April 30, 2012

How the Circadian Rhythm Echoes the Ultimate Truth

A recent study at University of Colorado Denver outlined how strong sunlight and the human circadian rhythm help to allay risks and damages associated with heart attacks. "The study suggests that strong light, or even just daylight, might ease the risk of having a heart attack or suffering damage from one", according to Tobias Eckle, MD, PhD, an associate professor of anesthesiology, cardiology.[1]

They say that timing is everything. Maybe this has more significance than just telling a good joke. Apparently, understanding the circadian rhythm helps to inform a variety of health issues. You thought that you just ate too much pizza, but it could have been a seasonal affective disorder. How about your uncomfortable mattress? That may not be the real reason for your persistent sleeping disorder. And there are other issues, those pesky little philosophical questions about time and eternity. Are there signs that we have an internal metaphysical clock, even as we have an internal metabolic clock? And if we do have an internal, metaphysical clock, is it possible it is broken, or in need of serious repair?


As you can see, new discoveries related to the circadian rhythm can help to bring up a lot of interesting questions. Would you consider yourself more gauged towards the fleeting nature of time, or the absolute condition of eternity? One could go on. As you may have guessed, this article is not meant to be a logical argument for God's existence, though it does include one small logical proof. The  main idea is to stimulate some thoughtful observations and questions. So, if you'd like to offer some, please do.

What is the circadian rhythm?

The circadian rhythm is basically a daily rhythmic activity cycle that is based on a 24-hour interval. Many organisms exhibit this cycle. Apparently, the earliest discovery of the circadian rhythm dates back to the 4th century BC, when Androsthenes, a ship captain serving under Alexander the Great, described diurnal leaf movements of the tamarind tree observed on the island of Tylos (now Bahrein).[2]

Research has shown that the circadian rhythm in biological organisms resets itself daily to the 24-hour cycle of the Earth's rotation.[3] Basically, autoregulatory feedback loops in mammals take 24 hours to complete a cycle, and this forms the basis of a biological circadian molecular clock. Researchers Caroline H. Ko and Joseph S.Takahashi of Northwestern University have noted that the timing of the circadian rhythm in mammals is organized into a hierarchical framework, "The mammalian circadian system is organized in a hierarchy of oscillators."[4] Like all hierarchical systems, there is a governing element. The researchers note, "At the top of this hierarchy is the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the anterior hypothalamus. The SCN is responsible for coordinating independent peripheral oscillators so that a coherent rhythm is orchestrated at the organismal level."[5]

A hierarchy of oscillators
In humans, this internal clock is found deep within the brain (the hypothalamus), and the principal circadian pacemakers (SCNs) each contain 10,000 neurons, many of which are individually competent circadian oscillators. The master clock in the SCN coordinates the timing of slave oscillators in other brain areas that control peripheral organs, such as the kidney and liver. The organization of these individual molecular oscillators into a biological clock controlling behavior and physiology "remains to be fully elucidated" according to researchers at Saint Edwards University.[6]

While evolutionists may claim that hierarchical systems arise in biology through natural selection, pre-biotic hierarchy is not logically accounted for according to atheistic materialistic paradigms. As noted in article, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, non-biological hierarchical systems are evident throughout the physical universe and point to the logical conclusion of God's existence.[7] The logical argument for God's existence is as follows:

Argument from a created, unique, hierarchical and interdependent universe

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 that God exists.


In sync with the rhythm of life

Many doctors are not aware that circadian rhythms even exist and this can create treatment problems, as noted by sleep researcher Yaron Dagan in Israel: "[t]hese disorders can lead to harmful psychological and functional difficulties and are often misdiagnosed and incorrectly treated due to the fact that doctors are unaware of their existence."[8] In a similar manner, many people struggle unnecessarily with foundational problems in life because they are out of sync with the rhythm of life on a deeper level. They are not aware of the ultimate reference point of truth and meaning found in God's existence. The late atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens once proposed that "Arguments that explain everything... explain nothing." However, the circadian rhythm helps to demonstrate why this is not so.

Timing is everything
Because we are accustomed to our world, we tend to take it for granted that the universe generally works together in harmony on multiple levels with muliple hierarchical systems overlapping each other. Some simple examples, however, can demonstrate the need for consistency and an underlying organizing principle. If you are a musician, for example, you might want to imagine a guitarist strumming in 3/4 time while a drummer is playing in 5/8 time. It wouldn't be very pretty, would it? If an agreed upon time signature is necessary for two musicians to play together in harmony, how much more necessary would common reference points and standards be for more complex systems to work together in harmony? When this issue is taken to its logical and philosophical conclusion, there is a recognized need for underlying consistencies and a holistic explanation for the functioning universe. This fact, that an underlying consistency does exist, is demonstrated logically, simply by considering applied mathematics.

Mathematics and absolute truth

P1. It is true that laws and principles of mathematics are timeless, universal and unchanging.
P2. A truth that is timeless, universal and unchanging may be considered an absolute truth.
C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.

All things considered, the absolute truth that exists in a logical format is best explained by the ultimate truth of God's existence. The circadian rhythm mainly relates to the dimension of time and temporal harmony. However, from a philosophical perspective, there are logical reasons to conclude that the organizing principle of the universe is much more than just a cold, hard fact. The singer Sting alluded to this idea in his song, Invisible Sun.

There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day's done[9]

The reference point of truth and passion

Through their various forms of art, poetry and music, people have reminded us of that "ineffable otherness" that we long for that lies beyond the physical world. These arts remind us that we have been created with this internal "intense otherness meter" that registers with the eternal. We yearn to touch and experience the essence of the eternal in all its various aspects. Ecclesiastes 3.11 describes this ineffable otherness and beauty we long for:

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."(NIV)

Deep inside, we tend to long for things such as eternal security, timeless love and the penultimate pleasure. Sometimes people wonder, "Why do people take drugs they know can damage them?" Because the need to feel intense pleasure is greater than the fear of self destruction. People are willing to risk taking drugs that could permanently damage them just so they can experience a counterfeit of the kind of intense pleasure that may ultimately be experienced in the close presence of God. When we realize that the ultimate reference point of life is the person of God, it's understood that this instinct we have towards beauty and passion is ultimately to be directed towards worshiping the beauty and passion of God in holiness.

In the case of the circadian rhythm, we are talking mainly about a time reference as a reference point for life. But when we allow for the possibility that God is the ultimate reference point, then we allow for the possibility that the system itself is more than just mechanical clockwork. And more than just cold, logical facts or an abstract force. Even as the sun acts as both a gravitational reference point and a source of life-giving light, when we consider God as the ultimate reference point, then all His characteristics would be included. Absolute truth, perfect love, holiness, justice are just a few attributes.

Even as researchers demonstrate that we have an internal governing molecular clock, there are many reasons to conclude that we also have an internal governing metaphysical clock. There is something inside all of us that yearns to be in sync with and fathom the passion and purpose that can only be found in knowing God. The University of Colorado study showed that "strong light" is especially helpful for our hearts physically. In a similar manner, the powerful experience of God's presence in worship is shown to produce health benefits. According to various surveys, people who lead religious and spiritual lives are happier and healthier.[10] A key point is to realize that this taste of eternity is to be experienced in the here and now, not just in some future heavenly experience. But as we are healed and filled with the passion of Christ, we are also to go out into the world in our freedom to be a positive influence in our renewed strength. Malachi 4.2 offers a picture of this type of joyful passion:

"But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall."(NIV)

To know the beautiful savior, Jesus Christ, is something glorious. Sting described a somewhat ambiguous "invisible sun" as a reference point of hope. But one of the reasons God is worthy of our passionate worship is because God is Himself intense and passionate. If you or I were to experience the full intensity of the glorified Christ right now in person, we would literally be floored, even as the Apostle John was. The Apostle John described such an experience of being in the presence of the glorified Christ in Revelation 1.12-18:

"Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."(NKJV)

References

[1] Breaking Christian News, Thank God for Sunshine: Study Shows Daylight is Good for the Heart, http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=10082
[2] The Plant Cell, American Society of Plant Biologists, Plant Circadian Rhythms, http://www.plantcell.org/content/18/4/792.full
[3] Harvard University Gazette, Human Biological Clock Set Back an Hour, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html
[4] Oxford Journals, Molecular components of the mammalian circadian clock, (Abstract), http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/suppl_2/R271.full
[5] Ibid.
[6] Saint Edward's University, circadian oscillators, http://www.cs.stedwards.edu/chem/Chemistry/CHEM43/CHEM43/CircadianOsci/circadianoscillator.html
[7] Templestream, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
[8] SMRV Journal, Circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD), (Abstract), http://www.smrv-journal.com/article/S1087-0792%2801%2990190-X/abstract
[9] Loglar, Invisible Sun lyrics, Sting, http://www.loglar.com/song.php?id=16214
[10] Templestream, Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html


(article revised 05/08/12)

Image by YassineMrabet, non-copyrighted and used by general permission.

Tags: What is the circadian rhythm? hierarchy - circadian rhythm, internal clock,metabolic clock, circadian rhythm - heart disease, circadian rhythm - sleep disorders, circadian rhythm and God, the best sleep medicine, the best heart medicine, it's a beautiful life, it's a wonderful life, beautiful Savior, something glorious, holistic truth - the best holistic medicine, the ineffable other, why people take drugs

Related

The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth

Stephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic

Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

46 comments:

  1. The problem with your premises Warden:
    What makes you think that circadian rhythms are "designed" as opposed to evolved?
    here, here, here. this last one's a little better since they seem to have the whole article instead of just the abstract online.

    Still, it's not my fault that you stop your research when you get the "data" you want...

    The problem with your conclusion itself: Even if your premises were spot-on, what makes you think that it all points to biblegod as opposed to any other god or groups of gods?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      1. In your most recent notes I remember you had made a few false claims about me. It seems you are not interested in acknowledging that you were wrong.

      2. I don't make any specific argument against evolution anywhere in the article because I've found that evolutionists tend to use natural selection as an excuse for anything and everything that occurs biologically. This is why I stated the following:

      "While evolutionists may claim that hierarchical systems arise in biology through natural selection, pre-biotic hierarchy is not logically accounted for according to atheistic materialistic paradigms. As noted in article, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, non-biological hierarchical systems are evident throughout the physical universe and point to the logical conclusion of God's existence.[6] The logical argument for God's existence is as follows:

      Argument from a Created, Hierarchical and Interdependent Universe

      P1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.References
      P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
      P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
      P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by God's existence.
      C. Therefore, it is most probable that God exists.

      >The problem with your conclusion itself: Even if your premises were spot-on, what makes you think that it all points to biblegod as opposed to any other god or groups of gods?

      - I'm not sure why it is assumed that every article or argument that I write has to be a proof of a specific version of theism. The article seems long enough in my opinion. I suppose I could clarify this point in the introduction.

      Delete
    2. Rick Warden
      1. In your most recent notes I remember you had made a few false claims about me. It seems you are not interested in acknowledging that you were wrong.

      I made no false claims whatsoever about you. You falsely accused Myers and his daughter of supporting bestiality, even though she outright said that she does not support it.

      2. I don't make any specific argument against evolution anywhere in the article because I've found that evolutionists tend to use natural selection as an excuse for anything and everything that occurs biologically. This is why I stated the following...
      You don't have a clue about natural selection, Warden. Go read about some evidence for it. There is a lot of tests that evolution has passed.

      P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence
      Are you referring to the debunked idea of intelligent design?

      Would you like to read how well some of the ID claims fared under cross examination?


      I'm not sure why it is assumed that every article or argument that I write has to be a proof of a specific version of theism
      Warden....what does it say in the header of your blog, please? What am I supposed to infer when you then go on and post "god" with a capital "G"?

      If that's NOT the xian god that you're trying to prove with that list of "premises" and "conclusion" above, which one is it?

      Delete
  2. Too bad, my post did not register...will have to try again.

    R:While evolutionists may claim that hierarchical systems arise in biology through natural selection, pre-biotic hierarchy is not logically accounted for according to atheistic materialistic paradigms.

    Why do you think so? Circadian rhythms are good evidence for evolution. Living organism have adapted to their environment. Furthermore, in a lab environment or in the Artic, circadian rhythms are influenced by nature or scientists.

    R:The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.

    Please define what you mean by highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system. What do you mean by complex? Formed out of a lot of particles? What kind of hiearchy are you talking about? And why do you think it is highly interdependent?

    R:The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.

    That looks like an assertion. However, you need to explain what you mean by a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system. We know that a ruby can form itself in nature or that a volcano can be created by sesmic activity. Both can be considered highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical systems

    R:Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.

    God of gapes fallacy. We have limited understanding of the origin of our Universe for now. Not to mention we have no reliable information on your god.

    R:All things considered, the absolute truth that exists in a logical format is best explained by the ultimate truth of God's existence.

    So by absolute truth you mean math axioms? Ok, but math is still a human tool, which has no need for a god. And you cannot extend that notion beyond math.

    R:All things considered, the absolute truth that exists in a logical format is best explained by the ultimate truth of God's existence.

    Just an assertion. Those math axioms can exist without any sort of god. By Occam s razor the logical step would be to cut off your deity. Besides, it is not like math perfectly models life. There is no such thing as two completely parallel lines. Those axioms were formulated by men, they created their that system.

    R:There is something inside all of us that yearns to be in sync with and fathom the passion and purpose that can only be found in knowing God.

    Passion and purpose can be achieved without religion. Again another assertion about the necessity of an unnecessary deity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      >pre-biotic hierarchy is not logically accounted for according to atheistic materialistic paradigms.

      - Why do you think so?

      Like Reynold, you seemed to have missed my point about evolution:

      "While evolutionists may claim that hierarchical systems arise in biology through natural selection, pre-biotic hierarchy is not logically accounted for according to atheistic materialistic paradigms. As noted in article, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, non-biological hierarchical systems are evident throughout the physical universe and point to the logical conclusion of God's existence.[6] The logical argument for God's existence is as follows:

      Argument from a Created, Hierarchical and Interdependent Universe

      P1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.References
      P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
      P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
      P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by God's existence.
      C. Therefore, it is most probable that God exists."

      >Please define what you mean by highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system. What do you mean by complex? Formed out of a lot of particles? What kind of hiearchy are you talking about? And why do you think it is highly interdependent?

      If you want to read more about this specific argument, here is a link:

      The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html

      If you want to critique that specific argument, it would be helpful to do it in the comments under that article.

      >So by absolute truth you mean math axioms? Ok, but math is still a human tool, which has no need for a god. And you cannot extend that notion beyond math.

      - Math formulas are written using specific symbols. But formulas themselves outline truths that are timeless, universal and unchanging. A very simple example would be a comparison of addition and multiplication, x + x = 2x. You can change the symbols into anything you want to, but the principles will remain the same. If no humans had ever existed, would this equation (relationship) still be true regardless of the symbols?

      Actually, you answer this in your very next comment:

      "Those math axioms can exist without any sort of god."


      >Passion and purpose can be achieved without religion. Again another assertion about the necessity of an unnecessary deity.

      Again, like Reynold, you seem to be expecting that this entire article is supposed to be mainly a proof of God's existence. I do offer a proof withing the article, the proof about hierarchy, but the title does not suggest the article itself should be taken this way:

      How the Circadian Rhythm Echoes the Ultimate Truth

      In any event, I will make this clear in the introduction.

      Delete
  3. R:Like Reynold, you seemed to have missed my point about evolution:

    So why circadian rhythms are not universal?

    R:A very simple example would be a comparison of addition and multiplication, x + x = 2x. You can change the symbols into anything you want to, but the principles will remain the same. If no humans had ever existed, would this equation (relationship) still be true regardless of the symbols?

    No, you cannot chang the symbols into anything you want and still get the same result. Time for a math lesson...
    -1+(-1)=2*(-1)
    The equation above is false.

    Again, math is an imperfect descriptive artificial tool of our reality. That is it. You still cannot extend your notion of absolute truth to anything else outside the math system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >No, you cannot change the symbols into anything you want and still get the same result. Time for a math lesson...

      -1+(-1)=2*(-1)

      The equation above is false.

      - Um, no. It's not false, Anonymous.

      1) Minus plus minus is minus.

      http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57898.html

      -1+(-1) = -2

      2) minus times plus is minus
      http://www.purplemath.com/modules/negative3.htm

      2*(-1) = -2

      Together: -2 = -2

      You maybe could use a little stronger Russian tea in the morning, Anonymous.

      Your relativism doesn't seem to work in the real world. Even atheist Ayn Rand at least recognized the need for objective truth:

      Ayn Rand said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

      Too bad Rand felt the need to evade the ultimate reality of God's existence.

      Delete
    2. My bad, math is not my strong suit and I screwed up. Though, you still ignored my question why circadian rhythms are not universal.

      Delete
  4. Can t post for some reason, comments are disappearing

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the end, this appears to be nothing more than argument from design, and argument from design, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads either to infinite regress or self-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dawkins' infinite regression of the design argument is a fallacy. God does not need a designer because God, by definition, is eternal.. If you are looking for logical explananations, Dawkins is a bad bet.

      Delete
  6. That's what I said, Mr. Warden. God not needing a designer contradicts the premise of this argument, hence the self-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are offering another logical fallacy.

    Questions of HOW an intelligent creator exists does not negate proof THAT an intelligent creator exists.

    For example. If the first humans on the moon discovered a space craft already there, would it be logical to claim "No intelligent creator could have made this because we cannot explain HOW it came to be here." No. Proof, in and of itself, testifies that creative intelligence must have been involved. On the scale of the universe, the necessary creative intelligence must be combined with supreme knowledge and power as a logical explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick Warden
      Questions of HOW an intelligent creator exists does not negate proof THAT an intelligent creator exists.
      Never mind all the links that I gave earlier that shoot down "intelligent design"....

      Delete
  8. Questions of HOW an intelligent creator exists does not negate proof THAT an intelligent creator exists.
    Then why do you even bring this question up, Mr. Warden? That is quite puzzling.

    Your argument is meant to be a proof for the existence of intelligent creator. But you'd like me to believe that suddenly, when taken one step forward, it becomes another argument altogether. Don't you find it weird, Mr. Warden? Because I do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I didn't bring up the question of God's origin, you did. As in the analogy I presented, the claim that a full explanation of all details is required in order to make a basic deduction is not only unnecessary, it runs counter to the principles of the scientific method and basic critical thinking.

    This implies that you are neither open-minded nor objective in your thinking. This is one of the more obvious faults of methodological naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't bring up the question of God's origin, you did.
    Yes, and? To me, asking "who created God?" is quite different from asking "how can God exist?". The former is seeking the cause of God's existence; the latter seeks to understand the means of God's existence - the exact mechanisms behind his continuing existence.

    As in the analogy I presented, the claim that a full explanation of all details is required in order to make a basic deduction (...)
    This isn't my claim, Mr. Warden. My claim is that your argument inevitably leads into either self-contradiction, or infinite regress, remember?

    You are claiming that organization of the physical universe, due to its highly complex nature, is best explained by God's existence.

    I am pointing out that according to this reasoning God's existence is also best explained by Super God's existence. It's a basic deduction, really.

    To which you respond, "God does not need a designer because God, by definition, is eternal".

    So, if a god "just is," why can’t the universe "just be?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. The analogy with the spaceship is completely bogus, btw. With ID everything is designed. There is no such thing as something undesigned (be it simple or complicated) so you cannot compare it to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kazeite, you apparently believe your Super God example is based on a logical result of my argument but I do not see your argument presented in a valid logical form. If you could present more than just an assertion, perhaps a syllogism or any logical syntactical form with clear and succinct premises, then your argument would carry more weight.

    From a metaphysical standpoint, there can only be one absolute reference point of truth, not an infinite number of Gods. The law of non-contradiction implies this. The origin point of multidimensional coordinate systems implies this, as do many other examples. It is not logical for multiple eternal beings to be sovereign at the same time.

    In contrast to your theory, scientist such as Vilenkin can mathematically demonstrate the the universe had a beginning. There is no logical reason to cling to a dopey en idea, that the universe "just exists."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kazeite, you apparently believe your Super God example is based on a logical result of my argument but I do not see your argument presented in a valid logical form.
    Like I said before, Mr. Warden, it's argument from design, in detail here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your link references biological design and a cosmological argument of fine tuning but my argument and logical proof does not focus on these points. Also, there is no syntax of premises, no concise logical argument at all presented in your link. General commentaries do not hold very much weight. Arguments by people such as Stephen Law make that apparent. Can you please try to present your arguments in a concise logical form? To simply post links to srticles or to repeat unsupported generalized assertions would seem to be a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Warden, I trust you are intelligent enough to substitute "God" with "Super-God", and "physical universe" with "God". That's all there is to it.

    Deep down, it's all the same argument, that the universe is too complex, too organized, too interdependent, etc. to have come to present form without some sort of guidance.

    Now, I can see you're recognized you've been backed into a corner, which is why you are attempting to throw some obstacles before me, Mr. Warden. Don't you find it strange that it didn't occur to you to require such formalization before? Maybe you should think really long and hard about the cause of this shift.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kazeite,

      The reference you linked to that you claimed was "in detail" did not have any logical arguments that relate to my proof. This is the summary of your article:

      "Our authors below have offered various objections to this new argument to design: that the values of the various physical constants aren't really "tunable" and thus couldn't have been "set" to anything other than the values we find (Hurben, Drange)"

      Offering links to other links as some kind of proof and then claiming I am backed into a corner is a bit funny. In answer to my simple question, I guess the answer is "No" you don't have any arguments with a logical syntax. Doers it really matter if I ask you in my first question, as I did with Stephen Law, or in my last question? What seems to matter most is that people like you don't recognize the need for a logical form in your arguments.

      You didn't seem to adequately address a previous point so I'll make it a question. If the first humans who landed on the moon saw a spaceship there, would it be logical to claim that no intelligent designer of the spacecraft exists because we can neither explain how the spacecraft exists there or who could have created it. This is a yes or no question, pretty simple. Can you please answer it.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for butting in, but the spaceship analogy is a false anology, as I have pointed out yesterday. A classic logical fallacy

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      Referring to your comment, May 3, 2012 07:25 PM,

      "The analogy with the spaceship is completely bogus, btw. With ID everything is designed. There is no such thing as something undesigned (be it simple or complicated) so you cannot compare it to anything."

      This analogy is not based on any pre-conceived worldview, it's a simple question with regard to logical deduction. Forget about intelligent design and methodological naturalism for one second and simply answer the question if you can:

      If the first humans who landed on the moon saw a spaceship there, would it be logical to claim that no intelligent designer of the spacecraft exists because we can neither explain how the spacecraft exists there or who could have created it? This is a yes or no question, pretty simple.

      Kazeite did answer my question, by the way. He wrote "No it would not be logical."

      Delete
    4. Then what is the point of that question? We know that spaceships do not form themselves in nature, it is obviously designed. I completely agree with Kazeite that it would not be logical to assume it came into existence by itself.

      P.S. If you intend to fit in your argument about hiearchy and complexity it is still nonsense. Since complicated structures do form themselves in nature without intelligence.

      Delete
  16. In answer to my simple question, I guess the answer is "No" you don't have any arguments with a logical syntax.
    Mr. Warden, I guess you are unable to do the simple word switch exercise, then.

    Does it really matter if I ask you in my first question, as I did with Stephen Law, or in my last question?
    Yes it does - it shows that you were comfortable with interacting with argument, which now you deem having no logical form. If that is the case, what was the cause of delay?

    If the first humans who landed on the moon saw a spaceship there, would it be logical to claim that no intelligent designer of the spacecraft exists because we can neither explain how the spacecraft exists there or who could have created it.
    No, it would not be logical.

    Let me ask you a question in return: If the first humans who landed on the moon saw a spaceship designer next to a spaceship there, would it be logical to claim that no superintelligent designer of the spacecraft designer exists because we can neither explain how the spacecraft designer exists there or who could have created it?

    This is a yes or no question, pretty simple. Can you please answer it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. > In answer to my simple question, I guess the answer is "No" you don't have any arguments with a logical syntax.
    Mr. Warden, I guess you are unable to do the simple word switch exercise, then.

    - I have no idea what exercise you are referring to.

    >Does it really matter if I ask you in my first question, as I did with Stephen Law, or in my last question? Yes it does....what was the cause of delay?

    - In my opinion, when it comes to more superficial questions, scrutiny of logic is perhaps not as important as when asking very foundational questions. In our debate we have come to a point of asking very foundational questions about the viability of God's existence. It is pointless in my opinion to make bald assertions such as 'God must have a designer' because these types of assertions are not framed in any context, such as a required, clear definition of God.

    A well-constructed argument cannot avoid such obvious questions, but general, ambiguous assertions, such as the article you referenced, do.

    Since you either cannot or refuse to put your arguments into a concise, summarized logical syntax, I suppose I need to ask such questions myself.

    What is the definition of God you and your referenced article have in mind? Is it the God of the Bible, or a straw man God?

    With regard to your last question, I'm not sure what you mean by "super intelligent designer." Are you referring to a very smart human or God? God would be more defined as a supreme intelligence. I can answer your question when it is more clear. Can you clarify what you are trying to say?

    ReplyDelete
  18. - I have no idea what exercise you are referring to.
    I'm referring to this part of my previous response:
    "Mr. Warden, I trust you are intelligent enough to substitute "God" with "Super-God", and "physical universe" with "God". That's all there is to it."

    It's not that I am unable or unwilling to put my argument into a concise, summarized logical syntax - it's actually very simple and requires only taking your argument and substituting the words mentioned above.

    In our debate we have come to a point of asking very foundational questions about the viability of God's existence.
    But that was the point from the very first moment, Mr. Warden.

    What is the definition of God you and your referenced article have in mind? Is it the God of the Bible, or a straw man God?
    It is the God of the Bible, of course.

    With regard to your last question, I'm not sure what you mean by "super intelligent designer." Are you referring to a very smart human or God?
    I fail to see how this type of information is necessary to answer my question. You didn't deem neccessary to further define your "intelligent designer of the starship" either.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kazeite,

    I find your reasoning a bit confusing. You state in one sentence you want to make an "exercise" to "substitute "God" with "Super-God", and "physical universe" with "God" - Then, in the very same comment post you state,

    "It is the God of the Bible, of course."

    When I ask you which God you are referring to.

    The God of the Bible exists eternally and therefore the idea of "super Gods" dwelling in the same eternity and creating lesser God's who are sovereign together not only is antithetical to the God of the Bible it is a logical incoherent idea. It is indeed a straw man argument.

    >You didn't deem neccessary to further define your "intelligent designer of the starship" either.

    The designer in my analogy was unseen and unknown, that was the point. Your "super designer" is standing next to a spacecraft, supposedly visible. But you offer no description except for "super" which could mean anything anything. Is that a clever designer? An artistic one? One who has panache and finesse?

    For example, I'd like you to meet my friend who is an architect. And, by the way, he's a super designer.

    On may 5 you answered my question and justified my point, in my opinion:

    If the first humans who landed on the moon saw a spaceship there, would it be logical to claim that no intelligent designer of the spacecraft exists because we can neither explain how the spacecraft exists there or who could have created it.

    - No, it would not be logical.

    If we look at the universe and admit there are highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical systems and basically highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical systems never simply arise out of happenstance circumstances, would it be logical to claim there could not have been an intelligent designer of these systems simply because we cannot see or explain how the designer exists?

    - No, it would not be logical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is still a false analogy. Spacecrafts are human creations, manufactured artifacts. Your word salad about nature exist independent from an intelligent designer, at least we have no data about the involvement of ID. Furthermore, nature was "manufactured" and is being "manufactured" without human involvement. Since we have no reliable information about a designer, a naturalistic explanation is the most logical one. To make a valid point, prove that the current state of the Universe would be impossimble without the involvement of ID.

      Delete
  20. The God of the Bible exists eternally and therefore the idea of "super Gods" dwelling in the same eternity and creating lesser God's who are sovereign together not only is antithetical to the God of the Bible it is a logical incoherent idea.
    Precisely, Mr. Warden :) Hence, the self-contradiction I've mentioned before.

    Do you understand the implications of this?

    The designer in my analogy was unseen and unknown, that was the point. Your "super designer" is standing next to a spacecraft, supposedly visible.
    No, Mr. Warden. Again, you seem to have trouble parsing the arguments of others.

    It's spaceship designer who is standing next to spaceship, which can be used to argue for the existence of super designer, who is most assuredly not standing there.

    On may 5 you answered my question and justified my point, in my opinion:
    As Anonymous has been trying to tell you, your "spaceship" analogy is false and irrelevant to your main argument, Mr. Warden, and therefore cannot be used to justify your point.

    If we look at the universe and admit there are highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical systems and basically highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical systems never simply arise out of happenstance circumstances (...)
    That would be akin to landing on the Moon and declaring that it's too complex to arise out of happenstance circumstances.

    In your analogy, the astronauts can compare this alien spaceship to their own spaceship, or to the Moon, and note similiarities and dissimilarities.

    But what can we compare universe to? Simply stating that it is too complex to have arisen naturally is just argument from incredulity.

    Consider the trees - they are a complex structures, and yet they all grew from small, simple seeds. And yet, you'd like everyone to believe that it's impossible for trees to grow out of the seeds, because they are "too complex".

    ReplyDelete
  21. >Do you understand the implications of this?

    - Yes, Kazeite, it is quite clear that you are very proud of your false preconceptions and your straw-man argument

    The God of the scriptures (not a star-man version) is both sovereign and eternal:

    "His Sovereignty rules over all." - Ps. 103:19
    http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/SovereigntyScriptures.html

    The eternal God is your refuge - Deuteronomy 33:27
    http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/ten-bible-verses-god-is-eternal/

    A God that is both sovereign and eternal does not require a "super-God" creator. And your presuppositions of this need, Kazeite, are not based on a logical argument, just your assertions. If I am incorrect, please show me a simple logical argument showing this need.

    Kazeite, you seem to have a difficult time forming a logical syntactical argument that can justify your points.

    If you could summarize your argument with more precise premises and a conclusion, it would perhaps help you to understand that you are setting up a straw-manGod and then shooting it down.

    >As Anonymous has been trying to tell you, your "spaceship" analogy is false.

    - My analogy offers a simple question that you answered correctly. There is nothing false about your answer, it is absolutely correct.

    >In your analogy, the astronauts can compare this alien spaceship to their own spaceship, or to the Moon, and note similiarities and dissimilarities.

    - In my analogy you can also compare the complex, hierarchical systems of the universe to the Moon, if you want to, and note similiarities and dissimilarities.

    > But what can we compare universe to? Simply stating that it is too complex to have arisen naturally is just argument from incredulity.

    - We can compare the hierarchical, complex systems of the universe to the hierarchical rotating systems within a watch that works together in harmony. I've already made that analogy.

    >And yet, you'd like everyone to believe that it's impossible for trees to grow out of the seeds, because they are "too complex".

    - I'm not quite sure where you derived this assumption from. I never remotely implied, "it's impossible for trees to grow out of the seeds, because they are "too complex".

    Please formulate your arguments in a summarized form. It will help you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. - Yes, Kazeite, it is quite clear that you are very proud of your false preconceptions and your straw-man argument
    Then how come that you say afterwards completely agrees with my argument?

    A God that is both sovereign and eternal does not require a "super-God" creator.
    Hence, the self-contradiction.

    You keep noting the contradiction, Mr. Warden - don't you think it's time to consider what it means for your original argument?

    If you could summarize your argument with more precise premises and a conclusion,
    I understand why you refuse to engage in word substitution, Mr. Warden, but I do not think it would matter who would made the word switch.

    Nevertheless:
    P1. The God, the creator of the universe, is a highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent being.
    P2. As noted before, the organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
    P3. Therefore, the organization of God required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
    P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by Super God's existence.
    C. Therefore, it is most probable that Super God exists.

    Yet again: How come the argument above is false, but your argument is correct?

    - My analogy offers a simple question that you answered correctly. There is nothing false about your answer, it is absolutely correct.
    Whether it's correct or not, it is still irrelevant to the argument at hand. Even if my answer is false (which is not what I said, by the way), it's the question that's irrelevant.

    - We can compare the hierarchical, complex systems of the universe to the hierarchical rotating systems within a watch that works together in harmony. I've already made that analogy.
    And that is still a false analogy - watches are not living beings, for example.

    I'm not quite sure where you derived this assumption from. I never remotely implied, "it's impossible for trees to grow out of the seeds, because they are "too complex".
    What you imply, Mr. Warden, is that organization of the universe requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence. I would think that trees do count as part of the universe, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  23. >Then how come that you say afterwards completely agrees with my argument?

    - As I have noted several times already, you have failed to actually present a summarized argument. You seem to prefer ambiguity and this makes a rational dialogue with you difficult.

    >And that is still a false analogy - watches are not living beings, for example.

    - Again, I'll repeat, I'm not in any way arguing for or against evolution. I'm referring to the creation of the inanimate universe.

    >What you imply, Mr. Warden, is that organization of the universe requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence. I would think that trees do count as part of the universe, do they?

    - Because you refuse to present your argument in a summarized form, you have a problem confusing apples and oranges, so to speak. It's like pulling teeth with you, but I will try to make some sense out of your position.

    As far as I understand it, this is your argument:

    The option that God created the universe is not possible, because it would lead to either a self-contradiction or an endless regression, as noted in these summaries:

    P1. Every complex design requires a designer.
    P2. If God exists, God would be considered a complex design.
    C. Therefore, God requires a designer.

    P1. Everything that exists has had a beginning.
    P2. If God exists, He requires a beginning.
    P3.. Therefore, God requires a beginning.
    C. Therefore, there must be a "super-God" or an endless regression of God creators.

    Do you want to revise these summaries of your argument in any way, Kazeite, or are they acceptable to you? Do you want to provide alternative summaries? Please, by all means, do whatever you feel you need to do in order to summarize your arguments. Then, when you are 100% absolutely satisfied, perhaps we can review your premises and logic with a bit more focus.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kazeite, Once you are 100% satisfied with your own arguments, I will critique them, and I'll offer a critique of this ad-hoc argument you created:

    P1. The God, the creator of the universe, is a highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent being.
    P2. As noted before, the organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
    P3. Therefore, the organization of God required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
    P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by Super God's existence.
    C. Therefore, it is most probable that Super God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As I have noted several times already, you have failed to actually present a summarized argument.
    Then how can I be proud of it? You contradict yourself, Mr. Warden.

    In any case, this is my argument:
    Complexity of the observed universe is not evidence for God, for following reason:

    P1. Every complex design requires a designer.
    P2. If God exists, God would be considered a complex design.
    C1. Therefore, God requires a designer (God 2).

    P3. God 2 would be considered even more complex design.
    C2. Therefore, God 2 requires a designer (God 3)
    .
    .
    .
    Pn. God n would be considered even more complex design.
    Cn. Therefore, God n requires a designer (God n+1)

    Cx1. P1 and P2 lead to infinite regress.

    P3a. God of the Bible is described as having no designer.
    Cx2. God having no designer contradicts P1 and P2.
    Cx3. If P1 and P2 are false, then universe (even if it satisfies P1) doesn't require a designer.

    And that's about it. If you see any formal problems with this summary, please do point them out.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kazeite,

    >Then how can I be proud of it? (an argument)

    - Details are important things, Kazeite. I specifically stead this:

    "Yes, Kazeite, it is quite clear that you are very proud of your false preconceptions and your straw-man argument."

    And before that I stated this:

    "you have failed to actually present a summarized argument. You seem to prefer ambiguity and this makes a rational dialogue with you difficult."

    Is it possible for you to consider that you had not presented one "summarized" syntactical argument of your own until the previous post?

    I did not state you failed to present "any" argument.

    I wish you could apply as much scrutiny to your own arguments as you do to peripheral nonsense.

    I'll give you some extra time to make any changes you wish to with regard to the advancement of your best argument that challenges my argument based on hierarchy and order. I would recommend a bit of thoughtful revision.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Is it possible for you to consider that you had not presented one "summarized" syntactical argument of your own until the previous post?
    I have presented a way to receive summarized argument before, Mr. Warden, one achieved by simply replacing certain words in your summarized argument.

    In any case, I'd like to clarify only the last conclusion of my reasoning. Since it may appear self-contradictory at the moment, I'd like to amend it to:

    Cx3. If P1 and P2 are false, then universe (even if it's complex) doesn't require a designer.

    I do not wish to make any further changes to my current summarized argument. Please do point out what you consider to be errors on my part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kazeite,

      Because Imnotandrei and Richard Dawkins, as well as many other atheists, seem to believe your basic premise is valid, I've decided to write an article on the subject. I'll try to publish it soon.

      Delete
  29. The issue is divisive for the political class, with the use of
    pocket pussy or foreplay accessories to help him forget about them.
    Post a Comment and let me know what you think. This shows that it would be a simple or complicated solution to this aggravating and embarrassing problem.

    Basically I told her sorry and requested to leave me dripping with cum, but not intersecting.


    Also visit my web site - masturbator

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is no surprise that Adobe is on-board here with a custom fleshlight series.
    Deep blues, dark crimson, and maroon ought to be more
    activism-oriented. Use an old feather boa to make
    even the most puritanical periods of history, as they can.
    The fleshlight case'; s rigid construction allows it to be incredibly sexy; Miss Fowler-Tutt saw that perfectly, and of course was the plan all along. Horny teen boy comes home from school, everyday and fucks his Fleshlight.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You have to pay for their purchase. 1 My personal preference is actually for flat rate reimbursement
    because then you can follow, as long as an hour and as much as a
    Telefon Sex man and not a real person.
    Call me anytime Phone sex has become a billion dollar industry which is
    why I like Niteflirt for my customers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. She has a few months before it intends to get the work done by the investigative fund
    would be nonpartisan. Hauptschlich Sexcamss live sind sehr beliebt, da man immer live mit der Camfotze verbunden und
    kann somit seine erotische Gesinnung Kund tun. The effect is clean
    but not simple, and Apple has made most of its European.
    And if you want to be. But since many of the HD2's contemporaries.

    my web blog :: camsex

    ReplyDelete
  33. Working on sex cams remaining free loops of row 1 starting chRejoin yarn
    in opposite side of first ch of row 1 of foot, ch 1,
    do not turn. Below, you can sync photos in the Zune Marketplace would extend into Xbox Live for
    video content soon, but not anymore.

    Here is my blog; sex cam

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!