Thought of a good arguement for a higher order. [Archive]

Bartholomew

01-30-2009, 10:57 AM

I'm writing a comparative essay on the likelihood of (a) God's existence. I'm a writing tutor at JCCC and part of my job involves writing papers. I'm working on something for next semester's trouble-makers to look at before they try to argue for or against God. I figured it would save the poor Comp teachers a few headaches.

It's very easy to tear apart an argument if one is setting up both sides of the argument, and I want my essay to be authentic.

But I also want it to be unique, so I'm laying down some ground assumptions that will be underlying my essay:

(1 - That life forming from non-life is so unlikely as to be mathematically insignificant. This does not necessitate a designer, but rather, seeks to find possible life-forming catalysts.

(1 - That no evidence exists to support either design or the accidental and perfect combination of elements and chemicals to produce life.

(2 - That infinity as a concept is different from the reality of the universe.
(2a - because otherwise, wouldn't infinite space and infinite time also allow for infinite matter? And since Infinity = Infinity, infinite matter would fill infinite space, which must mean that infinity as a concept and the reality of the universe are different things.

(3 - That God (or god, or G-d or a designer) is a possibility, not a positive statement that must be proven true or else be assumed false.
(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.

So a need a Christian perspective on this particular argument for the existence of God:

I don't know which side I'm arguing for in the essay, yet. I know what I believe, but that isn't really relevant.

Here's the argument:

Assume a universe with nothing except what can be found on a complete periodic table of elements.

Now calculate the odds of a single cell forming by itself from nothing but the interaction of these elements. The odds are pretty low.

Now calculate the odds of any number of these cells forming in the same period of time, on their own, in separate locations,with no stimulus other than the interaction of elements. The odds are extremely low.

Now calculate the odds of these cells, from nothing but the interaction of elements, existing practically everywhere, at the same period of time. (Given infinity.)

NOW calculate the odds of a solid gold meteorite ripping through Earth's atmosphere, melting into 32 perfect replicas of your teeth, hitting your yawning mouth, and simultaneously knocking out your teeth and replacing them with the golden replicas.

The odds of either event happening are extremely low.

Thoughts?

AMCrenshaw

01-30-2009, 11:14 AM

Even if this logic does not specifically support the existence of the Christian god, it does make a lack of some higher, organizing power seem very unlikely.

I don't see why it would have to be higher to be organizing; nor do I see why it would have to be a power for the universe to reflect an order. Also, what's the difference between a power and an attribute or characteristic of the universe?

Now calculate the odds of these cells, from nothing but the interaction of elements, existing practically everywhere, at the same period of time. (Given infinity.)

NOW calculate the odds of a solid gold meteorite ripping through Earth's atmosphere, melting into 32 perfect replicas of your teeth, hitting your yawning mouth, and simultaneously knocking out your teeth and replacing them with the golden replicas.

Probability works in an interesting way. If the interactions are infinite, you should specify if the interactions can repeat themselves (and in which case they would, given eternity) so that anything "possible" is occurring, has occurred, or will occur, again, given eternity. That is, if the universe has eternity ('infinite', rather than 'all of' time) to produce the results, it will; however, that you make it so specific (the event happens to "us" individually) practically limits the likeliness to that which is likely to happen now, with the laws, material or otherwise, which exist or seem to now. Then, if the universe has eternity to produce any (in)conceivable event, the odds are not low at all, and none of this should be so much of a surprise that we assign an "organizing, higher power" to this relatively infinitesimal occurrence.

If of course we have to say that this thing which changes infinitely is God in any way, then the God's eternal characteristics are probably few that we could communicate readily. But that's a thought not thought through. Enjoy.

AMC

Mac H.

01-30-2009, 12:50 PM

There are many, many, problems with the argument - basically they all stem from a misunderstanding of the science.

Issue A : The engine doesn't steer

For evolution to occur, you need three things - an engine, something to steer and a chassis:

1. The chassis
You need an object that makes 'copies' of itself. This doesn't need to be complex life ... a crack in a windscreen makes 'children' as it spreads across the windscreen. Some enzymes make 'copies' of themselves without being alive .. so there are plenty of examples without the complexity of DNA or even cells.

2. The engine
You need something that introduces random influences in the copying. This randomness is the engine that drives evolution.

3. The steering
You need a method of selection to determine which 'children' survive to create other objects. This was Darwin's big contribution ... showing how the steering works. (Without it the entire system doesn't work!)

The argument is basically saying that it is unlikely that 'the engine' (without steering) could get to the destination - so it didn't happen. It is assuming that 'random errors' are responsible for life. That is what an incredible over-simplification, which I suspect is why people find it hard to accept evolution. It isn't randomness that is responsible for steering !

Issue B - Parallel processing is a wonderful thing

Let's agree that if I have a small hole in my roof, that the odds of a raindrop hitting that exact hole and getting in is incredibly remote. Mind-bogglingly small. Even if I have a tiny home (say, 10 x 10 metres) and a decent 2x2 mm hole ... the odds of a raindrop getting in my home is literally 1 in 25 MILLION. I'm more likely to win the lottery.

But we all know that it is inevitable that the roof will leak ... because we have millions of raindrops falling. We all understand that ... we can all intuitively grasp that astronomical odds become inevitable simply because of parallel processing.

The same applies to the single-cell organism. The odds might be 1 in a billion billion. But, like a rainstorm finding a leak, it would still end up inevitable that it would happen.

Issue C -"I can't imagine 'A'. I can't imagine 'B'. Therefore 'A' & 'B' are equivalent"

That is the logic used to argue that 'I can't conceive of something that unlikely ... therefore it is equivalent to something else orders of magnitude less likely'. Clearly that is wrong

Let's go the other way. Instead of saying that the odds of a cell forming is incredibly remote, so it is equivalent to something even more remote, let's take the advantage of our knowledge of science.

Issue D -"Skipping the first step"

I'm guessing that this argument is based on 'the first step'? As mentioned, we know that DNA/RNA/some enzymes make 'copies' of themselves without being alive (like a cell) .. so a better question would be 'Is it possible for a 'Ribozyme' to evolve from natural forces ... guided by only natural selection instead of 'The great Architect' ?

Before we answer that question, we should look at this incredibly non-random molecule: http://xanana.ucsc.edu/L1/jmol/

It's pretty impressive. It's basically DNA but slightly simpler .. it is something that has the essentials for self-replication but is obviously the result of a clever design.

A very clever design. It is implausible to an engineering mind that it isn't designed.

But it was. That impressive molecule, which looks to me like it was designed, was created in a lab simply by letting reactions happen. (OK - I'm oversimplifying things here)

Nature is more impressive than we give it credit for.

Read 'The Blind Watchmaker' for a very simple lay explanation of the principles.

Mac

dpaterso

01-30-2009, 12:58 PM

What is it you're writing/researching anyway, Bart? That's the purpose of this forum, as defined by the forum moderators: to discuss subjects pertaining to Christian writing.

If you're just chucking out random thoughts to undermine or scoff at Christian beliefs, I will fry your thread with a blowtorch.

-Derek

AMCrenshaw

01-30-2009, 06:48 PM

If you're just chucking out random thoughts to undermine or scoff at Christian beliefs, I will fry your thread with a blowtorch.

Even if this logic does not specifically support the existence of the Christian god, it does make a lack of some higher, organizing power seem very unlikely.

I think he's saying here that it makes the existence of some higher, organizing power seem likely. And not necessarily the Christian god, but that he posted it here says something of his thoughts maybe.

AMC

III

01-30-2009, 06:59 PM

I trust Bart's sincerity. He's got a history of posting honest, thoughtful questions and observations in the Christian forum. I also predict that, yeah, this thread will likely go south within 2 pages and need to be locked.

Higgins

01-30-2009, 07:27 PM

Someone probably beat me to this, but...

Assume a universe with nothing except what can be found on a complete periodic table of elements.

Now calculate the odds of a single cell forming by itself from nothing but the interaction of these elements. The odds are pretty low.

Now calculate the odds of any number of these cells forming in the same period of time, on their own, in separate locations,with no stimulus other than the interaction of elements. The odds are extremely low.

Now calculate the odds of these cells, from nothing but the interaction of elements, existing practically everywhere, at the same period of time. (Given infinity.)

NOW calculate the odds of a solid gold meteorite ripping through Earth's atmosphere, melting into 32 perfect replicas of your teeth, hitting your yawning mouth, and simultaneously knocking out your teeth and replacing them with the golden replicas.

The odds of either event happening are extremely low.

Even if this logic does not specifically support the existence of the Christian god, it does make a lack of some higher, organizing power seem very unlikely.

I'd love your thoughts and rebuttals!

This particular scheme doesn't reflect the particular cosmos we live in. For example, our cosmos didn't start with all the elements, near as we can tell. see for example:

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=336

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Steigman/Steigman2.html

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/GAIA/docs/Gaia_2004_Proceedings/Gaia_2004_Proceedings_645.pdf

http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_06_2a/People/Johnson_J/Johnson_Jennifer.pdf

III

01-30-2009, 09:42 PM

I talked this over with Roger and Pat and we think this might be better suited for the Religious / Other forum since it's not specifically a Christian or writing topic.

Ruv Draba

01-30-2009, 11:42 PM

Sometimes moving a thread doesn't just protect the harmony of a forum -- it also protects the thread. For whatever reason, I'm glad that this one got moved.

There does indeed seem to be some sort of organising meta-principle in the universe, Bart. If there weren't then our physics wouldn't be portable. We'd find different elements and different physics in different places and that would make it much harder to understand anything. Scientists generally take this uniformity for granted, but we're very fortunate that it's so.

But being organised is not being purposeful. Ice crystals and salt crystals are very organised but we see no evidence of purpose. They'll go where you put them, stay where they're put and do the same things in the same ways repeatedly (like forming and dissolving) -- quite blindly, to reuse a term that Mac H borrowed.

Another thing we know is that humans untrained in logical principles don't exercise them very well. And even those trained in logical principles exercise them poorly at the margins. What we use instead are 'heuristics and biases', which we often confuse with logic. A nice overview of this can be found in this Introduction to Cognitive Science (http://www.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/symbsys100.2005/Lec_5_17.ppt) from Stanford.

One of the known biases in human cognition is our tendency to overrate the significance of events with small probability (http://www.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/symbsys100.2005/Lec_5_17.ppt#315,39,Big and small probabilities). Tiny probability events happen all the time in our experience, but we don't usually think about them -- consider the odds of a particular sperm fertilising an egg for instance, or of receiving a particular coin as change.

The best evidence is that some form of life has been on earth for around three-quarters of its history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_01) -- which suggests that under the right conditions and over geological time-frames, the appearance of life should be inevitable. Scientists are keenly trying to find what 'the right conditions' are -- and trying to build the right tools to confirm that the exact same is happening elsewhere in the universe. The search for evidence of past (or current) life on Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars)is part of that investigation.

The fact remains though, that life and the order that produces it -- is wondrous.

Higgins

01-31-2009, 12:14 AM

There does indeed seem to be some sort of organising meta-principle in the universe, Bart. If there weren't then our physics wouldn't be portable. We'd find different elements and different physics in different places and that would make it much harder to understand anything. Scientists generally take this uniformity for granted, but we're very fortunate that it's so.

You're describing symmetries. These are actually not accepted as given, but posited as models and then observed in the cosmos. Symmetry-breaking is a possible mechanism for getting a specific symmetry such as we see in the current cosmos and the propagation of symmetric fields is not assumed to be flawless, ie local deviations from symmetry are theoretically possible in at least some cosmogenic theories (eg, monopoles, domain walls, cosmic strings)

Ruv Draba

01-31-2009, 02:01 AM

You're describing symmetries. These are actually not accepted as given, but posited as models and then observed in the cosmos.I think that I'm describing more than just time and space symmetries. I think that I'm also describing reflexivity (that the thing observed remains that thing for the entire period of observation) and transitivity (that the effects of complex operations can be compounded from the effects of simple operations).

The reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity of nature are indeed observed. A puffin remains a puffin no matter where or when you look at it. All puffins generally act the same way, and the grandchicks of puffins will too. These are such commonplace facts that most scientists assume it rather than checking it. But if it weren't so commonplace we'd have terrible difficulties predicting anything!

Yet human experience (our subjective impressions) don't conform well to reflexivity, symmetry or transitivity. Subjectively I am not sure that I'm one Self. If I age 30 years then I don't feel like the same person. And if I move from Canberra to Saville then my behaviours can be quite different. And I'm not at all convinced that the effects of listening to music then watching a circus performance are the same as watching the circus performance while the music is playing.

Emotionally, science is very unintuitive. :)

Bartholomew

01-31-2009, 11:00 AM

For evolution to occur, you need three things - an engine, something to steer and a chassis:

I understand the underlying ideas you've listed, and I can certainly see them as an argument-- but your flaw in thinking is assuming that evolution is somehow the goal, or else the process that kick-started life.

There is a point where non-life became life, and that's specifically what I am exploring at the moment. (Not specific creation stories.)

#

Somehow, we get this idea that the possibility of infinite time (Remember, this is an assumption on our part!) must mean that anything that can happen eventually will happen, an infinite number of times. The problem with this idea is that infinity is a concept -- it doesn't really exist the way it exists on paper. So when I have the odds of something strange happening, and those odds are statistically insignificant, it still means that this event will never happen. There's a much higher chance -- 99.99999999999...% -- that something more likely will happen instead.

#

Our current mythology if you will, is one of precision and science -- if we can't lick it, it cannot be. If it doesn't seem perfectly rational, how can it exist?

When Europeans first reached the Americas, it is said that the natives could not see the ships. Some versions of the story have a shaman who stared for a long time because he saw the water moving, and eventually he COULD see the ships. If this is true, it suggests a LOT about how we process information. Nothing I do will remove my bias when I consider a new concept or try to see a new concept, and if my bias is rooted deeply enough, not only will I not consider something alien and new, I won't even be able to know it exists.

What is it you're writing/researching anyway, Bart? That's the purpose of this forum, as defined by the forum moderators: to discuss subjects pertaining to Christian writing.

If you're just chucking out random thoughts to undermine or scoff at Christian beliefs, I will fry your thread with a blowtorch.

-Derek

[Original Reply edited and moved to first post, so as not to appear trollish.]

Bartholomew

01-31-2009, 11:05 AM

This particular scheme doesn't reflect the particular cosmos we live in. For example, our cosmos didn't start with all the elements, near as we can tell. see for example:

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=336

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Steigman/Steigman2.html

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/GAIA/docs/Gaia_2004_Proceedings/Gaia_2004_Proceedings_645.pdf

http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_06_2a/People/Johnson_J/Johnson_Jennifer.pdf

Very cool. Isn't the formation and re-formation of elements one of the areas of study scientists are hoping to expand once the Hadron Collider is running at optimum speed?

Dommo

01-31-2009, 11:45 AM

Bartholomew

01-31-2009, 12:15 PM

The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the sheer scale of the universe. The universe itself is so infinitely vast, and so ancient, that any number of living things, or what have you could have come and gone without our even knowing.

In the big scheme of things, we're truly insignificant cosmically. In terms of scale the universe can't even truly be comprehended. So even if the odds were infinitesimally small for life to occur in a given place, when you effectively have a universe that can present and an almost infinite number of possibilities due to its sheer size and age, I'm quite certain that you'd see life popping up all over the place. Most of it might only be bacterial, or in that nature, but perhaps elsewhere there could be intelligent life.

The thing that I think will be interesting is if life is discovered in our solar system. If it is, then it pretty plainly would state that life wouldn't exactly be a rarity in the universe, and could perhaps just be a byproduct of complex chemistry.

Again, I do not believe that infinite space -- and space is really just the potential for events to happen -- means that anything that can have happened, will have happened. When the odds of any other thing happening are as low as life spontaneously forming, they're called insignificant. The action is deemed impossible.

If one can say that life would eventually happen spontaneously given infinite time and space -- despite insignificant odds -- why can someone else not say that God would have formed spontaneously given the same conditions?

And since the same odds exist for all unlikely events, how come those unlikely events aren't manifesting themselves at an astounding rate? Infinite time and Infinite space, if they allow highly improbable events to occur repeatedly, would literally spell chaos. Where are my cow-shaped trees? Where is my planet with a sea of coca-cola? I argue that given a TRUE infinity--instead of infinity as a concept-- we would not see highly improbable events occur, and certainly not more than once, and CERTAINLY not in the same portion of space and time. (Which is, to me, the compelling part of this question.)

"Grand Scheme," "Big Scale," and "Cosmically Insignificant" are very qualitative statements.

One red blood cell is insignificant in my body. But if I lose all of them, I'm dead. They have a place in the grand scheme of things, however small, and *I* am their big scale.

So what is my big scale?

Dommo

01-31-2009, 12:34 PM

scottVee

01-31-2009, 12:48 PM

Thanks for posting your thoughts, but the argument falls in the usual pattern of "things that seem extremely unlikely must be divine/miraculous/designed." But try finding a more unlikely result than a being that can exist prior to the universe, then create that universe, then stick around for an eternity and hear the pleas of every living thing in that universe, all without leaving a hardly a clue. Wow. That's way out there. This is the thing that antiquated writings would have us find. And you have a hard time allowing algae to form?

I know we're not in the religion topic, but that's the supposition lurking in the "design" theory, that a designer is somehow more likely than the alternative, and there's no addressing an argument without noticing its suppositions.

One big fault when calculating probabilities is choosing too many specifics. The odds of meeting a specific old friend at a specific airport at a specific date & time are extremely low. But the odds of running into someone you know during a trip, during your lifetime, may be billions of times higher ... and yes, our brains then overestimate the significance of it, solely because it feels weird.

With chemistry, it's cooking the odds to imagine that particles just bump around randomly and will form anything, that all atoms are created equal. There are driving forces, no design needed. Stellar cycles start with hydrogen, produce helium, carbon, oxygen and iron with other elements formed through less common events. Surprise! Life as we know it is made of these commonest of elements, not from ultra-rare and unlikely isotopes. This one acknowledgement reduces the periodic table down to just a few elements - surely the trace elements will be minor players.

When atoms form compounds, it's also not a free-for-all. There are valences and bonding strengths involved. Again, there are strong preferences. Where hydrogen and nitrogen (ions) abound, ammonia should form. Is it an accident that the simpler amino acids are just ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide? Those are among the most common gasses out there, all across space, constantly being bombarded with energy. And amino acids have a strong preference for forming long chains, due to the strong charges at each end -- they're like tiny magnets just waiting to get together. Again, going from a scenario of randomness to the trends in real chemistry has a huge impact on what might really happen.

Even a drop of water has a membrane of sorts, with no help at all. Is DNA unlikely? Sure, initially, but then any molecule that can make copies of itself from common elements might just have an advantage over the usual.

Quibbling about infinity is beside the point. If the number of stars or atoms in the universe doesn't have enough zeroes for you to take a trifling poetic license, bummer. Certainly compared to anything in human experience it is beyond reckoning. As mentioned, if a there's a 1-in-a-trillion chance of an odd thing happening, and its predecessors are happening trillions times per day, and you have billions of years to stir the pot, the people who can't handle strange results are simply not being realistic.

The whole design argument comes from a history of looking for God and settling for a designer. But if everything else falls into place logically and this "designer" ends up being a few universal constants we can't find meanings for, there's still no victory for religion, because numbers are not things that will hear our prayers. The universe may very well have properties that bear no explanations, those properties can be facts and have no secret meaning at all.

Even if we delete all references to gods or faith, the quest for a designer comes from the desire to find (or impose) meaning in the universe. Right there I take issue with it. The universe is a collection of things. Meaning is a sentient impression or construct. Does every rock have a meaning? Rocks were around before there were humans to fuss over them ... we appear on the scene, and suddenly the rocks mean something? It boils down to sentient minds projecting themselves onto the cosmos, but this is not necessarily valid. Can't things just exist?

Just some thoughts and leads for further discussion.

Bartholomew

01-31-2009, 10:15 PM

I'm skeptical of anyone who says that they can truly fathom the vastness of the universe. There's just no real way to compare it to anything that we can possibly experience. It's just that the universe is so vast, the cell to a body analogy doesn't hold water. The grain of sand to the beach doesn't stand up, the drop of water in the ocean isn't adequate for it. It's not really a qualitative statement. It's more analogous to infinity in math(especially considering the universe appears to be expanding ever faster), is more of a concept then something that can be thought of quantitatively.

As far as probability statement goes, if I've got a probability that is infinitely small, as the number of events approach a correspondingly massive number, the odds for the occurrence of the event go up(e.g. the odds of any one person winning the lottery are small, but if 100,000,000 tickets are sold, someone will probably win). In any event, it's hard to speculate when we don't know what conditions might cause life to come about(It's like me trying to predict the odds of blackjack without knowing what makes up a card deck). We have a vague idea as to what's required for life here, but there's no reason why life couldn't exist elsewhere that may exist on different physical principles(e.g. not carbon based, don't use DNA, etc.). To generalize by saying that life is highly unlikely, isn't really true, because it could very well be a natural byproduct of different environments. For all we know there could be lifeforms in the clouds of jupitor, or near the volcanoes of Io. It might just be that life could be found almost anywhere complex chemistry is taking place.

Heck we still don't know what's in our own backyard. Even in our own solar system, we still don't know what might possibly be living in the massive oceans of europa, or below ground on mars. All that we need to see is that somewhere there is life, that didn't come from here. If life isn't unique here(especially if it's found to be relatively common), chances are intelligent life isn't unique either.

Thanks for posting your thoughts, but the argument falls in the usual pattern of "things that seem extremely unlikely must be divine/miraculous/designed." But try finding a more unlikely result than a being that can exist prior to the universe, then create that universe, then stick around for an eternity and hear the pleas of every living thing in that universe, all without leaving a hardly a clue. Wow. That's way out there. This is the thing that antiquated writings would have us find. And you have a hard time allowing algae to form?

I know we're not in the religion topic, but that's the supposition lurking in the "design" theory, that a designer is somehow more likely than the alternative, and there's no addressing an argument without noticing its suppositions.

One big fault when calculating probabilities is choosing too many specifics. The odds of meeting a specific old friend at a specific airport at a specific date & time are extremely low. But the odds of running into someone you know during a trip, during your lifetime, may be billions of times higher ... and yes, our brains then overestimate the significance of it, solely because it feels weird.

With chemistry, it's cooking the odds to imagine that particles just bump around randomly and will form anything, that all atoms are created equal. There are driving forces, no design needed. Stellar cycles start with hydrogen, produce helium, carbon, oxygen and iron with other elements formed through less common events. Surprise! Life as we know it is made of these commonest of elements, not from ultra-rare and unlikely isotopes. This one acknowledgement reduces the periodic table down to just a few elements - surely the trace elements will be minor players.

When atoms form compounds, it's also not a free-for-all. There are valences and bonding strengths involved. Again, there are strong preferences. Where hydrogen and nitrogen (ions) abound, ammonia should form. Is it an accident that the simpler amino acids are just ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide? Those are among the most common gasses out there, all across space, constantly being bombarded with energy. And amino acids have a strong preference for forming long chains, due to the strong charges at each end -- they're like tiny magnets just waiting to get together. Again, going from a scenario of randomness to the trends in real chemistry has a huge impact on what might really happen.

Even a drop of water has a membrane of sorts, with no help at all. Is DNA unlikely? Sure, initially, but then any molecule that can make copies of itself from common elements might just have an advantage over the usual.

Quibbling about infinity is beside the point. If the number of stars or atoms in the universe doesn't have enough zeroes for you to take a trifling poetic license, bummer. Certainly compared to anything in human experience it is beyond reckoning. As mentioned, if a there's a 1-in-a-trillion chance of an odd thing happening, and its predecessors are happening trillions times per day, and you have billions of years to stir the pot, the people who can't handle strange results are simply not being realistic.

The whole design argument comes from a history of looking for God and settling for a designer. But if everything else falls into place logically and this "designer" ends up being a few universal constants we can't find meanings for, there's still no victory for religion, because numbers are not things that will hear our prayers. The universe may very well have properties that bear no explanations, those properties can be facts and have no secret meaning at all.

Even if we delete all references to gods or faith, the quest for a designer comes from the desire to find (or impose) meaning in the universe. Right there I take issue with it. The universe is a collection of things. Meaning is a sentient impression or construct. Does every rock have a meaning? Rocks were around before there were humans to fuss over them ... we appear on the scene, and suddenly the rocks mean something? It boils down to sentient minds projecting themselves onto the cosmos, but this is not necessarily valid. Can't things just exist?

Just some thoughts and leads for further discussion.

I'm highly skeptical of this modern method we have of citing science to dismiss ideas, without actually having science behind our citations. It's great to have the idea of cells, chemical reactions, and the modern outlook that math must explain everything.

But I know from my own studies that there really isn't a mathematical equation for this sort of argument -- only a mathematical viewpoint, and that is an entirely different animal.

Show me the equation that has chemicals come in with the reactants and life come out with the results. If, as you both suggest, life is common, how come we can't go study the first formation of life? Not from pre-existing systems, with eggs and sex cells, but where no life previously crawled.

I know single celled life can form. My arguments (on both sides) must rely on a few basic assumptions, or I won't be able to make them at all. Since this is for a project of mine, I'd like that we all regard them before making a statement--unless, of course, they have something provable that undermines one of the assumptions.

(1 - That randomly formed life is so rare so to be mathematically insignificant.

(2 - That infinity as a concept is different from the reality of the universe.
(2a - because otherwise, wouldn't infinite space and infinite time also allow for infinite matter? And since Infinity = Infinity, infinite matter would fill infinite space, which must mean that infinity as a concept and the reality of the universe are different things.

(3 - That God (or god, or G-d :) or a designer) is a possibility, not a positive statement that must be proven true or else be assumed false.
(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.

I have an idea, but it doesn't have it's own word, yet. I'm also afraid that my idea might be as offensive to Atheists as it would be to Christians, so I'd rather not say it at all. :)

scottVee

02-02-2009, 12:28 AM

I'm highly skeptical of this modern method we have of citing science to dismiss ideas, without actually having science behind our citations. It's great to have the idea of cells, chemical reactions, and the modern outlook that math must explain everything.

But I know from my own studies that there really isn't a mathematical equation for this sort of argument -- only a mathematical viewpoint, and that is an entirely different animal.

Show me the equation that has chemicals come in with the reactants and life come out with the results. If, as you both suggest, life is common, how come we can't go study the first formation of life? Not from pre-existing systems, with eggs and sex cells, but where no life previously crawled.

I know single celled life can form. My arguments (on both sides) must rely on a few basic assumptions, or I won't be able to make them at all. Since this is for a project of mine, I'd like that we all regard them before making a statement--unless, of course, they have something provable that undermines one of the assumptions.

(1 - That randomly formed life is so rare so to be mathematically insignificant.

(2 - That infinity as a concept is different from the reality of the universe.
(2a - because otherwise, wouldn't infinite space and infinite time also allow for infinite matter? And since Infinity = Infinity, infinite matter would fill infinite space, which must mean that infinity as a concept and the reality of the universe are different things.

(3 - That God (or god, or G-d :) or a designer) is a possibility, not a positive statement that must be proven true or else be assumed false.
(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.

I have an idea, but it doesn't have it's own word, yet. I'm also afraid that my idea might be as offensive to Atheists as it would be to Christians, so I'd rather not say it at all. :)

Good post. You say you're not okay with using science and math to dismiss ideas, and then your point #1 is using (weak) math to dismiss an idea. And in a very judgemental way: you decide the event is mathematically insignificant, then use that to belittle the idea. Which is okay, since your "randomly formed life" is a weak concept anyway. Chemistry is not random. As I said, you can make complex chemistry seem nearly impossible by trumping up the odds, but if you're familiar with chemistry the vast majority of "random" possibilities don't happen, or they're short-lived enough to not be a real factor in a long-term outcome. Sure, which ions bump into each other at any given instant are unpredictable, but the outcomes of each reaction are very limited.

In any case, it's not honest to dismiss the known natural processes as being too unlikely for your mind to handle, and then substituting a designing intelligence as being more likely. If you use probabilities on one side, you need to apply probabilities to the other, and let the more likely one prevail. Although sometimes the less likely answer turns out to be right. Probabilities alone do not lead to answers.

If you think chemistry is hard to pin down, try spelling out what properties this nebulous "designer" must have. My problem here is that the "designer" people can't even say what it is they're looking for. Some kind of lifeform that lived before/beyond the universe, has a lifespan of billions of years, is somehow responsible for setting up the laws of nature, if not molding the earth personally and wishing to nurture us ... you really believe such a thing is out there? I see these probabilities: a creature living beyond/before the universe = 0, a creature living for billions of years = 0, personally molding a planet = 0, hearing the prayers of billions of life forms = 0. Feel free to counter these estimates with better data. I'll stick with known chemical processes any day.

Yes there's a critical point where chemistry became life. We haven't found it or reproduced it yet. The designer folks put that in their column automatically, but that's not valid. Their theory must be that some divine force put the spark there -- in what, the first cell? the first billion cells? And what was this spark? DNA? A soul? Do cells even have souls? They can't define it any better than science can. They're just counting on invisible things. Be honest, the lack of an answer supports neither case. Don't forget that there are also things like viruses that we're not sure whether they're alive or not, and only a tiny fraction of early life forms were preserved in any way. It's not as simple as it sounds. That we've learned so much is admirable. Criticizing the whole process for not having found every answer by the year 2009 is invalid.

To say that math doesn't explain anything is also shaky. Mathematical models are part of each theory, and when they work, they persist. You say, "there really isn't a mathematical equation for this sort of argument" -- but this is vague. Theories are not just mathematical equations, and if a theory uses calculus to predict the motions of real objects, it doesn't mean that we need to start looking for integrals floating around in the ether. Some mathematical operators are abstract tools that act on real quantities. Taking the math too literally is invalid. And what is "this sort of argument"? In any case, don't forget the alternative: there's no equation for the supernatural either. If you somehow undermine all of science (which you won't) it doesn't support any particular alternative. I'd say this is the biggest flaw in the religious quest: the infuriating notion that poking holes in someone else's work supports your own work.

Your #2 point, quibbling over infinity is pointless (in this context). Though it's okay to point out that when people casually say space is infinite, they're talking about a layman's infinity (simply beyond reckoning) as opposed to a strict mathematical infinity. It doesn't change the odds. Anyway, your point 2a is flat-out wrong. Infinite space would "allow infinite matter", but that doesn't mean inifinite matter MUST result. Even if it did, there are different sizes of infinity, and one infinite thing could contain another. Your "Infinity = Infinity" shows you don't know much about the math. All that is missing the point anyway. Even if you were right about your idea of infinity, it has nothing to do with the present argument. And, the existence of that layman's infinity, various mathematical infinities, and phrases like "effectively infinite", if people don't say which infinity they're referring to, the result is meaningless.

Anyway, I can't really credit any of your talk about math and experience, since you misuse math and say nothing about that experience.

Point #3. Things can get touchy here, but we've been pleasant about it. Sure, God is a possibility, except that it's a slippery invisible one that, every time you look someplace, gets relocated somewhere else. And that really doesn't make a good case for itself. People used to say storms were caused by gods -- is that still the case? Or is it just that anything we don't personally understand gives us that vague uneasy feeling which we need a name for? The modern trend in this search is that anything not explained by science must be evidence of higher powers ... but, no, it doesn't have to be any such thing. Every time this comes up, it's invalid. This notion of "you're wrong so we must be right" is childish, and just won't fly. Folks on the supernatural side just keep saying things that are baseless, meaningless, or off topic, and are unaware that the arguments have no weight with rational minds. It's frustrating all around.

The reason science rejects these notions is that they're not scientific (not logical, not rational, choose your term), they're just feelings and hopes. It actually gets annoying after a while. It's like mopping a floor and having someone stand behind you saying "You missed a spot, you missed a spot." One side is doing real work, and the other side is complaining that it's not coming out the way they want it to. The floor is essentially clean. The few missed spots don't automatically support supernatural forces.

(3a) I agree that the "designer" is no longer one of those conventional deities from ancient time. Yet it's an underground version of the same thing -- the meaning of the universe, the supernatural, the answer to so many prayers. It can't help retaining that emotionally charged baggage. Its seekers just keep renaming it, trying to fool someone. Sorry, but to the rational crowd it's the same old thing.

To say you have a word for it that nobody else will tolerate is a lame dodge. Either say what's on your mind or don't bother. The odds of it being original in the annals of humanity are slim. In any case, it would be nice if the designer crowd could decide what it is they're looking for, instead of lumping together gaps and invisible stuff and thinking they've figured something out. I keep encouraging them to come up with a more solid theory, but there's never anything solid to work with. They just keep throwing bits and pieces in a folder and hoping a tree will grow. Until then, I will continue to reject smoke and mirrors and intangibles, and ask for better arguments from your side. If you're suggesting that I should be okay with a jumble of shifting nonsense that can't be seen, sorry.

Now I admit that there's a vague "feeling" in the world, that all things are connected somehow. And that it would be comforting if there was a purpose to it all. Still, neither one is a valid data point, and they feel to me like projections of ourselves onto the world, not part of the world itself. In any case, unless we can prove those impressions come from outside of us, they're inadmissible. Another interesting field of discussion.

Thanks for listening. I hope this gives you some writing ideas that may help with your project. My main aim is to show you what those theories are up against and how little water they hold.

Bartholomew

02-02-2009, 02:22 AM

Good post.

[SNIP]

Thanks for listening. I hope this gives you some writing ideas that may help with your project. My main aim is to show you what those theories are up against and how little water they hold.

Excellent post.

Your #2 point, quibbling over infinity is pointless (in this context). Though it's okay to point out that when people casually say space is infinite, they're talking about a layman's infinity (simply beyond reckoning) as opposed to a strict mathematical infinity. It doesn't change the odds. Anyway, your point 2a is flat-out wrong. Infinite space would "allow infinite matter", but that doesn't mean inifinite matter MUST result. Even if it did, there are different sizes of infinity, and one infinite thing could contain another. Your "Infinity = Infinity" shows you don't know much about the math.

I am no mathematician, and you're right to call me out on that.

Still, I think that the idea of infinity plays a very important role when one is arguing about the very beginning, because a very beginning implies finite time, which doesn't jibe well with an infinite universe.

You tell me that infinity does not equal infinity because I can have different quantities of infinity on either side -- that makes it a really big number, not infinity. If I truly have a numberless amount of something, that's exactly what that means. In concept, two times infinity is bigger than infinity, but in reality, that means absolutely nothing.

You rejected the idea that infinite time and space together must result in infinite matter---but you support the idea that infinite time and space together must have an infinite number of bizarre and unlikely events occurring inside it. Why?

I said that a designer is remotely possible because the odds of something strange (spontaneous life) happening are low--failing to take into account that a designer is equally strange.

My underlying assumption, and perhaps this one is incorrect, is that life started somewhere, at some definite point on the time-line. But no matter what reason I try to find for this happening, no catalyst seems likely.

What if this isn't correct? What if, like elements, life has been floating through the cosmos, dormant. Life can be resistant and adaptable--and there are those who think life came to this planet because of simple life clinging to a meteor. Perhaps life itself is elemental, somehow, and it has simply always been.

Since you're very good at poking holes in my assumptions, poke a hole in it.

My problem here is that the "designer" people can't even say what it is they're looking for. Some kind of lifeform that lived before/beyond the universe, has a lifespan of billions of years, is somehow responsible for setting up the laws of nature, if not molding the earth personally and wishing to nurture us ... you really believe such a thing is out there? I see these probabilities: a creature living beyond/before the universe = 0, a creature living for billions of years = 0, personally molding a planet = 0, hearing the prayers of billions of life forms = 0. Feel free to counter these estimates with better data. I'll stick with known chemical processes any day.

[...]

In any case, it would be nice if the designer crowd could decide what it is they're looking for, instead of lumping together gaps and invisible stuff and thinking they've figured something out. I keep encouraging them to come up with a more solid theory, but there's never anything solid to work with. They just keep throwing bits and pieces in a folder and hoping a tree will grow. Until then, I will continue to reject smoke and mirrors and intangibles, and ask for better arguments from your side. If you're suggesting that I should be okay with a jumble of shifting nonsense that can't be seen, sorry.

Now I admit that there's a vague "feeling" in the world, that all things are connected somehow. And that it would be comforting if there was a purpose to it all. Still, neither one is a valid data point, and they feel to me like projections of ourselves onto the world, not part of the world itself. In any case, unless we can prove those impressions come from outside of us, they're inadmissible. Another interesting field of discussion.

Thanks for listening. I hope this gives you some writing ideas that may help with your project. My main aim is to show you what those theories are up against and how little water they hold.

I agree with you about a designer--mostly because I already did. This is why I wanted Christian input. I mostly nodded my head when I read your post, because your logic is very familiar to me. I like it, I cling to it-- I'm stagnating. I want a fresh perspective to look at, even if I walk away disagreeing with it.

Some kind of lifeform that lived before/beyond the universe, has a lifespan of billions of years, is somehow responsible for setting up the laws of nature, if not molding the earth personally and wishing to nurture us ... you really believe such a thing is out there?

To say you have a word for it that nobody else will tolerate is a lame dodge. Either say what's on your mind or don't bother. The odds of it being original in the annals of humanity are slim.

It's called hyperbole. :)

I think God, if it exists, must certainly be more like Gravity than a life-form. If there were a divine nurturer, I would be nurtured. So, no, that doesn't accurately reflect my beliefs and I'm not sure it would accurately reflect a Christian's. And that's kind of at the heart of my essay. I really, really want the ideas from the atheistic and the theistic side to meet on paper.

###

You said you want to show me why the idea of a designer holds no water. You poked some holes in the idea, without really supporting your own opinion. I'm uncertain about God. But I can't agree with your idea because I have no idea what it is.

What is the scientific explanation for a very beginning? Please, feel free to speculate and hypothesize. That's what the side you disagree with does, right? And this isn't about PROVING anything -- it's about persuading, and ultimately, writing a demonstration that shows budding writers how to persuade.

Dommo

02-02-2009, 04:48 AM

I'll give you my thoughts on the very beginning of the universe, from my training as an engineer, and my knowledge of thermodynamics. It's not really scientific, but more of a hunch that is just a wild guess.

The way I look at it, is that the universe itself is cyclical. That the period we're experiencing(the expansion of the universe), is just one phase of its existence. At some point, the expansion will stop, and the universe will collapse on itself, when it does so, it'll somehow dump all of its built up entropy, and repeat in another big bang. And so on and so forth.

Why do I like to think that this is the case? Because I think it'd be a bummer if the universe dies do to heat death. Sure it's not a good reason, but I'm going to cheer on the home team anyway, as it'll be sad to know that at some point there will nothing new, no possibilities for life, no stars being born, just black nothingness.

Bartholomew

02-02-2009, 06:04 AM

Ruv Draba

02-02-2009, 07:46 AM

It's as much an error to call science mythology as to confuse a cook-book with fiction.

Mythology sustains itself by avoiding tests and falsification. Science progresses by seeking what is testable. Mythology seeks popularity and punishes dissent and challenge; science seeks truth no matter how unpopular, and welcomes dissent and challenge. Mythology is change-averse and inflexible; science is comparatively change-ready and adaptable.

Science can be wrong, but it gives a level of honesty, accountability and agility unmatched by anything mythology has ever managed. It has demonstrated continuous improvement in every major field, matched by tangible and intangible benefits including improving safety, increasing longevity and increasing humanity's capacity to choose.

But all that said, scientists do speculate and the speculation forms bodies of transient, contingent belief that looks much like myth -- it's just that it's not managed much like myth.

AMCrenshaw

02-02-2009, 09:38 AM

Ruv,

Mythology seeks popularity and punishes dissent and challenge

Only because I consider Freud a fabulist am I offended! And greatly so!

Mythology is change-averse and inflexible; science is comparatively change-ready and adaptable.

Oh stop! There are new mythologies popping up all the time.

Science can be wrong, but it gives a level of honesty, accountability and agility unmatched by anything mythology has ever managed.

Sure, but no one now expects any mythology to be factually true on any level. What science does is hopefully through their method limit the number of false interpretations of a given set of data. Mythology does the same, if you look closely. People who actually care about using mythology for the good want to know, as closely as possible, the actual meaning and whether or not its useful, beneficial, ethical, etc. Science, like mythology, is useless without mythology and just as dangerous in the "wrong" hands. Consider how many lay people really understand science. Just as many, I would think, really understand mythology. Not only that, but a lot of mythology has given us wisdom that will not ever fade; wisdom that will always be true that science, some day down the road will say, "hey, yeah, it's true". I needn't lift a finger to support my claim; we all know it to be true, even if, that's right, it takes logical interpretation.

:)

Bart,

I wouldn't call the universe self-reliant, but only because I don't believe the universe is a self. But besides that nit concerning semantics, at this point no one could say otherwise, and I don't see why anyone would limit that "self" reliance to a unifying force or principle.

You rejected the idea that infinite time and space together must result in infinite matter---but you support the idea that infinite time and space together must have an infinite number of bizarre and unlikely events occurring inside it. Why?

Logically, if there is infinite time and space there is an infinite number of any events occurring. Given eternity; however, if there is a very beginning, then the whole idea of eternal recurrence is obviously moot, isn't it?

You tell me that infinity does not equal infinity because I can have different quantities of infinity on either side -- that makes it a really big number, not infinity. If I truly have a numberless amount of something, that's exactly what that means. In concept, two times infinity is bigger than infinity, but in reality, that means absolutely nothing.

All fine. What you are saying then is not that a god created the universe, but that it's possible, given our universe (and numberless space and time) that it would have created gods, goddesses or God or whatever. Infinity X 1/infinity = p of a certain event if there is in fact eternal recurrence. Right?

Now that we have that in order, consider the consequences of such an eternal occurrence. Exeunt stage left.

AMC

Higgins

02-02-2009, 06:15 PM

The question you presented falls under the heading of a “Paridine Theory.”
Albert Einstein in his search for God, started not with elements, but force. (energy.)
He started with a force we have all come to take a normal…gravity. Newton concluded that all objects contain gravity. When man first went into space, this theory was proven un-true. Einstein, after many years came to the conclusion, “Gravity has no location, nor power source.” He reasoned, “Without a location, or power source…gravity can not be real!” In frustration, his search lead to the theory of relativity. Before his death, he said…”There must be a God.”
I believe in only what can be proven. It is possible to prove many of the scriptures as true. Those I can not prove, are still sitting on the shelf. Science, and archeology has proven there were Dinosaurs, and Neanderthal creatures on this world. They have produced hundreds of bones. Two bones (skulls) have the attention of Scientist. A Neanderthal skull in the British Museum found in 1920, and a extinct line of Aurochs in the Moscow Museum. Forensic Scientist examined both skulls, have stated: “These holes could only have been made by a bullet.” True, one could argue modern day man made those bullet holes. The problem examiners face is the bullet hole in the 100,000 year extinct form of Aurochs, has calcification…that means the creature lived after it was shot, and the bone started re-growing, 100,000 years ago. The only problem is the dating of time which is a different subject.
Does this prove there is not a God? No. Does it prove there is a God? No. what does it prove? I could tell you, but then you would miss out on the fun of finding out yourself.

Domenic

With a heap of confused stories you can convince yourself of anything. One of the biggest challenges in life and in growing up and surviving and doing good is to separate between the inner world of evocative stories and motives and desires and the outer world where one must put in a fair amount of work to do anything constructive at all.

Ruv Draba

02-02-2009, 06:56 PM

Only because I consider Freud a fabulist am I offended! And greatly so!Well, Newton was an alchemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies) in his spare time too. And Linus Pauling could conjure miracles from vitamin C. Science only challenges myth when you're actually doing science. Plato wasn't much of a scientist but he was a smart visionary. I feel that Freud was of a similar stamp. But that doesn't actually refute my earlier claims. And I sense that you're not being entirely serious here. ;)

As for your alleged offence I'm... trying... to... care but my INTP (http://typelogic.com/intp.html) personality is just... too... strong. :LilLove:
Oh stop! There are new mythologies popping up all the time.Well, let's look at that. Our three big sources of myth by volume are advertising, religion and fiction (assuming that these are always distinguishable).

Religious myth is some of the slowest-changing thought in the world so presumably you're not talking about that. Our two fastest-changing sources of myth are advertising and fiction. But what are the bases for those changes?

In advertising it's finding new forms for the same old function: manipulating people through their animal lusts, fears of mortality and rejection anxieties. The form is adroit but the function isn't and dates back to Mesopotamian fruit-sellers screaming about how pomegranates are an aphrodisiac. I don't think that it counts as agile in any practical sense.

Fiction entertains, informs and provokes -- but mainly entertains. The sales-rate of fiction that doesn't challenge readers or tell them anything they didn't already know is orders of magnitude higher than sales of fiction that makes anyone actually think.

Not to put too fine a point on it, myth isn't agile but it is adroit. It's adroit at disseminating messages -- which is of course why advertisers, theologians, artists, school-teachers and harried parents use it. I'm a fiction-writer so I'm hardly a foe of myth, but let's not confuse what it is.
Sure, but no one now expects any mythology to be factually true on any level.Mythology informs decisions all the time. Take stock speculations for instance, low-doc loans and penis enlargement creams. So are you saying that people are deliberately making decisions they know to be dumb?
What science does is hopefully through their method limit the number of false interpretations of a given set of data.No, it does more than that. It finds smart questions to ask by deliberately seeking the holes in existing knowledge. It finds new methods by deliberately challenging old methods. Science is very uncomfortable with being too comfortable.

Science, like mythology, is useless without mythology and just as dangerous in the "wrong" hands.Myth is an artifact of culture. One of the great things about science is that it crosses cultural boundaries -- you only need to look at the range of names and institutions collaborating on scientific papers to see evidence of this. Science has its roots in investigating myth, but these days it can operate quite independently of myth.

That's not to say though that general society can operate independently of myth. I don't believe that it can. But being necessary in one regard doesn't make myth beneficial in others.

Not only that, but a lot of mythology has given us wisdom that will not ever fade; wisdom that will always be true that science, some day down the road will say, "hey, yeah, it's true". I needn't lift a finger to support my claim; we all know it to be true, even if, that's right, it takes logical interpretation.We certainly don't 'all' know any such thing, but a very good description of myth is 'that which we all know, but have never questioned'. ;)

AMCrenshaw

02-02-2009, 07:39 PM

Mythology informs decisions all the time. Take stock speculations for instance, low-doc loans and penis enlargement creams. So are you saying that people are deliberately making decisions they know to be dumb?

This doesn't answer my refutation, though. People don't consider advertising mythology, even if you or I do. In fact, when they think of the penis cream, they think about all of the organic ingredients that are "scientifically-proven" to enhance...you know, and those elements are the basis for their decision. How can scientifically proven go wrong?

Myth is an artifact of culture. One of the great things about science is that it crosses cultural boundaries -- you only need to look at the range of names and institutions collaborating on scientific papers to see evidence of this. Science has its roots in investigating myth, but these days it can operate quite independently of myth.

Again, while interesting, didn't really answer me. All I meant by what I said is that for science to be useful for us, it needs to be interpreted. Mythology, I think, can continue on as an entity while using scientific-like methods (narratology) to determine which mythologies are useful and which are completely bunk and in which ways. As I said, science in "evil" (for a lack of a better word, Ruv) hands at this point can be as destructive as mythology in those same hands.

BUT my admission is that scientific method has the ability to allow science to progress, while mythology can state (poetically, philosophically, etc) what is or what will be without any guarantee of accuracy (what Colbert calls truthiness), and with no demand for progress.

One "mythological" example: The Catholic Worker, of which I am a part, is a network of mercy houses. Each gives food, shelter, etc. In its community it gives a little (but significant) change over a little (but significant) amount of time, and are OK with that contribution; all this from the Bible or from the literature of Saints [the same isn't true of all, but let's generalize]. The sciences, in contrast, aim for little changes that lead to big changes over larger periods of time.

Now, I don't dismiss the gut feeling outright, but it'd be a lot better for my gut if I had some physical evidence to back a thing or two up. Know what I mean?

AMC

Ruv Draba

02-03-2009, 12:09 AM

People don't consider advertising mythology, even if you or I do.How strange! I thought I was a person, and I was almost certain that you were! :tongue

In fact, when they think of the penis cream, they think about all of the organic ingredients that are "scientifically-proven" to enhance...you know, and those elements are the basis for their decision. How can scientifically proven go wrong?What you're demonstrating here is not that there's anything wrong with the science, but that myth applied to science doesn't produce truth. I concur. My favourite example of this is the way that commercial interests mythologised the discovery of radiation (http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2008/06/radio-activity-makes-you-feel-so.html).

what I said is that for science to be useful for us, it needs to be interpreted.Science includes interpretation; that's what a theory is. And science doesn't need myth to be made useful: a problem to solve is sufficient. If you're reading my post on a computer screen it's because people solved some practical problems in communication and information display.

So is a theory a myth? No it's not. A theory is a belief or suspicion that comes with ways to test itself, e.g. by prediction. It's also different from a myth in that it has self-imposed boundaries on its scope. 'If you lie to your mother you'll get ulcers on your tongue' is myth. It doesn't say when you'll get ulcers, or with what frequency or how many. 'If you lie to your mother you'll get an average of one to six ulcers on the tip of your tongue within approximately 30 minutes' is theory -- we can test it.

Neither interpretation nor application of science requires myth. However, science is a social activity and is therefore subject to how society operates. The dissemination of science frequently uses myth. Myth is also used to attract funding and resources for science. This leads to ethical dilemmas for scientists at times.
Mythology, I think, can continue on as an entity while using scientific-like methods (narratology) to determine which mythologies are useful and which are completely bunk and in which ways.The creation and dissemination of myth is a social artifice, doing with information what cosmetics due to the human form -- dressing it up, making it more appealing but also making false promises and concealing unpleasant truths. Myth-making arguably has social benefit. It also definitely has disbenefit, since myths routinely contribute to fear, ignorance, xenophobia, cruelty and propagate hidden self-interests.

Science hasn't stopped humans from creating myths; it merely challenges some of the myths that humans create.
As I said, science in "evil" (for a lack of a better word, Ruv) hands at this point can be as destructive as mythology in those same hands.Science and myth are both types of lore; lore is a tool. Malignance makes ill-use of tools, I agree. My concern here is that we don't confuse the purposes or uses of the tools. I'll save the 'myth and morality' conversation for another day. ;)

BUT my admission is that scientific method has the ability to allow science to progress, while mythology can state (poetically, philosophically, etc) what is or what will be without any guarantee of accuracy (what Colbert calls truthiness), and with no demand for progress.I made this point earlier, but perhaps it's worth making again: science is measured by its accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness; myth is measured by its popularity. We can also if we choose, appreciate myth for its expression or insights -- but if we're appreciating its insights then we need a body of lore that lies outside the myth itself. That body of lore could be something independent -- e.g. science, or it could be something subjective like one's own biases.

Very often myth is celebrated as truth simply because it so eloquently reflects our own biases. But that should come as no surprise, because myth is often created to disseminate those biases in the first place.

One "mythological" example: The Catholic Worker, of which I am a part, is a network of mercy houses. Each gives food, shelter, etc. In its community it gives a little (but significant) change over a little (but significant) amount of time, and are OK with that contribution; all this from the Bible or from the literature of Saints [the same isn't true of all, but let's generalize]. The sciences, in contrast, aim for little changes that lead to big changes over larger periods of time.Untrue. Mythology can motivate people toward kindness, but so too can compassion.

And when a doctor diagnoses your symptoms or an electrician fixes the faulty wiring in your home, they're using scientific principles to create immediate benefit. They may not be doing original research, but the principles of observe/hypothesise/test are identical to those of professional scientists.

I don't dismiss the gut feeling outright, but it'd be a lot better for my gut if I had some physical evidence to back a thing or two up. Know what I mean?Gut feelings can be applications of heuristics, the workings of intuition, intimations of bias or symptoms of indigestion. An idealist insists that every belly-rumble has Great Truth; a pragmatist waits to see if it's insight or just a fart.

AMCrenshaw

02-03-2009, 03:16 AM

that's what a theory is

Not that wiki is an authoritative source, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I made this point earlier, but perhaps it's worth making again: science is measured by its accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness; myth is measured by its popularity. We can also if we choose, appreciate myth for its expression or insights -- but if we're appreciating its insights then we need a body of lore that lies outside the myth itself. That body of lore could be something independent -- e.g. science, or it could be something subjective like one's own biases.

I agreed earlier:
Mythology, I think, can continue on as an entity while using scientific-like methods (narratology) to determine which mythologies are useful and which are completely bunk and in which ways.

And this is a tricky thing, because science is popularity-based as well, on the grounds that the science is accurate, reliable, etc. But I was only arguing that mythology can follow these exact rules. If it does, you might contend, it's no longer mythology. Fair enough.

And when a doctor diagnoses your symptoms or an electrician fixes the faulty wiring in your home, they're using scientific principles to create immediate benefit.

Except that the immediate benefit of the electrician or doctor reveals intellectual, scientific, and technological progress. The work of mythology, in my opinion at this point, reveals not movement or progress, but of timelessness. At least that's their aim. The success is obvious. But mythology could improve (progress, be more practical) by using scientific methodology. I've read a fair many myths that are quite useful, as I'm sure you have. Useful in what way, for how long, since when?

AMC

Mac H.

02-03-2009, 03:47 AM

A Neanderthal skull in the British Museum found in 1920, and a extinct line of Aurochs in the Moscow Museum. Forensic Scientist examined both skulls, have stated: “These holes could only have been made by a bullet.” What a wonderful example of a myth!

The reality, of course, is much more mundane. It wasn't a Neanderthal. And it wasn't a bullet hole. And according to Google, the quote as stated only comes from this thread .. so it isn't really a quote at all.

Ref: http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/neanderthal.php (http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/neanderthal.php)

If you have heard this story repeated as fact from any source, you can probably disregard that source from now on.

Good luck!

Mac

Mac H.

02-03-2009, 03:54 AM

You tell me that infinity does not equal infinity because I can have different quantities of infinity on either side -- that makes it a really big number, not infinity. If I truly have a numberless amount of something, that's exactly what that means. In concept, two times infinity is bigger than infinity, but in reality, that means absolutely nothing.It isn't surprising you don't understand this bit of maths - it is hard.

In maths, two times infinitity is the same as infinity.
That's easy.

However, you can still have different 'types' of infinity. For example, the number of odd numbers = the number of even numbers = the number of integers = infinity.

Yet the number of real numbers > the number of integers.

To quote Wikipedia:

Different form of "infinity" are the ordinal (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Ordinal) and cardinal (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Cardinal_number) infinities of set theory. Georg Cantor (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Georg_Cantor) developed a system of transfinite numbers (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Transfinite_number), in which the first transfinite cardinal is aleph-null (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Aleph-null) http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/f/7/df703098d70a3bd80535443e2c4e4b24.png, the cardinality (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Cardinality) of the set of natural numbers (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Natural_number). This modern mathematical conception of the quantitative infinite developed in the late nineteenth century from work by Cantor, Gottlob Frege (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Gottlob_Frege), Richard Dedekind (http://www.absolutewrite.com/wiki/Richard_Dedekind) and others, using the idea of collections, or sets.
Mac

Ruv Draba

02-03-2009, 04:17 AM

Infinities are linguistic conventions rather than artifacts of human activity. We can talk about infinity but we can neither create it nor observe it.

In certain branches of mathematics we're forbidden from talking about infinities because you can't actually construct them using mundane tools in finite time. Certain manipulations on infinities are known to be logically unsound (e.g. the collection of all collections that don't contain themselves). Some mathematicians insist that you can't 'add two' to infinity because addition isn't defined on infinite numbers. Other mathematicians say that it's okay as long as you don't look too hard. But it's generally considered better form to do your mathematics without the use of infinity than to perform operations on it.

I believe that philosophically, the same applies.

AMCrenshaw

02-03-2009, 04:41 AM

We can talk about infinity but we can neither create it nor observe it.

Unless it's an inherent characteristic of the universe (not saying it is). If the universe is infinite in some way with which we can interact, then it's not that we can't observe it, but that we can't record our observations in a scientific or mathematical way.

But it's generally considered better form to do your mathematics without the use of infinity than to perform operations on it.

I believe that philosophically, the same applies.

And I would agree with this statement. It often merely reveals that absurdities are plausible, which could very well paralyze a logical philosopher. At the same time, they are fun exercises of logic. To me, maybe nothing more. Who knows.

AMC

kuwisdelu

02-03-2009, 05:09 AM

I'll start out with the problems with some of your basic assumptions.

(1 - That no evidence exists to support either design or the accidental and perfect combination of elements and chemicals to produce life.

That's not entirely true. The Miller-Urey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment) experiment was a breakthrough in abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life) (the formation of life from non-life). It recreated the early conditions of the Earth and showed that organic compounds such as amino acids could spontaneously form from inorganic compounds naturally occurring during the early stages of Earth. Later experiments showed that amino acids could spontaneously form peptides, which can form proteins, an important part of life. We still don't have the full mechanism by which life forms from non-life, but we've shown some of the first steps are certainly possible.

(2 - That infinity as a concept is different from the reality of the universe.
(2a - because otherwise, wouldn't infinite space and infinite time also allow for infinite matter? And since Infinity = Infinity, infinite matter would fill infinite space, which must mean that infinity as a concept and the reality of the universe are different things.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean "a concept different from the reality of the universe." The universe is infinite. The problem is infinite space does not necessarily imply infinite matter. It does allow for it, yes, but if Einstein's theory of General Relativity is to believed (and I think we can at least accept it as a pretty damn good model), we can measure the shape of the universe and calculate the required amount of matter and energy in order for the topography of the universe to match out observations. The amount of matter and energy is not infinite (though much of it is unaccounted for--see dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) and dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)).

To understand that infinite matter does not follow from infinite space, we have to understand a little bit of calculus. It's possible for a sum (integral) of a finite density (say, matter) over an infinite range (say, the whole universe) to be finite, even though the sum is over an infinity. For example, the integral from 1 to infinity of 1/x^2 is a finite number, even though 1/x^2 is always a positive finite number between 1 and infinity.

(3 - That God (or god, or G-d or a designer) is a possibility, not a positive statement that must be proven true or else be assumed false.
(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.

I accept these.

Here's the argument:

Assume a universe with nothing except what can be found on a complete periodic table of elements.

Now calculate the odds of a single cell forming by itself from nothing but the interaction of these elements. The odds are pretty low.

Now calculate the odds of any number of these cells forming in the same period of time, on their own, in separate locations,with no stimulus other than the interaction of elements. The odds are extremely low.

Now calculate the odds of these cells, from nothing but the interaction of elements, existing practically everywhere, at the same period of time. (Given infinity.)

NOW calculate the odds of a solid gold meteorite ripping through Earth's atmosphere, melting into 32 perfect replicas of your teeth, hitting your yawning mouth, and simultaneously knocking out your teeth and replacing them with the golden replicas.

The odds of either event happening are extremely low.

Thoughts?

The problem with your reasoning is that, well, first of all your dismissal of a statistically insignificant probability as basically impossible. Second of all, the fundamental nature of abiogenesis.

If you want to talk about a cell spontaneously forming from basic elements in their pure form--yeah, that's pretty unlikely to be impossible. In fact, the chemical reaction is completely impossible. But that's not how it happens.

Those basic elements form complex molecules, something pretty likely. Those complex molecules form amino acids--seemingly unlikely, but we've seen it before. Those amino acids form proteins and the other building blocks of a cell. Eventually, the cell forms. A little less interesting than elements playing wham, bam, thank ya ma'am, but that's how it works, and it's a lot more likely than how you presented it.

Again, I do not believe that infinite space -- and space is really just the potential for events to happen -- means that anything that can have happened, will have happened. When the odds of any other thing happening are as low as life spontaneously forming, they're called insignificant. The action is deemed impossible.

The problem is a "statistically insignificant" probability is, well, part of statistics. Not probability. I'm more of a statistician than a probabilist, but I know my way around it okay. "Statistically insignificant" applies to more every-day situations than anything like the whole of the universe--it's very different from "impossible." As pointed out before, your chances of winning the lottery are statistically insignificant, but someone still does.

Especially when it comes to the universe, "statistically significant" != "impossible." I can't emphasize that more.

If one can say that life would eventually happen spontaneously given infinite time and space -- despite insignificant odds -- why can someone else not say that God would have formed spontaneously given the same conditions?

Actually, I think that's a better argument than your original one.

And since the same odds exist for all unlikely events, how come those unlikely events aren't manifesting themselves at an astounding rate? Infinite time and Infinite space, if they allow highly improbable events to occur repeatedly, would literally spell chaos. Where are my cow-shaped trees? Where is my planet with a sea of coca-cola? I argue that given a TRUE infinity--instead of infinity as a concept-- we would not see highly improbable events occur, and certainly not more than once, and CERTAINLY not in the same portion of space and time. (Which is, to me, the compelling part of this question.)

The problem is that is possible. You could see a cow-shaped tree spontaneously form in front of you. However, as you pointed out, that's so unlikely, it's almost impossible. But not impossible.

Having an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of time does not mean extremely unlikely events happen all the time--they're still very unlikely. It certainly make sense that we wouldn't observe them, since the likelihood, if a cow-shaped tree did form, that it would form anywhere near us, where we could observe it, or even during the history of the human race, is even more unlikely. We have not been here for an infinite amount of time, nor do can we observe an infinite amount of time nor an infinite amount of space.

I'll give you my thoughts on the very beginning of the universe, from my training as an engineer, and my knowledge of thermodynamics. It's not really scientific, but more of a hunch that is just a wild guess.

The way I look at it, is that the universe itself is cyclical. That the period we're experiencing(the expansion of the universe), is just one phase of its existence. At some point, the expansion will stop, and the universe will collapse on itself, when it does so, it'll somehow dump all of its built up entropy, and repeat in another big bang. And so on and so forth.

Why do I like to think that this is the case? Because I think it'd be a bummer if the universe dies do to heat death. Sure it's not a good reason, but I'm going to cheer on the home team anyway, as it'll be sad to know that at some point there will nothing new, no possibilities for life, no stars being born, just black nothingness.

Unfortunately, if the universe continues as it is now, the expansion will never stop. Eventually all matter will be so far apart, that we will see no stars. The solar system will be torn apart. Eventually, even individual atoms with break into their elementary constituents. Yeah, the Big Rip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_rip) is fun, isn't it?

But don't worry, that's only if it continues in accordance with our current observations. We need a better understanding of dark energy before we have any idea what will really happen.

The question you presented falls under the heading of a “Paridine Theory.”
Albert Einstein in his search for God, started not with elements, but force. (energy.)
He started with a force we have all come to take a normal…gravity. Newton concluded that all objects contain gravity. When man first went into space, this theory was proven un-true. Einstein, after many years came to the conclusion, “Gravity has no location, nor power source.” He reasoned, “Without a location, or power source…gravity can not be real!” In frustration, his search lead to the theory of relativity. Before his death, he said…”There must be a God.”

You have a...uh...very creative view of the history of physics.

I should mention an interesting theory regarding the universal constants. A similar argument for God is that if the physical constants (pi, e, permittivity and permeability of free space, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, etc.) were not the exact (or at least very close to) the values they are today and at the beginning of the universe, physics as we know it would not work, and potentially the entire universe would break apart, since its inner workings on reliant on this tangled web of constants. How did we happen to luckily end up with these constants? God.

Of course, my favorite argument to explain this (without God) is that there are an infinite number of universes (an idea very familiar to the proponents of the many-worlds interpretation of QM). That at the beginning of each universe, the values of these physical constants arise randomly. Eventually, one of the universes (ours) must get the ones that work. ;)

I should also point out I'm not trying to argue the non-existence of God--I'm only trying to help you out with your argument. :)

Regarding infinity, I should also mention that technically, it's mathematically not a number. It's a set. "2 + Infinity" or "2 times Infinity" makes no mathematical sense, but whether you accept the concept or not, it still plays a very important part both in mathematics, physics, and the reality of the universe.

And of course, there are many kinds of infinity. Using it in calculations is a little questionable, but it's pretty well accepted that it works, and we can always take limits with it (which is our always-fun trick of getting around actually using it).

benbradley

02-03-2009, 06:20 AM

ETA #3: For introduction and just so you'll know where I'm coming from, I consider myself in the camps of hard-core science and atheism. I did believe in a Christian-like God for a few years, but I "educated myself" out of it.
Excellent post.

I am no mathematician, and you're right to call me out on that.

Still, I think that the idea of infinity plays a very important role when one is arguing about the very beginning, because a very beginning implies finite time, which doesn't jibe well with an infinite universe.
I think the religious concept of a creator (as I heard sung by the choir at the end of church service, something like "the Lord always was, is now, and always shall be") and the mathematical concept of infinity do appear have things in common, but I see neither of these used in science, specifically in astronomy and cosmology, as I say more specifically below.

ETA #2: I don't believe (based on the scientific reading I've done) that the universe is infinite.

BTW, congrats on using the correct word jibe instead of the commonly-misused "jive" in that context. I see "jive" used as a verb for agreement far to often...
You tell me that infinity does not equal infinity because I can have different quantities of infinity on either side -- that makes it a really big number, not infinity. If I truly have a numberless amount of something, that's exactly what that means. In concept, two times infinity is bigger than infinity, but in reality, that means absolutely nothing.
For the mathematical way of comparing infinities, read up on Godel. Many infinities are the same size (infinity times any finite number is that same infinity), but some ARE bigger than others. Especially look up Godel's diagonal proof that there are more real numbers (numbers with digits on both sides of the decimal point - fractions, irrationals and transcendentals) between 0 and 1 than there are integers. The proof isn't that hard to understand.
...
Science The results of scientific investigation can be wrong, but it science gives a level of honesty, accountability and agility unmatched by anything mythology or just about any other human endeavor has ever managed. It has demonstrated continuous improvement in every major field, matched by tangible and intangible benefits including improving safety, increasing longevity and increasing humanity's capacity to choose.
I just like editing that sort of stuff. I see science as a methodical study of the physical world, and there's nothing "right" or "wrong" in that, though the conclusions of such study can be shown to be incorrect.
...
Science includes interpretation; that's what a theory is. And science doesn't need myth to be made useful: a problem to solve is sufficient. If you're reading my post on a computer screen it's because people solved some practical problems in communication and information display.

So is a theory a myth? No it's not. A theory is a belief or suspicion that comes with ways to test itself, e.g. by prediction. It's also different from a myth in that it has self-imposed boundaries on its scope. 'If you lie to your mother you'll get ulcers on your tongue' is myth. It doesn't say when you'll get ulcers, or with what frequency or how many. 'If you lie to your mother you'll get an average of one to six ulcers on the tip of your tongue within approximately 30 minutes' is theory -- we can test it.
In order to avoid the confusion so often attempted by creationists and Intelligent Design promoters, I'd call that a (scientifically testable) hypothesis. As the Wikipedia article says, the word theory is often used for that too, but I don't like it. I don't like words that have slippery meanings - it makes it too easy for people to talk past each other without recognizing it.

I'm writing a comparative essay on the likelihood of (a) God's existence. I'm a writing tutor at JCCC and part of my job involves writing papers. I'm working on something for next semester's trouble-makers to look at before they try to argue for or against God. I figured it would save the poor Comp teachers a few headaches.

It's very easy to tear apart an argument if one is setting up both sides of the argument, and I want my essay to be authentic.

But I also want it to be unique, so I'm laying down some ground assumptions that will be underlying my essay:

(1 - That life forming from non-life is so unlikely as to be mathematically insignificant. This does not necessitate a designer, but rather, seeks to find possible life-forming catalysts.

(1 - That no evidence exists to support either design or the accidental and perfect combination of elements and chemicals to produce life.

(2 - That infinity as a concept is different from the reality of the universe.
(2a - because otherwise, wouldn't infinite space and infinite time also allow for infinite matter? And since Infinity = Infinity, infinite matter would fill infinite space, which must mean that infinity as a concept and the reality of the universe are different things.

(3 - That God (or god, or G-d or a designer) is a possibility, not a positive statement that must be proven true or else be assumed false.
It depends on what realm you're in. Isaac Asimov, writing (I presume) as a scientist, said the burden of proof is on the positive. Otherwise, I could say that 1095 angels can dance on the head of a pin, or any number of other statements, and as far as anyone knows they could be true unless and until they are "proven false."

(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.[/quote]
But is it a supernatural anything? Are you going for a natural argument for or against something supernatural?

Years ago I read John Updike's "Roger's Version" (the only Updike novel I've read) and found it quite interesting in this respect. A fundamentalist Christian applies for and gets a scolarship to go "mathematically prove" the existence of God at some theological college. His advisor seems doubtful, but I found it an interesting story all around.
Here's the argument:

Assume a universe with nothing except what can be found on a complete periodic table of elements.
This is a good assumption - I've seen others give links on element creation in the universe, and several "new" elements have been created in particle accelerators, but I think it's a good presumption that only the "common" elements found on Earth are neccesary for life.
Now calculate the odds of a single cell forming by itself from nothing but the interaction of these elements. The odds are pretty low.
...
The odds of either event happening are extremely low.

Thoughts?
Perhaps YOU should calculate these things, and give more precise probabilities instead of saying "pretty low" and "extremely low." I see these as "weasel words" (and even in writing, "pretty" and "extremely" are two of those damned adjectives!) that appeal to emotion, when apparently you're wanting to do more, to appeal more to reason.

A royal flush is a rare hand in poker, and I've heard it in the news when someone playing a high-stakes poker game at a casino has a royal flush, but when you calculate how many poker hands are dealt around the world, not just in casinos but counting all the guys (it's always guys, as far as I've seen) who get together maybe one night a week to play poker as a form of recreation (often accompanied by drinking alcoholic beverages and smoking cigarettes and/or cigars, much like that infamous dog painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_Playing_Poker)), then it's easily calculated that a royal flush is dealt somewhere practically every day.

I don't see where infinity is needed in describing the physical universe. Using scientific notation, I've never seen a number or ratio describing the physical universe greater than 10100 (if you're unfamiliar with scientific notation, that's a number starting with the digit 1 followed by a hundred zeroes). The number of particles (whether atoms or subatomic particles, as the estimates of these are all roughly within the same order of magnitude) in the "known universe" is approximately 1080 (a figure I read perhaps decades ago, and that I've seen several times since - I'd like to know its origin and how the person who came up with it calculated it), and that's the biggest raw number of something physical I can think of. Compare that to the largest known prime (http://www.mersenne.org/), a mathematical construct discovered by modern computer search. The current record is an astounding 1012978189.

ETA (as if the posts in this thread aren't long enough already): All the estimates I've heard of the age of the Universe are finite numbers. The Big Bang happened somewhere between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago by modern scientific estimates. Since the Big Bang was a effectively a "singularity," it's impossible to have any knowledge of what happened before it, presuming there was a before. Or there's L. Ron Hubbard's cosmology that beings named Thetans existed 40 trillion years ago, and that they're still around inhabiting our bodies and making messes of our lives.

Ruv Draba

02-04-2009, 05:14 AM

In order to avoid the confusion so often attempted by creationists and Intelligent Design promoters, I'd call that a (scientifically testable) hypothesis. As the Wikipedia article says, the word theory is often used for that too, but I don't like it. I don't like words that have slippery meanings - it makes it too easy for people to talk past each other without recognizing it.

Yes, more correctly it's an hypothesis arising from some unspecified theory, but scientifically, hypotheses can only arise from theory which is why I simplified my explanation. Here's an etymology of theory by the way, from www.etymonline.com (http://www.etymonline.com):

theory (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theory) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory) 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638.

And here's hypothesis for completeness:

hypothesis (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hypothesis) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis) 1596, from M.Fr. hypothese, from L.L. hypothesis, from Gk. hypothesis "base, basis of an argument, supposition," lit. "a placing under," from hypo- "under" + thesis "a placing, proposition." A term in logic; narrower scientific sense is 1646; hypothetical is 1588.

And for comparison, here's the term conjecture:

conjecture (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conjecture) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conjecture) c.1384, from L. conjectura "conclusion, interpretation," from conjectus, pp. of conicere "to throw together," from com- "together" + jacere "to throw." Originally of interpretation of signs and omens; sense of "forming of opinion without proof" is 1535.

Popular culture largely ignores hypotheses, and misrepresents conjecture as theory all the time. "I have a theory that I can travel back in time!" is the sort of thing we'll hear. But without a theory -- a rigorous model for time -- that statement is actually conjecture. With a theory of time that statement could be an hypthothesis.

Hypotheses should potentially at least, admit some sort of testing. Conjecture however, may not.

This is important in scientific discussions because of where the burden of proof and disproof lie. Theories often begin life as conjecture -- and at that point the burden of evidence resides with the conjecturer. Over time though they develop models, and at that point in their lives they must demonstrate soundness, conciseness and consistency with what is already observed. Many theories fail at this point because they're more complex than existing theories and don't do any more than current theories do.

As the theory matures it generates new hypotheses which are tested to further mature the model -- or which may result in the model being abandoned. As the model becomes accepted as our simplest, most comprehensive and consistent explanation, the burden of disproof then falls to those who'd challenge the model.

Confusing conjecture with mature theory results in shifting the burden of proof from the conjecturer to the challenger. This is a rhetorical trick arising from either self-interested ignorance or deliberate deceit.

Hope this helps some.

Bartholomew

02-05-2009, 07:38 PM

ETA #3: For introduction and just so you'll know where I'm coming from, I consider myself in the camps of hard-core science and atheism. I did believe in a Christian-like God for a few years, but I "educated myself" out of it.

I think the religious concept of a creator (as I heard sung by the choir at the end of church service, something like "the Lord always was, is now, and always shall be") and the mathematical concept of infinity do appear have things in common, but I see neither of these used in science, specifically in astronomy and cosmology, as I say more specifically below.

ETA #2: I don't believe (based on the scientific reading I've done) that the universe is infinite.

BTW, congrats on using the correct word jibe instead of the commonly-misused "jive" in that context. I see "jive" used as a verb for agreement far to often...

For the mathematical way of comparing infinities, read up on Godel. Many infinities are the same size (infinity times any finite number is that same infinity), but some ARE bigger than others. Especially look up Godel's diagonal proof that there are more real numbers (numbers with digits on both sides of the decimal point - fractions, irrationals and transcendentals) between 0 and 1 than there are integers. The proof isn't that hard to understand.

I just like editing that sort of stuff. I see science as a methodical study of the physical world, and there's nothing "right" or "wrong" in that, though the conclusions of such study can be shown to be incorrect.

In order to avoid the confusion so often attempted by creationists and Intelligent Design promoters, I'd call that a (scientifically testable) hypothesis. As the Wikipedia article says, the word theory is often used for that too, but I don't like it. I don't like words that have slippery meanings - it makes it too easy for people to talk past each other without recognizing it.

It depends on what realm you're in. Isaac Asimov, writing (I presume) as a scientist, said the burden of proof is on the positive. Otherwise, I could say that 1095 angels can dance on the head of a pin, or any number of other statements, and as far as anyone knows they could be true unless and until they are "proven false."

(3a - The entity or phenomena referenced in point 3 is not necessarily God. Nor Allah, nor a Mystic Law, nor the main supernatural power of any specific doctrine.
But is it a supernatural anything? Are you going for a natural argument for or against something supernatural?

Years ago I read John Updike's "Roger's Version" (the only Updike novel I've read) and found it quite interesting in this respect. A fundamentalist Christian applies for and gets a scolarship to go "mathematically prove" the existence of God at some theological college. His advisor seems doubtful, but I found it an interesting story all around.

This is a good assumption - I've seen others give links on element creation in the universe, and several "new" elements have been created in particle accelerators, but I think it's a good presumption that only the "common" elements found on Earth are neccesary for life.

Perhaps YOU should calculate these things, and give more precise probabilities instead of saying "pretty low" and "extremely low." I see these as "weasel words" (and even in writing, "pretty" and "extremely" are two of those damned adjectives!) that appeal to emotion, when apparently you're wanting to do more, to appeal more to reason.

A royal flush is a rare hand in poker, and I've heard it in the news when someone playing a high-stakes poker game at a casino has a royal flush, but when you calculate how many poker hands are dealt around the world, not just in casinos but counting all the guys (it's always guys, as far as I've seen) who get together maybe one night a week to play poker as a form of recreation (often accompanied by drinking alcoholic beverages and smoking cigarettes and/or cigars, much like that infamous dog painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_Playing_Poker)), then it's easily calculated that a royal flush is dealt somewhere practically every day.

I don't see where infinity is needed in describing the physical universe. Using scientific notation, I've never seen a number or ratio describing the physical universe greater than 10100 (if you're unfamiliar with scientific notation, that's a number starting with the digit 1 followed by a hundred zeroes). The number of particles (whether atoms or subatomic particles, as the estimates of these are all roughly within the same order of magnitude) in the "known universe" is approximately 1080 (a figure I read perhaps decades ago, and that I've seen several times since - I'd like to know its origin and how the person who came up with it calculated it), and that's the biggest raw number of something physical I can think of. Compare that to the largest known prime (http://www.mersenne.org/), a mathematical construct discovered by modern computer search. The current record is an astounding 1012978189.

ETA (as if the posts in this thread aren't long enough already): All the estimates I've heard of the age of the Universe are finite numbers. The Big Bang happened somewhere between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago by modern scientific estimates. Since the Big Bang was a effectively a "singularity," it's impossible to have any knowledge of what happened before it, presuming there was a before. Or there's L. Ron Hubbard's cosmology that beings named Thetans existed 40 trillion years ago, and that they're still around inhabiting our bodies and making messes of our lives.[/quote]

Lot's of good stuff, too little time to reply to all of it.

It is not the conclusion that God does not exist that bothers me; I have reached this conclusion before, more than once. It is the conclusion that God cannot exist to which I protest. It implies that we have peeked around that particular corner and found it empty, when really, we don't know how to look in that corner.

Logic and the Scientific Method are the purest and best ways to understand 90% of the concepts on Earth. But there are scientific fields where this isn't true - Psychology, for instance. A psychologist can postulate anything about human behavior, but because of our limited ability to test his or her speculations, almost none of it can be proved. And what can be demonstrated is only true most of the time. (I, for instance, do not behave the way psychology says I should in an elevator.)

So when we talk about God - and let's God is the placeholder word for any such phenomena - I really don't think we're at a point where we can positively say, "No chance."

I don't mind people who say, "There's no evidence to support God," because they're right. It's when they take their assumptions a step further that I object.

# RE: Theories

Theories are collected sets of data. No one can dispute the data collected, but everyone can dispute how the data are arranged.

That said, God is strictly a hypothesis, one that I am currently exploring.

Since I cannot explore the idea with facts, I must explore it the only way I know how--by thinking.

# RE: Probability

And I think I'll start here. I'll assume that the trauma of an explosive beginning allowed for all of the current elements on the periodic table. I'll assume that none of these combinations, alone, actually create life themselves. (Because otherwise, I think there's a very high chance that someone would have created life on accident by now.)

So either some force turns certain combinations of elements into life, or there are combinations of elements that humanity hasn't thought to try.

How the hell do I calculate that?

#RE: Jibe

^-^

@Kuwisdelu

Again, an awesome post that I'm not going to pick apart.

Elements forming other objects that eventually formed life was sort of an assumption I made and didn't express.

How does one replicate the beginnings of the universe? How does he know what conditions were present? I honestly find the entire experiment suspect. It assumes too much.

But we're never going to get anywhere if we don't agree on what life is. I consider viruses to be alive, but other people don't. I don't consider organelles alive, but some people do. (Or have, at least.)

Because if we don't agree what life is, we could potentially (if not seriously) call any complex structure alive. Bucky Balls, alive and well! :)