Intelligent Design

[Donn]

And nothing buries wonder faster than people who demand their special gods blanket and smother every human avenue of flourishing.

 

[Bikewer]

It occurred to me some time ago that the arguments about the “fine tuning” of the universe are moot if, as numbers of physicists and cosmologist have posited, there is more than one universe.
That there may be an infinity of universes; the “cosmic foam” idea where each “bubble” in the foam is a separate universe.
Of course, we have no evidence at present of the existence of any other universes, but likewise there is no particular contraindication that would prohibit same.

If that’s the case....Then likely every combination of universal “constants” might exist in one or the other, and lucky for us that this one fell out as it did.

 

[jond]

Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life. I just find it impossible to be astonished by the fact that a universe that has me in it has universal constants with values in the right range to have me in it.

That’s because, unlike PS and some others, you are capable of accepting the idea that humans were not a desired outcome of the universe. For the proponents of ID and the fine tuning argument, it is vital that humans have some special place in the universe. For the rest of us, we recognize that our special place is here, earth, and now. Which means this life is what matters and must be made to work. It’s all we get and we have to make it work for us and those who come after. As opposed to people like PS who think without a threat from god we have no morality. And who imagine that some imaginary entity is going to sort it all out.

 

[Meadmaker]

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

I think that's an unfair characterization.

If we were to come across a marble statue as you described, we would assume it is a human artifact, because we know what happens if you leave blocks of marble exposed to elements. We know that it doesn't come out looking like Michelangelo's David. We can do this experiment.

We don't know what happens if we pour some carbon into an Earth-sized vat, and stir for four billion years. We can't repeat that experiment.

What we can say, on the other hand, is that we have seen cases where living organisms mutate and that once in a while those mutations result in something better suited (i.e. more stable) to the environment. We know that we can see small changes over the course of a few years, and we can extrapolate that to the possibility of extreme changes over the course of millions or billions of years. This makes unguided evolution a plausible explanation for our existence. We don't require a Designer.

Now, here is where I will part company with many of my fellow skeptics. I will say that I cannot prove, in any meaningful way, that life can originate or reach our level of complexity without some sort of supernatural intervention. I don't believe that such intervention is real, and I would be willing to say there is great reason to believe that there is no supernatural intervention. However, that falls short of "proof". So, I would say to you that your confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd. I cannot prove you wrong. My only objection is when the argument from design is presented as some sort of scientific theory. It isn't.

With respect to the "fine tuning" variation, I go back to the absurdity of assigning "probability" to the laws of nature. We know that some aspect of the universe's behavior is described by the equation E=mc². The "fine tuners" want to speculate what would happened if c had a slightly different value. I would contend that it makes no more sense to talk about that than it would to talk about whether the universe ought to behave as E=mc^2.1.

 

[acbytesla]

You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....

How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.

 

[acbytesla]

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

If you want to say that the mind can conceive anything, I agree. But that doesn't make what we conceive to be real.

If you want to invent in your mind sand castles or imaginary friends go right ahead. The lunacy starts the moment you insist your mind creations are real without the basic standards we use to prove every single other existential claim. When you and others like you teach that your imaginary friend is the creator of the universe and we should base our lives on it I say go screw yourself.

 

[Darat]

That's news to me. What evidence or argument are you referring to?

See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758.full

 

[Darat]

How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.

Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?

 

[acbytesla]

Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?

I guess not exactly, but the problem of disproving it seems the same to me.

 

[Aridas]

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

Seriously?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Since you asked, here's an obviously fallacious statement! That didn't take long at all. Not that it would be hard to select nearly any post of yours in this thread and list a fallacy or few that you're invoking... and, in fact, such has happened in a number of the responses to those posts.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

Clearly, you're ignoring the points actually made, yet again, in favor of a nonsensical caricature. Likely so that you can avoid even properly acknowledging the actual points made, yet again, let alone confronting them and what actual implications they do have (which are likely a bit different than the ones that you're giving reason to think that you are terrified that they have).

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

On the contrary, it would certainly be seen as remarkable and impressive. If it actually did look just like the (repeatedly observed to be made artificially and not ever observed to be naturally occurring) works of a great artist, the most reasonable starting assumption would generally be that an artist made it, though, rather than the sand and wind, yes.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

You seem to wish this was the case, because that way you could categorically dismiss the position of those who disagree with you without even giving their position a fair hearing. This really does look like nothing more than you projecting yourself on others, though, given how nonsensical the caricatures that you've been putting forth to deny have been.

 

[Aridas]

You are not alone.

How many here were raised with science fiction in their formative years? I certainly was. There’s often been a theme of wonder as to the mysteries of origins. “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov and “Contact” by Carl Sagan spring to mind, and there are no doubt myriad others.

Even Dawkins touches upon the sense of wonder in science in “Unweaving The Rainbow”. “Just-so” stories have always seemed to me superficial and “easy”, compared to the systematic digging down for pearls of knowledge that is the Scientific Method.

Far from alone.

Now, here is where I will part company with many of my fellow skeptics. I will say that I cannot prove, in any meaningful way, that life can originate or reach our level of complexity without some sort of supernatural intervention. I don't believe that such intervention is real, and I would be willing to say there is great reason to believe that there is no supernatural intervention. However, that falls short of "proof". So, I would say to you that your confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd. I cannot prove you wrong. My only objection is when the argument from design is presented as some sort of scientific theory. It isn't.

I'm largely in agreement with you, much as I would extend that final bit further. As an argument, it's not logically or factually compelling at all, when it's inspected seriously and impartially. There is, however, potential emotional appeal to it, especially with regards to confirming beliefs that they hold separately, which makes a number of people wish it were true and valid and lets it through their filters without any real scrutiny. This doesn't actually change that the confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd, though.

 

[acbytesla]

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

This is funny. My mind is open to possibilities. I'm open to string theory, quantum mechanics, even the possibility of computers becoming self aware. What i ridicule and scorn are the deliberately unfalsifiable possibilities whether they be Sasquatch or Yahweh or Allah or that Elvis isn't still alive. And what is deserving of even more deserving of scorn and ridicule is following Saquatch's etc or other imaginary being's rules.

From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.

I'm sure PS is a very nice person but that doesn't make his beliefs valid.

 

[Aridas]

How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.

Luckily, we don't need to be able to disprove it to be able to show that it's useless and that there are useful alternatives. As long as it's remembered that we're working with an assumption based on necessary practicality at base, there's no real problems that arise from such, too.

See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758.full

Hmm. I admit that I'm not a quantum physicist, so I'm not entirely sure what all of that says. By the look of it from what I think that I did understand, though, you might maybe be able offer a tentative refutation of the possibility that we're in simulation run with the more standard methods that our computers use, though not necessarily quantum computers. Still, it looks like you are forgetting important points about simulation hypotheses, like that the findings themselves could simply be generated and that there isn't a single, specific method claimed for how the simulation was being made.

Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?

What "I" experience in such a case may as well be a simulation, even if it's not technologically based.

 

[Aridas]

From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.

I'm going to have to disagree with the logic here. Claims being unfalsifiable is not the same thing as them being nonsensical. For 1, it's not hard at all to point out that the most relevant part of the outside of time claim is that the god is outside of our time and that scientific theories like brane theory also postulate "things" that are outside of and effectively produced our time. For 2 and 3, since when did anything's existence depend on our ability to examine it or that we had already observed it? Such would be a concept far more fit for some variety of idealism than it is for materialism, before getting to the part where materialism isn't necessarily true, regardless. Materialism is more useful than idealism, as a general matter, but that's not the same as it being necessarily true.

If you had specified that you are talking about what we have reason to believe, you'd be on more defensible ground for 2 and 3, but what you said is pretty much indefensible, as it is.

 

[Thor 2]

Respectfully Sniped

From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.

I'm sure PS is a very nice person but that doesn't make his beliefs valid.

I find myself in agreement with this but would clarify - I would hope not muddy the waters.

When a God Believer refers to a timeless immaterial mind as a creator we cannot falsify their claim. If they then shift the burden of proof to us, to prove the non-existence of said entity and claim victory if we cannot, then it is nonsensical.

I agree with point 2 with the proviso that energy is non material and exists however mass and energy are interchangeable.

Regarding point 3 I also concur, as we have not encountered a mind without a brain as yet. I can imagine the possibility of an intelligence with something other than a brain as we would recognise, but cannot grasp the concept of some such entity being non material.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm going to have to disagree with the logic here. Claims being unfalsifiable is not the same thing as them being nonsensical. For 1, it's not hard at all to point out that the most relevant part of the outside of time claim is that the god is outside of our time and that scientific theories like brane theory also postulate "things" that are outside of and effectively produced our time. For 2 and 3, since when did anything's existence depend on our ability to examine it or that we had already observed it? Such would be a concept far more fit for some variety of idealism than it is for materialism, before getting to the part where materialism isn't necessarily true, regardless. Materialism is more useful than idealism, as a general matter, but that's not the same as it being necessarily true.

If you had specified that you are talking about what we have reason to believe, you'd be on more defensible ground for 2 and 3, but what you said is pretty much indefensible, as it is.

I get what you're saying. It's one thing to posit something that is unfalsifiable at the moment such as brane theory or string theory. But the idea is to come up with a way to make those theories falsifiable. Science posits all kinds of ideas that are unfalsifiable at the moment they are thought of. And those are theories. Scientists don't insist that the theories are fact.

Religion insists that it is factual and is 'deliberately' unfalsifiable. Ever read about the golden plates that Joseph Smith said that he translated from a nonexistent language into English? How no one but him could look upon the plates without being destroyed? Smith made them deliberately unfalsifiable. Or the witnesses he brought to see the treasure in the box that wasn't there? And when the witnesses said the box was empty. He accused them of lacking faith and had them pray on their knees for 3 hours. Then miraculously they signed confirming affidavits made up by Smith.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with point 2 with the proviso that energy is non material and exists however mass and energy are interchangeable.

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?

 

[Thor 2]

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?

Yes it is a tricky thing to define I suppose. I have always though about material as an interchangeable term for mass, but I suppose it can be defined in other ways.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes it is a tricky thing to define I suppose. I have always though about material as an interchangeable term for mass, but I suppose it can be defined in other ways.

You're not wrong. People have been trying to get around using the word material and materialism partially because of that confusion. Physical and physicalism or Naturalism are being suggested these days instead.

What I really mean is natural vs supernatural. I find anything that is totally undetectable or demonstrable as either theoretical or bollocks.

 

[Aridas]

I get what you're saying.

Honestly, given what follows this, I'm not so sure of that. I was simply giving a direct assessment of the statements that you posted and not particularly trying to make any particular implications past that with what I said. *shrug*

It's one thing to posit something that is unfalsifiable at the moment such as brane theory or string theory. But the idea is to come up with a way to make those theories falsifiable.

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.

Science posits all kinds of ideas that are unfalsifiable at the moment they are thought of. And those are theories. Scientists don't insist that the theories are fact.

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

Religion insists that it is factual

Generally, yes, religions do make numerous quite unsubstantiated claims of fact.

and is 'deliberately' unfalsifiable.

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.

Ever read about the golden plates that Joseph Smith said that he translated from a nonexistent language into English? How no one but him could look upon the plates without being destroyed? Smith made them deliberately unfalsifiable. Or the witnesses he brought to see the treasure in the box that wasn't there? And when the witnesses said the box was empty. He accused them of lacking faith and had them pray on their knees for 3 hours. Then miraculously they signed confirming affidavits made up by Smith.

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.