Discussion:
Former Garrison Staffer Tom Bethell Dies
(too old to reply)
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-02-21 03:23:15 UTC
Permalink
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.

John has excerpts from the diary he kept while working for Garrison:
Excerpts here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell1.htm

Obit here: https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_ad55ed42-7308-11eb-8194-57d5cd366e53.html
John Corbett
2021-02-21 15:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.

I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
John McAdams
2021-02-21 17:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
Years ago, I listened to Ann Coulter attack evolution, and debunk a
lot of stuff that semi-popular sources cite as evidence of evolution.

My conclusion was that a lot of shoddy evidence is presented to
support evolution, which is *not* to say evolution didn't happen.

Poor logic and lousy evidence can be used in the service of a theory
that happens to be true.

I think the intelligent JFK conspiracy theorists would agree. They
know full-well that a lot of "conspiracy witnesses" are bogus, and
people like Mark Lane are dishonest.

They just believe that when you strip away the bogus nonsense, there
is still evidence of a conspiracy.

So perhaps when you strip away the bogus stuff used to support
evolution, there remains a sound basis for seeing it as the "origin of
species."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-21 23:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
Years ago, I listened to Ann Coulter attack evolution, and debunk a
lot of stuff that semi-popular sources cite as evidence of evolution.
My conclusion was that a lot of shoddy evidence is presented to
support evolution, which is *not* to say evolution didn't happen.
Poor logic and lousy evidence can be used in the service of a theory
that happens to be true.
I think the intelligent JFK conspiracy theorists would agree. They
know full-well that a lot of "conspiracy witnesses" are bogus, and
people like Mark Lane are dishonest.
They just believe that when you strip away the bogus nonsense, there
is still evidence of a conspiracy.
So perhaps when you strip away the bogus stuff used to support
evolution, there remains a sound basis for seeing it as the "origin of
species."
It would be amazing if when Darwin first proposed his theories that he got
everything exactly right but I have no question in my mind he was on the
right track and there has been a lot of sound scientific study since which
supports the basic premise.
John McAdams
2021-02-22 00:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
Years ago, I listened to Ann Coulter attack evolution, and debunk a
lot of stuff that semi-popular sources cite as evidence of evolution.
My conclusion was that a lot of shoddy evidence is presented to
support evolution, which is *not* to say evolution didn't happen.
Poor logic and lousy evidence can be used in the service of a theory
that happens to be true.
I think the intelligent JFK conspiracy theorists would agree. They
know full-well that a lot of "conspiracy witnesses" are bogus, and
people like Mark Lane are dishonest.
They just believe that when you strip away the bogus nonsense, there
is still evidence of a conspiracy.
So perhaps when you strip away the bogus stuff used to support
evolution, there remains a sound basis for seeing it as the "origin of
species."
It would be amazing if when Darwin first proposed his theories that he got
everything exactly right but I have no question in my mind he was on the
right track and there has been a lot of sound scientific study since which
supports the basic premise.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2021-02-22 00:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
So perhaps when you strip away the bogus stuff used to support
evolution, there remains a sound basis for seeing it as the "origin of
species."
It would be amazing if when Darwin first proposed his theories that he got
everything exactly right but I have no question in my mind he was on the
right track and there has been a lot of sound scientific study since which
supports the basic premise.
It is worth understanding that, when some theory becomes dominant --
even if for good reasons -- there is likely to be a lot of sloppy
thinking and bogus evidence adduced to support it.

And this is true of theories that are, essentially, correct.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2021-02-23 00:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
Years ago, I listened to Ann Coulter attack evolution, and debunk a
lot of stuff that semi-popular sources cite as evidence of evolution.
My conclusion was that a lot of shoddy evidence is presented to
support evolution, which is *not* to say evolution didn't happen.
Poor logic and lousy evidence can be used in the service of a theory
that happens to be true.
I think the intelligent JFK conspiracy theorists would agree. They
know full-well that a lot of "conspiracy witnesses" are bogus, and
people like Mark Lane are dishonest.
They just believe that when you strip away the bogus nonsense, there
is still evidence of a conspiracy.
So perhaps when you strip away the bogus stuff used to support
evolution, there remains a sound basis for seeing it as the "origin of
species."
It would be amazing if when Darwin first proposed his theories that he
got everything exactly right but I have no question in my mind he was on
the
Darwin could not get everyhing 100% right. It turned out to be more
complex than that. Don't fotget mutation.
Post by John Corbett
right track and there has been a lot of sound scientific study since
which supports the basic premise.
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-02-21 18:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.

Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.

In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
John McAdams
2021-02-21 18:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Feb 2021 18:08:29 -0000, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
The best evidence of Intelligent Design (a broad term that includes
young earth creationism, but also other theories) is the anthropic
principle.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-21 23:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
he said:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
John McAdams
2021-02-22 00:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
That particular quote sounds a bit more tolerant than Sagan typically
sounds.
Post by John Corbett
I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
Directing the evolutionary process? Or setting up the laws of the
physical universe so that the evolution of mankind will happen?

The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.

You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
Magazine:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html

A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.

The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.

That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-22 12:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
That particular quote sounds a bit more tolerant than Sagan typically
sounds.
Post by John Corbett
I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
Directing the evolutionary process? Or setting up the laws of the
physical universe so that the evolution of mankind will happen?
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
I will point to another quote from Dr. Carl Sagan:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?

The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
John McAdams
2021-02-22 12:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
OK, Sagan was an atheist. We knew that.
Post by John Corbett
I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
No, I wasn't.
Post by John Corbett
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?
The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
Rejection of such a Supreme Being has to be based on faith.

You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.

Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.

They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.

For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.

If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.

Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.

So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-23 00:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
OK, Sagan was an atheist. We knew that.
Actually he was not in the strictest sense of the word as the first quote
I posted indicates. While I think it is true he didn't believe there was a
God, he dismissed the idea that we can be certain of such a thing because
there is so much we don't know. I think his position on the matter would
make him an agnostic. He rejected both those who were certain there is no
God and those who are certain there is.
Post by John Corbett
I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
No, I wasn't.
OK, I thought that was a standard throughout the Catholic schools in the
US but apparently not or maybe you didn't attend a Catholic grammar
school.
Post by John Corbett
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?
The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
Rejection of such a Supreme Being has to be based on faith.
Neither Sagan nor myself absolutely rejects the possibility of a Supreme
Being. We just see no compelling evidence of one. At least I don't. Maybe
Sagan has since found out differently?
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
I remember Sagan appearing on the Tonight Show saying that the formation
of life was almost in cards given the conditions early in the earth's
history so the question becomes did those conditions happen by chance or
were they put in place by a Supreme Being. Give the trillions of galaxies
and star systems within those galaxies, even if the chances of such a
thing happening were very small, it's not illogical to think that it could
have happened on our earth and in other worlds throughout the universe. I
don't think any of us will know how unique our circumstance is.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Who knows how many Big Bangs there were before the present one. Maybe
those others did collapse back in on itself. Maybe there billions of them
that came first.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
Given the size of the universe and an infinite amount of time, it is not
absurd to think the absurdly unlikely could eventually happen. Our
knowledge of time and space is too infinitesimally small to be certain of
anything. The best guess currently is that there are about 200 trillion
galaxies. Even if the odds that any one galaxy could contain a planet that
could produce and sustain life were a trillion to one, that would mean we
could expect there to be about 200 such planets in the universe. I get
dizzy just thinking about it which is why I try not to make a habit of it.

It really comes down to the question of whether there is somebody at the
controls of the universe or if it is on auto pilot.
Anthony Marsh
2021-02-23 00:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
OK, Sagan was an atheist. We knew that.
Post by John Corbett
I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
No, I wasn't.
Post by John Corbett
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?
The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
Rejection of such a Supreme Being has to be based on faith.
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
Sure. but does it always need oxygen and carbon dioxide? Would another
compound work?
Post by John McAdams
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2021-02-28 02:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
OK, Sagan was an atheist. We knew that.
Post by John Corbett
I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
No, I wasn't.
Post by John Corbett
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?
The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
Rejection of such a Supreme Being has to be based on faith.
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?

Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?

To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.

I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.

We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.

And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.

Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance. It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).

Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.

Hank
John McAdams
2021-02-28 03:27:44 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)

In the first place, there is no evidence for it.

In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.

Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.

What caused those big bangs?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.

Ever hear of Ptolemy?

You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.

But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.

But the universe we have is improbable.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.

I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.

Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?

In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.

But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.

Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.

A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.

Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.

No Hitler, no Churchill.

No Klan, no Martin Luther King.

No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.

You would not like a morally meaningless world. So don't blame God
for not creating one.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.

Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.

Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.

In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things. Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-28 19:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)
In the first place, there is no evidence for it.
In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.
Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.
What caused those big bangs?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.
Ever hear of Ptolemy?
You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.
But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.
But the universe we have is improbable.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.
I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.
Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?
In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.
But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.
Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.
A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.
Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.
No Hitler, no Churchill.
No Klan, no Martin Luther King.
No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.
You would not like a morally meaningless world. So don't blame God
for not creating one.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.
Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.
Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.
In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things. Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.
Can't logically be ruled in or out.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2021-02-28 19:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)
No kidding.
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence for it.
It can't be ruled out. We simply don't have enough evidence either way.
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Why would they be identical? We know that small changes in initial
conditions -- the butterfly effect -- can have a multiplicity of outcomes
in this universe. Do we know enough about how universes are created to
rule out different conditions in different universes?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.
Yes, but that's because we live in this universe. If the big bang has a
scientific explanation, then the science would most likely determine how
many times the big bang would occur. As an analogy, since we know how
large our universe is, we can understand that there must be a large number
of planets in this universe where life could develop, even if the
possibility of life on any one planet is extremely remote.
Post by John McAdams
Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't have enough information to choose
a side either way.

But there is a strong difference between defending the concept of an
intelligent creator and arguing for the possibility of other universes,
wouldn't you agree?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.
Yes. I note you're not arguing against the possibility here.
Post by John McAdams
What caused those big bangs?
I don't know. Do you?

Sorry, if you don't ask me questions neither one of us can answer with
certainty, I will do the same.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.
Ever hear of Ptolemy?
Sigh. Ptolemy's geocentric theory was an attempt to explain - using the
observed facts only - the apparent movement of the sun, the moon, and the
planets against the stars. Because it starts with the assumption of the
earth as stationary, it has everything else in the observable universe
rotating around it. That's certainly the way it appears to any observer
here on earth. Even today, we speak of sunrise and sunset, for example, as
if the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. We both know
that's not what's really happening, but it's convenient shorthand.

As our knowledge of our solar system, galaxy, and eventually our universe
expanded, we realized there's nothing really special about earth, and
there's no really good reason to put earth at the center. As I pointed out
in my earlier post, we're really just a small rock in one non-descript
solar system (recent advances has shown that it's likely most stars have
planets) on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy . I find it the height
of hubris that anyone would seriously entertain the notion that this
entire universe would be created solely for the develop of home sapiens.
It does seem like overkill. One star with one planet would suffice,
wouldn't it?

As there's no reason to put earth as the center of the universe, there's
also no reason to assume this entire universe was created solely for man's
benefit.
Post by John McAdams
You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.
Not my argument. My point was lightning strikes was often seen as an
example of God's displeasure (as are other calamities like a plague of
locusts, a river turning red, comets, or a "falling star". We understand
the science better, and know we needn't resort to invoking God to explain
natural phenomena nowadays.

Lightning strikes fall into that category.
Post by John McAdams
But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
What's silly is that you're avoiding the context of the science of the
times. If we only understand x, then x' seems like the most likely
explanation. As we understand it is actually y, then x' can be ruled out,
and y' becomes the more likely explanation. Ptolemy's geocentric theory
was invented centuries before the invention of the telescope, and it was
only when the telescope was invented that we discovered things that
contradicted the geocentric theory - like moons orbiting Jupiter. It made
our apparent specialness at the center of the universe recede into the
background, as gravity gave a better accounting of the apparent motions of
the Sun, moon, planets and stars.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.
But the universe we have is improbable.
Asked and answered. Only if we assume one dice roll. With an infinite
number of dice rolls, it's not improbable, no matter how improbable it may
be for it to happen once. There's no reason to assume one dice roll - we
simply don't know. And as science tells us there's nothing special about
earth, nothing special about our solar system, and nothing special about
our galaxy, why then should we assume there's something special about our
universe?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.
That's not what I said. Please don't straw man my arguments, John.
Lighting strikes, floods, plagues, and other calamities were all seen by
religion as voicing Gods' displeasure at something or other. If a town
burned to the ground, it was because the people there were sinners. If
lightning struck a building, it was likewise a sign of God's displeasure.
But that explanation became less and less tenable when lightning was
better understood, and buildings around the church used lightning rods to
guide the current into the ground. That meant the churches, not some
secular institution, were the buildings get struck and damaged, and that's
what hard to explain to the parishioners.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.
Because they use lightning rods NOW. But they were slow to adopt them.
Post by John McAdams
Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?
Straw man. I'm not talking about God at all. I'm talking about religion's
explanations for natural phenomena, like lightning strikes and plagues, no
longer being attributed to God's will as the science is better understood.
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.
Is there a strong reason to interject God into this equation? Simply
because we don't understand everything about the universe doesn't mean we
need to interject an intelligent creator here, does it?
Post by John McAdams
But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.
John, if these were stories about the Kennedy assassination surfacing
decades later, we'd both be rejecting them as based on faulty memory or as
fish stories.
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.
Or maybe it's just random lightning strikes, and you're trying to find a
pattern in randomness. Humans are prone to that.
Post by John McAdams
A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.
Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.
John, you're begging the question and assuming the existence of God above.
Post by John McAdams
No Hitler, no Churchill.
No Klan, no Martin Luther King.
No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.
You would not like a morally meaningless world.
You know this how?
Post by John McAdams
So don't blame God
for not creating one.
You're begging the question again and arguing a straw man. I'm not blaming
God for anything, as I've seen no evidence for the existence of one.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.
If "maybe" is the best you can do, I think we're done here.
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
And if we were intelligent beings but descended from frogs, we'd have a
different language for communications and you wouldn't be arguing the
universe is designed to result in intelligent life descended from
primates, but that's it's designed to result in intwelligent life
descended from frogs. I don't have enough hubris to think homo sapiens are
the whole reason this universe was created.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.
Which part? That evolution happens, or that it's happenstance? Or both?

It may well be a given that intelligent life is a necessary consequence of
life itself. There is certainly survival value in intelligence, and thus
we see it in other creatures as well, but to a limited extent. There is
indications that other animals, among them bonobos and chimpanzees,
octopi, and dolphins have intelligence approaching ours. The fact an
asteroid took out the dinosaurs 65m years ago and left mammals to pick up
the pieces has to be happenstance... there's no guarantee mammals would
have even have developed prior to that.
Post by John McAdams
Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
So God is trying to trick us into thinking it's happenstance, but it's
really not? Is that really what you're going to go with here?

Again, if it looks like happenstance, and smells like happenstance, and
walks and quacks like happenstance, there's no reason to insert God into
the equation and blame it all on him. Anymore than we need to blame the
moon going around the earth on God anymore. We understand it better.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.
It could, but it's on you to prove the existence of said intelligence as
it's on those who argue for conspiracy to establish Mrs. Paine's
involvement. It's not on me to disprove any of it. To argue otherwise is
to shift the burden of proof.
Post by John McAdams
In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
No, it depends merely on there being no evidence of one. I see no evidence
of conspiracy, as I see no evidence of a divine creator. And it's not on
me to disprove the existence of either.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things.
Begging the question once more. You don't know that.
Post by John McAdams
Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.
My problem with your arguments is it can't be ruled in. It must be taken
on faith. Science is the antithesis of faith. It's the use of reason to
understand the world around us.

Hank
John McAdams
2021-02-28 21:20:41 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Feb 2021 19:35:25 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely
unless some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own
big bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)
No kidding.
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence for it.
It can't be ruled out. We simply don't have enough evidence either way.
But aren't you willing to rule out Intelligent Design in spite of the
lack of evidence against it?

Remember, if there is only one universe, the odds of it being fine
tuned to allow the evolution of life are miniscule.

You are familiar with "hypothesis testing" I'm sure.

If the odds of something happening by chance are trivially small, we
conclude that it did not happen by chance.

To get around the Anthropic Principle, you have to posit something for
which there is no evidence.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Why would they be identical? We know that small changes in initial
conditions -- the butterfly effect -- can have a multiplicity of outcomes
in this universe. Do we know enough about how universes are created to
rule out different conditions in different universes?
But the butterfly effect doesn't negate the idea of causality. It's
simply based on the fact that small events can sometimes have large
effects, and we are unable to trace them all.

Introducing a butterfly into your multiverse theory makes it less
parsimonious.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.
Yes, but that's because we live in this universe. If the big bang has a
scientific explanation, then the science would most likely determine how
many times the big bang would occur. As an analogy, since we know how
large our universe is, we can understand that there must be a large
number of planets in this universe where life could develop, even if the
possibility of life on any one planet is extremely remote.
I don't see the analogy. We have no evidence the Big Bang would
happen more than once.

No doubt, with the universe we have, intelligent life is probable
enough.

But "the universe we have" is grossly implausible without some
Intelligence causing it.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't have enough information to choose
a side either way.
I believe we do.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
But there is a strong difference between defending the concept of an
intelligent creator and arguing for the possibility of other universes,
wouldn't you agree?
Sure. There is evidence of a Creator, but no evidence of other
universes.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because
it's the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those
other universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And
thus, intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't
take intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an
infinite number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were
right because of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.
Yes. I note you're not arguing against the possibility here.
I'm just arguing there is no evidence.

In other contexts, don't you argue "no evidence of God?"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
What caused those big bangs?
I don't know. Do you?
Not only do you not know, you ultimately can't know.

Because if science ever figures out what caused the Big Bang, then the
question will be "what caused what caused the Big Bang."

Thus, in infinite regress, with no ultimate answer.

Which means the universe is a miracle -- meaning something science
can't explain.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Sorry, if you don't ask me questions neither one of us can answer with
certainty, I will do the same.
The problem is not that neither of us can answer, it's that no
scientific answer is possible.

Remember, infinite regress.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.
Ever hear of Ptolemy?
Sigh. Ptolemy's geocentric theory was an attempt to explain - using the
observed facts only - the apparent movement of the sun, the moon, and the
planets against the stars. Because it starts with the assumption of the
earth as stationary, it has everything else in the observable universe
rotating around it. That's certainly the way it appears to any observer
here on earth. Even today, we speak of sunrise and sunset, for example,
as if the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. We both
know that's not what's really happening, but it's convenient shorthand.
As our knowledge of our solar system, galaxy, and eventually our universe
expanded, we realized there's nothing really special about earth, and
there's no really good reason to put earth at the center. As I pointed
out in my earlier post, we're really just a small rock in one
non-descript solar system (recent advances has shown that it's likely
most stars have planets) on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy . I
find it the height of hubris that anyone would seriously entertain the
notion that this entire universe would be created solely for the develop
of home sapiens.
Aren't you Mister "I will call out logical fallacies?"

"Hubris" is ad hominem.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It does seem like overkill. One star with one planet would suffice,
wouldn't it?
Again, you are making entirely subjective arguments, based on mere
taste.

Go to any ranch in Texas. The owners live in a house that occupies a
tiny portion of the land.

Indeed, only a tiny portion of the Earth's surface is inhabited

So why must the universe be different.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
As there's no reason to put earth as the center of the universe, there's
also no reason to assume this entire universe was created solely for
man's benefit.
Actually, there is. The simple fact that among all possible
universes, this one seems to be fine tuned to allow the evolution of
life.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.
Not my argument. My point was lightning strikes was often seen as an
example of God's displeasure (as are other calamities like a plague of
locusts, a river turning red, comets, or a "falling star". We understand
the science better, and know we needn't resort to invoking God to explain
natural phenomena nowadays.
Actually, it *was* your argument. You attack religious notions based on
non-scientific things that people believed. But none of those things
necessarily followed from believing in God.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Lightning strikes fall into that category.
But you can't rule out that God might indeed allow lightening to
strike somewhere for His purposes.

Nor that He might simply let the natural order play out based on its
own logic. Like somebody who plants a garden, and only occasionally
weeds it, or fertilizes it, but mostly just lets it grow.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
What's silly is that you're avoiding the context of the science of the
times. If we only understand x, then x' seems like the most likely
explanation. As we understand it is actually y, then x' can be ruled out,
and y' becomes the more likely explanation.
We now understand that the universe we have is absurdly improbable
without an Intelligence having created it.

Unless we posit a multiverse theory for which there is no evidence.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Ptolemy's geocentric theory was invented centuries before the invention
of the telescope, and it was only when the telescope was invented that we
discovered things that contradicted the geocentric theory - like moons
orbiting Jupiter. It made our apparent specialness at the center of the
universe recede into the background, as gravity gave a better accounting
of the apparent motions of the Sun, moon, planets and stars.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.
But the universe we have is improbable.
Asked and answered. Only if we assume one dice roll. With an infinite
number of dice rolls, it's not improbable, no matter how improbable it
may be for it to happen once. There's no reason to assume one dice roll -
we simply don't know. And as science tells us there's nothing special
about earth, nothing special about our solar system, and nothing special
about our galaxy, why then should we assume there's something special
about our universe?
Why should we assume there *isn't* something special? Only because we
want to?

The is no scientific reason to believe that nothing can happen only
once.

Your analogy simply doesn't hold. Given the Big Bang, we can explain
multiple solar systems. But we have no evidence of multiple Big
Bangs.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain
to the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that
keeps getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the
church is doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.
That's not what I said. Please don't straw man my arguments, John.
Lighting strikes, floods, plagues, and other calamities were all seen by
religion as voicing Gods' displeasure at something or other. If a town
burned to the ground, it was because the people there were sinners. If
lightning struck a building, it was likewise a sign of God's displeasure.
But that explanation became less and less tenable when lightning was
better understood, and buildings around the church used lightning rods to
guide the current into the ground. That meant the churches, not some
secular institution, were the buildings get struck and damaged, and that's
what hard to explain to the parishioners.
I have *precisely* attacked your argument. You are saying that since
science has produced explanations for things people used to attribute
to the will of God, that science can, in principle, explain
everything, and notions of God are not needed.

You don't know that. You assume it.

You can't rule out that God sometimes intervenes in the natural order.
You *should* know that there is plenty that science can't explain.

You *assume* that science can, in principle, explain everything.

But that's Begging the Question. Petitio principii, Mr. "I call out
logical fallacies." :-)
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.
Because they use lightning rods NOW. But they were slow to adopt them.
Is that even true?

And if so, so what?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?
Straw man. I'm not talking about God at all. I'm talking about religion's
explanations for natural phenomena, like lightning strikes and plagues,
no longer being attributed to God's will as the science is better
understood.
Which is exactly the argument I was attacking.

You claiming that if people once accepted theologically naive
arguments, there is no God and science can explain everything.

I pointed out that science has propounded a lot of silly things. So
science and belief have done similar things.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.
Is there a strong reason to interject God into this equation? Simply
because we don't understand everything about the universe doesn't mean we
need to interject an intelligent creator here, does it?
We don't understand where the universe came from, and if we did, see
"infinite regress."

Further, your argument assume that there is *nothing* that science
cannot, in principle explain.

But maybe there are things that are simply miracles -- defined as
things that science in principle can't explain.

Of course, you will reject all evidence of miracles. Which means your
faith in science is NON-FALSIFIBLE. Nothing you could learn about
would convince you of the possibility of miracles.

That's also an argumentum ad ignorantiam. "I know of no miracles, so
there can be none."
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.
John, if these were stories about the Kennedy assassination surfacing
decades later, we'd both be rejecting them as based on faulty memory or as
fish stories.
But the stories didn't surface decades later. Plenty of people from
the time of Jesus was around when the gospels (or at least texts that
got collected as gospels) were written.

And if those "stories" were not around during the time of Jesus, he
would not have made such a big impression, would he have?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.
Or maybe it's just random lightning strikes, and you're trying to find a
pattern in randomness. Humans are prone to that.
And you are trying to deny a pattern, since you don't like the
implications.

And again, we have petitio principii. You do not know it's always
random.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.
Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.
John, you're begging the question and assuming the existence of God above.
No, I'm refuting the argument that, if there is a God, He would not
allow bad things to happen.

Like allowing lightening to strike a church. Or Hitler to exist --
although that latter is massively more important than the lightening
strike on the church.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
No Hitler, no Churchill.
No Klan, no Martin Luther King.
No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.
You would not like a morally meaningless world.
You know this how?
How can there be moral meaning, if there is no possibility for evil?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
So don't blame God
for not creating one.
You're begging the question again and arguing a straw man. I'm not blaming
God for anything, as I've seen no evidence for the existence of one.
Are you admitting there might be a God, and He might have a purpose in
allowing a church to be struck by lightening?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.
If "maybe" is the best you can do, I think we're done here.
This from Mister "maybe there are millions of universes"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
And if we were intelligent beings but descended from frogs, we'd have a
different language for communications and you wouldn't be arguing the
universe is designed to result in intelligent life descended from
primates, but that's it's designed to result in intwelligent life
descended from frogs. I don't have enough hubris to think homo sapiens
are the whole reason this universe was created.
Again, "hubris" is ad hominem.

And it's not logical. Why should homo sapiens *not* be the reason for
the universe?

What would prevent God from deciding to allow homo sapiens to evolve
in a big, impressive, wonderful place?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed
on this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too
cold. Or maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from
roaches or turtles sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended
from mammals and primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.
Which part? That evolution happens, or that it's happenstance? Or both?
That it's happenstance, with no Intelligence behind it.

Why the repeated petitio principii?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It may well be a given that intelligent life is a necessary consequence of
life itself. There is certainly survival value in intelligence, and thus
we see it in other creatures as well, but to a limited extent. There is
indications that other animals, among them bonobos and chimpanzees,
octopi, and dolphins have intelligence approaching ours. The fact an
asteroid took out the dinosaurs 65m years ago and left mammals to pick up
the pieces has to be happenstance... there's no guarantee mammals would
have even have developed prior to that.
Again, begging the question. Since you *assume* no Intelligence
behind it, it has to be happenstance.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
So God is trying to trick us into thinking it's happenstance, but it's
really not? Is that really what you're going to go with here?
No, God has left plenty of evidence that it's not happenstance, but
some people refuse to accept it.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Again, if it looks like happenstance, and smells like happenstance, and
walks and quacks like happenstance, there's no reason to insert God into
the equation and blame it all on him. Anymore than we need to blame the
moon going around the earth on God anymore. We understand it better.
Again, begging the question. That we have a universe that is fine
tuned to allow the evolution of intelligent life does *not* walk and
quack like happenstance.

It walks and quacks like an Intelligence created it.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.
It could, but it's on you to prove the existence of said intelligence as
Shifting the burden of proof!

Why do you keep using the logical fallacies you take other people to
task for.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
it's on those who argue for conspiracy to establish Mrs. Paine's
involvement. It's not on me to disprove any of it. To argue otherwise is
to shift the burden of proof.
But if enough things happened in Mrs. Paine's life that were grossly
improbable under the assumption of "no conspiracy," we could conclude
"conspiracy."

Neither you nor I *happen* to believe that.

But that is the issue.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
No, it depends merely on there being no evidence of one. I see no evidence
of conspiracy, as I see no evidence of a divine creator. And it's not on
me to disprove the existence of either.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Shifting the burden of proof.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things.
Begging the question once more. You don't know that.
You are denying there are *ever* conspiracies?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.
My problem with your arguments is it can't be ruled in. It must be taken
on faith. Science is the antithesis of faith. It's the use of reason to
understand the world around us.
Again, begging the question.

That *everything* can be explain by science is an Article of Faith of
the Church of Science.

There is plenty that science can't explain. It *in principle* cannot
explain the *ultimate* cause of the universe.

And is has to ON FAITH reject any evidence of miracles.

So just who is more rational?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-03-01 03:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)
No kidding.
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence for it.
It can't be ruled out. We simply don't have enough evidence either way.
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Why would they be identical? We know that small changes in initial
conditions -- the butterfly effect -- can have a multiplicity of outcomes
in this universe. Do we know enough about how universes are created to
rule out different conditions in different universes?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.
Yes, but that's because we live in this universe. If the big bang has a
scientific explanation, then the science would most likely determine how
many times the big bang would occur. As an analogy, since we know how
large our universe is, we can understand that there must be a large number
of planets in this universe where life could develop, even if the
possibility of life on any one planet is extremely remote.
Post by John McAdams
Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't have enough information to choose
a side either way.
That's pretty much my position. It seems to have been Carl Sagan's
position too if I interpret his words correctly.

There was a sitcom I liked called Malcolm in the Middle in which Malcolm
described his family as hopeful agnostics. I hadn't heard that expression
before but I thought it was funny. Madelyn Murray O'Hare said that
agnostics were really just chickenshit atheists.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
But there is a strong difference between defending the concept of an
intelligent creator and arguing for the possibility of other universes,
wouldn't you agree?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.
Yes. I note you're not arguing against the possibility here.
Post by John McAdams
What caused those big bangs?
I don't know. Do you?
If atheists could answer that question, I'd probably be an atheist.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Sorry, if you don't ask me questions neither one of us can answer with
certainty, I will do the same.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.
Ever hear of Ptolemy?
Sigh. Ptolemy's geocentric theory was an attempt to explain - using the
observed facts only - the apparent movement of the sun, the moon, and the
planets against the stars. Because it starts with the assumption of the
earth as stationary, it has everything else in the observable universe
rotating around it. That's certainly the way it appears to any observer
here on earth. Even today, we speak of sunrise and sunset, for example, as
if the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. We both know
that's not what's really happening, but it's convenient shorthand.
Wouldn't if be hilarious if they discovered that Ptolemy was right all
along.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
As our knowledge of our solar system, galaxy, and eventually our universe
expanded, we realized there's nothing really special about earth, and
there's no really good reason to put earth at the center. As I pointed out
in my earlier post, we're really just a small rock in one non-descript
solar system (recent advances has shown that it's likely most stars have
planets) on the outskirts of a non-descript galaxy . I find it the height
of hubris that anyone would seriously entertain the notion that this
entire universe would be created solely for the develop of home sapiens.
It does seem like overkill. One star with one planet would suffice,
wouldn't it?
If it was an intelligent creator, that would be true. On the other hand if
life on earth was just a cosmic accident, its' conceivable that the
chances of life forming and evolving to what it is today is so unlikely
(one in many trillions) that we could be alone in the universe. For all
intents and purposes we are. The chances of us communicating with those
from another solar system seem quite remote to me and the chances of
traveling to even the nearest stars in our own galaxy seem even less
feasible. It's why I scoff at the idea of extra-terrestrials having
visited the earth. Why would those people travel all that way just to play
hide and seek. Maybe they saw how inferior the human race was and decided
they didn't want to hang out with us.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
As there's no reason to put earth as the center of the universe, there's
also no reason to assume this entire universe was created solely for man's
benefit.
Post by John McAdams
You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.
Not my argument. My point was lightning strikes was often seen as an
example of God's displeasure (as are other calamities like a plague of
locusts, a river turning red, comets, or a "falling star". We understand
the science better, and know we needn't resort to invoking God to explain
natural phenomena nowadays.
Lightning strikes fall into that category.
There is a joke among golfers that if you are ever out on the golf course
and a sudden thunderstorm pops up, just hold your 1-iron over your head.
Not even God can hit 1-iron. You probably have to be a golfer to
appreciate the humor.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
What's silly is that you're avoiding the context of the science of the
times. If we only understand x, then x' seems like the most likely
explanation. As we understand it is actually y, then x' can be ruled out,
and y' becomes the more likely explanation. Ptolemy's geocentric theory
was invented centuries before the invention of the telescope, and it was
only when the telescope was invented that we discovered things that
contradicted the geocentric theory - like moons orbiting Jupiter. It made
our apparent specialness at the center of the universe recede into the
background, as gravity gave a better accounting of the apparent motions of
the Sun, moon, planets and stars.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.
But the universe we have is improbable.
Asked and answered. Only if we assume one dice roll. With an infinite
number of dice rolls, it's not improbable, no matter how improbable it may
be for it to happen once. There's no reason to assume one dice roll - we
simply don't know. And as science tells us there's nothing special about
earth, nothing special about our solar system, and nothing special about
our galaxy, why then should we assume there's something special about our
universe?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.
That's not what I said. Please don't straw man my arguments, John.
Lighting strikes, floods, plagues, and other calamities were all seen by
religion as voicing Gods' displeasure at something or other. If a town
burned to the ground, it was because the people there were sinners. If
lightning struck a building, it was likewise a sign of God's displeasure.
But that explanation became less and less tenable when lightning was
better understood, and buildings around the church used lightning rods to
guide the current into the ground. That meant the churches, not some
secular institution, were the buildings get struck and damaged, and that's
what hard to explain to the parishioners.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.
Because they use lightning rods NOW. But they were slow to adopt them.
Post by John McAdams
Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?
Straw man. I'm not talking about God at all. I'm talking about religion's
explanations for natural phenomena, like lightning strikes and plagues, no
longer being attributed to God's will as the science is better understood.
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.
Is there a strong reason to interject God into this equation? Simply
because we don't understand everything about the universe doesn't mean we
need to interject an intelligent creator here, does it?
Post by John McAdams
But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.
John, if these were stories about the Kennedy assassination surfacing
decades later, we'd both be rejecting them as based on faulty memory or as
fish stories.
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.
Or maybe it's just random lightning strikes, and you're trying to find a
pattern in randomness. Humans are prone to that.
Post by John McAdams
A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.
Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.
John, you're begging the question and assuming the existence of God above.
Post by John McAdams
No Hitler, no Churchill.
No Klan, no Martin Luther King.
No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.
You would not like a morally meaningless world.
You know this how?
Post by John McAdams
So don't blame God
for not creating one.
You're begging the question again and arguing a straw man. I'm not blaming
God for anything, as I've seen no evidence for the existence of one.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.
If "maybe" is the best you can do, I think we're done here.
Post by John McAdams
Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
And if we were intelligent beings but descended from frogs, we'd have a
different language for communications and you wouldn't be arguing the
universe is designed to result in intelligent life descended from
primates, but that's it's designed to result in intwelligent life
descended from frogs. I don't have enough hubris to think homo sapiens are
the whole reason this universe was created.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.
Which part? That evolution happens, or that it's happenstance? Or both?
It may well be a given that intelligent life is a necessary consequence of
life itself. There is certainly survival value in intelligence, and thus
we see it in other creatures as well, but to a limited extent. There is
indications that other animals, among them bonobos and chimpanzees,
octopi, and dolphins have intelligence approaching ours. The fact an
asteroid took out the dinosaurs 65m years ago and left mammals to pick up
the pieces has to be happenstance... there's no guarantee mammals would
have even have developed prior to that.
Post by John McAdams
Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
So God is trying to trick us into thinking it's happenstance, but it's
really not? Is that really what you're going to go with here?
Again, if it looks like happenstance, and smells like happenstance, and
walks and quacks like happenstance, there's no reason to insert God into
the equation and blame it all on him. Anymore than we need to blame the
moon going around the earth on God anymore. We understand it better.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.
It could, but it's on you to prove the existence of said intelligence as
it's on those who argue for conspiracy to establish Mrs. Paine's
involvement. It's not on me to disprove any of it. To argue otherwise is
to shift the burden of proof.
Post by John McAdams
In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
No, it depends merely on there being no evidence of one. I see no evidence
of conspiracy, as I see no evidence of a divine creator. And it's not on
me to disprove the existence of either.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things.
Begging the question once more. You don't know that.
Post by John McAdams
Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.
My problem with your arguments is it can't be ruled in. It must be taken
on faith. Science is the antithesis of faith. It's the use of reason to
understand the world around us.
Science can take us only so far. There is so much science cannot explain.
It is left to each of us how we choose to fill in the blanks or if we
choose to fill them in at all. I try not to spend a lot of time pondering
the possibilities because there isn't much I can do about them. Those who
believe there is a God and that the quality of our afterlife will depend
on how we conduct ourselves in this life are putting all their chips on
that one possibility. I prefer not to bet on where the ball will end up on
the roulette wheel. I prefer to draw as much pleasure from this life as I
can without infringing on the right of others to do the same. If there is
an afterlife, I'll just have to hope that's good enough for whoever
decides where I'll be spending it.

Anthony Marsh
2021-03-01 03:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2021 02:58:46 -0000, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
That's called a multiverse theory. You are not the first one to think
of it. :-)
In the first place, there is no evidence for it.
You mean YOU have not looked for it.
Does gravity exist?
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, the most parsimonious such theory would have some
process spitting out identical universes.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
But we only have evidence of one "roll:" the universe in which we
live.
Isn't it you atheists who accuse believers of believing in things for
which there is no evidence?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
Again the multiverse theory.
What caused those big bangs?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
It was scientists who believed the earth was the center of this
universe.
Ever hear of Ptolemy?
You can certainly cite things that religious people believed that seem
silly today. Although I would not rule out God causing lightening
Well, if you are truly religious, why don't you claim that the Earth is
flat? Are you trying to get excommunicated?
Post by John McAdams
striking somebody. I don't think God intervenes in nature that much.
But I could cite a massive number of things science has believed that
seem silly today.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
*Given* the universe we have, the evolution of life isn't implausible.
But the universe we have is improbable.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
Atheists keep making theologically naive statements about what God
would do, and then think you have proven He doesn't exist because
facts don't fit *your* theological theories.
I'm not aware of any case where churches (and no other buildings) are
continually struck by lightening.
Are you claiming that, if there is a God, He would *never* allow a
church to be struck?
In the first place, God may have put into place certain physical laws,
and mostly sees no reason to intervene.
But maybe he rarely does, to make a point. Jesus' miracles, for
example.
Or maybe God has some purpose in letting the church be struck. To
allow the congregation to rally around and work to rebuild it, for
example.
A lot of hardship may follow this pattern.
Remember, if God prevented all hardship, we would live in a morally
meaningless world.
No Hitler, no Churchill.
No Klan, no Martin Luther King.
No communism, no Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.
You would not like a morally meaningless world. So don't blame God
for not creating one.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And it took a series of asteroid strikes to get us to where we are today.
We're simply the most dominant life form on this planet at the present time
- which isn't to say we're currently the most intelligent. It's all luck
of the draw. Change one or more encounters with a large rock with
earth's name on it, and everything would be vastly different.
In the first place, maybe God arranged the rock.
Or maybe he simply arranged the universe so that the laws of nature
would produce some rock somewhere that would create homo sapiens.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Maybe we'd be outside the habitable zone and no life would have formed on
this remote mote in space whatsover because it was too hot or too cold. Or
maybe we'd all be intelligent life forms descended from roaches or turtles
sitting at our computers. The fact we're descended from mammals and
primates in particular is mere happenstance.
You don't know that. It's something you take on faith.
Secondly, God may have arranged the universe such that such
"happenstance" would happen.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It's no different than Mrs
Paine helping Oswald get a job at the Book Depository five weeks before
the final motorcade route was decided upon (weaving in the JFK
assassination here so we're back on topic somewhat).
But if that *could* have been a piece of a conspiracy, so could homo
sapiens have been the result of some Intelligence.
In short, your analogy depends not merely on our being LGTs, but on
believing a conspiracy is *impossible.*
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Happenstance happens, a lot more than we'd perhaps like to think.
But sometimes an Intelligence directs things. Sure, that notion is
often abused, but it can't be ruled out.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2021-02-28 19:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John McAdams
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who
sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if
by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then
clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
OK, Sagan was an atheist. We knew that.
Post by John Corbett
I'm going to assume you were taught from the same Baltimore Catechism that
No, I wasn't.
Post by John Corbett
I was. One of the tenets they drummed into us is that "God always was and
always will be". If that can be true, why couldn't it be true that
physical laws always were and always will be?
The next question of course is whether the physical laws always were or
did an anthropomorphic patriarch create these laws. I see no proof of such
a being although I cannot logical rule it out. Acceptance of such a
supreme being has to be based at least in part on faith.
Rejection of such a Supreme Being has to be based on faith.
You really need to read the article I posted. My blog post mostly
just quotes an article in DISCOVER magazine, which is mainstream
science journalism.
Put simply: there are a lot of parameters of the physical universe.
They are all where then need to be to allow the evolution of life, and
ultimately homo sapiens.
For example: there is a gradational constant that, if it was a
fraction of a point higher would cause the Big Bang to collapse back
in on itself.
If it were a fraction of a point lower, the matter would never
coalesce into stars and planets.
Same with the laws of nuclear physics. They have to allow the
creation of higher order elements. No possible way to have life with
nothing but hydrogen and helium.
So those parameters are not random. They are absurdly unlikely unless
some Intelligence put them in place.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
What if there were an infinite number of universes each with its own big
bang and random set of rules?
Would it require intelligence to roll a dozen sixes on a dozen dice if you
rolled them an infinite number of times?
To us, it might seem like this is the only possible universe because it's
the one we're in. But we wouldn't be - couldn't be - in those other
universes because the conditions for life aren't just right. And thus,
intelligence life has no chance to develop. Maybe it doesn't take
intelligence to create this universe. Maybe it just takes an infinite
number of big bangs and in this one all the conditions were right because
of sheer random luck.
I do know God has been receding into the shadows for centuries. People
used to think lightning striking something was God's will, or that the
earth was the center of the universe.
We now know we're living on - in galactic terms - a tiny dust mote in the
outskirts of one galaxy containing over a billion stars, and that our
galaxy is one of over a billion galaxies in our known universe. We're not
the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own galaxy.
And churches have lightning rods for a reason - it's tough to explain to
the parishioners why the church is the only building in town that keeps
getting struck by lightning and burning to the ground if the church is
doing God's will.
A few weeks ago I read that the scientific community now believes there
are about 200 TRILLION galaxies in our universe. That's hard enough for me
to get my arms around and the possibility that there could be trillions of
such universes makes my head spin. But of course, we can't rule that out.
I assume space is infinite. If we could travel beyond the 200 trillion
expected galaxies would we find other universes, each with their own
trillions of galaxies. Are there a finite number of universes? Is it
theoretically possible that if we went far enough out into space we would
go beyond a point where any matter exists and there was just a void.

Wouldn't it be funny if all these astrophysicists are just making up all
this shit and they really have no idea what is going on beyond our own
galaxy. Who would know? Maybe when they have their get togethers they sit
around drinking beer and inventing fantastic tales for the rest of us to
ponder.
Anthony Marsh
2021-02-23 00:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
That particular quote sounds a bit more tolerant than Sagan typically
sounds.
Post by John Corbett
I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
Directing the evolutionary process? Or setting up the laws of the
physical universe so that the evolution of mankind will happen?
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
What is evolution is just a science experiment and other univserses do
it differently? Do you bdelieve in Divine Intervention?
Or Doctor Who?
Post by John McAdams
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
Doctor Who?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2021-02-26 02:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
That particular quote sounds a bit more tolerant than Sagan typically
sounds.
Post by John Corbett
I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
Directing the evolutionary process? Or setting up the laws of the
physical universe so that the evolution of mankind will happen?
The latter (Deist) version of Intelligent Design is the one hardest to
deny.
You really need to read this, which is mostly quoted from Discover
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-dont-you-dare-start-thinking.html
A lot of the parameters of the physical universe are *exactly* where
they have to be to allow the evolution of life.
The odds that some random process would get that are trivial.
That doesn't get you the Judeo-Christian God, but it does get you to
some intelligence behind the universe.
What if there is a different God for each universe?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2021-02-23 00:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
He was a very smart, excellent writer - whether you agreed with him or not
- who wrote on a wide range of issues. He was a very persuasive critic of
Darwinism.
It would take a whole lot of writing to persuade me that Darwin's theory
of natural selection wasn't well founded.
I put a lot of faith in science to explain our past and our present. Not
so much it its ability to predict the future.
Well, I said he was persuasive not that I was persuaded <g>. Not to get
sidetracked here on this but the problem with critics of evolution like
Bethell was that the approach was being used by theists to promote their
religious explanation for life. God's nose, like the camel's, under the
tent sort of thing. The "intelligent design" school, et cetera. Bethell,
from what I can remember, didn't give an alternate explanation to
Darwinism; he just pointed out the failures in that explanation. Also see
the late Tom Wolfe's writing on evolution and human language.
Like the first group of WC critics, they raised good questions even if
they didn't have the answers.
In any case, his writings on Garrison were quite revealing. Anyone who
still defends Garrison has some "splaining" to do.
I try to avoid discussions about religion vs. science because I have no
passion for the subject. The late Dr. Carl Sagan summed up my own feelings
on the subject as well as anyone and better than I could have myself when
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who
has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and
places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more
about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To
be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence
of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled
with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
I believe the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang and that life
on earth has evolved from the simplest organisms to all living things
there are today. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot we don't know. My
biggest question is what came before the Big Bang and what caused the Big
Bang. I don't know which question is more baffling. How could there have
been a beginning of time or how could there have not been a beginning of
time? When someone can solve that riddle I might weigh in on the question
of an intelligent supreme being directing the evolutionary process.
If there is a big bang for our universe, could there be a small bang for
another universe? Or are you prejudiced?
Loading...