> I responded to your response on that as well.
Intriguingly, a paper published in 2014 by Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that mathematically black holes can never come into being in the first place. Her work is motivating some scientists to "reimagine the fabric of space-time" as well as the origins of the universe. "She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole." Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.
Science keeps working on it all. It's fascinating.
> Depends what you mean by "begins to exist". The B theory of time would suggest that the universe only "Begins to exist" in the same way a yardstick does at the first inch.
Yeah, I know what you're getting at. I'm familiar with the B theory, considering the possibility that time existed before the Big Bang. There are plenty of theories. Hawking considered that physics breaks down at the singularity. in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hawking said, "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang." As you mentioned, Koslowski, Mercati, and Sloan came up with the B theory, the "Janus Point." Ah, the debate (and the fun) continues.
> Again depends what you mean by intelligence. Some ancient philosophies envisioned "God" as more pantheistic and abstract; an intelligence defined as "logos" or something similar.
The real point is that the process by which biological information arose remains an open question. As far as we know, informational data comes only from previous informational data. By "intelligence" I mean a structure, system, or organism that provides a meaningful context and mechanism by which to process and interpret ordered data.
> How could something reach beyond logic?
What I mean is that logic is not the only factor in the equation. We can examine Beethoven's 9th Symphony logically and even scientifically, and we will have missed the whole point, most of its beauty, and certainly its significance.
> They weren't "chance" in the sense that you mean ("unintelligent", if I understand you correctly).
Correct. By "chance" I mean the assumption that there is no overarching intelligence managing events, no purpose from a purposeful source, and no power guiding events to a dedicated end.
> This doesn't have to mean a God created them.
Of course it doesn't. You're right. But if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism provides a better explanation than naturalism.
> It just means that the genetic adaptions, just like our own conscious actions are adaptions, are fine tuning themselves in order to keep themselves alive.
Yes, that's what you'd have to assume. I read these 3 paragraphs recently in a textbook:
"Could biological information have arisen on its own, as a chance event? And, subsequently, if it did, how could its existence have been maintained in the process of replication of the biomolecules?
"What is the probability? Let the number of amino acids equal n. Since there are 20 amino acids, the probability of getting the first one right is one in 20. The probability of getting the second one correct is (1/20)2. The shortest functional protein reported to date has n equal to 20, while most have n equal to 100 or more. If we choose a number in between (50), we get (1/20)^50 equal to 10^-65, an infinitesimally small number.
"If we take our probability estimate the next level, we recognize that a single functional protein is not likely to be biofunctional. That is, it would take more than one biomolecule to carry out life-sustaining processes. How many would we need? The best estimates are a minimum of 250. Taking this number as our protein count, for all of them to occur together, we will make the outlandish assumption that they are all relatively short (50 amino acids). Thus our probability to have a working cell appear in the primordial soup using this rather conservative approach would be (10^-65)^250. That number comes to around 10^-16300. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, through their own calculations using their own particulars, arrived at 10^-40000. The bottom line is that the such a small probability 'could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.' If these calculations are even remotely accurate, abiogenesis is a hopeless cause."
This is but one of many reasons theism is a more reasonable conclusion than naturalism.
Board index ‹ Jesus
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:37 pm
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
> Intriguingly, a paper published in 2014 by Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that mathematically black holes can never come into being in the first place. Her work is motivating some scientists to "reimagine the fabric of space-time" as well as the origins of the universe. "She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole." Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.
That is interesting. I'll look into that. Still, does the fact that black holes never come into being mean that they don't exist? Presumably according to you God never came into being, but I'm sure that you as a theist would argue that such a fact doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
> Could biological information have arisen on its own, as a chance event? And, subsequently, if it did, how could its existence have been maintained in the process of replication of the biomolecules?
Again, it depends what you mean by "Chance event". Are the authors here referring to chance within an ecosystem? Universe? Solar system? These things matter since there can be order and a lack of chance within a certain domain, such as a planetary system, without there being order beyond that. I'm not saying that intelligence doesn't exist in the universe. I'm just saying that it seems more likely that the intelligence that keeps the universe moving is more likely pantheistic and abstract than an anthropomorphic God.
Again, there will be more to follow, but I'll post this for now.
That is interesting. I'll look into that. Still, does the fact that black holes never come into being mean that they don't exist? Presumably according to you God never came into being, but I'm sure that you as a theist would argue that such a fact doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
> Could biological information have arisen on its own, as a chance event? And, subsequently, if it did, how could its existence have been maintained in the process of replication of the biomolecules?
Again, it depends what you mean by "Chance event". Are the authors here referring to chance within an ecosystem? Universe? Solar system? These things matter since there can be order and a lack of chance within a certain domain, such as a planetary system, without there being order beyond that. I'm not saying that intelligence doesn't exist in the universe. I'm just saying that it seems more likely that the intelligence that keeps the universe moving is more likely pantheistic and abstract than an anthropomorphic God.
Again, there will be more to follow, but I'll post this for now.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:05 am
> Still, does the fact that black holes never come into being mean that they don't exist?
I don't know what her continuing conclusions are.
> Presumably according to you God never came into being, but I'm sure that you as a theist would argue that such a fact doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Correct.
> it depends what you mean by "Chance event".
Randomness is both a correct and an incorrect word to use for the process of natural selection and genetic mutation.
In an article called "The Population Genetics of Mutations: Good, Bad, and Indifferent: An Introduction," Laurence Loewe and Williams Hill say, "The dynamics of mutations are dominated by chance. All mutations start out as single copies and most are lost again by chance."
I had a conversation with biologist Dr. Denis Alexander. Here's some of what he said:
"It’s almost as if the system was rigged to succeed. It’s not neutral, but it’s not determined either. Although the changes in the organism are 'random,' it’s both conservative and ordered. Natural selection is a process involving accepting adaptations and operates to preserve the organism.
"Biologists use the word 'random' differently than a mathematician would. Some might say 'random' mutations take place without reference to the health and wellbeing of the organism in question.
"Mathematically that’s not true. If you look at mutations where the genome is sequenced, every baby has approximately 60 new mutations. Those are not random—they come in clusters (they tend to occur at certain points in the genome far more than at other points). If they were random, they could come in any position, but they’re not. They’re not randomly generated.
"If you look at the periodic table, the elements all have properties that define what they can do. The whole of chemistry is highly organized (fine-tuned) and not really 'random' at all.
"You can’t derive 'purpose' from biology, but biology is not purposelessness. Evolutionary biology doesn’t look like just rocks on the beach, strewn about randomly. In biology many designs converge. When you look at evolutionary history, it’s all highly organized. It’s not random in any sense. Evolution is not a chance process (Dawkins). It’s highly organized and not a chance process. 'Human beings were not a random accident but that something like a human is a predictable outcome of the evolutionary process: It’s more like solving a puzzle than writing a novel' (Conway Morris)."
I had a conversation with biologist Dr. Sarah Bodbyl Roels. She said, "Mutations themselves can be considered random, but the nonrandom processes operating on large population sizes over long periods of time can produce remarkable results.
"For instance, lots of folks like to use the 'absurd' analogy of a room full of monkeys with typewriters and ask the question, 'How long would it take a monkey to write Hamlet?'
If you assume the typing process is random—it’s for all intents and purposes impossible. However, if every time a monkey hit upon a letter combination that created an English word that was then 'saved' in the system (and shared among the monkeys; which is effectively what the natural selection does), the full works of Shakespeare could be produced in a surprising amount of time!"
So it's by chance, but it's not by chance. It's random, but it's not random. In other words, it's a complex biological process that, in the words of Dr. Alexander, "It’s almost as if the system was rigged to succeed." That's where Christians see an intelligent source, and atheists say, "Isn't it amazing how it works all by itself!" I obviously see Christianity as the more rational explanation.
> I'm just saying that it seems more likely that the intelligence that keeps the universe moving is more likely pantheistic and abstract than an anthropomorphic God.
I know what you mean, but pantheism is not really a reasonable conclusion. In pantheism, everything is a singular unity. In such a situation, there is no possibility of subject-object relationships, and therefore no foundation for knowledge, love, or morality. With pantheism, ultimate reality is a bare unity, and it's a denial of personality. Since there is no particularity, there can be no diversity. Only unity has meaning; particulars have no meaning. Therefore nature has no meaning, no diversity, no particularity. It doesn't make sense.
The other problem with pantheism as a solution is that there is no place for abnormality, which is a denial of the reality we see. Nature is both friendly and hostile. But hostility as an attribute of nature is impossible in a system (pantheism) where everything is a beneficial unity. If everything is one, and a part of one essence with no basic distinction, how does one explain nature when it is destructive? Pantheism has no answer; Christianity does.
I don't know what her continuing conclusions are.
> Presumably according to you God never came into being, but I'm sure that you as a theist would argue that such a fact doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Correct.
> it depends what you mean by "Chance event".
Randomness is both a correct and an incorrect word to use for the process of natural selection and genetic mutation.
In an article called "The Population Genetics of Mutations: Good, Bad, and Indifferent: An Introduction," Laurence Loewe and Williams Hill say, "The dynamics of mutations are dominated by chance. All mutations start out as single copies and most are lost again by chance."
I had a conversation with biologist Dr. Denis Alexander. Here's some of what he said:
"It’s almost as if the system was rigged to succeed. It’s not neutral, but it’s not determined either. Although the changes in the organism are 'random,' it’s both conservative and ordered. Natural selection is a process involving accepting adaptations and operates to preserve the organism.
"Biologists use the word 'random' differently than a mathematician would. Some might say 'random' mutations take place without reference to the health and wellbeing of the organism in question.
"Mathematically that’s not true. If you look at mutations where the genome is sequenced, every baby has approximately 60 new mutations. Those are not random—they come in clusters (they tend to occur at certain points in the genome far more than at other points). If they were random, they could come in any position, but they’re not. They’re not randomly generated.
"If you look at the periodic table, the elements all have properties that define what they can do. The whole of chemistry is highly organized (fine-tuned) and not really 'random' at all.
"You can’t derive 'purpose' from biology, but biology is not purposelessness. Evolutionary biology doesn’t look like just rocks on the beach, strewn about randomly. In biology many designs converge. When you look at evolutionary history, it’s all highly organized. It’s not random in any sense. Evolution is not a chance process (Dawkins). It’s highly organized and not a chance process. 'Human beings were not a random accident but that something like a human is a predictable outcome of the evolutionary process: It’s more like solving a puzzle than writing a novel' (Conway Morris)."
I had a conversation with biologist Dr. Sarah Bodbyl Roels. She said, "Mutations themselves can be considered random, but the nonrandom processes operating on large population sizes over long periods of time can produce remarkable results.
"For instance, lots of folks like to use the 'absurd' analogy of a room full of monkeys with typewriters and ask the question, 'How long would it take a monkey to write Hamlet?'
If you assume the typing process is random—it’s for all intents and purposes impossible. However, if every time a monkey hit upon a letter combination that created an English word that was then 'saved' in the system (and shared among the monkeys; which is effectively what the natural selection does), the full works of Shakespeare could be produced in a surprising amount of time!"
So it's by chance, but it's not by chance. It's random, but it's not random. In other words, it's a complex biological process that, in the words of Dr. Alexander, "It’s almost as if the system was rigged to succeed." That's where Christians see an intelligent source, and atheists say, "Isn't it amazing how it works all by itself!" I obviously see Christianity as the more rational explanation.
> I'm just saying that it seems more likely that the intelligence that keeps the universe moving is more likely pantheistic and abstract than an anthropomorphic God.
I know what you mean, but pantheism is not really a reasonable conclusion. In pantheism, everything is a singular unity. In such a situation, there is no possibility of subject-object relationships, and therefore no foundation for knowledge, love, or morality. With pantheism, ultimate reality is a bare unity, and it's a denial of personality. Since there is no particularity, there can be no diversity. Only unity has meaning; particulars have no meaning. Therefore nature has no meaning, no diversity, no particularity. It doesn't make sense.
The other problem with pantheism as a solution is that there is no place for abnormality, which is a denial of the reality we see. Nature is both friendly and hostile. But hostility as an attribute of nature is impossible in a system (pantheism) where everything is a beneficial unity. If everything is one, and a part of one essence with no basic distinction, how does one explain nature when it is destructive? Pantheism has no answer; Christianity does.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:10 am
> What I mean is that logic is not the only factor in the equation. We can examine Beethoven's 9th Symphony logically and even scientifically, and we will have missed the whole point, most of its beauty, and certainly its significance
I risk digressing with this point, so I'll be brief. You seem to be using logical means to demonstrate fine tuning (numbers, probabilities, etc), and so I would call into question whether the topic of how to define beauty is relevant to that specific discussion. Of course, I could be wrong.
> If these calculations are even remotely accurate, abiogenesis is a hopeless cause
I'm not entirely sure what I would advocate metaphysically, but I would probably not agree entirely with abiogenesis, if defined as "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances". Panpsychism, Pantheism, and similar ideas, would contend that all substances have an element or degree of consciousness. Thus the universe as a whole is a living organism, in a sense. I don't think this makes Christian theism any more likely however.
There are also atheists who believe that the universe exists in flux, and is therefore not inanimate. That doesn't necessitate God as the creator of the flux.
I risk digressing with this point, so I'll be brief. You seem to be using logical means to demonstrate fine tuning (numbers, probabilities, etc), and so I would call into question whether the topic of how to define beauty is relevant to that specific discussion. Of course, I could be wrong.
> If these calculations are even remotely accurate, abiogenesis is a hopeless cause
I'm not entirely sure what I would advocate metaphysically, but I would probably not agree entirely with abiogenesis, if defined as "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances". Panpsychism, Pantheism, and similar ideas, would contend that all substances have an element or degree of consciousness. Thus the universe as a whole is a living organism, in a sense. I don't think this makes Christian theism any more likely however.
There are also atheists who believe that the universe exists in flux, and is therefore not inanimate. That doesn't necessitate God as the creator of the flux.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:27 am
> I would call into question whether the topic of how to define beauty is relevant to that specific discussion.
I'm not just talking about beauty in my illustration of Beethoven's 9th. It has power and meaning as well as beauty. Another illustration might be Picasso's Guernica. Is it just paint on canvas, or is it something more? One could easily make a case for the former, but I think a case could be made for the latter as well. It has power, meaning, beauty, and emotion. It's motivating, moving, stimulating the intellect, and analyzing a historical situation. I think we're reductionistic to claim, "Ah, it's paint on canvas." True, but not true.
> I don't think this makes Christian theism any more likely however.
I don't have any illusions of talking you into Christianity, but I hope from our conversation that you're seeing that Christianity is not irrational, incoherent, or absurd.
> There are also atheists who believe that the universe exists in flux, and is therefore not inanimate. That doesn't necessitate God as the creator of the flux.
It may not necessitate it, but it doesn't negate theism, either. How can the universe exist in a state of quantum flux without itself suffering decay? The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, the amount of energy is always decreasing, and the universe is becoming less organized. Quantum fluctuations would cause everything to literally fall apart at the quantum level.
It is also claimed by some that because of the density of the universe, there was only one initial "creation," and there will be no contraction or subsequent expansion in the future. (https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ChristinaCheng.shtml)
We obviously have a lot more to learn.
I'm not just talking about beauty in my illustration of Beethoven's 9th. It has power and meaning as well as beauty. Another illustration might be Picasso's Guernica. Is it just paint on canvas, or is it something more? One could easily make a case for the former, but I think a case could be made for the latter as well. It has power, meaning, beauty, and emotion. It's motivating, moving, stimulating the intellect, and analyzing a historical situation. I think we're reductionistic to claim, "Ah, it's paint on canvas." True, but not true.
> I don't think this makes Christian theism any more likely however.
I don't have any illusions of talking you into Christianity, but I hope from our conversation that you're seeing that Christianity is not irrational, incoherent, or absurd.
> There are also atheists who believe that the universe exists in flux, and is therefore not inanimate. That doesn't necessitate God as the creator of the flux.
It may not necessitate it, but it doesn't negate theism, either. How can the universe exist in a state of quantum flux without itself suffering decay? The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, the amount of energy is always decreasing, and the universe is becoming less organized. Quantum fluctuations would cause everything to literally fall apart at the quantum level.
It is also claimed by some that because of the density of the universe, there was only one initial "creation," and there will be no contraction or subsequent expansion in the future. (https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ChristinaCheng.shtml)
We obviously have a lot more to learn.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:36 am
> The real point is that the process by which biological information arose remains an open question. As far as we know, informational data comes only from previous informational data. By "intelligence" I mean a structure, system, or organism that provides a meaningful context and mechanism by which to process and interpret ordered data.
A Gaia-type universe or super-organism universe could fit this quite well, without being the anthropomorphic God of organised religion.
> By "chance" I mean the assumption that there is no overarching intelligence managing events, no purpose from a purposeful source, and no power guiding events to a dedicated end.
I would disagree that chance necessarily means a lack of intelligence. Artists often use chance in their creations for instance. Either way, I'd again bring up which domain the intelligence applies to. You can have genetics which are fine tuned in a particular environment without the universe as a whole being hospitable. The point about cosmological constants is more interesting. Still, how is the probability of the constants predicted? You can't stand outside the universe as if you had a "Universe lottery machine" and compare different universes, as far as I'm aware. (Apologies if I'm misinterpreting you here). I would also contend that if the cosmological constants were different, life 'As we know it' might not exist, but I don't see how that means life is logically impossible in another world/state of affairs. Given the possibility that biology might have adapted itself rather than this universe being adapted to it, I think these factors give me good cause to be agnostic, rather than Christian (or indeed atheist).
A Gaia-type universe or super-organism universe could fit this quite well, without being the anthropomorphic God of organised religion.
> By "chance" I mean the assumption that there is no overarching intelligence managing events, no purpose from a purposeful source, and no power guiding events to a dedicated end.
I would disagree that chance necessarily means a lack of intelligence. Artists often use chance in their creations for instance. Either way, I'd again bring up which domain the intelligence applies to. You can have genetics which are fine tuned in a particular environment without the universe as a whole being hospitable. The point about cosmological constants is more interesting. Still, how is the probability of the constants predicted? You can't stand outside the universe as if you had a "Universe lottery machine" and compare different universes, as far as I'm aware. (Apologies if I'm misinterpreting you here). I would also contend that if the cosmological constants were different, life 'As we know it' might not exist, but I don't see how that means life is logically impossible in another world/state of affairs. Given the possibility that biology might have adapted itself rather than this universe being adapted to it, I think these factors give me good cause to be agnostic, rather than Christian (or indeed atheist).
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:46 am
> A Gaia type universe or super-organism universe could fit this quite well, without being the anthropomorphic God of organised religion.
Agreed. There are always many choices and theories. We all try to infer the most reasonable conclusion in our search for the truth. Unfortunately, many of the naturalistic assessments negate God as a possibility a priori, excluding a whole battery of possibilities from a position of bias. I would say the true thinker will consider all angles.
> I would disagree that chance necessarily means a lack of intelligence.
Secular evolution (scientific naturalism) claims that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind’s eye.
> Still, how is the probability of the constants predicted?
I don't think probability calculations are possible for this. We do know that these constants are not due to physical necessity, since the constants are independent of the laws of nature. String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws.
And from your comments about black holes and your link to Richard Carrier, we all agree that life-prohibiting environments and universes are far more probable than life-permitting ones.
So if physical necessity is not an explanation, and chance is so remote as to be abysmal, is not design inferring the most reasonable conclusion?
> Given the possibility that biology might have adapted itself rather than this universe being adapted to it, I think these factors give me good cause to be agnostic, rather than Christian (or indeed atheist).
So you're saying that the Big Bang was its own causative mechanism (it self-generated; something came from nothing, and an impersonal force was the first cause), that biology adapted itself, that informational data arose on its own, that cosmological constants are a fortuitous situation, that trillions of beneficial accidents and mutations happened in some kind of a right sequence, and that our ability to reason came from inert chemicals and mutational processes...
makes more sense than...
A powerful, personal source was the first cause, that personality has come from a personal source, intelligence came from an intelligent source, that there was a powerful, purposeful source that brought about a purposeful evolution, and that an intelligent creator gave us the ability to reason?
On what logical grounds?
Agreed. There are always many choices and theories. We all try to infer the most reasonable conclusion in our search for the truth. Unfortunately, many of the naturalistic assessments negate God as a possibility a priori, excluding a whole battery of possibilities from a position of bias. I would say the true thinker will consider all angles.
> I would disagree that chance necessarily means a lack of intelligence.
Secular evolution (scientific naturalism) claims that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind’s eye.
> Still, how is the probability of the constants predicted?
I don't think probability calculations are possible for this. We do know that these constants are not due to physical necessity, since the constants are independent of the laws of nature. String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws.
And from your comments about black holes and your link to Richard Carrier, we all agree that life-prohibiting environments and universes are far more probable than life-permitting ones.
So if physical necessity is not an explanation, and chance is so remote as to be abysmal, is not design inferring the most reasonable conclusion?
> Given the possibility that biology might have adapted itself rather than this universe being adapted to it, I think these factors give me good cause to be agnostic, rather than Christian (or indeed atheist).
So you're saying that the Big Bang was its own causative mechanism (it self-generated; something came from nothing, and an impersonal force was the first cause), that biology adapted itself, that informational data arose on its own, that cosmological constants are a fortuitous situation, that trillions of beneficial accidents and mutations happened in some kind of a right sequence, and that our ability to reason came from inert chemicals and mutational processes...
makes more sense than...
A powerful, personal source was the first cause, that personality has come from a personal source, intelligence came from an intelligent source, that there was a powerful, purposeful source that brought about a purposeful evolution, and that an intelligent creator gave us the ability to reason?
On what logical grounds?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:13 pm
> How can the universe exist in a state of quantum flux without itself suffering decay? The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, the amount of energy is always decreasing, and the universe is becoming less organized. Quantum fluctuations would cause everything to literally fall apart at the quantum level.
The flux I was describing was more metaphysical than quantum as such. I was expressing the idea that movement was at the basis of life and nature, rather than things being static. Heraclitus and Bergson expand upon similar themes.
> It may not necessitate it, but it doesn't negate theism, either.
Sure, I'm not attempting to prove theism wrong. I don't believe I'm able to do so at the moment. I'm only trying to show that God is not certain. The original question about Jesus being an alien was the same thing. It merely expresses that God is not certain. It doesn't claim that we can know for sure that he doesn't exist.
> I don't have any illusions of talking you into Christianity, but I hope from our conversation that you're seeing that Christianity is not irrational, incoherent, or absurd.
I'm 50/50 on whether it's true, so not only would I say that I don't view it as absurd to believe that it might be real, but if we keep talking, you might in fact talk me into it if I see the right kinds of evidence.
> I think we're reductionistic to claim, "Ah, it's paint on canvas." True, but not true.
I absolutely agree. Emergent properties are a phenomenon I put forward regularly during these kind of in depth discussions. I'm just not sure how it relates to our discussion on fine tuning. I think they're separate things.
The flux I was describing was more metaphysical than quantum as such. I was expressing the idea that movement was at the basis of life and nature, rather than things being static. Heraclitus and Bergson expand upon similar themes.
> It may not necessitate it, but it doesn't negate theism, either.
Sure, I'm not attempting to prove theism wrong. I don't believe I'm able to do so at the moment. I'm only trying to show that God is not certain. The original question about Jesus being an alien was the same thing. It merely expresses that God is not certain. It doesn't claim that we can know for sure that he doesn't exist.
> I don't have any illusions of talking you into Christianity, but I hope from our conversation that you're seeing that Christianity is not irrational, incoherent, or absurd.
I'm 50/50 on whether it's true, so not only would I say that I don't view it as absurd to believe that it might be real, but if we keep talking, you might in fact talk me into it if I see the right kinds of evidence.
> I think we're reductionistic to claim, "Ah, it's paint on canvas." True, but not true.
I absolutely agree. Emergent properties are a phenomenon I put forward regularly during these kind of in depth discussions. I'm just not sure how it relates to our discussion on fine tuning. I think they're separate things.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:14 pm
> It merely expresses that God is not certain.
We all admit that God can neither be proved to exist nor proved to not exist. What the discussion is about is following the evidence where it leads.
> I'm just not sure how it relates to our discussion on fine tuning.
Because fine tuning can be taken as natural phenomena and serendipitous effects, or it can be taken as an indication of something more going on.
We all admit that God can neither be proved to exist nor proved to not exist. What the discussion is about is following the evidence where it leads.
> I'm just not sure how it relates to our discussion on fine tuning.
Because fine tuning can be taken as natural phenomena and serendipitous effects, or it can be taken as an indication of something more going on.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:59 pm
> So you're saying that the Big Bang was its own causative mechanism (it self-generated; something came from nothing
No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that something came from nothing because "nothing" doesn't exist. The idea that something came from nothing in the way that you think I'm claiming is framing the definitions of "something" and "nothing" in a way that, consciously or not, seems intent on framing my position as silly. You are acting as though "nothing" was existent prior to "something" (that something being the universe). I would claim no such thing, and in fact argue against it. Furthermore, something "coming" from nothing assumes a spatiotemporal reality (in other words some kind of universe) in which the "Something coming from nothing" can occur. To expand on this point, in order to come "from" something, there needs to be a place that you come "from" in the first place.
> that biology adapted itself
I do believe this. I was of the understanding that you did as well to some degree, and thus didn't see it as ridiculous. Sorry if I misunderstood.
> that informational data arose on its own,
Could you be a bit more specific? What kind of data are you referring to? Do you mean DNA codes and that like? In which case I'd go back to the adaption issue. Does certain truths about God count as "informational data"? How far does it go?
> that our ability to reason came from inert chemicals and mutational processes
I've already covered the idea of inertia, and why I disagree with it. I'm not a hard atomist. I also don't see why not believing in hard atomism leaves only God as an explanatory source. Our ability to reason is an emergent property possible only through experience, and through the outcomes of trial and error, which occur in natural processes. To know what is reasonable and what is not, you need knowledge of what fails in reality. Knowledge of what fails can be derived from the trial and error of our evolution.
> String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, but would this show that this is not the only universe that life could inhabit? Would this show that fine tuning is suspect after all?
> that trillions of beneficial accidents and mutations happened in some kind of a right sequence,
I'm not claiming this either. Accidents and mutations have lead to extinction in some cases. The genes that survive build upon prior conditions. The "right sequence" is the adaption that happens after.
> Unfortunately, many of the naturalistic assessments negate God as a possibility a priori
Maybe some do, but I am not. At least at the moment.
> Secular evolution (scientific naturalism) claims that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind’s eye.
It's aim as I understand it is survival. Being blind and unforseen seems to me more an indication of unpredictable events, rather than a lack of consciousness.
> I would say the true thinker will consider all angles.
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that something came from nothing because "nothing" doesn't exist. The idea that something came from nothing in the way that you think I'm claiming is framing the definitions of "something" and "nothing" in a way that, consciously or not, seems intent on framing my position as silly. You are acting as though "nothing" was existent prior to "something" (that something being the universe). I would claim no such thing, and in fact argue against it. Furthermore, something "coming" from nothing assumes a spatiotemporal reality (in other words some kind of universe) in which the "Something coming from nothing" can occur. To expand on this point, in order to come "from" something, there needs to be a place that you come "from" in the first place.
> that biology adapted itself
I do believe this. I was of the understanding that you did as well to some degree, and thus didn't see it as ridiculous. Sorry if I misunderstood.
> that informational data arose on its own,
Could you be a bit more specific? What kind of data are you referring to? Do you mean DNA codes and that like? In which case I'd go back to the adaption issue. Does certain truths about God count as "informational data"? How far does it go?
> that our ability to reason came from inert chemicals and mutational processes
I've already covered the idea of inertia, and why I disagree with it. I'm not a hard atomist. I also don't see why not believing in hard atomism leaves only God as an explanatory source. Our ability to reason is an emergent property possible only through experience, and through the outcomes of trial and error, which occur in natural processes. To know what is reasonable and what is not, you need knowledge of what fails in reality. Knowledge of what fails can be derived from the trial and error of our evolution.
> String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, but would this show that this is not the only universe that life could inhabit? Would this show that fine tuning is suspect after all?
> that trillions of beneficial accidents and mutations happened in some kind of a right sequence,
I'm not claiming this either. Accidents and mutations have lead to extinction in some cases. The genes that survive build upon prior conditions. The "right sequence" is the adaption that happens after.
> Unfortunately, many of the naturalistic assessments negate God as a possibility a priori
Maybe some do, but I am not. At least at the moment.
> Secular evolution (scientific naturalism) claims that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind’s eye.
It's aim as I understand it is survival. Being blind and unforseen seems to me more an indication of unpredictable events, rather than a lack of consciousness.
> I would say the true thinker will consider all angles.
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't.
- Book Mitten
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests