Refractor

Hi folks,

My last few posts received quite a few (and lengthy) responses. I didn't read them all yet, but from what I did read it seemed a lot of them were good ones that brought up some interesting conversational points.

I am only one dude against 6 or 7 here, so I will try to respond to as many as possible.....but my response may be succinct.


Refractor

Refractor

That particular implication is correct, and it is a fact that the dichotomy between life and non-life is currently "unresolved". What we don't have is any reason to think that there is such a thing as a mindless natural force that is capable of causing living organisms to self-assemble/organize out of non-living elements. You even admitted that there is no direct evidence for any such phenomena. So why are you acting like there is such evidence by your suggestion that my disbelief is unwarranted?

Good question. Complexity can be measured by the number of corroborated actions/elements/subsystems that are necessary in order for a system or structure to exist/function/survive.


You positively claim that mindless natural forces can create life out of non-life, so you are the one who bears the burden of proof, not me. The fact that you have already conceded that there is no "direct proof" that a mindless natural force can do any such thing makes discussion on this point, moot.

Seventeen trillion ways, eh? Wow that's amazing. Did you count out all those ways with a calculator or did you put Mead out of business with tally sheets?


I have never seen any such proof. Remember, I am specifically referring to primary causes, not secondary. If you have some examples of complex entities/systems being directly created by mindless, natural, PRIMARY causes, please submit them.


Refractor

Philosoft

You are consistently overestimating the strength of the claim I am making. I'm not saying, "I feel that I have enough data to conclude that some natural process(es) is/are responsible for biogenesis." I'm saying, "I don't think the life/non-life dichotomy is so profound as to warrant an essentially imaginary explanation at this point."

Hmm. So where on this scale does "ultra-complex" fall?

No, I don't. See above.

Considering you similarly lack "direct proof," I don't know why this would privelege your position.

I have this old Cray in my garage...

I am not familiar with "primary" and "secondary" causes. Presumably, something like sexual reproduction would be a "secondary" cause, yes? If so, how would you classify the "life-status" of the gametes? Are they alive?

Refractor

The fact is, the universe is macroscopic AND quantum. Most of the laws of physics are observed and defined macroscopically.


I am not obligated to prove a negative.


Atomic structure is very ordered and governed by certain principles. I admit we're treading tricky waters on this issue since the definitions of "order" and "chaos" are not written in stone.

Yes, of course the universe is what it happens to be. But how it came to be that way, why it came to be that particular way, and what possible cause may have made it "happen to be that way" are the very points in question.

Sorry, but I don't follow that logic at all. We haven't even observed mindless natural processes create things of normal complexity levels......so why in the world would we assume they can created things of maximal complexity levels??

That's like saying that if Saddam can't even build a grenade, we should assume he can build nuclear weapons. Doesn't make any sense. If something can't be shown to create the lesser, then it can't create the greater either.

Evidence of a designer can be intuitively deduced by the evidence left in what the designer designed. We can walk into a building and not personally meet or see the architects and builders to conclude that the structure had architects and builders. The building itself will contain attributes of intelligent design, if there was an intelligent designer. The same principle holds true when we observe the universe.


That is an entirely separate question. The *origin* of an intelligent designer is a separate issue from the question of whether or not the evidence in the universe reveals intelligent design.

Yes, that is part of what being a finite being is all about. We don't have all the answers and probably never will. We are not omniscient. Proposing that the entire universe somehow popped into existence for no reason, uncaused/self-caused by nothing, based on some unknown, unprovable, and unobservable quantum event, is equally - AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM.


When we look at the things that human intelligent designers have created, we see some inherent attributes that all intelligently-designed products possess. When the universe and lifeforms possess these same attributes, its evidence of intelligent design for the universe. Theists are simply people who acknowledge these attributes exist in the universe and who make the logical induction that the universe's primary cause was most likely - an intelligent designer.

Humans could never be the creators of the universe because humans are physical, and since the universe is "all physical things", humans are *part* of the universe. Humans (just like the universe) cannot be both their own cause and effect.


Refractor

Refractor

You are overcomplicating the issue pretty badly. My comment above was very simple, and has nothing to do with any claims for any specific causes.


In that entire paragraph, you did not make any claims that undercut my basic observation, that - "Virtually all observed physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the event". It is a very basic scientific principle that actions and reactions are distinct, cause and effects, are almost always distinct. If you deny this your argument is not with me, but with science itself.


I'd say the sunrise is pretty distinct from all those considerations. If you disagree, please explain how and why our sunrise is the SAME THING as the dust clouds of Andromeda, gravity, particles, nuclear forces, etc. Before you concoct some lengthy response, keep in mind that I have only posited the basic idea that causes are distinct from their effects. We observe this scientific truth countless times every single day.

All complex lifeforms (and there are billions of them on this planet alone), as well as the entire universe itself may be evidence of a supernatural primary cause. Again, I am speaking about PRIMARY causes here. You are correct that all observed SECONDARY causes (which represents what we call "natural phenomena") are indeed, natural. No theist denies this. However, we have never seen a natural *primary* cause create a complex universe or mindlessly originate complex lifeforms out of non-living matter.

So as a naturalist, you have ZERO observational evidence to your advantage in regard to *primary* causes.

I don't mean to sound dismissive, but your arguments here seem to be nothing more than the old "all-purpose skepticism" where every claim is questioned as being merely illusions based on human words and concepts. So to that, I say to you - Is not the following concept/description "just human derivatives encapsulated in our limited existence?":

we artificially separate and distinguish all events as being originated or terminated when, in fact, they are nothing more than timeless, seamless changes that flow from an indistinguishable past into an indeterminate future?

Yes, it seems that your expressed sentiment is also - just another human derivative encapsulated based on our limited existence.

So far, you have not given any counter-argument that undercut any of the first four points of my argument. You claim that the universe didn't have an original cause depsite the fact that you cannot/did not refute the veracity of any of the first four points of my argument.

If you want to believe the universe didn't have an original cause......just because.....that's what you want to believe, then God bless ya. It is a free country. But please don't get confused and think that you have refuted my reasoning for an original cause, because you haven't.

You failed to undercut any of the first four premise-points of my argument, thus, your response to point five is irrelevant and does not require a response. (It was a nice philosophical speech though. )


Refractor

Biff the unclean

I have never been able to figure out how the giant leap is made from a Cause to a God.
The only things that might suggest a God are myths left over from the Bronze Age and the Late Stone Age. There aren't any Gods that we can observe and deduce that maybe they might be the prime cause. Just primitive folktales. And in these folktales the God of the Bible creates a world that is nothing like the real world. The world depicted in the Bible is so different from the actual planet that it is humorous. If the world, which we can and have observed, is nothing like the Bible says it is why should we listen to it when it talks about a God that the writers never observed? The authors didn't know the simple facts that we can check, why should we think that they knew things that we can't?

Fiach

A creator if defined as the process that produced the Big Bang need not have humanoid consciousness or cognition. In fact the odds are that it would not. Consciousness/cognition is an animal trait mediated by a nervous system that evolved in animals as a survival mechanism for three functions: finding food, finding a reproductive partner, and escaping predators. Conscious and cognition were necessary for herbivores and predators. The process that belched out the universe can be entirely a natural process.

God was intitially given consciousness and cognition by primitive humans who created God in their own image and likeness. It is peripheral to the serious questions about the birth of the universe.

Fiacn

rainbow walking

You are overcomplicating the issue pretty badly. My comment above was very simple, and has nothing to do with any claims for any specific causes.

rw: This is your postulate: 1) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause.

There is nothing overly complicated about testing the validity of this postulate as it applies to your conclusion. Because it is a general statement, specific examples are necessary to the test.
The very simple example given demonstrates the correlation between various levels of causation in any given event up to and including any metaphysical consideration. It is clear that your argument, as it unfolds, hinges on creating a dichotomy between observable natural phenomena by inserting an additional, and unfalsifiable, supernatural speculation, thus I am demonstrating that the concept of cause and effect are not so simple as you would have us believe and cannot be used inductively to arrive at the conlusions you've postulated. It is at precisely the point when we begin to examine specific examples that the basis for your argument begins to unravel.




In that entire paragraph, you did not make any claims that undercut my basic observation, that - "Virtually all observed physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the event". It is a very basic scientific principle that actions and reactions are distinct, cause and effects, are almost always distinct. If you deny this your argument is not with me, but with science itself.

rw: Your second postulate, (or basic observation), is inaccurate. Upon closer examination it will be noted that every event has many causes, none of which can be directly attributed as the single primary cause of any such event, all of which are required for any such event to have occurred. If you don't believe me just proffer any example you choose and I'll demonstrate the veracity of this claim. The fact that we can isolate causes from events in our depiction of them does not make them so isolated, separate and distinct in reality, only in our descriptions of them consequentially. What we ultimately end up describing are a sequence of events and not any particular cause. Any inductive reasoning based on this postulate is subject to the same degree of inaccuracy.




I'd say the sunrise is pretty distinct from all those considerations. If you disagree, please explain how and why our sunrise is the SAME THING as the dust clouds of Andromeda, gravity, particles, nuclear forces, etc. Before you concoct some lengthy response, keep in mind that I have only posited the basic idea that causes are distinct from their effects. We observe this scientific truth countless times every single day.

rw: The sunrise, as an event, is comprised of the same particle physics as the other examples given with the only distinction being our unique observational perspective. If we lived in the Andromeda cluster this particular sunrise would be of no consequence to us; without gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces no such star would exist, etc. and so forth. The inter-connectiveness should be obvious and an absolute necessity in any series of events we observe. Any artificial dissection of any series of events leading up to a particular sunrise, into cause and effect, are philosophical and semantical and bear no relation to the macrological reality or the metaphysics of origination.



All complex lifeforms (and there are billions of them on this planet alone), as well as the entire universe itself may be evidence of a supernatural primary cause.


rw: It appears to all the world that you are in a big hurry to install a supernatural dichotomy long before you've even established "primary cause" as a viable conclusion. It doesn't follow from the limited and simplistic postulates you've proffered thusfar. The only deductions that can be derived from such evidences as we have accumulated is that the universe, as we now know it, was at some time in the distant past, quite different. These "primary causes and created universe scenarios are all a derivative of theistic speculations and are not supported by the facts.

Again, I am speaking about PRIMARY causes here.


rw: Yes, you are welcome to speak about them all you like but can you justify them as a valid hypothetical induction? Thusfar you have not.

You are correct that all observed SECONDARY causes (which represents what we call "natural phenomena") are indeed, natural.


rw: And your particular value assignment of them as "secondary" is not natural. There is no evidence that there is an a priori primary cause for any observable event. Any such assignment is, and will always be, arbitrary. All observable events are just isolated descriptions of a preceding series of events leading to a succession of succeeding events. How do you propose to isolate any single event as a primary cause when all other preceding events are required to arrive at the one in question?

No theist denies this. However, we have never seen a natural *primary* cause create a complex universe or mindlessly originate complex lifeforms out of non-living matter.

rw: The reason you've never observed these things is because there is no evidence that a universe such as ours has ever been created nor is there evidence that lifeforms require intelligent design to exist as a phenomenon. You are trying to force the evidence to fit your preconcieved notions and basing your claims on absences of evidence rather than the evidences that exist. An argument from incredulity is not valid.

So as a naturalist, you have ZERO observational evidence to your advantage in regard to *primary* causes.

rw: Since "primary" causes are a straw man contemplation I have no reason to strain at this gnat. My natural inclination is to dismiss it as a god-of-the-gaps invention.



I don't mean to sound dismissive, but your arguments here seem to be nothing more than the old "all-purpose skepticism" where every claim is questioned as being merely illusions based on human words and concepts. So to that, I say to you - Is not the following concept/description "just human derivatives encapsulated in our limited existence?":

we artificially separate and distinguish all events as being originated or terminated when, in fact, they are nothing more than timeless, seamless changes that flow from an indistinguishable past into an indeterminate future?

rw: It portrays a greater degree of probability than the artificail cause/effect relationship used to isolate events as frozen in time. The semantics are far more honest and reside firmly on observable facts rather than inductively derived speculations. In other words, it has a greater probability of being true because it is based on a macrological epistemology of nature rather than a specific scientific philosophy.

Yes, it seems that your expressed sentiment is also - just another human derivative encapsulated based on our limited existence.

rw: Which one requires the most credulity and arbitrariness to achieve plausability?



So far, you have not given any counter-argument that undercut any of the first four points of my argument. You claim that the universe didn't have an original cause depsite the fact that you cannot/did not refute the veracity of any of the first four points of my argument.

rw: Then you have not comprehended the objections raised.

If you want to believe the universe didn't have an original cause......just because.....that's what you want to believe, then God bless ya. It is a free country. But please don't get confused and think that you have refuted my reasoning for an original cause, because you haven't.

rw: It's not so much what I want to believe as it is just an honest assessment of the evidence. It may be that you hold beliefs that you really want the evidence to suggest. You have yet to provide us any reasoning for an original cause as a viable concept worthy of consideration. Evidence would be preferrable but sound reasoning will do in a rush. As I said before, I anxiously await either. Your headlong rush to create a false dichotomy between natural events and then fill the imagined void with supernatural composites has apparently deluded you into reading too much into the empty pages at the back of the book. As each page is filled with knowledge acquired by men who are not so easily deluded your god gets pushed further into obscurity.

HRG

The fact is that the universe is only quantum. The "laws of physics" are just our best current description of the behavior and mechanisms of our universe; and the macroscopic (= classical) laws are well known to be only an approximate description, valid within a restricted domain.

You might equally argue that the universe is both non-relativistic and relativistic, just because Newtonian mechanics works rather well on Earth (outside particle accelerators, that is)
Yours is the positive claim. Since this is a quantum universe, it's your task to argue that its origin, if any, was not a quantum event.

<snip>
We have. Each one of us is the result of natural processes, and we are not determined just by DNA; thus our development is an increase in complexity. Do you claim that embryology is about the supernatural`?
There are some words missing in your last sentence. It should read ".. then it can't be shown to create the greater either". And there is a lot of things we cannot show (e.g. that Pluto is not pushed along by invisible djinns).
Sure, because we have observed architects and builders at their work. Thus we can describe the properties of intelligently designed buildings.
But we have never observed an universe-builder, so how could we know what the properties of a designed universe look like ? Our universe certainly does not look like an intelligently designed building, nor like an intelligently designed watch etc.

The point is of course that IDists pick and choose some properties of human artifacts that they think to recognize in the universe, but forget about those that don't fit the universe at all.
No. If you cannot explain the existence, methods and motivations of the designer for making exactly this universe (and no other), then "the designer did it" is not an explanation for the universe either. Otherwise, "my cat did it last Thursday" would also be an explanation.
Maybe so, but a smaller one. Quantum events are known to exist, and the observation of the event would be the existence of the universe.
And you know exactly how what attributes are "inherent" ?
But they don't. No human-designed artifact leaves gazillions of empty space for every relevant solid object, for instance. No human designer would connect the appendix to the colon, so it can get inflamed. No human designer would build the sonar of bats, and simultaneously the anti-sonar devices of moths. Etc.

IOW, IDists must take the bitter with the sweet.
Please replace "acknowledge" by "postulate". The fact is that IDists ignore all the myriad ways in which life or the universe are unlike the objects we know are intelligently designed.
And since we never observed any unphysical things, the natural conclusion is that the universe was not caused.

BTW, as the universe is not a thing, but a collection of things, it is rather doubtful whether the notion of "cause" can be applied to it.


Regards,
HRG.

rainbow walking

Refractor, I had hoped to have enough time to further discuss this thread with you but have to leave today and am out of time. I will give you the last word on this one and maybe be back for other discussions with you in the future. Thanks for the effort and time you put into your response.