Intelligent design taught in schools

[Mike]

Firstly, science presupposes metaphysical assumptions.

Secondly, metaphysics precedes what science can observe. For example the question "can multiple principles simultaneously co-exist self-necessarily with a prior cause" is a metaphysical question. Science can't answer this, because to do science, principles such as time, space, matter, etc. all already needed to be in existence, because certain principles constitute scientific observation.

Science can give us an explanation of the origin of the universe after those principles that allow for observation are in place. Science won't be able to tell us what preceded those principles.

Science cannot and does not attempt to answer some metaphysical questions because they cannot be answered through observation! And because how the universe works isn't intuitive, science is the only reliable method in answering these questions. You are asking what happened before the Big Bang. That is nonsense!

When did I say the theist has no burden of proof? The burden of proof is on both sides. For example, if show that the probabilty of the BB occuring by chance and sustaining itself is one in trillions, yet it is apparently scientific fact that it occurred, at that point it becomes more rational to accept theism. This doesn't mean the theist has won, but the BoP then shifts onto the atheist to find either an alternate explanation, or a positive atheist argument, to make their belief rational again.

For the fourth time, read my latest post that you ignored. I address why this argument is useless.

In case you missed it again, read my post.

Ironically, you didn't provide any evidence for the claim you just made.

But the improbability is just common sense. Whenever has a totally random agent ever made something totally coherent? Whenever has an Earthquake hit a paintstore, and a beautiful painting was the result? Not only that, but seeing as the agent itself is random, there would be a random number of Earthquakes at the store, yet the painting is NEVER ruined.

Seriously, when has something like ever occurred?

I do not provide evidence because I don't have to! Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof". You are making a claim, so you must be able to defend it. You have so far done nothing of the sort, so I can continue telling you that what you said is made up.

And it may be "common sense" to a theist, but to people who have studied real science, it is not "common sense" (not that the claim that something is common sense does anything to support your argument in the first place!). Your analogy is a complete strawman. That is not how physics works! If the quantum fluctuations that created our universe acted again in creating another one, we would observe it as a shrinking black hole. There is no reason that these fluctuations must change the laws of physics within an existing universe!

Even if they weren't true, it doesn't really matter. Theists don't believe in God because of those probabilites. That's a fraction of one of the several arguments, it just forces the atheist into an alternate explanation or positive atheist argument. The atheist has to respond, they can't just say "no that's wrong your sources suck" which is pretty much what you just did.

Yes, the atheist CAN say that! Because if your sources do suck, then the reality is they should not be considered! And in this case, they suck. Period. There is no explanation to anything you claimed. You just claimed it and are now arguing for immunity from backing it up. That is NOT how a debate works.

Because the agent itself is random. This is different to saying the agent's method of action is random. The latter would be to act only at certain structured times, but the act itself would be carried out in a random way. An example would be someone reaching into a hat every ten minutes and randomly pulling out a ticket. The way he choses the ticket is randomness, but when he acts is not random. However, the source of existence must not only have randomness as its methodology of action, but would act at random times too. Let's suppose a random painting machine sits infront of a canvas. As an atheist, what you're saying is that it through random paints on the canvas, and a beautiful painting was the result. Now even if we accept that as remotely probable, what yo uare then saying is that every time the mahcine happens to randomly act again, it NEVER happens to touch that canvas again, despite the machine being totally random (yes I know machines aren't random but you get my point).

I don't know everything about the universe, and you don't know everything about the universe. So stop creating analogies that imply your knowledge of its intricacies. How do you know the machine doesn't create a new canvas every time it wants to paint? Just because a phenomenon can be described as random doesn't mean it's range of application and all actions must be completely random too!

But nothingness creating something does imply omnipotence, because nothingness has no form or structure. So either nothingness can create nothing (the more logical position) or if nothingness can create something (illogical) it can create everything, because it has no form, no limitation. If you're saying that nothingness is limited, you're then saying nothingness has a form, which makes it no longer nothingness.

I didn't mean to imply that "nothing" created the universe, but it could be that the universe came from nothing but its existence was caused by soemthing.

 

[Dre89]

Science cannot and does not attempt to answer some metaphysical questions because they cannot be answered through observation! And because how the universe works isn't intuitive, science is the only reliable method in answering these questions. You are asking what happened before the Big Bang. That is nonsense!

Science doesn't attempt to answer metaphysical questions, but it still has metaphysical assumptions.

And yes, asking what happened before the BB is what the God debate is all about. I never said science has got it wrong, but science doesn't prove that God didn't need to exist to actuate the unvierse.

For the fourth time, read my latest post that you ignored. I address why this argument is useless.

In case you missed it again, read my post.


I do not provide evidence because I don't have to! Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof". You are making a claim, so you must be able to defend it. You have so far done nothing of the sort, so I can continue telling you that what you said is made up.

But I made my argument, and presented evidence for it. You said that argument is crap, so now the BoP is on you to provide evidence for your conclusion. By your logic, one person could make a claim with evidence, and the opposition could just keep saying "no that's crap" to everything the first person says without having to prove why it's crap. That's just stupid, that's not debating at all.

And it may be "common sense" to a theist, but to people who have studied real science, it is not "common sense" (not that the claim that something is common sense does anything to support your argument in the first place!). Your analogy is a complete strawman. That is not how physics works! If the quantum fluctuations that created our universe acted again in creating another one, we would observe it as a shrinking black hole. There is no reason that these fluctuations must change the laws of physics within an existing universe!

.....This is already presuming that time, space and energy exist. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what preceded them. That's what the debate about God is about, whether those principles could have existed without Him or not. Science will never be able to give an answer to that question, because science operates within space and time. Science is constituted by those principles.

Yes, the atheist CAN say that! Because if your sources do suck, then the reality is they should not be considered! And in this case, they suck. Period. There is no explanation to anything you claimed. You just claimed it and are now arguing for immunity from backing it up. That is NOT how a debate works.

You need to show why my sources suck, especially considering they're notable scientists.

The sources don't prove that BB didn't happen. They suggest that it needed a designer, given the improbabiltiy of it happening by chance.

I don't know everything about the universe, and you don't know everything about the universe. So stop creating analogies that imply your knowledge of its intricacies. How do you know the machine doesn't create a new canvas every time it wants to paint? Just because a phenomenon can be described as random doesn't mean it's range of application and all actions must be completely random too!

If a machine created a canvas everytime it painted, it wouldn't be random. Again, you're attributing consistency and sturtcure to a supposedly random agent.

And again, I'm not talking about what's in the universe. I'm talking about what preceded the universe.

And yes, saying the universe came from nothing is a metaphysical proposition, because you're assuming nothing preceded the unviverse. Science has no authority on what preceded the universe, what preceded the principles of space and time, and to say that nothing preceded those principles is a metpahysical assmption that cannot be verified by science. So yes, if you're an atheist, you still have metaphysical assumptions.

This is why I keep saying science isn't necessray in the God debate. The God debate is whether God is necessary to instantiate the universe, science can't tell us anything about what preceded space and time.

I didn't mean to imply that "nothing" created the universe, but it could be that the universe came from nothing but its existence was caused by soemthing.

How the hell is that possible? How can it come from nothing if something caused it? That would be saying that what caused it came from nothing too, then you have to epxlain whether that come from, and where what caused that came from, and you have an infinite regress. You've just complicated it even more.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

PNSB- The question was how is it logical to believe the BB came from nothing, and constantly sutains itself, when the probability of that is literally one in trillions.

I also asked if people believe something came from nothings, and I think I also asked whether people believe that multiple pirnciples can co-exist simulataneously as self-necessary without a prior cause. Basically, what that latter question is asking is whether you belive the first cause, or ultimate reality, could be a number of things such as space, time, matter, energy, all existing together without a prior cause, or if you believe the first cause must be a single unified principle or being.

It's logical because
1. We are here. Therefore whatever created us happened.
2. There is no reason to say that a single being created us or if nothing created us, that we simply came into being.

your probabilities have no basis and I would appreciate it if you stopped using them, as they are very misleading.

Firstly, science presupposes metaphysical assumptions.

Secondly, metaphysics precedes what science can observe. For example the question "can multiple principles simultaneously co-exist self-necessarily with a prior cause" is a metaphysical question. Science can't answer this, because to do science, principles such as time, space, matter, etc. all already needed to be in existence, because certain principles constitute scientific observation.

Science can give us an explanation of the origin of the universe after those principles that allow for observation are in place. Science won't be able to tell us what preceded those principles.

Science is exactly that: making conclusions based on observable evidence, and then making more conclusions based on the conclusions made previously. Simply because we can't "observe" the big bang, it doesn't mean we can't make conclusions about it based on what we can observe. Likewise, simply because we can't observe anything from before the Big Bang, we can make conclusions about it based on what we do know.

When you start making conclusions based on nonexistent evidence, you are no longer in the field of science or logical reasoning. You are, in a sense, shooting into a pond hoping to hit some fish, except the pond is actually your swimming pool. You are trying to find a God, but cannot extrapolate his existence from observable evidence.

When you do this you leave the realm of logic, that's when you delve in metaphysics. Answering your "can multiple principles simultaneously co-exist self-necessarily with a prior cause" question is impossible with our current level of understanding. Can metaphysics answer it? It can guess, but a guess will only be a guess until you have evidence to support your guess. Such is the nature of metaphysics.

When did I say the theist has no burden of proof? The burden of proof is on both sides. For example, if show that the probabilty of the BB occuring by chance and sustaining itself is one in trillions, yet it is apparently scientific fact that it occurred, at that point it becomes more rational to accept theism. This doesn't mean the theist has won, but the BoP then shifts onto the atheist to find either an alternate explanation, or a positive atheist argument, to make their belief rational again.

Here is where you are wrong. It is not wrong to say that nothing happened if you saw nothing. However, to say that something happened, despite seeing nothing, requires proof that something did indeed occur.

Therefore, if you cannot prove a creator made the universe (keep in mind evidence against the BB is not evidence for Creationism), then it would be wrong to say that a creator made the universe.

The logic for creationism would go something like
1. The universe exists.
2. Such a universe is "rare."
3. Therefore a creator must have created it.

There is a huge jump in logic between 2 and 3.

The logic should go something like this.
1. The universe exists.
2. Such a universe is rare.
3. There is no additional evidence or information about a 2nd party creating the universe.
4. Therefore the universe created itself.

Ignoring the fact that your statistic (if you can call it a statistic) is completely fabricated, just because the universe is rare does not mean that it cannot happen. I really feel like I'm making the same arguments over and over again. Your claim of "rationality" is unfounded because you do not have proof for your "rational conclusion."

Atheists do not have a burden of a proof because no unfounded claims are made.

Ironically, you didn't provide any evidence for the claim you just made.

But the improbability is just common sense. Whenever has a totally random agent ever made something totally coherent? Whenever has an Earthquake hit a paintstore, and a beautiful painting was the result? Not only that, but seeing as the agent itself is random, there would be a random number of Earthquakes at the store, yet the painting is NEVER ruined.

Seriously, when has something like ever occurred?

Who are you to say it didn't happen?

You are still stuck on the idea that the universe is a beautiful painting. Why would it be a beautiful painting? For all we know, our universe could just be a mess of colors splattered all over a canvas, but happens to look good.

Maybe Picasso is God?

Even if they weren't true, it doesn't really matter. Theists don't believe in God because of those probabilites. That's a fraction of one of the several arguments, it just forces the atheist into an alternate explanation or positive atheist argument. The atheist has to respond, they can't just say "no that's wrong your sources suck" which is pretty much what you just did.

Theists believe in God because of one thing: faith. That is what it is called and that is what it is, faith. You have faith that God exists and unlike logical conclusions, faith cannot be challenged because by definition faith is something that does not require logic.

This faith replaces the logic that is nonexistent because steps 2 and 3 which I mentioned above.

Because the agent itself is random. This is different to saying the agent's method of action is random. The latter would be to act only at certain structured times, but the act itself would be carried out in a random way. An example would be someone reaching into a hat every ten minutes and randomly pulling out a ticket. The way he choses the ticket is randomness, but when he acts is not random. However, the source of existence must not only have randomness as its methodology of action, but would act at random times too. Let's suppose a random painting machine sits infront of a canvas. As an atheist, what you're saying is that it through random paints on the canvas, and a beautiful painting was the result. Now even if we accept that as remotely probable, what yo uare then saying is that every time the mahcine happens to randomly act again, it NEVER happens to touch that canvas again, despite the machine being totally random (yes I know machines aren't random but you get my point).

What is the agent? How do you know that the "someone" you talk about would reach in more than one time? Perhaps he was satisfied the first time? But how would you know if he reached in a second time? You are simply making unfounded assumptions about the universe.

Maybe this is the second universe or ticket that "someone" pulled. Maybe it is the thousandth. How would you ever be able to know?

Again you make the painting analogy. You are making an unfounded assumption when you say that the universe is a beautiful painting. "Beautiful" is a relative word and saying something is beautiful means that you have to have something to measure it by. What are you measuring our universe against?

But nothingness creating something does imply omnipotence, because nothingness has no form or structure. So either nothingness can create nothing (the more logical position) or if nothingness can create something (illogical) it can create everything, because it has no form, no limitation. If you're saying that nothingness is limited, you're then saying nothingness has a form, which makes it no longer nothingness.

Where did you get the idea of nothing? The Big Bang theory (what you are debating against i assume) everything existed at some point at a singularity of energy and mass.

That is something.


i apologize in advance for the incoherence in this rebuttal (I wrote it at multiple times during the day).

 

[ballin4life]

Metaphysics makes claims about the state of the universe without taking into account any experimental evidence. It is a bullcrap field, with as much credibility as a religion. Metaphysical questions are okay to ask, but they should not be answered by anything but through science.

This isn't true. Some metaphysical propositions like "I think therefore I am" don't need to be verified through science - they are self evident.

Even the proposition "Metaphysics is bullcrap - only science can answer questions" is a metaphysical proposition which cannot be verified through experiments.

 

[Dre89]

It's logical because
1. We are here. Therefore whatever created us happened.

A FSM created the universe. We are here, therefore the FSM created us.

2. There is no reason to say that a single being created us or if nothing created us, that we simply came into being.

You are just trying to avoid setting critieria the first cause must meet. By your account, it is equally probable that A is the first cause as B is. Therefore, it is equally probable that the FSM is the first cause as whatever you believe it to be.

Not anything could be the first cause, that's why theism has specifc conditions for what could have been the first cause.

your probabilities have no basis and I would appreciate it if you stopped using them, as they are very misleading.

Their basis was multiple notable scientists.

Science is exactly that: making conclusions based on observable evidence, and then making more conclusions based on the conclusions made previously. Simply because we can't "observe" the big bang, it doesn't mean we can't make conclusions about it based on what we can observe. Likewise, simply because we can't observe anything from before the Big Bang, we can make conclusions about it based on what we do know.

I never said the BB didn't happen. I said that science can't prove that it happened by chance. The question of whether it come from nothing, or was designed by a diety is not a scientific question.

When you start making conclusions based on nonexistent evidence, you are no longer in the field of science or logical reasoning. You are, in a sense, shooting into a pond hoping to hit some fish, except the pond is actually your swimming pool. You are trying to find a God, but cannot extrapolate his existence from observable evidence.

I never said I was in the field of science.....my whole point is that science has no weight in the God debate...

When you do this you leave the realm of logic, that's when you delve in metaphysics. Answering your "can multiple principles simultaneously co-exist self-necessarily with a prior cause" question is impossible with our current level of understanding. Can metaphysics answer it? It can guess, but a guess will only be a guess until you have evidence to support your guess. Such is the nature of metaphysics.

Oh man, not another person who thinks only science can conclude truths. Science isn't the only thing that concludes truths-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Here is where you are wrong. It is not wrong to say that nothing happened if you saw nothing. However, to say that something happened, despite seeing nothing, requires proof that something did indeed occur.

Therefore, if you cannot prove a creator made the universe (keep in mind evidence against the BB is not evidence for Creationism), then it would be wrong to say that a creator made the universe.

So you're telling me that if I see a painting, there's nothing wrong with me saying that no one painted it, and it's wrong to say that someone painted it, because I didn't see anyone paint it.

The logic for creationism would go something like
1. The universe exists.
2. Such a universe is "rare."
3. Therefore a creator must have created it.

There is a huge jump in logic between 2 and 3.

The logic should go something like this.
1. The universe exists.
2. Such a universe is rare.
3. There is no additional evidence or information about a 2nd party creating the universe.
4. Therefore the universe created itself.

Except that isn't the logic used at all. I have no idea where you got that from. You've just shown ignorance of promiment God arguments.

Ignoring the fact that your statistic (if you can call it a statistic) is completely fabricated, just because the universe is rare does not mean that it cannot happen. I really feel like I'm making the same arguments over and over again. Your claim of "rationality" is unfounded because you do not have proof for your "rational conclusion."

Where are you getting "the unvierse is rare" from? Who said that?

Atheists do not have a burden of a proof because no unfounded claims are made.

The claim that the universe originiated out of nothing is a claim not verifiable by science.

Who are you to say it didn't happen?

You are still stuck on the idea that the universe is a beautiful painting. Why would it be a beautiful painting? For all we know, our universe could just be a mess of colors splattered all over a canvas, but happens to look good.

Maybe Picasso is God?

....I obviously didn't mean that the unvierse is literally beautiful. The point is the universe displays complexity. For example, the slightest tweak to the universe would have made the universe collapse back into itself. The slighest tweak would have made life improbable. The laws of nature are totally coherent with each other. Just like in a painting, colours and shades complement each other to make a coherent picture. I can't believe I atcually had to explain what I meant by that....

Theists believe in God because of one thing: faith. That is what it is called and that is what it is, faith. You have faith that God exists and unlike logical conclusions, faith cannot be challenged because by definition faith is something that does not require logic.

This faith replaces the logic that is nonexistent because steps 2 and 3 which I mentioned above.

......Ok I'm no longer debating you.

You clearly aren't familiar with the philosophical and theological tradition at all.

I'm -1ing you in the JC for coming into a debate knowing nothing about the opposition. If you think belief in God is entirely about faith, then you clearly haven't read in philosophy or religion or know about any theology whatsoever.

If belief in God is about faith, then how come the agnostic scientist Paul Davies have converted to theism due to the scientific evidence?

Seriously, you make atheists look stupid and uninformed. This is why athiest philosophers ahte Richard Dawkins. Former atheists like Antony Flew actually converted to deism because he was sick of atheism being ruined by philosophically uneducated people like you.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

......Ok I'm no longer debating you.

You clearly aren't familiar with the philosophical and theological tradition at all.

I'm -1ing you in the JC for coming into a debate knowing nothing about the opposition. If you think belief in God is entirely about faith, then you clearly haven't read in philosophy or religion or know about any theology whatsoever.

If belief in God is about faith, then how come the agnostic scientist Paul Davies have converted to theism due to the scientific evidence?

Seriously, you make atheists look stupid and uninformed. This is why athiest philosophers ahte Richard Dawkins. Former atheists like Antony Flew actually converted to deism because he was sick of atheism being ruined by philosophically uneducated people like you.

Belief in God isn't about faith, it is founded upon faith. When the Bible was written, they didn't have the scientific knowledge of the universe available to them at the time, yet they still made the supposition that a god existed. You cannot deny that religion is not a faith-based belief system. It definitely has its roots in centuries of philosophical thought, but these are not based on observable phenomena. Do you think Muhammad knew the probabilities of the Big Bang that you spout as if it were fact? I sincerely doubt it.

Bring it to modern day. We have all this knowledge of the universe. Perhaps you can interpret some it to support that a god created the universe, but there is still no hard evidence that such a force exists.

as for your last paragraph, that gave me laugh. Perhaps they have some sort of religious experience? Are you implying that scientists cannot believe in God? Because you and I both know this to be untrue. Science will not and cannot ever disprove the existence of God, which means that the possibility for a belief in a god will always exist. But science's job isn't to prove or disprove the existence of God; that's the believer's job. If they cannot prove it, then they are held by their faith. I said nothing good or bad about faith, only that it is not based in logical reasoning. I don't see why you got so upset really.

-1 me if you think it was really necessary to state that in what was supposed to be civilized debate, but you would be incorrect to say that I actually care what you think of me.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

A FSM created the universe. We are here, therefore the FSM created us.




You are just trying to avoid setting critieria the first cause must meet. By your account, it is equally probable that A is the first cause as B is. Therefore, it is equally probable that the FSM is the first cause as whatever you believe it to be.

Not anything could be the first cause, that's why theism has specifc conditions for what could have been the first cause.

doopdoop totally missing what I meant.

If we exist, then we must have been created at some point. I'm saying that the point at which we were created exists.

But there is no evidence that the FSM created us, nor is there that God created us. Therefore we cannot state that God or the FSM created us. Does that make sense?

Their basis was multiple notable scientists.

is that so? and your basis is the one speaker who mentioned notable scientists and stated a vague figure with no background to it?

I never said the BB didn't happen. I said that science can't prove that it happened by chance. The question of whether it come from nothing, or was designed by a diety is not a scientific question.

I'm sorry for using the word science so loosely.

What I meant was logical reasoning. My apologies.

I never said I was in the field of science.....my whole point is that science has no weight in the God debate...

Perhaps not, but science has weight in the real world where things must be proven scientifically. I mean, you wouldn't brush your teeth with toothpaste if you didn't think toothpaste had been scientifically proven help clean teeth would you?

I see what you're saying. You're saying that science cannot prove that the BB happened by chance. My point is that it is impossible to know what exactly caused the BB, if there was any cause at all. A statement that God caused the Big Bang requires you to provide proof that you don't have.

Oh man, not another person who thinks only science can conclude truths. Science isn't the only thing that concludes truths-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
[/quote[

my apologies again for using science so liberally. I meant logical reasoning. I have a habit of using them interchangeably.

So you're telling me that if I see a painting, there's nothing wrong with me saying that no one painted it, and it's wrong to say that someone painted it, because I didn't see anyone paint it.

No. I'm saying that you can't know how the painting came into existence because you didn't see anything. Saying that someone painted requires you provide proof.

Except that isn't the logic used at all. I have no idea where you got that from. You've just shown ignorance of promiment God arguments.

if I am, then prove me wrong. It's not like I'm a fountain of wisdom, so I am liable to be at fault.

Where are you getting "the unvierse is rare" from? Who said that?

Isn't that what your probability statistic says and that you've been saying over and over again? This universe in particular is a rare occurrence.

....I obviously didn't mean that the unvierse is literally beautiful. The point is the universe displays complexity. For example, the slightest tweak to the universe would have made the universe collapse back into itself. The slighest tweak would have made life improbable. The laws of nature are totally coherent with each other. Just like in a painting, colours and shades complement each other to make a coherent picture. I can't believe I atcually had to explain what I meant by that....

Of course you didn't. But you did say that out of all the outcomes that could have happened, this particular universe occurred, as if this were the ONLY POSSIBLE outcome. How do you know that this particular universe is special? There may be countless possible universes that could have occurred which also sustained life, albeit maybe not human life as we know it. Who are you to assume such a thing about the universe's creation?

double post I guess

 

[Mike]

Science doesn't attempt to answer metaphysical questions, but it still has metaphysical assumptions.

Actually science doesn't make any assumptions (other than the axioms of logic and causality being true). Everything is subject to evidence, which is what science is based off of. If something is inconsistent with evidence, it's either thrown out or fixed. No faith, no assumptions.

And yes, asking what happened before the BB is what the God debate is all about. I never said science has got it wrong, but science doesn't prove that God didn't need to exist to actuate the unvierse.

Asking what happened before the BB is like asking where a circle begins. The question is complete nonsense! Science in no way attempts to answer this question for that very reason. Science does not deal with god because there is no evidence for its existence. It's really that simple.

But I made my argument, and presented evidence for it. You said that argument is crap, so now the BoP is on you to provide evidence for your conclusion. By your logic, one person could make a claim with evidence, and the opposition could just keep saying "no that's crap" to everything the first person says without having to prove why it's crap. That's just stupid, that's not debating at all.

If i posted a video of myself claiming that the probability of our universe being created the way it is is 50%, would you take that as evidence. No! You would tell me I'm insane to consider it evidence, but that is exactly what you did. Posting a video of someone making an extraordinary claim is not evidence! I need you to provide information on how these probabilities came about.

Also, I see you have not read my post. If you did, you wouldn't make such a big deal about the credibility of your evidence, as I demonstrated why assuming they were true, they still do not support your viewpoint. EDIT: i copied and pasted it to the bottom of this post to make it easier for you to read it.

.....This is already presuming that time, space and energy exist. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what preceded them. That's what the debate about God is about, whether those principles could have existed without Him or not. Science will never be able to give an answer to that question, because science operates within space and time. Science is constituted by those principles.

Then you are asking a nonsensical question. You might as well ask if this "god" was actually created by "another god" which was created by the "real supreme god". Such questions are useless to even consider, as they are structured so they cannot be answered!

You need to show why my sources suck, especially considering they're notable scientists.

The sources don't prove that BB didn't happen. They suggest that it needed a designer, given the improbabiltiy of it happening by chance.

It's not just what (some of) the scientists claim that doesn't make sense, it's the way the lecturer puts them together to form his argument. I already explained this in my post.

If a machine created a canvas everytime it painted, it wouldn't be random. Again, you're attributing consistency and sturtcure to a supposedly random agent.

Again, you are assuming it is random without bounds. This is not necessarily the case.

How the hell is that possible? How can it come from nothing if something caused it? That would be saying that what caused it came from nothing too, then you have to epxlain whether that come from, and where what caused that came from, and you have an infinite regress. You've just complicated it even more.

Quantum fluctuations can and does create things in empty space. From nothing.


Aaaanyways, in summary: You are asking questions that are impossible to answer. There shouldn't even be a debate in the first place.

@ballin4life: That statement is not self-evident: it is not proven that the property of thinking requires an existing agent

EDIT: I decided to copy my post here so Dre. doesn't have a reason to ignore it.

There is no way that believing in something with a probability of one in trillions is rational at all. It's far more rational that a designer was necessary.

There are still (at least) two counterarguments that apply. Only one of them is sufficient to discredit your claim, though I will list both.
1. You have still not given us a source explaining how these "scientists" found these probabilities. How do they know the probability distribution for the assignment of the magnetic constant? Electric constant? Particle masses? I'm sure the entire scientific community would love to hear about it.

2. Stating the probability of an event occurring means nothing if you don't also state the frequency of an attempt at the occurrence. For example, if the probability of creating a universe such as ours was one in a trillion but the creation of a universe happened a trillion times a second then it's not such an unbelievable thing to believe in.

Ironically, this isn't an argument. Secondly, it's not an argument from ignorance. No matter how much evidence for theism there s, you'll just keep saying "just because science hasn't worked it out yet.." well when then does it become logical to accept theism? By your standards, never, it shows you're not being open-minded.

It becomes logical to accept theism once there is evidence supporting its correctness. Until you can refute the two points above, theism holds no credibility. Even assuming the universe must have been created by "something else", it need not be an intelligent god.

Then anything you've been taught in science is also invalid.

Debaters must provide sources for their claims to show they have done the research and know what they're talking about. You have not done that in this case. Don't strawman.

No, the claim is that it is astronomically improbable that the reality that does exist was instantiated and is sustained by chance. Such a reality, which retains consistency, complexity, and coherence, suggests the necessity of a designer. Stop straw manning for your own convenience.

It is not a strawman. Your argument, can apply to EVERY POSSIBLE REALITY. But assuming the probability of ANY reality being created at all given enough time is 100%, then ANY reality that is created seems "unbelievable improbable", but it must happen, rendering the occurrence PERFECTLY believable! Do you understand what I'm getting at?

 

[ballin4life]

@ballin4life: That statement is not self-evident: it is not proven that the property of thinking requires an existing agent

How is that the case? Thought requires a mind.

Do you deny your own existence?

 

[Mike]

How is that the case? Thought requires a mind.

Do you deny your own existence?

Does thought require a mind? How would you define "thought"? If your definition was to include the necessity of a an existing mind, then the question is no longer philosophical.

 

[ballin4life]

My proposition is that my own existence is self evident.

This is the meaning encapsulated by the statement "I think therefore I am".

It is difficult to precisely define thought, but that shouldn't matter. From my ability to observe (and perhaps even form) these thoughts I must conclude that I exist.

 

[Mike]

But to conclude that, one of your premises must be: all things that think must exist. You have not demonstrated this to be true.

 

[ballin4life]

By contrapositive:

Something that does not exist cannot think.

Therefore thought implies existence.

 

[Mike]

You are still begging the question. Why can't nonexistent things think? Also, what do you mean by exist? This is more a debate over semantics, and not all that interesting.

 

[ballin4life]

You're the one making it an argument over semantics. It's difficult to briefly and clearly define very general terms like thought, existence, truth, etc. I think it would be clear though that any definition of exists will imply that something that does not exist cannot undertake an action (e.g. thought).

Let's try backing up though - do you exist? Does the universe exist? Does science conclude truths? Will the future resemble the past?

All of these questions cannot be answered through science.

 

[Mike]

And all of them are useless to consider when making claims about the universe, as they are all unanswerable except through manipulation of language.

And I disagree that your third question is metaphysical. This probably means there is a misunderstanding between what we consider metaphysical.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I like this thread a lot more now

no joke.

 

[ballin4life]

And all of them are useless to consider when making claims about the universe, as they are all unanswerable except through manipulation of language.

And I disagree that your third question is metaphysical. This probably means there is a misunderstanding between what we consider metaphysical.

Well, I think my own existence is much clearer than anything concluded through science.

By the way, the assumption that the future will resemble the past is one of the underlying assumptions of science. Science relies on this sort of inductive reasoning - e.g. since my equation for gravity describes what happened in the past it will predict what happens in the future.

edit: I think we agree that observation is the correct method for determining truths about the universe. The proposition that I exist satisfies my observations - the proposition that I don't exist does not. Therefore I exist.

 

[Mike]

Well, I think my own existence is much clearer than anything concluded through science.

Of course you would! Your existence is an observation whereas science attempts to model observations.

By the way, the assumption that the future will resemble the past is one of the underlying assumptions of science. Science relies on this sort of inductive reasoning - e.g. since my equation for gravity describes what happened in the past it will predict what happens in the future.

I did not specifically address this because I wasn't sure what you meant by "resemble".


Here's some food for thought: it is impossible for humans to imagine themselves living in a 7-dimensional spacial universe because we have never experienced such a thing. The reason you cannot imagine a non-existing, thinking entity may be similar to this.

 

[rvkevin]

By the way, the assumption that the future will resemble the past is one of the underlying assumptions of science. Science relies on this sort of inductive reasoning - e.g. since my equation for gravity describes what happened in the past it will predict what happens in the future.

I think this is slightly misstated. Sure, scientific models will make predictions and those predictions will be compared to the actual results, but how does this count as an assumption? Assuming certain principles, certain predictions can be made, which are tested to see if they are correct. If they are not correct, the model is falsified and is not considered to be good science. If they are correct, then they give confidence that the model is accurate, which means that it is no longer an assumption in the colloquial sense; we are not taking the model as a presumption because it has passed multiple tests and succeeded and is continuously vulnerable to falsification.

Also, it would not be scientific to declare that the laws of gravity will hold true tomorrow. If evidence tomorrow showed that the gravitational constant changed, then we would be required by the evidence to change our original hypothesis. You propose the hypothesis that the laws of gravity will be the same tomorrow as they are today. We then test that hypothesis and either confirm or reject it. Where is the assumption in that? It would not be a scientific position to say that the laws of gravity will be the same tomorrow since you would then be declaring the results of an experiment before actually conducting it. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that a claim that is demonstrably non-scientific is an underlying assumption of science.

 

[Mike]

Science is only useful if the laws of physics hold for at least an applicable period of time. Otherwise, the predicative power that measures success in science goes down to 0.

 

[rvkevin]

Science is only useful if the laws of physics hold for at least an applicable period of time. Otherwise, the predicative power that measures success in science goes down to 0.

Certain fields can make practical judgments based on those experiments, but they are not necessarily conforming to the scientific method. Engineering comes to mind. One can form something as a hypothesis, such as so and so structure will support X amount of weight, in which case they are uncertain about the result and are merely performing an experiment. Or they can phrase it as an inductive argument which includes relevant historical experimental evidence. They could say that they have a reasonable expectation that certain results concerning gravity will be applicable since they have been confirmed the past million times and are merely extrapolating forward. Such uncertainty would be near zero, but to assume that it is zero would be unscientific. So, I agree that science has predictive power, but it comes with a particular level of uncertainty depending on the evidence, but to assume a particular result is not scientific.

 

[Mike]

The scientific method relies on the fact that experiments should be repeatable. If the laws of physics were to change frequently, the scientific method would become useless.

 

[rvkevin]

The scientific method relies on the fact that experiments should be repeatable. If the laws of physics were to change frequently, the scientific method would become useless.

If the laws of physics were to change frequently, then they wouldn't have been laws in the first place. It is only trivially true, but it does nothing to undermine the scientific method.

A philosopher once said, "It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results." Well they don't!

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.-Richard Feynman

Surely, it is "nice" that the results for most experiments are repeatable. Humans like to be certain about things so when you do an experiment, you want to be certain what will happen the next time you do the same experiment, but that is not a prerequisite or detriment to the scientific method. If not, all it would do is make the outcome of the experiment probabilistic in nature and reduce the accuracy of our predictions, but to say that the scientific method assumes or relies on repeatable outcomes is false.

 

[Mike]

The same conditions don't need to produce the same results, but the results MUST BE similar. For example, QM introduces randomness, but its randomness is bound by law, so that it is still somewhat predictable.

Science is dependent of reproducible results. Without it, it is useless.

 

[ballin4life]

Here's some food for thought: it is impossible for humans to imagine themselves living in a 7-dimensional spacial universe because we have never experienced such a thing. The reason you cannot imagine a non-existing, thinking entity may be similar to this.

Hmm? I just imagine n dimensional space and set n = 7

And certainly science is a process of inductive reasoning, and if inductive reasoning is invalid then science will not make valid predictions.

I was overall just trying to point out that metaphysics is not "bullcrap" and that these things have to be considered for science to take place.

 

[rvkevin]

The same conditions don't need to produce the same results, but the results MUST BE similar. For example, QM introduces randomness, but its randomness is bound by law, so that it is still somewhat predictable.

Science is dependent of reproducible results. Without it, it is useless.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where there is no reproducible results. Can you come up with a hypothetical?

Would you consider this hypothetical to have repeatable results? Suppose researcher A submits an experiment to be tested by two independent B and C. The two researchers test his claim and find that they get a different result from A, but get the same result as each other. They repeat this by asking D and E to conduct the experiment and they get a different result than everyone before them but get the same result as each other. A-E tries to conduct the experiment again, and they get an entirely new result, but their results all match. They can't ever reproduce the the same or similar results that they have on previous trials, but they can make an observation that whatever result occurs will be the same for whoever else performed the experiment at the same time. Here, the same conditions give rise to completely different responses every time, yet we are still able to make a prediction based on it.

Even if the observations at the same time differed, it still doesn't prevent the researchers to analyze the probability space of the results given a large enough sample. While the predictive power of science would be lower given such a system, its ability to map reality would not be hindered. This would bring up the problem that the predictions one could make would not be those suitable for sustaining technology, but I don't consider technology to be science. Science is the body of knowledge that grows with experimentation, not technology.

 

[ballin4life]

You don't know that the probabilities will converge.

Another metaphysical assumption is that your observations accurately model the universe.

 

[Mike]

There isn't a real life scenario where the results are not reproducible because that's not how our universe works. But an example would be if you measured the charge of an electron and got wildly different results every time.

Your example only illustrates human error. If experiments were conducted to the best of human ability with nearly identical initial conditions, the results should be almost identical every time. Science depends on being able to model and predict phenomena. Even if the laws of physics were to change periodically but the way in which they change are predictable, science would still have a use. But if something were not bound by some sort of law, science wouldn't be useful on it.

 

[Mike]

I was overall just trying to point out that metaphysics is not "bullcrap" and that these things have to be considered for science to take place.

Metaphysical questions don't need to be considered in science. They can only be answered through clever word play and is thus self-contained. It's all semantic bullcrap.

Another metaphysical assumption is that your observations accurately model the universe.

This is not an assumption in science. If the observations do not fit the model, the model is thrown out or revised.

@rvkevin: i retract my statement that science would be completely useless if there were no set laws. It would be useful in determining that nothing is predictable

 

[rvkevin]

In the first part, I don't think it would illustrate human error. I think it would illustrate an effect based on the variable of time. At least, that was my intention. If it were human error, then there is no reason why there would be such consistency between the independent accounts. If the laws of nature were really in-deterministic, then a probability space would be the best one could come up with. That would be the frontier of science and it would not pass that. If it were human error, then what was once in-deterministic would then be modeled properly. This would be like saying that quantum mechanics is deterministic, its just that we don't have the tools to model it properly and the inability to do so is a product of human error. If that is the case, with future advancements, the notion that the laws are in-deterministic will be discarded.

Let me describe a different experiment. The exact outcome is indeterminate. That is, the particular results cannot be predicted before hand, but you can make predictions about the results beforehand. For example, ask someone to create a random binary sequence 50 digits long. It is not possible to predict the result, but you are able to predict certain properties about the chain that they give. The analysis of these results gives us information on how humans think about randomness, even if the results are not repeatable. This would count as an experiment where the results take on a certain form that is independent of probability and previous results.

You seem to have the impression that if we can't model something, then it is not science. I don't take this view. Given the scientific method, a model is not a prerequisite in order to have evidence for certain findings. Take medicine for example, all is needed for medical trials is a statistically significant sample when compared to the control and placebo groups. There need not be a model to describe the interaction between certain treatments and certain diseases. Ergo, modeling is not a requirement for science, only evidence is.

 

[ballin4life]

Metaphysical questions don't need to be considered in science. They can only be answered through clever word play and is thus self-contained. It's all semantic bullcrap.


This is not an assumption in science. If the observations do not fit the model, the model is thrown out or revised.

@rvkevin: i retract my statement that science would be completely useless if there were no set laws. It would be useful in determining that nothing is predictable

Sorry if I was a bit unclear about that statement. Part of science is that you assume that the observations you are making accurately reflect what happens in the universe. For example, if you are testing a theory of gravity but you hallucinate and think that things are floating upwards, then your results will not be accurate.

In the first part, I don't think it would illustrate human error. I think it would illustrate an effect based on the variable of time. At least, that was my intention. If it were human error, then there is no reason why there would be such consistency between the independent accounts. If the laws of nature were really in-deterministic, then a probability space would be the best one could come up with. That would be the frontier of science and it would not pass that. If it were human error, then what was once in-deterministic would then be modeled properly. This would be like saying that quantum mechanics is deterministic, its just that we don't have the tools to model it properly and the inability to do so is a product of human error. If that is the case, with future advancements, the notion that the laws are in-deterministic will be discarded.

Let me describe a different experiment. The exact outcome is indeterminate. That is, the particular results cannot be predicted before hand, but you can make predictions about the results beforehand. For example, ask someone to create a random binary sequence 50 digits long. It is not possible to predict the result, but you are able to predict certain properties about the chain that they give. The analysis of these results gives us information on how humans think about randomness, even if the results are not repeatable. This would count as an experiment where the results take on a certain form that is independent of probability and previous results.

You seem to have the impression that if we can't model something, then it is not science. I don't take this view. Given the scientific method, a model is not a prerequisite in order to have evidence for certain findings. Take medicine for example, all is needed for medical trials is a statistically significant sample when compared to the control and placebo groups. There need not be a model to describe the interaction between certain treatments and certain diseases. Ergo, modeling is not a requirement for science, only evidence is.

What properties are you able to predict about the binary sequence 50 digits long?

And no analysis of probability is possible if the probability never converges over a series of trials. For example, if you flip a fair coin enough times, the proportion of heads will converge to the probability 1/2. However, if you don't know any information about the coin being fair, biased, etc, then you don't know for sure that the proportion of heads will converge to anything.

 

[GwJ]

I really look forward to Dre's post.

 

[Mike]

@rvkelvin: Your example doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I know that some individual observations are unpredictable by nature, but that does not mean there isn't a trend that can be modeled. An example of this would be the double slit experiment. The location of a photon passing through the slits cannot be predicted, but if enough of them are sent through, the bar-shaped pattern always appears.

As for your example on medicine, the whole point of doing tests is to make sure the medicine is safe and effective on a large population. If the results were unpredictable, it would hardly be medicine!

@ballin4life: No, useful science only requires that your results can be repeatable. It does not require that your observations be "true" as long as they're consistent. If there is a blatant inconsistency such as things seeming to float upward, then a scientific study could be conducted on that to explain the inconsistency. It might end up that gravity doesn't work the way we thought it did or it could be determined that it was simply an illusion. Whatever the matter, science still applies uninterruptedly.

 

[Dre89]

I really look forward to Dre's post.

I'm assuming this was sarcastic.

To be honest, I've sort of left the debate, my last post is like a page or two ago. What exactly were you expecting to post about?

 

[Mike]

How about the billions of counterarguments you ignored? You have yet to address the post I made a few PAGES ago that I very clearly pointed out to you several times.

 

[Dre89]

I still don't know which one you're talking about. You just kept saying I missed a post pages ago.

 

[Mike]

Maybe if you read my most recent post addressing quoted portions of yours, you would find that i copied and pasted the post i repeatedly brought up into it! Yet again, more proof that you have just been ignoring all my posts

 

[Dre89]

Actually science doesn't make any assumptions (other than the axioms of logic and causality being true). Everything is subject to evidence, which is what science is based off of. If something is inconsistent with evidence, it's either thrown out or fixed. No faith, no assumptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Science assumes pretty much all of these. It's probably even assumed that the practice of science is not morally wrong.

Asking what happened before the BB is like asking where a circle begins. The question is complete nonsense! Science in no way attempts to answer this question for that very reason. Science does not deal with god because there is no evidence for its existence. It's really that simple.

....Exactly, you can't use science in a God debate.....

If i posted a video of myself claiming that the probability of our universe being created the way it is is 50%, would you take that as evidence. No! You would tell me I'm insane to consider it evidence, but that is exactly what you did. Posting a video of someone making an extraordinary claim is not evidence! I need you to provide information on how these probabilities came about.

So you're multiple renowned scientists are you?

Also, I see you have not read my post. If you did, you wouldn't make such a big deal about the credibility of your evidence, as I demonstrated why assuming they were true, they still do not support your viewpoint. EDIT: i copied and pasted it to the bottom of this post to make it easier for you to read it.[/QUOTE]


And as I've said before, my evidence isn't needed for belief in God, The evidence I put forward was just to show the irrationality of what certain atheists believe.

Then you are asking a nonsensical question. You might as well ask if this "god" was actually created by "another god" which was created by the "real supreme god". Such questions are useless to even consider, as they are structured so they cannot be answered!

If you're asking those questions, then you don't understand the notion of the philosophical God. That doesn't mean God exists, but saying "well what caused God?" shows you're not really aware of what theists have been arguing. Philosophically educated atheists don't make that claim, they have arguments which are actually absed on a understanding of the philosophical notion of God.

The whole point of God arguments was that naturalistic beings could not be the first cause. The philosophical God shares essentially no traits with naturalistic beings. He is eternal, self-necessary, simple, unified, not just a bunch of complex principles, and ahs the three omni traits. He is not purported to be anything like naturalistic beings. That's the whole point of the argument, only something which such traits could be the first cause, and that's what we commonly refer to as God. The fact you're saying "well what caused God?" suggests you're not actually familair with what theists have been arguing.

It's not just what (some of) the scientists claim that doesn't make sense, it's the way the lecturer puts them together to form his argument. I already explained this in my post.

Again, as I explained above, I'm not going to bother contend this point, because it's not really relevant to the God debate

Again, you are assuming it is random without bounds. This is not necessarily the case.

But a mindless potency would be totally random. Nothingness has to have either no potency (logical), or boundless potency (less logical, but probably logically defendable), because nothingness has no form or structure. So if you're saying nothingness has limited potency, then you're attributing a form to nothingness, meaning it isn't really nothingness to begin with. You then have an infinite regress, because you need to explain what gave this potency it's form, than what gave that potency it's form, and so on.

Quantum fluctuations can and does create things in empty space. From nothing.

Again, already presuming the existence of time, space and energy, to name the bare essentials. Has no weight in the God argument once you're presuming the existence of multiple princples. This is why science isn't relevant to the God debate.

Aaaanyways, in summary: You are asking questions that are impossible to answer. There shouldn't even be a debate in the first place.

EDIT: I decided to copy my post here so Dre. doesn't have a reason to ignore it.

There are still (at least) two counterarguments that apply. Only one of them is sufficient to discredit your claim, though I will list both.
1. You have still not given us a source explaining how these "scientists" found these probabilities. How do they know the probability distribution for the assignment of the magnetic constant? Electric constant? Particle masses? I'm sure the entire scientific community would love to hear about it.

2. Stating the probability of an event occurring means nothing if you don't also state the frequency of an attempt at the occurrence. For example, if the probability of creating a universe such as ours was one in a trillion but the creation of a universe happened a trillion times a second then it's not such an unbelievable thing to believe in.


It becomes logical to accept theism once there is evidence supporting its correctness. Until you can refute the two points above, theism holds no credibility. Even assuming the universe must have been created by "something else", it need not be an intelligent god.

You're acting as if this is the only argument for theism. As I've said above, I'm not going to bother contendt this point, because it's not necessary to the God debate. The fact you think the improbabiltiy argument is the onyl argument for theism is not only laughable, but displays a compleet ignorance of the topic at hand.

And if the creator of the universe is naturalistic, it's existence wuld also necessitate a prior cause....you don't really understand the philosophical notion of God do you?

Debaters must provide sources for their claims to show they have done the research and know what they're talking about. You have not done that in this case. Don't strawman.

I gave you a reference, how does that not meet the criteria?

It is not a strawman. Your argument, can apply to EVERY POSSIBLE REALITY. But assuming the probability of ANY reality being created at all given enough time is 100%, then ANY reality that is created seems "unbelievable improbable", but it must happen, rendering the occurrence PERFECTLY believable! Do you understand what I'm getting at?

It's far more probable that my existence was actuated by my mother giving birth to me, than by a FSM shooting a laser down at Earth, in which the impact magically generated my body.

Your argument means absolutely nothing. You're pretty much saying "although it seems improbable, we're here, so it must be true". No, your explanation of our existence is enormously improbable compared to other, more plausible ones.

But again, the improbabiltiy argument isn't necessary to the God debate.

 

[AltF4]

I, for one, would really like to hear some PG'ers talk about Intelligent Design in schools.