Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's because you have to see it that way. You can't attack it any other way.

Don't need any other way. Words have objective definitions, and strident people who hold beliefs and refuse to consider new information and evidence are closed minded. That's quite independent of your whining or your opinion of me, sorry.

Second, you have no more evidence that God's fine tuned the rules of the universe to make life than I have that rainbow unicorns pooped out the universe. If that makes you feel a bit embarrassed, that's your problem.

But the good thing about your beliefs is how utterly useless and unintrusive they are. They don't get in the way of science. And that's good.

 

[ding]

Don't need any other way. Words have objective definitions, and strident people who hold beliefs and refuse to consider new information and evidence are closed minded. That's quite independent of your whining or your opinion of me, sorry.

Second, you have no more evidence that God's fine tuned the rules of the universe to make life than I have that rainbow unicorns pooped out the universe. If that makes you feel a bit embarrassed, that's your problem.

But the good thing about your beliefs is how utterly useless and unintrusive they are. They don't get in the way of science. And that's good.

But you have never attacked the words, dummy. You just attack me because you can't attack the words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you have never attacked the words, dummy. You just attack me because you can't attack the words.

You are literally whining right now because I put your words on the same shelf as pooping unicorns and stated precisely why. Good God man, snap out of it. Religion is turning your brains to mush

 

[ding]

You are literally whining right now because I put your words on the same shelf as pooping unicorns and stated precisely why. Good God man, snap out of it. Religion is turning your brains to mush

This is your level of discourse. It's amazing you can't see it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So let's review this idiot thread:

There is not a shred of evidence for design. Not a shred.

And that about sums it up.

 

[ding]

So let's review this idiot thread:

There is not a shred of evidence for design. Not a shred.

And that about sums it up.

The structure of matter says otherwise.

These are the primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe and evidence that our universe is unnaturally finely tuned to exist and produce life and intelligence.

1. The universe being created from unequal amounts of matter and anti-matter.
2. Proton being exactly as plus-charged as electrons are minus-charged. If the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate and no life would exist.
3. The mass difference between electrons and the nucleus and the distance between the nucleus and electrons. If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron and the electron were closer to the nucleus, all matter would be fluid and no life would exist.
4. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). These same elements interact to generate the light of its star.
5. Between four and zero degrees centigrade, where water freezes, water expands, so rapidly that the ice that forms is less dense than liquid water. The complete hydrogen bonding among the water molecules in ice holds them more widely spaced than in liquid water, so ice floats. If water behaved like virtually everything else, and continued to contract on cooling, then the increasingly dense water would constantly be sinking to the bottom, and freezing would begin at the bottom, not as now at the top, and would end by freezing the water solidly. A really large mass of ice takes forever to melt, even at higher temperatures. If ice did not float, it is hard to see how any life could survive a cold spell. On any planet in the universe, if a freeze occured even once in many millions of years, that would probably be enough to block the rise of life, and to kill any life that had arisen.
6. Finally, we have a cosmic principle: To have such a universe as this requires an extraordinary balance between two great cosmic forces: that of dispersion (expansion), powered by the Big Bang, and that of aggregation, powered by gravitation. If the forces of expansion were dominant, that would yield an isotropically dispersed universe lacking local clusters, galaxies or planetary systems; all the matter would be flying apart, and there would be no large solid bodies, hence no place for life. If, on the contrary, gravitation were dominant, the initial expansion produced by the Big Bang would have slowed up and come to an end, followed by a universal collapse, perhaps in preparation for the next Big Bang. There would be no time for life to arise, or it would be quickly destroyed.

We live in a universe in which it has just lately been realized that those two forces are in exact balance, so that the universe as a whole is expanding wherever one looks, everything very distant is going away from us, but locally there are so-called local groups and clusters, where whole clusters of galaxies are held together by gravitation. Our own relatively small cluster contains, in addition to the Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy (M31). It is very much like our galaxy, but a little smaller, and there is also a still smaller galaxy, all part of our local group. Most of you have probably heard that we measure the expansion of the universe by the so-called red shift. The further one looks out into space, the redder the light is, compared to the same sources on earth. That is interpeted as an expression of the Doppler Effect, and taken to mean that the more distant an astronomical body, the faster it is receding from us. But the first such color shift ever to be discovered, by the astronomer Slipher back in 1912, was not a red shift by a blue shift. He was looking at our sister galaxy, Andromeda, and observed a blue shift because, far from receding, the Andromeda galaxy is coming toward us at about 125 miles per second. It is just this exact balance between the steady expansion of the universe as a whole and its stability locally that affords both enormous reaches of time and countless sites for the development of life.

I have here only sampled briefly an argument that extends much further. The nub of that argument is that our universe possesses a remarkably detailed constellation of properties, and as it happens, it is just that constellation that breeds life. It takes no great intelligence or imagination to conceive of other universes, indeed any number of them, each of which might be perfectly good, stable universes, but lifeless.

How did it happen that, with what seem to be so many other options, our universe came out just as it did? From our own self‑centered point of view, that is the best way to make a universe: But what I want to know is, how did the universe find that out?

It may be objected that the question would not arise if we were not here to ask it. Yet here we are, and strangely insistent on asking that kind of question. Perhaps that indeed is the answer: That this is a life‑breeding universe precisely in order eventually to bring forth creatures that ask and attempt to answer such questions, so that through them the universe can come not only to be, but to be known; indeed can come to know itself.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[abu afak]

alang1216 said:
So you can define for yourself what are God's attributes? Where does that place you in the hierarchy?

Logic can. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. Therefore, God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute.

So beyond the fallacious perfectly designed Universe/earth, etc, you've now one OUT the ******* window with:

"God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness.​

It wasn't enough to make the planet/life 'designed' after the fact.. but now you say god is all those fine positive attributes.
Un******** believable fantasy land.

Evidenced AGW you deny, but 'god' you've fantasized utterly, beyond alleged design (using faux logic and gratuitous physics terms), and right down to 11 positive attributes, no less!

Holy sh*t that's elaborate conspiracism. Mel Gibson on Acid.
`

 

[alang1216]

What existed before living things? Was that not existence?

rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.

 

[alang1216]

Why do you believe the uncertainty principle requires human consciousness?

The universe doesn't care if that cat is alive or dead or both. That is only our concern.

 

[ding]

rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.

Yes, so apparently existence preceded humans, right?

What existed before rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.?

 

[ding]

The universe doesn't care if that cat is alive or dead or both. That is only our concern.

That didn't answer the question. Why do you believe the uncertainty principle requires human consciousness?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, so apparently existence preceded humans, right?

What existed before rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.?

Not a clue, but fields at least may be eternal.

 

[alang1216]

That didn't answer the question. Why do you believe the uncertainty principle requires human consciousness?

The cat knows if it is alive or dead, the uncertainty lies with us.

 

[ding]

Not a clue, but fields at least may be eternal.

How about the laws of nature? Were they in existence before rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.?

 

[ding]

The cat knows if it is alive or dead, the uncertainty lies with us.

Which proves my point that everything is made manifest by mind.

 

[ding]

It's worth repeating...

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

 

[alang1216]

How about the laws of nature? Were they in existence before rocks, oceans, elements, atoms, quarks, fields, etc.?

Agreed. And 1 + 1 always equaled 2.

 

[ding]

Agreed. And 1 + 1 always equaled 2.

What came before the laws of nature?

 

[ding]

So beyond the fallacious perfectly designed Universe/earth, etc, you've now one OUT the ******* window with:

"God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness.​

It wasn't enough to make the planet/life 'designed' after the fact.. but now you say god is all those fine positive attributes.
Un******** believable fantasy land.

Evidenced AGW you deny, but 'god' you've fantasized utterly, beyond alleged design (using faux logic and gratuitous physics terms), and right down to 11 positive attributes, no less!

Holy sh*t that's elaborate conspiracism. Mel Gibson on Acid.
`

You say positive attributes. I say just attributes. The world is exactly the way it is because of those attributes. Weak minded people get confused by the negation of the attribute and think they are two different things that were created.

 

[ding]

It wasn't enough to make the planet/life 'designed' after the fact.. but now you say god is all those fine positive attributes.
Un******** believable fantasy land.

Actually everything that exists or will exist existed as potential - as per the laws of nature - before space and time were created as the laws of nature existed before space and time.