For FS: Evidence of god's existence.

[John Powell]

FirstSunday33AD:
The placement of the stars - the North Star in particular - which proved so invaluable for the intelligent species that made use of them, again happened by lucky chance.

POWELL:
Polaris has been the north star only for the last thousand or so years. Prior to that other stars were the north star. Thuban in Draco the Dragon was the north star for the Egyptian pyramid builders. People of New Testament times may have used Kockab in Ursa Minor as the north star. 13,000 years from now the north star will be the very bright star Vega. Between now and then other stars will be considered the "north star." The changing pole star is due to the fact that Earth spins like a top that wobbles. The conical wobble, or precession, takes 26,000 years to complete.

RTHEARLE:
So what is the chance that there will be a reasonably bright star or constellation near one of the poles? And if it was design, why isn't there one at the south pole too?

POWELL:
What's the chance? It depends on how bright and how close. What probably typically happens is people pick the bright star that's closest and call it good.

Constellations are 88 regions that completely cover the sky so the north pole must be within one of these regions. Currently, the north celestial pole is within the region defined by the constellation of Ursa Minor.

John Powell

[Roy]

Today @ 07:58 AM post located here
John Powell:



POWELL:
Polaris has been the north star only for the last thousand or so years.

Thanks, I'd forgotten that.

What's the chance? It depends on how bright and how close. What probably typically happens is people pick the bright star that's closest and call it good.

What I meant was that we know how many bright stars they are, and can assign a maximum distance (in arc seconds) from the pole before a star is no longer considered 'north'. This gives us a rough probability for there being a star close to the pole. I make it about 20% chance for a star as bright as polaris being close to a randomly chosen point. It's not that unlikely.

Roy

[AtheistArchon]

Suppose we figure out how everything works. How'd it all get there? WHY is it? Figuring out how things work in no way disproves a creator of some sort.

- Perhaps "why" is not a question that can be answered here, supposing we're looking for religious meaning. Why is the sky blue?

[Losvedir]

"- Perhaps "why" is not a question that can be answered here, supposing we're looking for religious meaning. Why is the sky blue?"

Why is a perfectly valid question. There is an answer for why the sky is blue, but I don't know it off the top of my head. Google it if you really want to know. But scientists still don't know WHY we're here. Or why anything is, really.

[John Powell]

FirstSunday33ad (FS33) to ATHEISTARCHON:
Sorry for the delay.....

This was the logical process I took in determining whether or not God existed.

When I examined the question – probably not exhaustively, the only person I needed to convince was myself – I simply asked what the probability for God’s existence was based on what we know of the Universe and our place within it.

POWELL:
It seems you tried to determine whether it was more or less probable that God existed. This sounds good.

FS33:
Without a God, I realized that this would mean that everything that is or ever has been arrived by chance.

POWELL:
That does not follow. Are you saying that apples fall to the Earth merely due to chance and that parents give birth to offspring similar to themselves merely by chance? What you should have realized is that without God there was no supreme being behind existence.

FS33:
There was no first cause for the Universe, it always “existed” in some form or other,

POWELL:
This does not necessarily follow. Just because God did not exist does not mean that the universe had no cause or that it always existed.

FS33:
. . . the solar system just happened – by lucky chance – to set itself up in such a way as to be conducive to life and that life itself formed out of non-life by chance and happily survived all the dangers arrayed against it over several billions of years, reacting to each change in its environments with an advance, never a retreat; always becoming ever more sophisticated.

POWELL:
If the Earth was not conducive to life then we wouldn't be here discussing it, but that does not mean that things could not have been very different. This does not necessarily mean God created the Earth. Life on Earth may have been destroyed a number of times before surviving to the present.

FS33:
Then the history of the earth, from lucky acquisition of the moon to the timely extinctions that permitted the evolution of a higher stage of life was all the product of chance.

POWELL:
It's probably rare for planets the size of Earth to have moons the size of ours, but it's probably not that rare for Earthlike planets to have some kind of moon. If the dinosaurs had not become extinct we wouldn't be here discussing it, but that does not mean that things could not have happened differently.

FS33:
As was the longevity of the dinosaurs – suddenly and catastrophically ended by a fortuitous comet – that left behind large quantities of fossil fuel to be readily available for technological advancement.

POWELL:
The dinosaurs may have died out due to other factors. It's my understanding that oil and coal comes mostly from plants and such, not large animals, and not due to a comet hitting Earth.

FS33:
The placement of the stars - the North Star in particular - which proved so invaluable for the intelligent species that made use of them, again happened by lucky chance.

POWELL:
Polaris / Alpha Ursae Minoris was not the north star to anyone in the Bible.

FS33:
As intelligent life clawed its way to the top of the heap, its laws, codes, morals and beliefs would also simply be the product of chance and environment. For whatever reason, this intelligence set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and set us on a separate path from our less evolved cousins. Our extremely early adoption of god beliefs was merely an outcropping of this natural intelligence. The persistence of this belief in the face of increased understanding of the natural world was also due to some aspect of our biology.

At this point I was already beginning to have doubts. Probability alone seemed to strongly argue against the conclusion of “No God”. The idea of an eternally existing Universe, even within the parameters of the ‘big bang/big crunch’, mulitverses, parallel universes, etc., was bizarre.

POWELL:
Blackholes, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. are bizarre. Even something as common as the doppler effect change of frequency you hear when something passes by you would seem more bizarre if you didn't experience it yourself. The first time I saw a naked female I thought she (my sister) was very strange looking.

The "bizarre" argument is not entirely reliable when dealing with what is true about the universe we live in.

FS33:
It seemed we were simply replacing one “eternal” (God) for another (Material).

POWELL:
There's a big difference in that the naturalistic "god" would not be a person entity, but something like the laws of nature.

FS33:
The Muslim argument that if we lacked a point of beginning we could never arrive at the point we were at, made sense.

POWELL:
Perhaps the point of beginning is when our universe came into being.

FS33:
Because the Universe exists within space/time, we could never move back far enough in time to begin moving forward again. The only way to explain the Universe therefore seemed to involve making special use of some metaphysical argument that removed it from the limitation of space/time – which was just another way of saying “the Universe is God”.

POWELL:
Again, this God would be very different from the religious entity typically called God.

FS33:
This struck me as a contradiction. If the Universe is a naturally occurring event, then it must be restricted to natural laws. Allowing the possibility of spontaneous generation – or something from nothing – therefore violated this natural order.

POWELL:
You're arguing that because such things aren't seen to occur later, that they therefore did not occur before.

Does the later existence of solar systems in a region of space that previously was a huge cloud of gas and dust "violate the natural order"? Does the later existence of plant life on what was previously a dead volcanic island "violate the natural order"?

FS33:
Spontaneous generation would only be allowable if we gave to the Universe power normally attributed to God.

POWELL:
That seems quite biased. That's like a believer in astrology arguing that he should not accept the natural explanation of "chance coincidence" and such things because it's giving power to nature that is "normally attributed to the power of astrology."

FS33:
I could not accept this as logical if we were simply doing it as a means of dismissing the possibility of God existing.

POWELL:
It's based partly on Occam's Razor. If the natural, No God, explanation works, then it's probably wise to stick with it.

FS33:
I went from beyond the actual start or existence of the Universe to our solar system. The combination of factors required to create an environment conducive to life forming on a planet are significant. From the right size of the sun, the presence of Jovian worlds situated in the correct orbit, the place of the system within the galaxy, etc, all are critical to a planet surviving long enough for life to form.

POWELL:
Not as critical as you seem to think. The range of acceptable values is probably more broad than you imagine.

FS33:
Additionally, the presence of a large moon has been found necessary for the formation of land masses, with the theory being that the absence of such a satellite would result in a water world with little or no dry land mass.

POWELL:
Reference? This is news to me.

FS33:
The acquisition of the moon itself was another one of those improbabilities. The most recent theory I have read on its acquisition, was that a larger body collided with a much larger earth 4.25 billion years ago, reducing the size of both objects and capturing the smaller object in Earth’s gravity. This collision is theorized to have also thinned the Earth’s atmosphere, slowed its rotation and played an important part in the creation of the Van Allen belt. Had this collision not occurred in a very precise manner, the Earth today would be lifeless.

POWELL:
Again, I think the range of values is significantly more forgiving than you seem to think.

FS33:
Most recently, I have read that the presence of a solar system within a galaxy must be restricted to its rim if there is to be any chance of life forming.

POWELL:
This is probably a minor factor. Helpful, but not necessary.

FS33:
Inside of this rim the environment becomes too hostile for life to survive very long.

POWELL:
There would likely be more nearby supernova events causing extinctions, but probably not that many more.

FS33:
This has served to increase the probability against life forming by chance. Now I admit to being no scientist, so I don’t know how widely held these theories are within the scientific community, however, as far as I have seen, although they certainly have their opponents, they have not been treated as Velikovskian.

POWELL:
Perhaps.

FS33:
Now at this point I moved onto the emergence of life itself. I had accepted that organic from inorganic material was theoretically possible if we start at the sub-molecular level. But the leap from organic material to life seemed quite wide. The short window of opportunity in which abiogenesis could occur on Earth compounded the problem. We know the Earth is 4.55 billion years old and that life first appeared about 3.5 billion years ago. Remove from this period the time it would have taken for the Earth to go from being inhospitable to being able to support life and you have only about 600 million years. Within that time inorganic matter went to bacteria.

I didn’t conclude that this was impossible, but to me, it did suggest that life would have to be almost inevitable in almost any environment (provided you could produce the organic material), to be adequately explained on Earth.

POWELL:
Perhaps.

FS33:
It seemed to me that if life was inevitable, then it should be easily repeatable, that is scientists should be able to “create” life within a laboratory setting replicating a “chance” environment and starting with organic material equally “created” by chance from inorganic material.

POWELL:
Apparently it's more difficult to replicate the emergence of life on Earth than you expected. I'm still hopeful.

FS33:
However, the very best scientists have been able to come up with so far are a few protein strains. And abiogenesis is still being vigorously debated. Far from being inevitable, life is still seems more unlikely to form then inevitable.

POWELL:
I speculate that the majority of scientists think life is inevitable under Earth-like environments.

FS33:
These observations were bolstered when I read some probability studies on the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring by chance. I have since read the rebuttals to these studies (including the one found at “Talk Origins) but was not convinced by the arguments put forward, which seemed to run more along the lines of “a whole lot of simultaneous tries were taking place” and “one in a gadzillion is still ONE in a gadzillion”. The time window still appeared to create a problem for the “by chance” argument.

POWELL:
If abiogenesis is as robust as some think, then perhaps 600 million years was plenty long.

FS33:
Further, Michael Behe’s observations on the “irreducible complexity” of molecular life has since added weight to the “not by chance” probability.

The conclusion I drew was that life was not inevitable but rather highly unlikely, so unlikely in fact that its emergence would qualify as a miracle.

POWELL:
I suppose if life were discovered to exist on every Earth-like planet in our part of the galaxy then you would conclude that God was doing it rather than that abiogenesis is essentially inevitable.

FS33:
Once life did emerge however, the “by chance” argument seemed to get a firmer footing. We have the geologic column and a very convincing argument can be presented showing the gradual evolution of life from the simple to the complex. Although there are problems within this presentation, from the Cambrian explosion to the absence of transitional fossils, these are not damning objections to the theory. However, the fossil evidence used to support human evolution was to me (and still is) extremely suspect as it seemed to rely more on a “it happened there, so it must have happened here” type of reasoning.

POWELL:
Scientists who assume that the laws of nature apply even to humans seem to be more successful at explaining things than those who assume the laws often don't apply to humans. To treat humans as the most intelligent animal seems to be more effective at explaining the human condition than to treat humans as a special creation by God.

FS33:
Having observed reproductions of the fossilized skulls of our supposed ancestors I remained sceptical of some of the reconstructions put forward and of the conclusions that they were hominids. Brain size as a determinate of a higher evolutionary stage or of intellectual capacity isn’t very convincing (Neandertal for example had a larger brain than homo sapiens). Better evidence of human evolution was found in the gradual shift in where the spine met the skull indicating a change from a “knuckle dragger” to an upright walker, but I still couldn’t find convincing evidence that dismissed the possibility that the skulls were in reality those of animals.

POWELL:
Homo sapiens are animals.

FS33:
And in the end, in every study I have read on evolution, there was always an implied “intelligence” suggested. This may be a limitation humanity has in discussing anything without anthropomorphizing it, but it seemed strange that we find it almost impossible to discuss what occurred “by chance” without acknowledging to some degree, that it has always been very rational. We have yet to find any “hopeful monsters”. This seemed to me to be simply giving God a new name – “evolution”.

POWELL:
The definition of "god" allows that it refer to things like "the laws of nature," but it's important to remember that it would be a different god than the personal being imagined by most religions.

FS33:
Finally, it seemed as if the natural history of the earth was almost “designed” to arrive at a point when humanity would emerge and dominate the planet.

POWELL:
Do you believe that recent history was "designed" so that you would emerge as a contributor at TWEB? If humans had not dominated the planet then we wouldn't be here discussing it on the Internet, but that doesn't mean things could not have been very different.

FS33:
No other life form excelled or developed as much as we did in so short a period of time.

POWELL:
This is doubtful. Surely there are organisms that have outdone us in the "rapid development" category. How long did it take AIDS to develop? How long did it take human breeding to change the wolf into the diverse breeds of dogs we have today?

FS33:
Within a few million years, humanity supposedly went from being just another animal in the forest to being the conqueror of the planet.

POWELL:
Even back then we were the most intelligent, just not as intelligent as we are today.

FS33:
So intelligent did we become that nature could no longer contain us; we burst our bonds to the animal kingdom and brought nature itself to heel.

POWELL:
Poetically moving, but untrue. Try violating the laws of nature and see how long you'll survive. We have much greater powers to alter the environment than any other animal.

FS33:
Within this very same period absolutely no other animal developed as much as we did.

POWELL:
No other animal became as intelligent as we were. They may have developed faster than we did in other ways. Intelligence at our scale is apparently a rather rare thing.

FS33:
In fact, most just got smaller and weaker; the “giants” perished. We however, got bigger and stronger.

POWELL:
Horses got bigger and stronger. There are fewer giants today than during the age of dinosaurs. However, the largest animals ever, whales, exist today.

FS33:
Next, came human social development. As best as we can determine a “god” belief emerged almost as soon as we did. Burial practices of the Neandertal indicate even at this stage a belief in an afterlife existed. The earliest written records of the Sumerian and Egyptian cultures show a high degree of religious sophistication and firmly established beliefs. The epics of Homer, based on much earlier oral myths, discuss in detail such concepts as sin, hell, heaven and divine justice. The creation myths of the Babylonians, Jews and Hindus are dated to almost prehistoric periods. Why humanity felt the need to develop and maintain such religious beliefs has never been satisfactorily explained.

POWELL:
It seems clear to me that it served their needs better than a belief that nature was impersonal.

FS33:
Appeals to superstition and ignorance do not stand up to examination.

POWELL:
Why not? Are you denying that our ancestors were ignorant and superstitious?

FS33:
Unthinking simpletons who trembled at things that went “bump in the night” did not wholly populate ancient cultures. Their level of science, art, architecture, philosophy and commerce, reveal a thinking people who questioned, observed and studied the world around them. The emergence of the “priest-kings” lasted only until about the 11th century BCE. After that period the priest lost political influence in society supplanted by the “warrior-kings”. So the explanation that priests maintained religious fiction as a means of controlling their respective societies ceases to explain religion beyond their rule.

POWELL:
Medieval kings could be considered "priest - warrior kings" couldn't they? Henry VIII seemed to think he had religious authority.

FS33:
Finally, there was the problem of evil. Now most arguments I have heard about this problem are used to counter a belief in God (how could a just God allow so much suffering?) but for me the problem pointed to an opposite conclusion. If there were no God, then why was humanity so senselessly cruel and how is it that we are even able to recognize this behaviour as being cruel?

POWELL:
I think this can be explained from an antropological / social science perspective.

FS33:
Evil lacked a convincing explanation if there were no God. For, if there were no God, then evil didn’t exist; there is simply “preferred” behaviour and “not preferred” behaviour. But clearly we do not think or act in this way. Certain behaviour is unbelievably cruel and is condemned as “wrong” for reasons that transcend utility. This behaviour and our condemnation of it remain inexplicable if we remove evil from the list of possible answers.

POWELL:
I don't know. Maybe many of us think this way because of the way we were raised rather than because there's a God.

FS33:
That none of this absolutely proves that God exists is acknowledged, but I was not seeking to absolutely prove God’s existence, I was only trying to determine the probability of God’s existence. Based on the above, therefore, I concluded that it was more probable that there is a God than that there isn’t.

For a short time after this I took the Deist position; that is that God created it all and then left it to run on its own, that He takes no personal interest in His creation. However, I soon abandoned this position as dishonest. Not only did we lack any evidence to support such an opinion, it seemed to me to be just another way of saying that there was no God, since an absent God was no different than a non-existent God.

POWELL:
There is evidence for the non-involvement of God. For example, the work of scientists typically assumes impersonal nature, not God, is causing things to happen.

FS33:
Being that God by simple definition would have to be superior to us in every way, and seeing as we condemn those who “create only to abandon” (deadbeat dads), how could it be conceivable that God would create and then abandon?

POWELL:
God is not necessarily superior to us in every way, just in some. Are there more Gods than there are people? If no, then in the category of "number," God is inferior.

If God were perfect then He perhaps wouldn't need to interfere once He got the ball rolling.

FS33:
It was then that I asked the questions: If there is a God, then what is He like, has He communicated a message to His creation and if so, who has gotten it the best? In other words, “if there is a God, which God?”

POWELL:
Unlike you, FS33, I haven't given up on science providing acceptable naturalistic explanations for the mysteries of the human condition. The "God did it" explanation no longer satisfies me.

John Powell

[chickenman]

But scientists still don't know WHY we're here. Or why anything is, really.

you have an answer to the why question, but that doesn't mean it is correct

I don't think there is an answer to the why question

[Pate]

08-29-2003 @ 05:44 AM post located here
Unknown Banana:

Barring God doing something like signing his name in the stars, there is absolutely no reason to link an apparently unbelievable event to the christian God. There are always countless other explanations for such an event, God is just one of them.

Of course all of those other suggested explanations should be evaluated too. The religio-historical context is also important. In the context of Jesus's life, his claims to divinity etc. the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is not nearly as muc an ad-hoc hypothesis as would be one that postulates God's action as an explanation in a situation where we just have an unexplained event which has no immediate connections to the God-question.

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 05:38 AM post located here
Losvedir:


"Quick question - when you asked this question, did you have a particular god in mind? Or a particular set of characteristics for a god? It's hard to accept the existence of something if you don't know what it is. In particular, you seem to have decided upon it's singularity and continued existence somehow."

I can't speak for fs33, but to me his argument would work without any preconceived notions about the nature of God. Clearly he's using the terminology of a singular, current God, but really the argument boils down to "is there something out there, or isn't there." fs33 hasn't gotten to the point of differentiating among theological beliefs yet, and his argument while using the words "god" and "is" is equally valid for Native Americans cadre of gods.

True, but if the argument was made using the term 'something out there' rather than 'God', then the implicit assumptions he's making by using 'God' (singularity, etc) would become much more apparent, and would need to be explained; as it is, they haven't been, which leaves a big hole in the argument.

Roy

[Roy]

Today @ 07:00 AM post located here
John Powell:

POWELL:
Apparently it's more difficult to replicate the emergence of life on Earth than you expected. I'm still hopeful.

I'm not. If it took millions of years to happen naturally, then nothing we do is ever likely to replicate that. We may manage to construct various stages in that process, but we'll never be able to watch the process happen.

Roy

[John Powell]

POWELL (to FS33):
Apparently it's more difficult to replicate the emergence of life on Earth than you expected. I'm still hopeful.

RTHEARLE:
I'm not. If it took millions of years to happen naturally, then nothing we do is ever likely to replicate that. We may manage to construct various stages in that process, but we'll never be able to watch the process happen.

Roy

POWELL:
Roy's more the expert on that question, so perhaps my optimism is unjustified.

John Powell

[Mitbulls]

I know that this post is not addressed to me, but I always like to stick my nose into the middle of other peoples arguments, so here I go!:

POWELL:
That does not follow. Are you saying that apples fall to the Earth merely due to chance and that parents give birth to offspring similar to themselves merely by chance? What you should have realized is that without God there was no supreme being behind existence.

Actually, it follows quite logically. You say that there is no higher power to guide the events. Without a guide, then by definition they happen by chance. You may say that was the "natural order" of things, but then you would have to defend what caused that natural order, defend that it did not come into existence by chance, then defend that whatever caused the natural order did not come into existence by chance, and we would end up in an infinite regress.

POWELL:
This does not necessarily follow. Just because God did not exist does not mean that the universe had no cause or that it always existed.

I'd like to hear your idea of what DID cause the universe then. Unless you're going to prove to us that something appeared out of nothing (by chance, of course, since there was no greater power to direct it), I think you're going to be hard-pressed to defend this stance.

POWELL:
If the Earth was not conducive to life then we wouldn't be here discussing it, but that does not mean that things could not have been very different. This does not necessarily mean God created the Earth. Life on Earth may have been destroyed a number of times before surviving to the present.

Anythings possible, but the purpose isn't to eliminate all possibilities, just to decide which is more PROBABLE. In that case, even if you grant 6 billion years, it is still extremely improbable that we would have reached the level of sophistication we have today by evolution and general mutation, especially considering your statement that life may have died out and started over again several times.

POWELL:
Polaris / Alpha Ursae Minoris was not the north star to anyone in the Bible.

That is not the point. Regardless, it is widely used by intelligent people today, and is still in the place it is by chance. That was the argument.

POWELL:
Blackholes, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. are bizarre. Even something as common as the doppler effect change of frequency you hear when something passes by you would seem more bizarre if you didn't experience it yourself. The first time I saw a naked female I thought she (my sister) was very strange looking.

You only feed the case by inputting this. The bizarre argument is very important when you hold that all of these things came about without any guidance. It is commonly accepted that the more bizarre something is, the less likely it is to have happened by chance. Thus you are arguing with yourself by making a case for how bizarre the univers is...

POWELL:
There's a big difference in that the naturalistic "god" would not be a person entity, but something like the laws of nature.

Since the laws of nature are not, in themselves, infinite or infallible, it is not logical to trace all of your logical thinking back to them. You can not place such things on the same level with our God, as they are constantly being revised and are not 100% reliable.

POWELL:
Perhaps the point of beginning is when our universe came into being.

Which was when? And how do you suppose that could have happened with no God to direct it?

POWELL:
You're arguing that because such things aren't seen to occur later, that they therefore did not occur before.

Doesn't this statement basically describe the backbone of the atheist argument that miracles did not happen in Biblical times? Because we can not see them occuring today? If you're going to apply a principle in one area, you must apply it in all.

POWELL:
That seems quite biased. That's like a believer in astrology arguing that he should not accept the natural explanation of "chance coincidence" and such things because it's giving power to nature that is "normally attributed to the power of astrology."

Again you miss the point of the argument and take it another direction. The point is that such ideas as spontaneous generation are not supported by any natural evidence. If you hold to the claim that knowledge can only be gained by reason and the scientific method, as most athiests do, then you have to show us why it is reasonable that things appear out of thin air in nature without the power of God.

POWELL:
It's based partly on Occam's Razor. If the natural, No God, explanation works, then it's probably wise to stick with it.

In your statement, you make a few presuppositions. In order to use Occam’s Razor in your argument, you must first prove that your argument is the most simple and logical. You are basically saying (based on your other arguments in the same post) that:
1. The universe appeared from nothing
2. The universe then arranged itself in such a way as to accomodate life
3. All life on earth came from nonliving materials
4. That life then reproduced organisms that were NOT like the original organism
5. That life died and had to start over again
6. That all of this (or at least 2-5) within about 6 billion years.
7. That all of this happened completely by chance, with no guidance, nor orchestrator, and intelligence behind it

We (creationists) claim:
1. God created the universe out of his power
2. God arranged the universe in such a way as to accomodate life
3. All life on earth came (comes) from God
4. God produced multiple kinds of organisms
5. God continuously sustains life
6. I won't start on the Christian time-frame, as that's debated even among Christian scholars.

Please share, on which point your stance is more likely to have happened than ours, based on Occam's Razor? And, of course, please include why you think this.

POWELL:
Not as critical as you seem to think. The range of acceptable values is probably more broad than you imagine.

I’d be interested in hearing an example of this. Most of the experts I’ve heard of do lot allow for a very broad range of acceptable values, but as I’m not an expert and haven’t done much in the area I won’t try to contradict you, assuming you have some evidence or numbers to back up your position…

POWELL:
I speculate that the majority of scientists think life is inevitable under Earth-like environments.

Speculations do not have much merit. But anyway, so long as we’re on the topic, such a statement like “scientists think life is inevitable…” is in itself an oxymoron. Such things as the likelyhood of life appearing are impossible for us to measure (at the very least, the numbers are not in your favor since it has never been recorded to have happened), and thus are not within the realms of science, as they can not be tested by the scientific method. Anyway, moving on along…

POWELL:
I suppose if life were discovered to exist on every Earth-like planet in our part of the galaxy then you would conclude that God was doing it rather than that abiogenesis is essentially inevitable.

First of all, you did not address the statement or issue brought forth by FS33. Next, you are probably right. Christians, since we hold that God reigns over the entire universe, would still conclude that God was doing it. This is no less logical than the conclusion that abiogenesis is inevitable, especially since (as before stated) both are outside the realms of science and can’t be proven by numerical calculations. Even if every Earth-like planet in the entire universe supported life, there would be no more evidence for abiogenesis than there is now.

POWELL:
Scientists who assume that the laws of nature apply even to humans seem to be more successful at explaining things than those who assume the laws often don't apply to humans. To treat humans as the most intelligent animal seems to be more effective at explaining the human condition than to treat humans as a special creation by God.

Again, you somehow embark in a new direction, which is a position no more defendable than the previous. At the very least, give some examples. Which scientists are more successful than which people who “assume the laws often don’t apply to humans” (which, by the way, is an extremely inaccurate description of Christians, but as that is not the issue, it can pass for now). How is treating humans as the most intelligent animals more effective than explaining that we are a special creation of God? You have to establish some criteria for your claim, otherwise your statements are solely subjective and need no rebuttal.

POWELL:
Do you believe that recent history was "designed" so that you would emerge as a contributor at TWEB? If humans had not dominated the planet then we wouldn't be here discussing it on the Internet, but that doesn't mean things could not have been very different.

You make this argument several times. His point is that if there were so many points in which history could have been very different, it is quite convenient that everything has worked out so conveniently for us. You can’t just say it happened because humans are the most intelligent; you have to consider how they got that way, and why no other being in the world even comes close. If evolution really happened, why should there be such a great difference between the intelligence of humans and the next closest organism? Granted that the unlikelihood of history reaching this point is not, in itself, a strong case against it happening, but it at least deserves to be admitted for consideration.

POWELL:
This is doubtful. Surely there are organisms that have outdone us in the "rapid development" category. How long did it take AIDS to develop? How long did it take human breeding to change the wolf into the diverse breeds of dogs we have today?

The examples you state represent the spreading of an organism, but not the development. Show me the smartest canine in the world, compare his intelligence with the rest of his kind, and then decide if they developed as quickly as humans supposedly did.

POWELL:
Poetically moving, but untrue. Try violating the laws of nature and see how long you'll survive. We have much greater powers to alter the environment than any other animal.

Actually, there have been instances when the supposed “laws of nature” have been “violated” (and, of course, subsequently changed). They are simply guidelines for us now that direct our everyday life, but not hard-and-fast laws that can’t be overcome. And anyway, where do you suppose those laws came from? Curious that you assume that history and life and everything else could have happened millions of different ways, but the laws of nature were set in stone and unchangeable from the beginning…

POWELL:
No other animal became as intelligent as we were. They may have developed faster than we did in other ways. Intelligence at our scale is apparently a rather rare thing.

It’s granted that the issue being discussed with the word “development” is intelligence. They may have developed, but obviously not into a better creature or they would be the ones in charge right now. So to say they developed physically fater than we did, or something of that sort, really does not apply-the fact is they did not gain as many benefits as quickly as we did.

POWELL:
Horses got bigger and stronger. There are fewer giants today than during the age of dinosaurs. However, the largest animals ever, whales, exist today.

Horses were relatively late to come on the scene, and they got bigger and stronger because they were being used and bred for labor. I would also like to hear some documentation on the statement that whales are the largest animals ever. It may be due to my lack of education in the area, but I can’t imagine a Brontasaurus-sized whale swimming around.


I think you were counting on nobody taking the time to reply to this long post when you posted it. I will leave you this to chew on for now and formulate a reply, and try to be back within the next couple of days to reply to the rest of your post.

[John Powell]

MITBULLS:
I know that this post is not addressed to me, but . . . here I go!:

POWELL:
Cheers, Mitbulls!

POWELL:
That does not follow. Are you saying that apples . . .

MITBULLS:
Actually, it follows quite logically. You say that there is no higher power to guide the events. Without a guide, then by definition they happen by chance. You may say that was the "natural order" of things, but then you would have to defend what caused that natural order, defend that it did not come into existence by chance, then defend that whatever caused the natural order did not come into existence by chance, and we would end up in an infinite regress.

POWELL:
I did not claim there was no "higher power" to guide events. I was criticizing the claim that if there is no God then everything necessarily happens by chance. Things might be ordered by natural laws. In other words, there's not a 50-50 chance that an apple will fall down, but a much greater chance that it will fall down than fall up.

What caused God to exist? If some things don't require a cause then maybe the universe is such an example.

POWELL:
This does not necessarily follow. Just because God did not exist does not mean that the universe had no cause or that it always existed.

MITBULLS:
I'd like to hear your idea of what DID cause the universe then.

POWELL:
I don't know. I'm only claiming that it does not logically follow that if God did not exist that the universe had no cause (maybe there was a cause that wasn't God) nor does it necessarily follow that the universe existed forever (maybe it had a beginning).

MITBULLS:
Unless you're going to prove to us that something appeared out of nothing (by chance, of course, since there was no greater power to direct it), I think you're going to be hard-pressed to defend this stance.

POWELL:
Scientific evidence suggests that some things (virtual particles) do sometimes "appear out of nothing." Maybe the universe is a BIG example of this kind of phenomenon. Do you deny that this is a logical possibility?

POWELL:
If the Earth was not conducive to life then we wouldn't be here discussing it, but that does not mean that things could not have been very different. . .

MITBULLS:
Anythings possible, but the purpose isn't to eliminate all possibilities, just to decide which is more PROBABLE.

POWELL:
Are impossible things possible? The goal of FIRSTSUNDAY33AD was to determine what was most probable, yes.

MITBULLS:
In that case, even if you grant 6 billion years, it is still extremely improbable that we would have reached the level of sophistication we have today by evolution and general mutation, especially considering your statement that life may have died out and started over again several times.

POWELL:
You seem to think evolution requires more time than I do. Anthropological studies suggest that modern humans have evolved from much less intelligent animals in only millions of years.

POWELL:
Polaris / Alpha Ursae Minoris was not the north star to anyone in the Bible.

MITBULLS:
That is not the point. Regardless, it is widely used by intelligent people today, and is still in the place it is by chance. That was the argument.

POWELL:
But it wasn't used by intelligent ancient people, which was the point.

POWELL:
Blackholes, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. are bizarre. . .

MITBULLS:
You only feed the case by inputting this. The bizarre argument is very important when you hold that all of these things came about without any guidance. It is commonly accepted that the more bizarre something is, the less likely it is to have happened by chance. Thus you are arguing with yourself by making a case for how bizarre the univers is...

POWELL:
I'm suggesting that some important "true" results of modern science seem bizarre to people the first time they learn about them. So the bizarre argument is not deductively sound. It is a good reason to be cautious, however.

POWELL:
There's a big difference in that the naturalistic "god" would not be a person entity, but something like the laws of nature.

MITBULLS:
Since the laws of nature are not, in themselves, infinite or infallible, it is not logical to trace all of your logical thinking back to them.

POWELL:
I don't believe I trace all my logical thinking back to the laws of nature. Perhaps you could explain.

MITBULLS:
You can not place such things on the same level with our God, as they are constantly being revised and are not 100% reliable.

POWELL:
Science is the most reliable source of general type information available today. Science is significantly superior to other methods such as relying on one's interpretation of the Bible or relying on one's perceptions of revelations from God via prayer.

If God would be a lot more accessible to our questions, I might agree. Directly asking the entity who created everything would surely be more efficient than doing science in the conventional way.

POWELL:
Perhaps the point of beginning is when our universe came into being.

MITBULLS:
Which was when?

POWELL:
Modern astronomical evidence suggests something like 14 billion years ago.

MITBULLS:
And how do you suppose that could have happened with no God to direct it?

POWELL:
By some kind of natural means, I suppose.

People used to think God caused the lightning when He got mad or something like that. Most people today believe it's caused by natural forces. What do you believe causes lightning, Mitbulls?

People used to think God or angels or some such pushed the sun, moon, planets, stars and such things around the sky. Most people today believe it's caused by the spin and orbital motions of the Earth and other bodies. What do you believe causes the Sun and such to move like they do?

Perhaps the same is true about the formation of life, the Earth, and the universe itself. What people used to think God did, maybe He didn't.

POWELL:
You're arguing that because such things aren't seen to occur later, that they therefore did not occur before.

MITBULLS:
Doesn't this statement basically describe the backbone of the atheist argument that miracles did not happen in Biblical times? Because we can not see them occuring today?

POWELL:
Good point. I'm pointing out that the argument he seemed to be using was not deductively sound. It might be statistically strong.

IMO, what my fellow skeptics should be arguing is that Biblical miracles probably did not happen in the past since we can't come close to replicating them today.

If God performed miracles for both Old and New Testament people, Mitbulls, why isn't He doing similar things for needy believers of today?

MITBULLS:
If you're going to apply a principle in one area, you must apply it in all.

POWELL:
In sufficiently similar situations, yes, but if the situation is different enough then not necessarily.

POWELL:
That seems quite biased. That's like a believer in astrology arguing . . .

MITBULLS:
Again you miss the point of the argument and take it another direction. The point is that such ideas as spontaneous generation are not supported by any natural evidence.

POWELL:
That's not the point I was criticizing above. I was criticizing the argument that because a natural explanation would be imputing to nature, powers that believers like himself normally attribute to God that it is, therefore, improper.

Are you sure there is no natural evidence for spontaneous generation?

MITBULLS:
If you hold to the claim that knowledge can only be gained by reason and the scientific method, as most athiests do, . . .

POWELL:
well sure, knowledge can only be gained by reasonable methods. Unreasonable methods would be, well, unreasonable. However, the scientific method, as you probably understand it, is not the only way to gain knowledge. You can ask someone their opinion, for example. That's the most common way to gain knowledge about things you haven't experienced directly.

MITBULLS:
. . . then you have to show us why it is reasonable that things appear out of thin air in nature without the power of God.

POWELL:
Clouds appear out of thin air all the time. Have you ever heard of quantum mechanical virtual particles?

Using Biblical interpretation or prayer or religious philosophizing to answer scientific type questions has proven themselves to be unreliable so many times that it's likely use of them to explain modern cosmological mysteries will be wrong also.

Science, on the other hand, has proven itself over and over again in the past in so many different fields capable of giving better natural explanations to what had previously been explained by the "God did it" hypothesis that it's likely that it will be able to outdo the "God did it" hypothesis on the current cosmological mysteries too.

POWELL:
It's based partly on Occam's Razor. If the natural, No God, explanation works, then it's probably wise to stick with it.

MITBULLS:
In your statement, you make a few presuppositions. In order to use Occam’s Razor in your argument, you must first prove that your argument is the most simple and logical.

POWELL:
Occam's razor is not about "proving" something is true.

Occam's razor recommends that one adopt the simplest explanation (fewest assumptions) that adequately explains the facts. This does not mean the simplest explanation is the true one. It means if you don't know what the true answer is, there's no good reason to use an explanation that's more awkward when the simpler one currently works just as well at explaining the observations. For example, you should not use a curved line to represent a scatter plot if a straight line suffices.

MITBULLS:
You are basically saying (based on your other arguments in the same post) that:
1. The universe appeared from nothing
2. The universe then arranged itself in such a way as to accomodate life
3. All life on earth came from nonliving materials
4. That life then reproduced organisms that were NOT like the original organism
5. That life died and had to start over again
6. That all of this (or at least 2-5) within about 6 billion years.
7. That all of this happened completely by chance, with no guidance, nor orchestrator, and intelligence behind it

POWELL:
I was trying to criticize FS33's fallacious arguments, not really propose any of my own except as evidence of the fallaciousness of his own. But no matter, let's suppose the above was my argument since I'm prepared to defend some of it as a possibility.

Concerning 3. All life today comes from protons, neutrons, and electrons. Do you agree that these things are nonliving?

Concerning 4. Do you agree that children are not identical to their parents? If yes, then why do you see a problem with early life having daughters that were not identical with the mothers?

Concerning 7. There was no intelligent guidance or orchestration, but there were natural forces involved. Not all genetic sequences are equally fit to survive and reproduce. Those that were more fit proliferated. Chance was involved, but it wasn't "completely by chance" anymore than whether an apple falls down or falls up is completely random.

MITBULLS:
We (creationists) claim:
1. God created the universe out of his power
2. God arranged the universe in such a way as to accomodate life
3. All life on earth came (comes) from God
4. God produced multiple kinds of organisms
5. God continuously sustains life
6. I won't start on the Christian time-frame, as that's debated even among Christian scholars.

POWELL:
Why did God use a restricted genetic code for all currently living organisms given the wide variety of codes He might have chosen? This seems better explained as all life coming from a common ancestor who happened to use that specific code.

Why are whales sometimes found with hindlimbs? This makes sense if whales evolved from animals with hindlimbs. Why are human babies sometimes born with true tails? This makes more sense if humans evolved from animals with tails.

Surely God would not have needed whales with hindlimbs and humans with tails, right?

MITBULLS:
Please share, on which point your stance is more likely to have happened than ours, based on Occam's Razor? And, of course, please include why you think this.

POWELL:
All of them, including the one you skipped, namely when God did all this. The reason is because my explanations are scientific, yours are religious. Science has proven itself more reliable as a source of knowledge about such things than religion has.

POWELL:
Not as critical as you seem to think. The range of acceptable values is probably more broad than you imagine.

MITBULLS:
I’d be interested in hearing an example of this. Most of the experts I’ve heard of do lot allow for a very broad range of acceptable values, but as I’m not an expert and haven’t done much in the area I won’t try to contradict you, assuming you have some evidence or numbers to back up your position…

POWELL:
It might be easier to expose the ignorance of your experts on this issue.

Why don't we start with the kind of star that would be required? Do your experts believe life requires a G2 type star (the kind our Sun is)? In other words, a hotter G1 or cooler G3 would not work? If no, what is the range of stellar types that could work?

POWELL:
I speculate that the majority of scientists think life is inevitable under Earth-like environments.

MITBULLS:
Speculations do not have much merit.

POWELL:
The more expert the authority the greater the merit.

MITBULLS:
But anyway, so long as we’re on the topic, such a statement like “scientists think life is inevitable…” is in itself an oxymoron. Such things as the likelyhood of life appearing are impossible for us to measure (at the very least, the numbers are not in your favor since it has never been recorded to have happened), and thus are not within the realms of science, as they can not be tested by the scientific method. Anyway, moving on along…

POWELL:
I think you constrain science too much, but I will concede that the opinions of scientists on these types of questions are significantly less reliable than their opinions on questions that can be more directly studied.

More importantly, however, I think the opinions of scientists on these kinds of questions is much more reliable than the opinions of religious people based on their interpretation of the Bible or their impressions after praying.

POWELL:
I suppose if life were discovered to exist on every Earth-like planet . . .

MITBULLS:
First of all, you did not address the statement or issue brought forth by FS33.

POWELL:
What did you want me to address?

MITBULLS:
Next, you are probably right. Christians, since we hold that God reigns over the entire universe, would still conclude that God was doing it. This is no less logical than the conclusion that abiogenesis is inevitable, especially since (as before stated) both are outside the realms of science and can’t be proven by numerical calculations. Even if every Earth-like planet in the entire universe supported life, there would be no more evidence for abiogenesis than there is now.

POWELL:
It's comments like that that lead many skeptics to conclude that the God hypothesis is not falsifiable.

I suppose scientists will have to create a fully functioning cell or something like that in the laboratory from purely nonliving materials before you'll believe in abiogenesis.

POWELL:
Scientists who assume that the laws of nature apply even to humans seem to be more successful at explaining things . . .

MITBULLS:
Again, you somehow embark in a new direction, which is a position no more defendable than the previous. At the very least, give some examples.

POWELL:
Ok. Using the "humans are a special creation of God" hypothesis please explain why human testicles are larger than those of Gorillas, but smaller than those of Chimpanzees. Also, please explain why human children are sometimes born with tails and whales are sometimes born with hindlimbs.

MITBULLS:
Which scientists are more successful than which people who “assume the laws often don’t apply to humans” (which, by the way, is an extremely inaccurate description of Christians, but as that is not the issue, it can pass for now).

POWELL:
Maybe we shouldn't let it pass. Do you believe humans are animals with an evolutionary history tied closely to chimpanzees, the other apes, primates, mammals, reptiles, and such or that we are descendants of Adam and Eve who have no such tie to the rest of life on this planet or what? Do you believe humans are sexual reproducers because we evolved from sexual reproducers or because God made Adam and Eve?

MITBULLS:
How is treating humans as the most intelligent animals more effective than explaining that we are a special creation of God? You have to establish some criteria for your claim, otherwise your statements are solely subjective and need no rebuttal.

POWELL:
Well, let's see how your special creation hypothesis matches up in the explanatory category with my scientific one on the questions I posed above.

POWELL:
Do you believe that recent history was "designed" so that you would emerge as a contributor at TWEB? . . .

MITBULLS:
You make this argument several times. His point is that if there were so many points in which history could have been very different, it is quite convenient that everything has worked out so conveniently for us.

POWELL:
Has FS33 properly accounted for the many possibilities that also would produce a "convenient" result? Maybe it's not as remarkable as he seems to think.

Flip a coin 10 times. Suppose you get the following:

HTHHTTTHTH

Quite convenient, don't you think that the sequence started and ended with heads AND there were three tails in a row IMMEDIATELY AFTER a run of two heads AND the only two "runs" were next together near the middle. Amazing, no? Surely this was not due to chance, but intelligent design.

MITBULLS:
You can’t just say it happened because humans are the most intelligent; you have to consider how they got that way, and why no other being in the world even comes close.

POWELL:
Perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins are closer in intelligence to us than you think.

MITBULLS:
If evolution really happened, why should there be such a great difference between the intelligence of humans and the next closest organism? Granted that the unlikelihood of history reaching this point is not, in itself, a strong case against it happening, but it at least deserves to be admitted for consideration.

POWELL:
I concede that the gap between our own intelligence and that of chimpanzees, our nearest genetic relation, demands a good explanation. I suspect it's out there or will be out there, but I guess I'll have to look for it.

POWELL:
This is doubtful. Surely there are organisms that have outdone us in the "rapid development" category. . .

MITBULLS:
The examples you state represent the spreading of an organism, but not the development. Show me the smartest canine in the world, compare his intelligence with the rest of his kind, and then decide if they developed as quickly as humans supposedly did.

POWELL:
FS33 did not specify "intelligence development." That would be a lot more difficult to demonstrate than physical development, the kind of thing that bones might show.

My point is that the various breeds of dogs developed their unique physical features and new strains of viruses and bacteria have developed their immunities faster than humans developed their intelligence.

POWELL:
Poetically moving, but untrue. Try violating the laws of nature . . .

MITBULLS:
Actually, there have been instances when the supposed “laws of nature” have been “violated” (and, of course, subsequently changed). They are simply guidelines for us now that direct our everyday life, but not hard-and-fast laws that can’t be overcome.

POWELL:
What supposed laws of nature are you referring to that have been violated? What currently accepted laws of nature can be overcome?

MITBULLS:
And anyway, where do you suppose those laws came from?

POWELL:
The minds of scientists carefully observing and thinking about the world around them.

MITBULLS:
Curious that you assume that history and life and everything else could have happened millions of different ways, but the laws of nature were set in stone and unchangeable from the beginning…

POWELL:
If I have a bucket of sand and spill it repeatedly, I don't expect to get exactly the same mountain every time. Why should I?

POWELL:
No other animal became as intelligent as we were. They may have developed faster than we did in other ways. Intelligence at our scale is apparently a rather rare thing.

MITBULLS:
It’s granted that the issue being discussed with the word “development” is intelligence.

POWELL:
FS33 should have said something like "development of intelligence" if that's what he meant no other animal matched in its rapidity.

MITBULLS:
They may have developed, but obviously not into a better creature or they would be the ones in charge right now. So to say they developed physically fater than we did, or something of that sort, really does not apply-the fact is they did not gain as many benefits as quickly as we did.

POWELL:
I doubt that. Viruses and bacteria which develop immunities to our vaccines seem to benefit very greatly and very quickly.

POWELL:
Horses got bigger and stronger. There are fewer giants today than during the age of dinosaurs. However, the largest animals ever, whales, exist today.

MITBULLS:
Horses were relatively late to come on the scene, and they got bigger and stronger because they were being used and bred for labor.

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that the evolution of horses from the tiny things they once were was a human breeding program?

MITBULLS:
I would also like to hear some documentation on the statement that whales are the largest animals ever. It may be due to my lack of education in the area, but I can’t imagine a Brontasaurus-sized whale swimming around.

POWELL:
It's my understanding that "Brontosaurus" was a mistake. The head of one dinosaur was erroneously placed on the neck of a different one to create what appeared to be a different species.

The "whales are the largest ever" is something I was taught way back in grade school. Maybe larger animals have since been discovered.

MITBULLS:
I think you were counting on nobody taking the time to reply to this long post when you posted it.

POWELL:
Not at all. I feared that my efforts would not result in your kind of response. I'm grateful you did.

MITBULLS:
I will leave you this to chew on for now and formulate a reply, and try to be back within the next couple of days to reply to the rest of your post.

POWELL:
Great.

John Powell

[Vorkosigan]

MITBULLS:
I would also like to hear some documentation on the statement that whales are the largest animals ever. It may be due to my lack of education in the area, but I can’t imagine a Brontasaurus-sized whale swimming around.

You could easily. Brontosaurs (apatosaurs) were smaller than modern whales. There's a size comparison here:

Blue whales are BIG.

However, some recent finds indicate that the largest sauropods may yet exceed whales in size. So keep your hopes up.

Vorkosigan

[John Powell]

ERRATUM:

POWELL:
I just did a quick search. I seem to be mistaken about Brontosaurus. Evidently, it wasn't about mixing heads of one with necks of another, but mistaking a juvenile and an adult as separate species. Where did I get that false information?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Evidently, I was not as wrong as I later thought.

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/dinobront.htm
Whatever Happened to the Brontosaurus?
. . .

The Brontosaurus, a member of a family of dinosaurs that walked on four legs with long necks and long tails called sauropods, was the victim of a war that was played out over a hundred years ago. Starting in the late 1860's, two of America's most prominent paleontologists, Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh, had a falling out. Cope claimed that Marsh had paid quarrymen in New Jersey to divert fossils they found for him to Marsh. Personal attacks between the men, thinly veiled as "scientific criticism," followed in articles that they wrote for publication. Later, each would send teams into the fossil fields of the West where they would fight over digging rights amid claims that the other side had destroyed or damaged fossils in order to block their rivals from getting a hold of them.

One outgrowth of these "bone wars" was an unscientific competition between Cope and Marsh to see who could discover the most species of extinct beasts. In their rush to beat each other to the next find, the scientists often based their claims on incomplete or inaccurate data.

. . .

In his rush to beat Cope, Marsh had made a mistake, however. The Apatosaurus was not a separate species, but simply a juvenile example of Brontosaurus. In 1903 Elmer Riggs of the Field Museum in Chicago was studying Marsh's work when he found this mistake:

...the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen.

Riggs, following the naming rules for animals that applied at the time added:

...In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term"Apatosaurus" has priority, "Brontosaurus" will be regarded as a synonym.

. . .

To add insult to injury, the poor Brontosaurus not only got a name change, but it was discovered that he had the wrong head, too. One item that was not found in the excavation with Marsh's Yale skeleton was a skull. Marsh mounted a head found at a different location to complete the exhibit. For many years scientists suspected that Marsh had gotten the wrong skull, but it wasn't until 1970 that two scientists, John McIntosh from Wesleyan University and David Berman of the Carnegie Museum, proved it. The head that Marsh had mounted was from another sauropod named Camarasaurus. The proper Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus skull actually had a slightly longer snout and looked a lot like the skull of another sauropod called Diplodocus.

Joking POWELL:
For those of you who think I am perfect, let me assure you that's not the case. There was one time I made a mistake in thinking I had made a mistake, but it turned out that it wasn't a mistake after all.

John Powell