Intelligent Design

[Aridas]

We can see, feel as well as detect energy with instruments. We can even capture it, divert it and contain it.

If that isn't material, what is?

If materialism didn't include "energy," E=mc² and brane theory would be rather unfriendly to it.

 

[acbytesla]

It is certainly very preferable to figure out experiments that feasibly could falsify whichever theory is in question, yes, and falsifiability is certainly a key, core concept of science. In some cases, however, like the Many Worlds Interpretation, falsifiability is unlikely to be directly achievable, given the likely hard limitations on our ability to gather relevant evidence and data. As an indirect way of dealing with it, it could easily fall to the wayside as more useful models may be found, of course.

I agree. At some point though it stops becoming science and is more akin to masturbation.

Most scientists don't. Some do. Scientists are quite human, though, so that's hardly a surprise.

i guess so. I don't see much of that.

This is true in a distinctly more limited fashion. Most religions tend to make numerous falsifiable claims, though, in addition to unfalsifiable ones. Do fresh water and salt water actually not mix in the sea, for example? Generally, those are cared about far less than a number of the more core unfalsifiable beliefs, though.

The trick to making a lie believable is to intersperse truth around the false fact.

Yeah... the Mormon origin tale is particularly obnoxious and tends to be ridiculed by most other current religions, too, even if they do similar things more subtly. It really shouldn't be treated as a "normal" example of deliberate unfalsifiability in religions, either way, given how blatant it is. Most religions tend to at least try to put a facade that doesn't scream "conman" out to the heavens, after all. For many religions, the important unfalsifiables are at least plausibly the result of simple rationalizations of easily made errors in logic and observation.

I'm not so sure. There is NO HISTORICAL contemporary evidence of Jesus Christ. It wasn't until Paul, 20 years after Jesus supposedly died that he is he mentioned by Saul/Paul. It seems that the story of Jesus could easily have been a total fabrication of Paul. He very well could have been the ancient equivalent of Joseph Smith and L.Ron Hubbard.

 

[Aridas]

I agree. At some point though it stops becoming science and is more akin to masturbation.

It's already questionable whether MWI actually qualifies as science, after all. *shrug*

i guess so. I don't see much of that.

I could list a couple examples, I think, but there's not much point.

The trick to making a lie believable is to intersperse truth around the false fact.

Truth mostly isn't actually necessary, for that matter, just the appearance of it, which could even be based almost entirely on the spin that's being put on it and ignorance. The politics in pandering to the lowest common denominator suddenly comes to mind from that, though.

I'm not so sure. There is NO HISTORICAL contemporary evidence of Jesus Christ. It wasn't until Paul, 20 years after Jesus supposedly died that he is he mentioned by Saul/Paul. It seems that the story of Jesus could easily have been a total fabrication of Paul. He very well could have been the ancient equivalent of Joseph Smith and L.Ron Hubbard.

There are a couple points to note here. First, bear in mind that I said religions. Christianity is hardly the only one around. Second, even if Paul did do so, he managed to do it in a way that didn't scream out "conman" to the heavens. Still, to clarify my last point further, I was referring to unfalsifiables that are more along lines like some god (or spirits) exists and thus caused stuff, one (or more) that actually cared enough take a direct interest and caused all these amazing "coincidences" and events that keep happening to us, and so forth. Narratives like those found in the Bible would obviously not fall into that category, though the general principles put forth by PartSkeptic (and scorpion, Navigator, etc in other threads) frequently could do so, much like what they overlap with in Christianity.

 

[PartSkeptic]

We all know that a statue carved by natural forces MAY be even more improbable that the odds of the constants being what they are.

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site. And guess what? Some people said they would be impressed - then added that not only has it never happened, it will not happen.

They are saved by their law of impressively large numbers which says miracles do not happen naturally.

Of course I happen to think that 10 to the power 229 is seriously impressive!

Here is something to ponder:

Edited Excerpts from
If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens ... WHERE IS EVERYBODY?: Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life by Steven Webb

Lee Smolin estimates the probability of picking a set of random parameters that generate a universe favorable to life is 1-in-10^229. It is difficult to convey just how fantastically unlikely this is. …If Smolin’s probability estimate is correct, then we simply cannot appeal to good luck.

A second approach is to invoke some form of anthropic principle. In other words, the parameters are tuned to these unlikely values in order for rational creatures to exist.
Perhaps God explicitly set the parameters to create a Universe with life; or, taking a less theological view, perhaps there are many universes, each of which has different laws and constants of physics. We then must find ourselves in a Universe where the parameters are conducive to life — after all, we can hardly find ourselves in a Universe where physics does not allow life to exist.
Many scientists feel uneasy with such arguments, since anything can be explained this way; to argue like this is almost an abdication of scientific responsibility. Furthermore, a persistent criticism of the anthropic approach is that, with a couple of debatable exceptions, it fails to make predictions that can be tested by observation.

Some discussion by Smolin:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407213.pdf

Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle

...It is explained in detail why the Anthropic Principle (AP) cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science.

...The Principle of Mediocrity is also examined and shown to be unreliable, as arguments for factually true conclusions can easily be modified to lead to false conclusions by reasonable changes in the specification of the ensemble in which we are assumed to be typical.

 

[acbytesla]

There are a couple points to note here. First, bear in mind that I said religions. Christianity is hardly the only one around. Second, even if Paul did do so, he managed to do it in a way that didn't scream out "conman" to the heavens. Still, to clarify my last point further, I was referring to unfalsifiables that are more along lines like some god (or spirits) exists and thus caused stuff, one (or more) that actually cared enough take a direct interest and caused all these amazing "coincidences" and events that keep happening to us, and so forth. Narratives like those found in the Bible would obviously not fall into that category, though the general principles put forth by PartSkeptic (and scorpion, Navigator, etc in other threads) frequently could do so, much like what they overlap with in Christianity.

I didn't say it was. I just know more about the formation of Christianity. Paul was preaching Christianity long before the Gospels were written. And they are in fact all anonymous. I think all it takes to create a religion is a charismatic leader with a talent for bs.
How do we know that at that time most people didn't think that Paul was a con-man?
History has a way of whitewashing people and events. It's easier for us to look at the Mormon story and roll our eyes. I think modernity is better although clearly not enough better at exposing frauds.

 

[acbytesla]

We all know that a statue carved by natural forces MAY be even more improbable that the odds of the constants being what they are.

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site. And guess what? Some people said they would be impressed - then added that not only has it never happened, it will not happen.

They are saved by their law of impressively large numbers which says miracles do not happen naturally.

Of course I happen to think that 10 to the power 229 is seriously impressive!

Here is something to ponder:


If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens ... WHERE IS EVERYBODY?: Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life by Steven Webb

Lee Smolin estimates the probability of picking a set of random parameters that generate a universe favorable to life is 1-in-10^229. It is difficult to convey just how fantastically unlikely this is. …If Smolin’s probability estimate is correct, then we simply cannot appeal to good luck.

A second approach is to invoke some form of anthropic principle. In other words, the parameters are tuned to these unlikely values in order for rational creatures to exist.
Perhaps God explicitly set the parameters to create a Universe with life; or, taking a less theological view, perhaps there are many universes, each of which has different laws and constants of physics. We then must find ourselves in a Universe where the parameters are conducive to life — after all, we can hardly find ourselves in a Universe where physics does not allow life to exist.
Many scientists feel uneasy with such arguments, since anything can be explained this way; to argue like this is almost an abdication of scientific responsibility. Furthermore, a persistent criticism of the anthropic approach is that, with a couple of debatable exceptions, it fails to make predictions that can be tested by observation.

Some discussion by Smolin:

No offense but he's pulling those numbers from his ass. There is absolutely no way any human can come up with the probability since we simply don't have the data.

But what is really hilarious about your citation is that it sort of suggests we should have encountered alien life if the universe is teeming with life. Consider that it took life on our own planet more than 4 .5 billion years to visit our own moon which is 1.3 light seconds from the earth. By contrast the nearest star to the Earth besides our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is 4.22 light years from Earth. It took Apollo 11 4 days to reach the moon. At that speed it would take man only 1,458,432 years to get to that star system.

And that is only 1 of 400 billion stars in our own galaxy and that the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies. You do the math 2 trillion x 400 billion and that is just what is presently observable.

 

[abaddon]

I didn't say it was. I just know more about the formation of Christianity. Paul was preaching Christianity long before the Gospels were written. And they are in fact all anonymous. I think all it takes to create a religion is a charismatic leader with a talent for bs.

There is an interesting truth in that. Even your most died in the wool standard christian must be aware of the likes Heavens gate, Sun Myung Moon, David koresh, Jim Jones, Sai Baba, Joe Smith and so forth. How could they not? Thus they MUST be aware that a convincing person, con-man or deluded, can quite easily work up a following for the most stupid ideas. Just look at David Icky. Totally nukking futts, but still has a following and sells books by the bucket.

Why does this not apply to Paul?

How do we know that at that time most people didn't think that Paul was a con-man?

Lots of people then and since actually do and did think exactly that. The Pauline promoters see only that their version is somehow special in much the same way that other prophets/gurus/etc are seen as "special" by their very own followers.

History has a way of whitewashing people and events. It's easier for us to look at the Mormon story and roll our eyes. I think modernity is better although clearly not enough better at exposing frauds.

Is it? Personally, I put Paul as the Joe Smith of his day. I find that other traditional christians get uncomfortable when the Paul/Joe parallels get pointed out, yet fail to point out how they are different. Joe had his golden plates, Paul had his road to Damascus. Same crap, different day.

 

[JoeMorgue]

For some reason, can't imagine why, I've developed a pretty strong allergy to any argument that can be summed up as "Made up Number over a Bigger Made Up Number, Therefore Woo."

 

[acbytesla]

For some reason, can't imagine why, I've developed a pretty strong allergy to any argument that can be summed up as "Made up Number over a Bigger Made Up Number, Therefore Woo."

I'm with you on that. I love watching the theists argue with the atheists on the Atheist Experience on YouTube. Time and time again they posit the probabilities for the universe and life and intelligent life. And time after time it is pointed out to them to calculate probabilities REQUIRES a data set greater than 1 and they know of no other universe than their own.

 

[Aridas]

We all know that a statue carved by natural forces MAY be even more improbable that the odds of the constants being what they are.

Given that the odds of the constants being what they are is simply unknown (without accepting very questionably based assumptions), while any rational placement of the the odds on the statue being carved by natural forces is likely near impossible? It's possible that the latter is less likely, but there's no actually good reason to consider it to be.

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site.

You failed, then, and added to your invoked fallacies if that was actually your intent. I can grant it to be a crude caricature created by someone who doesn't understand the puddle analogy and just wants it gone, but it definitely wasn't an actual variation of the puddle analogy.

And guess what? Some people said they would be impressed - then added that not only has it never happened, it will not happen.

Who? On review, those who responded to that bit at all were... Porpoise of Life, Meadmaker, and myself. None of our posts meet this description, though.

They are saved by their law of impressively large numbers which says miracles do not happen naturally.

Meadmaker, then, maybe, despite the lack of saying that he would be impressed? He's the only one who came even remotely close to this, after all, though he didn't actually invoke a law of impressively large numbers, but rather referred to a distinctly different principle.

Of course I happen to think that 10 to the power 229 is seriously impressive!

Assuming that it was actually on firm ground theoretically, sure. That's exactly what's not being accepted, though, because the models being treated as fact for the purposes of those calculations to derive those numbers are not actually very well supported in the first place and are effectively only one of many potential options, none of which has actually been shown to stand out from the pack, by the look of it.

Some discussion by Smolin:

For the former excerpt, indeed, the anthropic principle, in any of its variations, isn't particularly scientific, even if some scientists have proposed models that effectively invoke the Strong or Final variations. I don't recall seeing anyone here claim that it was scientific, though. For the latter, no one even invoked the Principle of Mediocrity. To invoke that would require having a trustworthy base to build from in the first place, which is exactly what we don't actually have at present.

 

[Aridas]

I didn't say it was. I just know more about the formation of Christianity. Paul was preaching Christianity long before the Gospels were written. And they are in fact all anonymous. I think all it takes to create a religion is a charismatic leader with a talent for bs.
How do we know that at that time most people didn't think that Paul was a con-man?

By some interpretations of the overall narrative of the NT and what's likely the history of the early church, those who actually supposedly did know Jesus (or at least led the faithful in Jerusalem), did seem to consider Paul to be a conman. Paul's teachings that were more palatable to the "Gentiles" led to the creation of the faction that eventually became dominant and gave rise to the term "Christian," if the historical notes that I recall reading were accurate.

History has a way of whitewashing people and events. It's easier for us to look at the Mormon story and roll our eyes. I think modernity is better although clearly not enough better at exposing frauds.

*shrug* I'm more talking about the stories themselves, though. The Mormon story makes the conman behavior blatant. The NT stories don't really depict the behavior of a conman. That's entirely independent of whether the person was considered a conman by others of their time.

 

[acbytesla]

*shrug* I'm more talking about the stories themselves, though. The Mormon story makes the conman behavior blatant. The NT stories don't really depict the behavior of a conman. That's entirely independent of whether the person was considered a conman by others of their time.

No question that the Mormon story sounds like bull crap and the result of a con-man.

But take a moment and think of the Jesus story for a moment.

'Oh yeah of little faith'

'Doubting Thomas'

'Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ'

'Lean not unto your own understanding'.

Basically, these and many other quotes are forewarnings against us using of brain. Little loopholes that promote a group cognitive bias. Clearly, this is what a con man says

 

[Aridas]

No question that the Mormon story sounds like bull crap and the result of a con-man.

But take a moment and think of the Jesus story for a moment.

'Oh yeah of little faith'

'Doubting Thomas'

'Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ'

'Lean not unto your own understanding'.

Basically, these and many other quotes are forewarnings against us using of brain. Little loopholes that promote a group cognitive bias. Clearly, this is what a con man says

And all of those are parts of larger narratives that make them nowhere close to a blatant con (except maybe the 3rd). I'm not going to argue that a whole bunch of the NT (and OT) aren't a con, for the record, but your arguments here seem rather weak and forced. Even moreso when the 3rd and 4th lines don't seem to come from "the Jesus story," regardless. I'm getting Paul for the 3rd and Proverbs for the 4th on a quick check.

 

[acbytesla]

And all of those are parts of larger narratives that make them nowhere close to a blatant con (except maybe the 3rd). I'm not going to argue that a whole bunch of the NT (and OT) aren't a con, for the record, but your arguments here seem rather weak and forced. Even moreso when the 3rd and 4th lines don't seem to come from "the Jesus story," regardless. I'm getting Paul for the 3rd and Proverbs for the 4th on a quick check.

Fair enough. I just pulled those from the top of my head. The third line is from I believe Corinthians and Proverbs is the last line. I bet if I look I can find at least a dozen similar NT admonitions. It's hard to disagree with you that Joseph Smith's doesn't seem to us as blatant con man nonsense on another level. But I still wonder if it feels that way to us because we are closer to it.

 

[Pixel42]

We all know that a statue carved by natural forces MAY be even more improbable that the odds of the constants being what they are.

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site.

Was the existence of the person who found the statue contingent on the existence of the statue? No? Then it wasn't a puddle analogy.

The only point of the puddle analogy is that this specific puddle would not exist if that specific hole did not exist. Any example of something unlikely happening which does not demonstrate that same point is not analogous to the universal constants being in the range they need to be for us to exist.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No offense but he's pulling those numbers from his ass. There is absolutely no way any human can come up with the probability since we simply don't have the data.

(snip).

You are not offending me. I have commented before on your propensity to use vulgar language. So unscientific and common. It seems to be a compulsion with you. Try the word ridiculous instead. You will look a little more educated and refined, and lend more credibility to your unthinking erroneous knee-jerk statement.

No data, you say? We have a huge amount of observation with equations that indicate the intricate fine balance of the state of the universe. What do you call that?

Smolin is a scientist, and I have not seen an argument that his logic is incorrect. Your bland statement does nothing to refute it.

I have argued that it is possible to make an analysis of chance based on the state of a system. He clearly has done so - and has not been scientifically refuted. Or has he? Show me a credible argument - either your own, or show me a website link.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Was the existence of the person who found the statue contingent on the existence of the statue? No? Then it wasn't a puddle analogy.

The only point of the puddle analogy is that this specific puddle would not exist if that specific hole did not exist. Any example of something unlikely happening which does not demonstrate that same point is not analogous to the universal constants being in the range they need to be for us to exist.

Your assumption as to the common elements between the two is wrong.

I say the puddle analogy is a bad one. Posters here say my statue analogy is a bad one.

The puddle has a clear and simple point. My statue had a clear and simple point.

Notice that I did not use the "watch-on-the-beach" or "Boeing-in-the-desert" examples. I used something that is at least possible by the nature we know.

I did not say that the statue came to life after it was struck by lightning and wondered why it was standing in the desert and what remarkable circumstances of chance led to it's existence.

Hmm - that would have made it a better analogy than the puddle. Instead of marble the material could be some kind of sandstone matrix with complex elements in it. Then one would have an intelligent entity marveling at the odds of its creation. At least it has some elements of creation that are more appropriate that a mindless blob of a puddle in a hole.

Gee, thanks for the criticism permitting a refinement of the analogy.

 

[Pixel42]

You are still missing the point of the puddle analogy if you think the point made by the statue analogy is the same one, with or without the refinement.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This site does a pretty good job.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

The fine-tuning argument per se, when it just comes to pointing out the extraordinary special character of the laws of nature which appear to be balanced on the knife’s edge, is not a religious argument, contrary to what many atheists claim.
No, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature is pointed out with broad consensus by leading cosmologists, many of them agnostics or atheists.

I would think that everyone should take experts in the field of physics and cosmology seriously and be informed about what they have to say. It is remarkable and rather curious how many atheists conveniently ignore or even dismiss mainstream science when it comes to cosmological fine-tuning, thus committing the same mistake they rightfully accuse creationists of when it comes to evolution.

Certainly, the further extension as a design argument is theistic, while atheistic scientists often see no other choice than to posit the multiverse... as a non-design explanation.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1935-matter-antimatter-asymmetry

Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other.

However, during the Big Bang, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced.

It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You are still missing the point of the puddle analogy if you think the point made by the statue analogy is the same one, with or without the refinement.

No, I do not think the point made is the same one. The puddle analogy is so over-the-top simplistic and childish that the point made is buried in fanciful imaginings. What was he smoking I wonder?