tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post3229169087987106723..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central TruthRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-35202116098487692612012-05-13T23:34:07.893-07:002012-05-13T23:34:07.893-07:00P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are creat...<i>P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.</i><br /><br />This 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.<br /><br /><i>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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-46462528004175602562012-05-13T09:54:10.191-07:002012-05-13T09:54:10.191-07:00You haven't shown one example to disprove it.
...<i>You haven't shown one example to disprove it.</i><br /><br />As 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.<br /><br />And before you ask, "leads one to believe" is as valid a claim in a proof as "most probable".imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-57735488746208892182012-05-13T09:51:26.681-07:002012-05-13T09:51:26.681-07:00We have no empirical evidence that any non-living,...<i>We have no empirical evidence that any non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent system has been produced as such</i><br /><br />I have repeatedly offered you examples of such things, and you change your definition to exclude them. We have continued this argument on another thread.<br /><br /><i>These types of phenomena are based on the inherent design within matter itself.</i><br /><br />And here you are presuming your answer again, by speaking of the "inherent design" within matter.<br /><br />If you can't make your argument without loaded language, it's a sign your argument is flawed.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-32709942060415304672012-05-13T09:19:53.512-07:002012-05-13T09:19:53.512-07:00And yet, you believe that Non-living, unique, comp...<i>And yet, you believe that Non-living, unique, complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems have arisen from such a condition because time is involved.<br /></i><br /><br />For the reasons stated elsewhere.<br /><br /><i> Both aspects are evident in nature, but both also have an ultimately arbitrary and undirected starting point in accordance with materialistic non-religious atheism.</i><br /><br />Indeed. <br /><br /><i>"het up???" Did you mean get "bent" up about it? Or what?</i><br /><br />Wound up might be different word you would get.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-63622692760442750852012-05-13T05:19:07.249-07:002012-05-13T05:19:07.249-07:00Cont...
The study of carbon compounds continues b...Cont...<br /><br />The 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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />“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]<br /><br />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]<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/materialist-gambit-purposeless-in-fine.htmlRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-71957727204284418012012-05-13T05:17:39.782-07:002012-05-13T05:17:39.782-07:00>You've managed to dodge the words "Mi...>You've managed to dodge the words "Miller-Urey experiment" over and over and over again, which shoots a huge hole in your premise. <br /><br />-I've addressed this is a new article:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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]<br /><br />Cont..Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-58380340699651226352012-05-13T05:14:55.935-07:002012-05-13T05:14:55.935-07:00(Please explain how randomness can ultimately prod...(Please explain how randomness can ultimately produce complex type A systems simply because time exists?)<br /><br />>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.<br /><br />- 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:<br /><br />P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.<br />P4. No new forms of (A) that we observe are systems that have occurred by chance alone.<br /><br />>And here we return to the argument from personal ignorance: "I don't know it, therefore it can't be true."<br /><br />- No, P3 is empirically demonstrable and knowable.<br /><br />>We're in a faint moment, and claiming that "we don't see it right now, therefore it didn't happen" <br /><br />- 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?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-88022400769780490252012-05-13T04:57:08.702-07:002012-05-13T04:57:08.702-07:00>Fair enough; by that standard, it's not ci...>Fair enough; by that standard, it's not circular. IT's just critically flawed, since your #2 is fallacious in the extreme.<br /><br />-2) That all new and original (A) type systems we observe empirically are a result of purposeful design<br /><br />How is 2 fallacious? You haven't shown one example to disprove it.<br /><br />>your definition of "new and original" means that nothing fits it that is not intelligently created <br /><br />- My premises are perfectly valid. It seems you don't like them because you cannot disprove them:<br /><br />P3. All new forms of (A) that we observe are created systems made with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.<br /><br />P4. No new forms of (A) that we observe are systems that have occurred by chance alone.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-91556725177541832862012-05-13T04:50:52.555-07:002012-05-13T04:50:52.555-07:00>You don't get it, do you; a random initial...>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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />>We see crystallization happen in the lab all the time, whether we want it to or not.<br /><br />- 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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-17375670250216536142012-05-13T04:43:44.839-07:002012-05-13T04:43:44.839-07:00>Then fine; we had a random start. I'm will...>Then fine; we had a random start. I'm willing to accept that.<br /><br />Yes, 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.<br /><br />>Given that your laundry-list of laws ...are related to the same few fundamental forces, no, I don't think it's completely random.<br /> <br />- 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.<br /><br />>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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />>Time is used as a metaphysical grab bag "….Only people who insist on an external, eternal Other should get het up about it. <br /><br />- "het up???" Did you mean get "bent" up about it? Or what?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16580124729884321562012-05-11T12:33:22.117-07:002012-05-11T12:33:22.117-07:00purposeful relationship with each other, or a rand...<i>purposeful relationship with each other, or a random relationship?</i><br /><br />Here's your false dichotomy in a clear form, so I'll dissect it here. (Hope you don't mind, Kazeite)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-79459381720267999002012-05-11T12:21:42.517-07:002012-05-11T12:21:42.517-07:00Pt. 5
As far as I can see, you haven't made ...Pt. 5<br /><br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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..."<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.) <br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-25200592581463392552012-05-11T12:21:18.625-07:002012-05-11T12:21:18.625-07:00Pt. 4
>...There is no magical natural selectio...Pt. 4<br /><br /><i>>...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...<br /><br />- 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.</i><br /><br />And non-living matter can become increasingly complexly organized, due to interactions of natural law. Or are you denying that?<br /><br />This isn't about evolution; this is about matter organizing due to the interactions of natural law. <br /><br />><i>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....<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Please explain how randomness can ultimately produce complex type A systems simply because time exists?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Because time allows for the ordering of events, and the preservation of order and structure. That's how.<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />And here we return to the argument from personal ignorance: "I don't know it, therefore it can't be true."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-53931506439104770642012-05-11T12:02:00.747-07:002012-05-11T12:02:00.747-07:00>And here we hit the core of your argument, and...<i>>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.<br /><br />I didn't specifically state that “to be "original" it requires intelligence"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>>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.</i><br /><br />No, because you're still caught in what it means to be "new" there; that's where your assumption is sneaking in. <br /><br /><i>If you consider the main points from a different perspective, perhaps you will see the argument is not circular:<br /><br />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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Fair enough; by that standard, it's not circular. IT's just critically flawed, since your #2 is fallacious in the extreme.<br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-76082666960887177672012-05-11T11:15:05.772-07:002012-05-11T11:15:05.772-07:00#2:
>"It began in a random state, and th...#2:<br /><br /><br /><i>>"It began in a random state, and then followed laws" - That's in the middle. Hence, false dichotomy.<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but your thesis seems to be:<br /><br />1. The initial arrangement of all the physical laws may be completely random.<br />2. But, given enough time, the interrelationship of all these random laws would eventually produce ordered patterns, hierarchical systems and even life.<br />3. The formations of stars are proof that the laws of nature produce ordered patterns.<br /><br />You still haven't given any sufficient reason to believe premise 2 is in any way viable.</i><br /><br />1) Premise #1 is a flawed statement. A few physical constants and characteristics may be random.<br />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<br />2a) If the initial conditions didn't permit life, we wouldn't be here. ;)<br />3) The formation of stars is a single, simple example.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>We do see the formation of stars, yes, that's true, but stars are not new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You'll need to provide some other evidence to offer a reasonable basis for assuming premise 2.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Furthermore, your argument from ignorance: "I don't see it, therefore it can't happen" is hardly a persuasive one.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-82629775790316491142012-05-11T11:14:36.388-07:002012-05-11T11:14:36.388-07:00OK: Stepping back from the cascade of comments, si...OK: Stepping back from the cascade of comments, since it was looking odd... ;)<br /><br /><i>Imnotandrey,</i><br /><br />Minor detail: There's an i at the end, not a y. ;)<br /><br /><i>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?”<br /><br />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.</i><br /><br />Then fine; we had a random start. I'm willing to accept that.<br /><br /><i>>Natural law present a means to turn most sets of initial conditions into a more complicated and ordered structure.<br /><br />This is possibly true, but it seems you still aren't addressing the ultimate condition of randomness.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If that is the case, do you believe that the relationship between these 20 fixed natural laws is initially anything but a random relationship?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>>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.<br /><br />The term “fine tuning” is used by well-respected atheist speakers today. Atheist physicist Brian Green uses the phrase freely:</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>> 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. ;) <br /><br />- 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.</i><br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-29800775575589166742012-05-11T10:32:54.598-07:002012-05-11T10:32:54.598-07:00Part 3
>...There is no magical natural select...Part 3<br /><br /> >...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...<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />>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....<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-67039287422378795342012-05-11T10:29:36.577-07:002012-05-11T10:29:36.577-07:00Part 2
>And here we hit the core of your argum...Part 2<br /><br />>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. <br /><br />I didn't specifically state that “to be "original" it requires intelligence" <br /><br />>Your very construction of what it means to be "new" requires an intelligence. <br /><br />>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. <br /><br />If you consider the main points from a different perspective, perhaps you will see the argument is not circular:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-21362247082464339742012-05-11T10:27:32.581-07:002012-05-11T10:27:32.581-07:00Part 1
Imnotandrey,
I has asked you a question, ...Part 1<br /><br />Imnotandrey,<br /><br />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?”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />>Natural law present a means to turn most sets of initial conditions into a more complicated and ordered structure.<br /><br />This is possibly true, but it seems you still aren't addressing the ultimate condition of randomness. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />If that is the case, do you believe that the relationship between these 20 fixed natural laws is initially anything but a random relationship?<br /><br />>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. <br /><br />The term “fine tuning” is used by well-respected atheist speakers today. Atheist physicist Brian Green uses the phrase freely:<br /><br />http://www.crazyengineers.com/community/threads/why-is-our-universe-fine-tuned-for-life-brian-greene-ted-talk.54013/<br /><br />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.<br /><br />> 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. ;) <br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />>"It began in a random state, and then followed laws" - That's in the middle. Hence, false dichotomy.<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but your thesis seems to be: <br /><br />1. The initial arrangement of all the physical laws may be completely random.<br />2. But, given enough time, the interrelationship of all these random laws would eventually produce ordered patterns, hierarchical systems and even life. <br />3. The formations of stars are proof that the laws of nature produce ordered patterns.<br /><br />You still haven't given any sufficient reason to believe premise 2 is in any way viable. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />We do see the formation of stars, yes, that's true, but stars are not new and unique complex, hierarchical and interdependent systems. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />You'll need to provide some other evidence to offer a reasonable basis for assuming premise 2.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-83890542310699660702012-05-11T10:20:52.765-07:002012-05-11T10:20:52.765-07:00Kazeite,
>Laws of physics are not random, Mr. ...Kazeite,<br /><br />>Laws of physics are not random, Mr. Warden. If I drop an apple on Earth, it will fall down. That's not random.<br /><br />- 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?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-55077542718214561422012-05-10T18:22:22.704-07:002012-05-10T18:22:22.704-07:00Man, that's detailed and good. An excellent t...Man, that's detailed and good. An excellent take down.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-68888142116627327862012-05-09T15:39:55.685-07:002012-05-09T15:39:55.685-07:00Part 3:
And there is no magical natural selectio...Part 3:<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. ;)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-67093077068827677982012-05-09T15:17:50.543-07:002012-05-09T15:17:50.543-07:00Part 2: (Yes, we're both verbose.)
>P3 r...Part 2: (Yes, we're both verbose.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>>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? <br /><br />- The word new refers to something original, such as an original idea or an original piece of art or a new form of transportation.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />At least, until intelligence (of whatever sort) evolved. Since there is definitely intelligence around now. ;)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-8231305639882333312012-05-09T15:16:55.598-07:002012-05-09T15:16:55.598-07:00I don't find your reasoning to be very clear o...<i> 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?</i><br /><br />Because "random" initial conditions can easily fall into ordered patterns; look at mathematical descriptions of chaos for an example.<br /><br />Similarly, barring an extraordinarily unlikely perfectly even distribution of matter, natural law suggests that you will get accretion objects in a gas cloud. <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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. ;) <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>>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. <br /><br />- 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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>>P2 remains incorrect, as described above; you created a false dichotomy. <br /><br />- 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.</i><br /><br />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. ;)<br /><br />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.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-37505756625378089532012-05-09T14:56:53.956-07:002012-05-09T14:56:53.956-07:00Replying inline to each piece.
My argument does ac...Replying inline to each piece.<br /><i>My argument does acknowledge the fact that that the universe is finely tuned. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />You dropped a word -- "inanimate". New, never-before-seen animate complex hierarchical systems, a.k.a. new species, come into existence all the time.<br /><br /><i>But they are produced today with the purposeful use of intelligence and energy.</i><br /><br />You are once again engaged in an intentional fallacy; "We do X this way; therefore this is how X must be done."<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />(Continued in part 2.)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.com