Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[The Brandon Five]

not sure if this is what you're saying, but just because something has multiple parts doesn't require a god to have designed it.

No, but is unlikely to have self-constructed or result from random mutations.

When it comes to irreducible complexity, the things I've read have demonstrated, for example, that interim evolutionary steps which supposedly could have served no purpose regarding survival may well in fact have done so.

They "may" have? How is that a refutation? It is a counter-argument, maybe.

There are other scientific discoveries that have really called into question the idea that the universe and our own little planet happened by chance. We have discussed the cosmological constant before. That is the fly in the "big universe" ointment that is driving the unsupported idea of multiple universes and the idea that there are non-carbon-based life forms out there somewhere.

 

[chicowalker]

Here are articles discussing information theory and probabilities of random life occurrence. 1 'supporting' the idea and 2 'refuting' the idea. IT can't be proven one way or the other at this point I find some of the handwaving pretty funny though since the topic engenders a lot of emotion and prejudices.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php

I have wondered about FRedkin's Digital physics ideas which are pretty unconventional but interesting if yo have ever played with Cellular Automata.

But do you have any idea how these supposed calculations were done? That's the point I was raising. if you don't know, no big deal.

 

[chicowalker]

No, but is unlikely to have self-constructed or result from random mutations...

"Unlikely" over what period of time?

...
They "may" have? How is that a refutation? It is a counter-argument, maybe.
....

As I already said: "...I'm not trying to convince you, btw -- I don't remember the arguments or evidence and am not going to spend the time to find good links.."

...There are other scientific discoveries that have really called into question the idea that the universe and our own little planet happened by chance. We have discussed the cosmological constant before. That is the fly in the "big universe" ointment that is driving the unsupported idea of multiple universes and the idea that there are non-carbon-based life forms out there somewhere.

I don't think I've discussed the cosmological constant before, but I'm skeptical that any discoveries point to the notion that some "god" must be behind everything (I'm sure that doesn't surprise you .

If there are specifics you have in mind, I can run them by a friend who I'm sure is better versed in any of this than you or I, to get his take. He's a physics professor; not sure how strong his faith is but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish and thus should believe in God.

 

[patsfan13]

But do you have any idea how these supposed calculations were done? That's the point I was raising. if you don't know, no big deal.

Information theory has math that will calculate the probability of receiving a signal based on the number of variables so the more proteins required for a complete base DNA, you can calculate the probability of those being randomly assembled. Information theory math is well understood it is how we get signals from satellites and across the internet.

The links talk about the assumptions behind various estimates depending on the number of variables, the critiques contend that there are other unknown combinations that could also produce life.

Of course one of the biggest for the materialist view is that no know mechanism is known for going from inorganic chemical processes to a living genetic code sequence that can self replicate.

Here is a paper on the general topic. In order to get the calculations used and referenced in the articles you would have to get books that are referenced in the articles where the authors lay out the case for the probability of life developing based on random chance.

http://bioinfo2.ugr.es/Publicaciones/pat_rec96.pdf

 

[The Brandon Five]

"Unlikely" over what period of time?

Any.

I don't think I've discussed the cosmological constant before, but I'm skeptical that any discoveries point to the notion that some "god" must be behind everything (I'm sure that doesn't surprise you .

You don't have to accept that "god" is behind it. You just need to realize that a physicist who believes in multiple universes without evidence is not different than a religious person who believes in God. You are free to believe what you want, just be honest with yourself and others about it (I mean the royal "you").

If there are specifics you have in mind, I can run them by a friend who I'm sure is better versed in any of this than you or I, to get his take. He's a physics professor; not sure how strong his faith is but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish and thus should believe in God.

The cosmological constant essentially is the ratio of how fast the universe is expanding vs. how dense it is. For life to be possible, this ratio needs to be exactly where it is. There are five other constants that ID/scientific creationists point to as evidence of a finely-tuned universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

• N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
• Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
• Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe, or Density parameter;
• Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
• Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
• D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.

It is fine to think that none of this means there is a God, but it does show that we are on equal footing in explaining where we came from: nobody actually knows.

To wit: here is one objection to the above:

Regarding this, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."[18]

Do we have a reason to believe that carbon-based life is possible or exists?

Because somebody theorises about the multi-verse, does that make it so?

We are not so different, you and I.

 

[chicowalker]

Information theory has math that will calculate the probability of receiving a signal based on the number of variables so the more proteins required for a complete base DNA, you can calculate the probability of those being randomly assembled. Information theory math is well understood it is how we get signals from satellites and across the internet.

The links talk about the assumptions behind various estimates depending on the number of variables, the critiques contend that there are other unknown combinations that could also produce life.

Of course one of the biggest for the materialist view is that no know mechanism is known for going from inorganic chemical processes to a living genetic code sequence that can self replicate.

Here is a paper on the general topic. In order to get the calculations used and referenced in the articles you would have to get books that are referenced in the articles where the authors lay out the case for the probability of life developing based on random chance.

http://bioinfo2.ugr.es/Publicaciones/pat_rec96.pdf

Is that a long way of saying that you don't know?

 

[chicowalker]

...
You don't have to accept that "god" is behind it. You just need to realize that a physicist who believes in multiple universes without evidence is not different than a religious person who believes in God. You are free to believe what you want, just be honest with yourself and others about it (I mean the royal "you").....

I completely agree when it comes to beliefs and evidence.

Where I think the 2 diverge is that most scientists -- and any good scientist -- admits when their theory no longer makes sense.

That doesn't mean that a religious person needs to give up their faith just because something doesn't fit neatly -- but it does differentiate between religion and science.

...
It is fine to think that none of this means there is a God, but it does show that we are on equal footing in explaining where we came from: nobody actually knows...

Of course -- that's why I attempted to make it clear earlier in the thread not only that I don't pretend to know but also that evolution isn't an explanation of where life came from and that science can't answer that question.

Do we have a reason to believe that carbon-based life is possible or exists?
Because somebody theorises about the multi-verse, does that make it so?
...

I assume you meant non-carbon based life.

Getting way OT here, but these are 2 very different things to me. It may be because even just the concept of multiple universes is hard to comprehend.

But clearly, we don't know that either of these exists. My own view is that it's a little silly to rule out non-carbon based forms of life, given how vast the universe it. That doesn't mean we should insist they exist, but I have no problem believing that they are out there.

 

[patsfan13]

Is that a long way of saying that you don't know?

Is that a long way of saying that you don't know?

Actually the articles listed in my first reply listed assumptions for various estimates.

However an easy way to think about it is the lottery, you have a number of balls to win you select the right 5 balls and then a ball from a different group. In the case of powerball for example the odds of winning are 1 in 176 million.

So if we take the number of peptides and how they would have to combine in an exact sequence to create a DNA molecule perhaps it is more like having 10,000 balls and having to select 10 in the exact correct sequence.

The odds get very long, unless the rules of the game are rigged to produce outcomes. like the universal constants.

 

[chicowalker]

Actually the articles listed in my first reply listed assumptions for various estimates.

However an easy way to think about it is the lottery, you have a number of balls to win you select the right 5 balls and then a ball from a different group. In the case of powerball for example the odds of winning are 1 in 176 million.

So if we take the number of peptides and how they would have to combine in an exact sequence to create a DNA molecule perhaps it is more like having 10,000 balls and having to select 10 in the exact correct sequence.

The odds get very long, unless the rules of the game are rigged to produce outcomes. like the universal constants.

right, but what I'm asking is, what is the equivalent of 1 ball?

It's easy to say the odds of x happening are long -- and they are, I'm sure. But the # of chances could also be just as mind-bogglingly large, given how large and how old the universe -- in fact, that could conceivably make it a near certainty that it would in fact happen, despite long odds on each discrete try. (Going back to the powerball example, with odds of 1 in 176 million, my chances of winning are slim if I buy 1 ticket. if I buy 100 million tickets? Not so far fetched anymore. if I 500 million? should guarantee a winner unless I've screwed up somehow, and could well wind up with multiple winners)

 

[patsfan13]

right, but what I'm asking is, what is the equivalent of 1 ball?

It's easy to say the odds of x happening are long -- and they are, I'm sure. But the # of chances could also be just as mind-bogglingly large, given how large and how old the universe -- in fact, that could conceivably make it a near certainty that it would in fact happen, despite long odds on each discrete try. (Going back to the powerball example, with odds of 1 in 176 million, my chances of winning are slim if I buy 1 ticket. if I buy 100 million tickets? Not so far fetched anymore. if I 500 million? should guarantee a winner unless I've screwed up somehow, and could well wind up with multiple winners)

That depends on the assumptions of the person doing the calculation, is it an amino acid? a protein? Peptide sequence? A 'simple virus'?

THere is much hand waving on both sides because no one knows the answer.

 

[IllegalContact]

There's no potential money in proving his non-existence

Can't see an ipo opportunity in it.

Either that, or some people get little satisfaction out of things like proving water is wet

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

Being in IT as a developer, it's so hard to get software to do what you want it to do.

So when some suggest the Universe randomly created itself, I get really skeptical.

To me, it's just like imagining my computer left on for millions of years and self-creating an OS, apps, etc.

 

[patsfan13]

Article from an Intelligent Design site reporting on papers causing consternation among the Neo Darwinist community from People with Information theory background. Interesting read:

http://www.icr.org/article/8191/

 

[The Brandon Five]

Article from an Intelligent Design site reporting on papers causing consternation among the Neo Darwinist community from People with Information theory background. Interesting read

Did you forget a link?

 

[patsfan13]

Did you forget a link?

Thanks link inserted.

I will take a look at the papers later.

 

[chicowalker]

Being in IT as a developer, it's so hard to get software to do what you want it to do.

So when some suggest the Universe randomly created itself, I get really skeptical.

To me, it's just like imagining my computer left on for millions of years and self-creating an OS, apps, etc.

The biggest problem with that logic is that it applies equally, if not moreso, to the alternative of there being a "god" that did it all.

 

[The Brandon Five]

The biggest problem with that logic is that it applies equally, if not moreso, to the alternative of there being a "god" that did it all.

How so? I think his point is that software requires a designer.

 

[chicowalker]

How so? I think his point is that software requires a designer.

But the designer also has to come from someplace -- and be designed -- if you're going to apply the same logic.

 

[The Brandon Five]

But the designer also has to come from someplace -- and be designed -- if you're going to apply the same logic.

Only if you are using the naturalist/materialist view. The supernatural view is that God himself is not bound by those constraints.

 

[chicowalker]

Only if you are using the naturalist/materialist view. The supernatural view is that God himself is not bound by those constraints.

But if you want to take that view, then the same thing could apply to life as we now know it.

It's picking and choosing when to apply certain standards, which is fine if you simply want to believe in a god, but not if you want to claim some sort of logical rationale behind the belief.