Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Crossless2.0]

But saying that we don't know what the conditions were past a certain point is not the same as saying it was a cosmic accident. We are at a point in cosmology beyond which we cannot presently say anything with certainty, and it may well be the case that the conditions we know about time/space in the iteration of the universe we are a part of don't apply to previous states. Our common sense understanding of cause/effect and time/space itself might simply break down at a certain point. "I don't know" is a valid and honest statement in response to the questions "What was there before? What caused it all?" Positing a mind behind the event is an unwarranted leap.

And yes, you are espousing the Christian god. You're just not making that explicit in your argument at this point. Even if we were to grant the soundness of your arguments so far (I don't), the best you could honestly do would be to declare yourself a deist. But you're not a deist; you're a Christian, so at some point this philosophical façade will fall away and we'll be treated in another thread to your cribbed reasons for identifying your philosophical creator god with the Biblical god. But you know as well as I do that you didn't become a Christian by way of philosophical arguments. The philosophy follows the conviction, and you are trying to cobble together a post hoc rationalization for something you already believed for other reasons. This is invariably how it is with apologists.

[Kingpin]

But saying that we don't know what the conditions were past a certain point is not the same as saying it was a cosmic accident. We are at a point in cosmology beyond which we cannot presently say anything with certainty, and it may well be the case that the conditions we know about time/space in the iteration of the universe we are a part of don't apply to previous states.  Our common sense understanding of cause/effect and time/space itself might simply break down at a certain point. "I don't know" is a valid and honest statement in response to the questions "What was there before? What caused it all?"  Positing a mind behind the event is an unwarranted leap.

And yes, you are espousing the Christian god.  You're just not making that explicit in your argument at this point.  Even if we were to grant the soundness of your arguments so far (I don't), the best you could honestly do would be to declare yourself a deist.  But you're not a deist; you're a Christian, so at some point this philosophical façade will fall away and we'll be treated in another thread to your cribbed reasons for identifying your philosophical creator god with the Biblical god.  But you know as well as I do that you didn't become a Christian by way of philosophical arguments.  The philosophy follows the conviction, and you are trying to cobble together a post hoc rationalization for something you already believed for other reasons.  This is invariably how it is with apologists.

Crossless, I can grant everything you are saying.  No I did not become a Christian because of philosophical arguments though I did tell how I became a Christian in another thread.  However, I continue to investigate what I believe because I cannot logically blindly accept without examining evidence.  As you mention from my arguments you could posit I was a Deist and you would be right in saying that but once I got to that point, I need to examine further, which Deity?  I suppose I could stop at Deism, but simply believing a mind behind it all does not answer life's four big questions of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny.

[Esquilax]

If I present to you a dictionary, with all of its pages containing all of the words we know, with all their definitions and in correct alphabetical order and bound in leather and enscribed on the front "Dictionary" and I tell you that this came about because of an explosion in a printing press, you would think it nonsense.  There are far simpler things that we KNOW are created by an intelligence but we can look at the vast complexity of the universe and even more so humans and say time + chance?  I don't think I'm the one being delusional to assume there must be a mind behind it.

If you're seriously just going to ignore every single response to you about emergent complexity, the circular argument you're making and so forth, in favor of just repeating this argument and pretending that nobody can rebut it, why on earth should we continue to engage you?

This is a discussion forum: if you refuse to discuss, what's the point?

[Kingpin]

If I present to you a dictionary, with all of its pages containing all of the words we know, with all their definitions and in correct alphabetical order and bound in leather and enscribed on the front "Dictionary" and I tell you that this came about because of an explosion in a printing press, you would think it nonsense.  There are far simpler things that we KNOW are created by an intelligence but we can look at the vast complexity of the universe and even more so humans and say time + chance?  I don't think I'm the one being delusional to assume there must be a mind behind it.

If you're seriously just going to ignore every single response to you about emergent complexity, the circular argument you're making and so forth, in favor of just repeating this argument and pretending that nobody can rebut it, why on earth should we continue to engage you?

This is a discussion forum: if you refuse to discuss, what's the point?

My apologies Equilax, I missed one day and trying to keep up so I'm sure I missed some responses.  Can you explain how you perceive my argument as circular?

[Esquilax]

My apologies Equilax, I missed one day and trying to keep up so I'm sure I missed some responses.  Can you explain how you perceive my argument as circular?

Regarding complexity and design, the circular problem is this: how do you know the universe is designed? Because it's complex. How do you know complex things are designed? Because complexity denotes design. So the universe is designed because it's complex, and complexity denotes design, and the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, because complexity is an exclusive sign of design... And around we go.

The problem is that you're merely asserting that complexity equals design, which is also entirely untrue in two different ways, one being that we know of complex things that weren't designed. Following your argument so far, you seem to be asserting that even if we have a natural explanation for a complex thing, it's still designed by god ultimately (your argument regarding Henry Ford and combustion engines) but that is little more than a baseless assertion, a presupposition made without evidence so that your claim will always be right, even when it's evidently wrong.

The second thing is that you're ignoring the concept of emergent complexity, that is, complexity that comes about over time. If I leave a random number generator on for a while, I'll end up with an extremely complex number, that came to be simply by single digits accumulating over time. With regards to the universe, it didn't start out as complex as it is now: in fact, it started out as a single point of spacetime, and the early universe was devoid of planets, stars, even the chemical elements that compose things today. All of that stuff arose over time, as products of interactions between simple, uniform physical laws and equally simple initial compounds. You say the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, and in doing so you ignore that demonstrably, it was not so complex in its beginnings.

One final thought, regarding complexity: it's not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is. Designers want to remove moving parts, reduce the number of components in their designs, both to reduce the cost of construction and the risk of breakages and malfunctions. Modern computers have far less parts than their predecessors for precisely that reason. Just look at modern technological interfaces: simplicity is the name of the game. Touchscreens over keyboards, simple pictographs over long command strings, all the while the computers and phones that house these programs get slimmer, smaller, more compact. Simplicity is accessible. Simplicity and refinement is a hallmark of design, not complexity. Nobody designs the next generation of a given technology by making it larger and more unwieldy.

[Kingpin]

My apologies Equilax, I missed one day and trying to keep up so I'm sure I missed some responses.  Can you explain how you perceive my argument as circular?

Regarding complexity and design, the circular problem is this: how do you know the universe is designed? Because it's complex. How do you know complex things are designed? Because complexity denotes design. So the universe is designed because it's complex, and complexity denotes design, and the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, because complexity is an exclusive sign of design... And around we go.

The problem is that you're merely asserting that complexity equals design, which is also entirely untrue in two different ways, one being that we know of complex things that weren't designed. Following your argument so far, you seem to be asserting that even if we have a natural explanation for a complex thing, it's still designed by god ultimately (your argument regarding Henry Ford and combustion engines) but that is little more than a baseless assertion, a presupposition made without evidence so that your claim will always be right, even when it's evidently wrong.

The second thing is that you're ignoring the concept of emergent complexity, that is, complexity that comes about over time. If I leave a random number generator on for a while, I'll end up with an extremely complex number, that came to be simply by single digits accumulating over time. With regards to the universe, it didn't start out as complex as it is now: in fact, it started out as a single point of spacetime, and the early universe was devoid of planets, stars, even the chemical elements that compose things today. All of that stuff arose over time, as products of interactions between simple, uniform physical laws and equally simple initial compounds. You say the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, and in doing so you ignore that demonstrably, it was not so complex in its beginnings.

One final thought, regarding complexity: it's not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is. Designers want to remove moving parts, reduce the number of components in their designs, both to reduce the cost of construction and the risk of breakages and malfunctions. Modern computers have far less parts than their predecessors for precisely that reason. Just look at modern technological interfaces: simplicity is the name of the game. Touchscreens over keyboards, simple pictographs over long command strings, all the while the computers and phones that house these programs get slimmer, smaller, more compact. Simplicity is accessible. Simplicity and refinement is a hallmark of design, not complexity. Nobody designs the next generation of a given technology by making it larger and more unwieldy.

Perhaps I should clarify my argument.  Complexity in general does not denote design, I can grant you that.  Design means purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.  Agreed?  

I will use your analogy of making things simpler (even though the technology to make it simpler is in fact more complex than the previous).  When we see language we assume a mind behind it.  Which is why I used the analogy of a dictionary out of an explosion at a printing press.  Where there is language there is design, purpose, meaning - a mind behind it.  This mere sentence carries meaning and you assume a mind behind it.  It is not reducible to the physics and chemistry of the screen you're reading it on.  

I know some people disagree with me, but I do not know how you can call DNA anything but a language.  It is an enormous code.  I've heard the rebuttals to this how us superimposing a codon alphabet on it doesn't make it a language, etc.  But consider this:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
-Norbert Weiner, Founder of Cybernetics

That is a profound statement. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize it’s absolutely true. Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities.

Is the computer code separate from the computer disk material? Yes! We also know that information cannot be created without intent. There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

Even Hubert Yockey, a huge critic of the ID movement, readily admits that science cannot explain the origins of the information contained in DNA. Simply put, its like trying to scientifically prove that computer code can simply evolve from the computer disk material!

However I grant the following: Life originated, but must be taken as an axiom [something we know to be true, but cannot prove] but we can make assumptions and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence laid before us.  I conclude there is a mind behind the origin, but I do not know with certainty.


http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/1...etic-code/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosne...-dna-code/

[Lek]

There was never any need for a god, it doesn't explain anything. It is the personification of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

If you can even define what a god is, and how I can distinguish it from a non God, I'll be impressed

Science does not comment on "the supernatural". If God is defined to be outside the scope of the natural, then science has no interest in it. Science deals with what is real and testable, that's all.

Choose? I don't even know what "choosing God" means. If you choose it as an explanation then you've abandoned science at that point and are just making up answers to feel comfortable.

You're right in saying that science has no interest in God or the supernatural and cannot comment on God. Science also cannot explain the existence of the universe. So that leaves us open to different means to explore the origins of the cosmos.

[robvalue]

Different means, yes. That doesn't mean those means are in any way reliable because there is no way to test them. So they amount to speculation and nothing more.

If those "other means" could be shown to produce any accurate results, they would be science too.

It's like alternative medicine; if it actually worked, it would be called medicine.

But by all means, speculate! There's nothing wrong with doing so.

[Esquilax]

Perhaps I should clarify my argument.  Complexity in general does not denote design, I can grant you that.  Design means purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.  Agreed?  

Yeah, that's about right.

I will use your analogy of making things simpler (even though the technology to make it simpler is in fact more complex than the previous).  When we see language we assume a mind behind it.  Which is why I used the analogy of a dictionary out of an explosion at a printing press.  Where there is language there is design, purpose, meaning - a mind behind it.  This mere sentence carries meaning and you assume a mind behind it.  It is not reducible to the physics and chemistry of the screen you're reading it on.  

That assumption will be your downfall: I was reading just the other day about a computer program that generated new cards for a series of card games. Each new card had entirely original card text, describing what it was and what it did in play, the majority of them were entirely intelligible and fully applicable to the games they were a part of, and yet all of them, without exception, were generated without a mind involved. Hell, computers since the nineties have been able to generate strings of letters and then select coherent words from out of them; this idea that language only comes from minds has been untrue for more than twenty years, at this point, and so far I've only discussed explicit language. I haven't even mentioned pareidolia and our habit, as pattern seeking animals, of detecting intelligibility in purely natural phenomena, but we'll get to that in a moment. The point is, the set of "language" does contain language created by a mind, and language that was not.

I know some people disagree with me, but I do not know how you can call DNA anything but a language.  It is an enormous code.  I've heard the rebuttals to this how us superimposing a codon alphabet on it doesn't make it a language, etc.

That objection is literally true: DNA is chemistry, it's four chemicals that bond in certain predictable and consistent ways, that express themselves physically in equally consistent ways. That we are able to extrapolate meaning from that is merely a demonstration of our ability to read patterns, the same way that we read weather patterns: we seek commonalities and hence correlate effects to causes. There's no indication in any of that that a designer had to be involved prior to our investigation and understanding of repeated themes within DNA.

But even taking what you say at face value, there's a deeper problem here in that you're doing nothing more than arguing from analogy, and in doing so you're concealing an important hidden premise. If you want to say DNA is a language then fine, whatever, I'm not particularly interested in play definition games, but the unstated additional argument you're making is that all languages are exactly the same, which you haven't even begun to demonstrate. At best what you've done here is created an additional category: languages that exist without a designer, as opposed to languages that exist because of a designer. You have no basis at all for arguing that DNA has a designer on the sole claim that it is a language, because, contrary to that, you've merely presented a language which all the evidence points to not having a designer.

Here, let me give you an example of what you're doing, to illustrate the flaw: All snow that we know of is cold. Let's say that one day, we discover a quantity of snow that is hot: it's exactly the same composition as normal snow, but it's hot to the touch, not cold. Your argument about DNA is roughly equivalent to you seeing the hot snow and then arguing that, because it is snow and snow is usually cold, therefore this snow is cold too, even as it's burning your hand. You're arguing that all snow is exactly the same, while in the presence of an example of snow that, as far as we can tell, does not fit the pattern.

Could you show that the snow is actually cold and that what we experience of it is due to something else? Yes, of course. But you'd need to do more than merely point at it and go "it's snow," because you can't define the property "cold" into the word "snow" by fiat when we can see an example of snow that does not seem cold. Same with DNA: what we have there is an example of a language, to use your definitions, that does not seem to require a creator. The logical conclusion to come to is not to assume that this language is exactly the same as every other- in fact the majority of scientific discoveries throughout history would be impossible if that assumption was built into our thinking, since most new concepts start out being analogized to pre-existing things since we don't have a term for the new thing yet- but rather to conclude that the definition of language is wider than previously thought. You can't point to a seeming exception to a rule and then demand by fiat that there are no exceptions, therefore it's just another example of the rule. Doesn't work that way.

 But consider this:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
-Norbert Weiner, Founder of Cybernetics

That is a profound statement. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize it’s absolutely true. Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities.

Information is a concept, not an objective quantity in and of itself.

Is the computer code separate from the computer disk material? Yes!

No: the computer code is written to the disc via a physical process inflicted on the disc, and interpreted by another physical machine as a set of signals, displayed through a third machine. You do know how the data gets on there, right?

We also know that information cannot be created without intent.

Untrue: everything contains information. Even raindrops have positional information as they move through space, chemical information by dint of being a chemical interaction, temperature information as they absorb or dispel energy from the surrounding area, and so on. None of that is intentional, yet it can still be obtained and analyzed as information by minds after the fact. "Information" is what we get when we interpret physical happenings, it's not a thing that exists prior to it.

There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

Are you saying that tornadoes don't have information? I can't measure the wind speed and express that in a language? I can't crack open a stalagmite and check its composition and express that as information?

Besides, you're begging the question: asserting that information can't exist without a mind creating it is not evidence for that. You can't simply demand something and therefore it's true.

So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

Are you going to demonstrate that, or just demand we take it seriously based on nothing?

Even Hubert Yockey, a huge critic of the ID movement, readily admits that science cannot explain the origins of the information contained in DNA. Simply put, its like trying to scientifically prove that computer code can simply evolve from the computer disk material!

Argument from ignorance.

[Crossless2.0]

There was never any need for a god, it doesn't explain anything. It is the personification of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

If you can even define what a god is, and how I can distinguish it from a non God, I'll be impressed

Science does not comment on "the supernatural". If God is defined to be outside the scope of the natural, then science has no interest in it. Science deals with what is real and testable, that's all.

Choose? I don't even know what "choosing God" means. If you choose it as an explanation then you've abandoned science at that point and are just making up answers to feel comfortable.

You're right in saying that science has no interest in God or the supernatural and cannot comment on God.  Science also cannot explain the existence of the universe.  So that leaves us open to different means to explore the origins of the cosmos.

Some of us don't think that fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated assertions are different means to explore anything (except, perhaps, human psychology). Twist and obfuscate all you want, but they don't get you one inch nearer an understanding of origins, and you fool only yourself if you believe otherwise.