Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Tarnished]

You're putting out a lot of reasons, many of which would seem to be based on science. But science hasn't come to the same conclusions as you. How do you justify departing from the accepted science?

[jimwalton]

I didn't put out anything contrary to current scientific theory, although I will admit adding philosophy to the mix. I had a list of cosmological constants right from the science books (though I didn't take the time or space to elaborate on them; I don't want to unnecessarily write a wall of text). I spoke favorably of evolutionary theory. I said the natural world can be described in terms of mathematics. No departure from accepted science.

[Spector]

Just to put my two cents in here.... If a god acts on time albeit creation, or miracles or revelation is it still outside of time. William Lane Craig thinks not. I will try to find the link if you want. Because God has acted on time he is not timeless. It's logically impossible to be timeless and act on time ( say miracle) at the same time.

[jimwalton]

God can be timeless (having no beginning and having no ending) and still be able to operate within time, just as we, as three-dimensional creatures, can be functional in a 2-dimensional world. That God is able to enter a time dimension and act therein is no comment on His essential nature as timeless.

I'm not at all convinced that WLC considers that either God is not eternal or that God cannot act in creation. That's not how WLC thinks.

> It's logically impossible to be timeless and act on time ( say miracle) at the same time.

I disagree. God has no space either, but created space and can act within space. God has no body or form, and yet took on form in the person of Jesus. Therefore God can be not subject to time but still function within the parameters of the dimension of time. The alternative is that God created the cosmos and is complete incapable of acting in any meaningful way in any aspect of that creation, with is neither logical nor biblical. So I don't buy what you're saying.

[Odin the Great]

That seems to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are observing the current state of the universe then backwards declaring it to be the intended result. If one were rolling dice a combination of 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 would be highly unlikely. But any given random combination would be equally likely, and you could make the same "this combination was unlikely without intentionality" argument for any given set of universal constants. It could be that many universes exist, but only in those that life developed are we able to think about them, or any number of possibilities. Similarly, I'd argue mathematics was created by humans because it was useful. It is not at all surprising that a world with causal mechanisms that could be described by mathematics would lead to intelligent beings developing in that world being able to understand and invent mathematics. The universe isn't so much made of numbers as numbers are a good way to describe how the universe functions. Finally on this point, you point to the fact that life seems rare in the universe as evidence it must be guided by God. But if God created the universe, fine tuning it so that life could exist, why is the fact that life seems so unlikely evidence for fine tuning rather than against? We can easily imagine a universe where life could exist far easier. If anything this seems an argument that the universe is fine tuned against life being common.

Also, your assumption if there is a God (I'm assuming here we mean intelligent being that created the universe rather than specifically the Abrahamic God) he would naturally create life doesn't seem to be based on anything. Why would a intelligent being naturally want living things, any more than any other organization of chemicals? Again it seems as if we are seeing that life exists, then back-filling the properties that God must have in order to explain life. If life exists, God must want it. But without observing that life exists, how would we know what a hypothetical universe creating intelligence would want? And why assume sharing love is the goal? The universe certainly doesn't seem fine-tuned to produce love over another emotion. it's useful for more complex creatures to have a emotion that rewards social bonding and cooperation, but you could just as easily argue that a God would want life to exist in order to experience fear. Fear seems more universal in creatures capable of experiencing emotion than love does. Or pain. Or lust (for sexually reproducing life with the capability to feel emotion). Or hunger. Just because humans are intelligent and we experience love, doesn't mean that other intelligences, not produced by evolutionary processes would.

[jimwalton]

> That seems to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I don't think so, and I'll explain in response to your particulars.

> You are observing the current state of the universe then backwards declaring it to be the intended result.

Not really. Abductive reasoning examines the data and evidence at hand from different classes of phenomena that all seem to point to the same conclusion. We have no choice to begin with the evidence at hand and reason backwards to a coherent theory.

Historians use abductive reasoning to construct historiography. For instance, they'll look at the prevailing evidence, say, for JFK's assassination, infer the most reasonable conclusion and in the process affirm that JFK's death was the intended result. That's not a fallacious process.

By the same token, scientists use abductive reason to build theories. Darwin's evolutionary theory, for instance, is the result of inference to the best explanation for the diverse natural history or organisms that he observed. In this case our current situation was not the intended result, but the one that is.

In the same sense, the cosmos as we see it is still in process and progress. This is no "result" in that sense. It's only where we are now, 13.5 billion years later. As far as Christian theology, the intended result (the finalization of creation in the new heaven and the new earth, and all things being reconciled to God) is still future. But the evidence at hand still strongly suggests and gives credence to an intelligent hand at work in the cosmos as we see it.

In other words, this is a cumulative case, and still in development. There may always be a piece of evidence that doesn't fit the picture and that is still unexplained, but attorneys often use abductive reasoning to build credibility for a cumulative case.

You don’t want to force evidence or applying a form of reasoning where it doesn’t fit, but you also don’t want to say that if it can’t be proven to be certain I don’t want anything to do with it.

> It could be that many universes exist, but only in those that life developed are we able to think about them, or any number of possibilities.

Correct, but logically this doesn't take us anywhere. We have what we have, regardless of what exists elsewhere or what might have existed in our case, and our quest is to explain it.

Swinburne uses this analogy, which I find helpful.

"Suppose a madman kidnaps a victim and shut him in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles 10 packs of cards simultaneously and the draws a card from each pack and exhibits simultaneously the 10 cards. The kidnapper tells the victim that he will shortly set the machine to work and it will exhibit its first draw, but unless the draw consists of an ace of hearts from each of the 10 packs, the machine will simultaneously set off an explosion that will kill the victim, in consequence of which he will never see which cards the machine drew. The machine is then set to work, and to the amazement and relief of the victim the machine exhibits an ace of hearts drawn from each pack. The victim thinks this extraordinary fact needs an explanation in terms of the machine having been rigged in some way. But the kidnapper, who now reappears, casts doubt on the suggestion. 'It is hardly surprising,' he says, 'that the machine draws only aces of hearts. You could not possibly see anything else. For you would not be here to see anything at all if any other cards had been drawn.'

"But, of course, the victim is right and not the kidnapper. There is indeed something extraordinary in need of explanation in 10 aces of hearts being drawn. The fact that this peculiar order is a necessary condition of the draw being perceived at all makes what is perceived no less extraordinary and in need of explanation. The teleologist’s starting point is not that we perceive order rather than disorder, but that order rather than disorder is there. Maybe only if order were there could we know what is there, but that makes what is there no less ordinary and in need of explanation.

> Similarly, I'd argue mathematics was created by humans because it was useful.

This actually sounds like you're saying mathematics was contrived by humanity in such a way as to be useful in describing the cosmos. I radically disagree with this (obviously), since, for instance, Pythagoras's Golden Spiral can be found all throughout nature. Pythagoras was not creating an artificial template, but observing by the "laws" of math what he was seeing in nature. It's a legitimate pursuit, process, and conclusion.

> Finally on this point, you point to the fact that life seems rare in the universe as evidence it must be guided by God.

I didn't actually say this. What I said is the evidence points much stronger in God's direction than in the direction of scientific naturalism.

> Why would a intelligent being naturally want living things, any more than any other organization of chemicals?

Conscious, intelligent, personal living things are capable of relationship, which is God's intent. His motive goes beyond creating life, but rather creating life that is a reflection of His image.

> Again it seems as if we are seeing that life exists, then back-filling the properties that God must have in order to explain life.

No, that's what we're doing, any more than the Big Bang or evolutionary theories are guilty of the same. When we're peering backwards into time immemorial, we have no choice but to create hypotheses of explanation. So you can't fault a theory that looks backward and creates explanatory hypotheses.

[Elmo]

This post is fantastic. My own apologetic argument is very similar to yours, but yours is much elegant and thorough.

[Odin the Great]

The analogy seems to fail to account for the idea of multiple universes. Pulling 10 ace of hearts would, of course, be vanishingly unlikely. But, given enough instances, even if the machine was completely unrigged someone would eventually pull them. And they may conclude that there is something special, evidence that the machine was rigged, but in truth he was merely the only one left to observe this result. As such, a sufficiently large (or even infinite) number of universes with different properties would also explain the existence of ours with no fine tuning. One can imagine all sorts of explanations that explain our universe without resorting to a divine being, which is why it strikes me as odd to try to establish prior probabilities for the universe existing in its current state without knowing what other sorts of universes are possible or how many others exist or any number of things, then try and use that as evidence of fine tuning. Multiverses seem a better explanation for our universe existing than a creator does, with the same amount of supposition.

But to better explain my Texas sharp-shooter point, in the card analogy we see a prior prediction for a specific combination, 10 aces of hearts, then see it fulfilled. But any combination is as likely as any other. A 2 of spades, ace of hearts, ace of spades, jack of clubs, etc would be just as improbable as the 10 ace of hearts combo. Minus the explosion, if we had the machine shuffle then produce one card each from 10 packs, any combination is vanishingly unlikely but it must be one of the combinations. Any combination could be taken as evidence that the machine was rigged to produce that particulair combination. As with the universe, any combination of features would make the universe appear "fine tuned" to produce whatever happened to exist within it, whether that something was another form of life, another form of order altogether, or something entirely different. This seems to me to make the fine-tuning argument boil down to "if things were different, things would be different".

On mathematics, yes, I am saying math is a human invention created by observing and trying to explain and predict the behaviour of the universe. The golden spiral describes features of self similar geometry. It's useful to explain some things in nature, not perfectly generally, but broadly. Exponential growth is similarly something we observed, formalized, and used to create predictive models to explain how certain things work.

My specific point on life being rare was in response to this "And we know from science that the occurrence of life is a rare event in the vast spaces and billions of years of history." With the question being, why does the rarity of life in the universe point to fine tuning of the universe for life specifically? If the universe was fine tuned to create life I would expect it to be the opposite, that the universe brings about life easily.

On God wanting life, we seem to be making a jump here, from the evidence that the universe was created by some intelligence to specifically the Judeo-Christian God. Even if we accept the argument that there must be a creator, that doesn't at all imply any particulair religion is right about that creators properties. If we assume there is a being capable of creating universes and intelligent, why should we assume that he wants life? Why is the prior probability of life existing higher with such a being than without? This is what I mean by back-filling the properties of God, we have observed life existed, so that must be what God was trying to create. This also seems to have a large anthropocentric bias, since we are assuming we are what God wants specifically, intelligent, social, self-aware beings. And that all the other vast space in the universe, all the billions of years of history, all of it was to finally culminate in a tiny portion of time and space for us. But I don't see any reason to assume that, any more than to assume cheese was the specific thing God was after to paraphrase a webcomic.

Without resorting to Christianity specifically, why does God want animals capable of relationships? Humans are intelligent and social, but that's a product of our evolutionary history, our less intelligent evolutionary cousins (who are still fairly intelligent by mammalian standards, granted) are also social animals capable of relationships so it doesn't seem it's specifically human intelligence that produced our sociality. Indeed, some of the most social animals exhibit very limited intelligence, such as eusocial insects. So with it in mind that intelligence and sociality don't necessarily correlate, why would God be social and want relationships with other beings? We've been speaking of God in the singular, implying monotheism, why should an intelligence that exists alone (barring having three separate natures that are none-the-less part of the same thing and of the same metaphorical substance according to most Christians) want companionship? You say we were made in the image of God, but it seems far more likely to me that you (or more generally humans) are making God in your own image, a being that is intelligent (like us), social (like us), morally driven (like us), somewhat status conscious with humans (like us), and a creative being (like us). And unless you explain the plethora of human religions with supernatural forces, it certainly seems as though humans have a strong tendency to imagine human-like beings being responsible for natural forces. One can easily imagine a God that would have no interest in creating life in particulair, any more than we imagine the properties of water are designed with the purpose of making snow-flakes. That might create a universe that allows life as a byproduct of entirely different intentions. in the same way that your assumption creates a God that creates black holes and red giant stars as a byproduct of fine-tuning the universe to produce something like humans.

[jimwalton]

> The analogy seems to fail to account for the idea of multiple universes.

Except that multiverses is fanciful speculation without a stitch of scientific evidence. How can that carry weight? Even the possibility (and we dare not say probability or plausibility) of other universes has no bearing on the fact that our universe, our particular universe, has so many characteristics of being fine-tuned (10 aces).

And suppose there are many universes. That has the implication, then, that the probability that our universe is fine-tuned for life, perhaps even as miniscule as the multiverse theory itself. It makes sense that if there is a living God, He would want there to be life (and even intelligent, personal life) somewhere in his creation. So why is there life in our particular universe? The wild speculation of other universes has no effect on the fact that we have drawn 10 aces.

> One can imagine all sorts of explanations that explain our universe without resorting to a divine being,

Yes, one can always imagine. But our quest is to infer the most reasonable explanation.

> Multiverses seem a better explanation for our universe existing than a creator does, with the same amount of supposition.

Actually it does not have the same amount of supposition. There are logical and scientific evidences for a timeless causal mechanism, an intelligent source to our intelligence, a personal source to our personality, and a purposeful source for the purpose we see. Those are not just wild suppositions, but logical sequences. The multiverse theory, however, is an empty bag—pure speculation without a shred of evidence.

> But any combination is as likely as any other.

If we're playing poker, and each time I deal I get 4 aces and 1 wild card, you'd get mighty suspicious. But I can logically assuage your fears by claiming "Any combination is as likely as any other." Once you'd think it was dumb luck. Twice you'd suspect me of cheating. The third time you'd come after me, and you know it. "Any combination is as likely as any other" doesn't cut it.

> why does the rarity of life in the universe point to fine tuning of the universe for life specifically?

We can't just take life for granted. It's vibrant on this planet, but to our knowledge, nowhere else. Even in a universe fine-tuned for life, life is a rare gem in a vast expanse. Is the most reasonable answer, "We're just lucky because he we are!"? My perspective is "no." To me the evidence points clearly in the direction of an intelligent, personal, purposeful source. I can tell you don't, and that's OK. We each analyze the data and evidence and draw conclusions. But what you can't do is say that my conclusion has no basis. It has just as much basis (and even far more, but my research) than the position taken by scientific naturalists.

> from the evidence that the universe was created by some intelligence to specifically the Judeo-Christian God

I don't recall saying anything about the Judeo-Christian God, though I'd have to reread the posts. I'm not aware that I've made any assertion to that particular end. All I've sought to establish is the scientific and logical conclusion of a creator.

> This also seems to have a large anthropocentric bias, since we are assuming we are what God wants specifically, intelligent, social, self-aware beings.

This sequence is a rational sequitur of life as we know it: propagation of more with similar characteristics to us. And if we add personality and intelligence to the mix, even more so. In addition, science tells us that information data (DNA) comes from previous informational data. So many things in the cosmos "reproduce," so to speak, after their kind. Consciousness yields consciousness. (Science can't yet sufficiently explain how consciousness arose out of non-consciousness.) Intelligence comes from previous intelligence. It's not a stretch, nor is it biased, to presume that a living, personal, moral, purposeful, intelligent God wouldn't desire to create something (someone) that was living, personal, moral, purposeful, and intelligent.

> Without resorting to Christianity specifically, why does God want animals capable of relationships?

For reality to exist, there have to be subject/object relationships (rather than a monadic unity). Some kind of universal singularity would allow for no diversity, knowledge, or personality. Therefore, since there is diversity and not monadic singularity, and since there is personality and not a void of non-personality as ultimate reality, then subject/object relationships are not endemic to the cosmos, but also ontologically necessary. And since they are ontologically necessary, it's no surprise that if there IS a God, He would want animals capable of relationships.

> but that's a product of our evolutionary history, our less intelligent evolutionary cousins (who are still fairly intelligent by mammalian standards, granted) are also social animals capable of relationships so it doesn't seem it's specifically human intelligence that produced our sociality.

This is one possible explanation, but I think theism gives a more complete and more satisfying explanation.

> We've been speaking of God in the singular, implying monotheism, why should an intelligence that exists alone (barring having three separate natures that are none-the-less part of the same thing and of the same metaphorical substance according to most Christians) want companionship?

Now we're getting to more Christian thought. If God is not Trinitarian, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible for a lack of subject/object relationships, as previously explained. If God is monadic rather than trinitarian, then a unified singularity is the structure of reality, and there can be no such thing as diversity and no such thing as personality. Joe Boot says, "In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. This is why the Trinity is so important in tackling the philosophical problem of the one and the many." Without such an understanding and reality, then nature itself is no possible.

[Tarnished]

But you've added a god, and what do you assert this god has done that is in the realm of science? The creation of the universe perhaps? Miracles perhaps? Where does your god interact with our natural reality? Those are the places where you're making a conclusion about a god, which departs from science.

I don't want to say it because it sounds rude, but it sounds like a god of the gaps thing. I'm guessing you do believe your god interacts with our natural reality in some way or another, and if science has yet to learn about that, it might be a safe thing to assert that your god has something to do with it. This would be a god of the gaps.

Now I'm not accusing you of this, because you haven't given me enough info, but even if you believed in a deistic god, that means by definition there isn't going to be any physical evidence of this god. To assert a deistic god, it has to be a god of the gaps.
Right?