds, the Miller-Urey experiment is unimpressive and problematic for a number of other reasons. For example, the experiment created a recirculating system in order to produce more of the desired elements. However, in nature there is no such immediate recirculating system and the time it would take to provide the same results would also be time that would have caused the properties of critical elements to become useless. Despite this and other overtly manipulative conditions, the results were highly simplistic and insignificant in comparison to what is actually required for life:
“After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.”[16]
Another problem is that nearly all life-permitting amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed. While almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. However, in the Miller-Urey experiment there were equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules. When the results are opposite of what they need to be, the results are either useless or toxic to the very life they are supposed to be supporting.[17]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/materialist-gambit-purposeless-in-fine.html