The Two Impossible Options

109 views
Skip to first unread message

Sean Pitman

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 12:39:35 PM2/29/04
to
sweetnes...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<4d71d185.04022...@posting.google.com>...


> >Certainly the chemical processes in the human mind
> >are indeed mindless.
>
> All that we have seen in the universe are mindless processes. When
> they are combined in a certain, very complex way, they produce what
> you call "mindful" processes.
>
> That is all well and nice, but...
>
> You claimed that we cannot infer anything about the Designer. That is
> not true; we can know that it is intelligent (if it was not, well,
> there would be no need for this discussion, right?). We can also infer
> that its mind is very powerful, far more so then ours (since it was
> able to plan everything there is). Furthermore, we can know without
> doubt that he has the means to create life, and probably a bunch of
> other things also (if he didn't, again, this discussion would be
> meaningless).

I don't recall ever saying that "nothing" could be inferred about any
designer by studying the works of a designer. Certainly all of these
things you mention here could logically be inferred as well as many
more things than this. What I do remember saying is that even if the
particular identity or specific motives of the designer remained
elusive, the fact that there was an intelligent designer behind a
particular phenomenon may still remain crystal clear - even to the
casual observer.

> Now, the Designer can be intelligent in two ways (if there is a third,
> please let me know). One, it can be intelligent in the same way we are
> intelligent - i.e. its mind is a very complex structure formed of
> mindless processes. Two, it is intelligent in some way that is
> completely unprecedented, and unknown to us.
>
> In first case, you have the old "who designed the designer" problem.

Yes, that is an unexplainable mystery. But, as I have discussed with
you before, this problem is no more mysterious than the question of
how something came from nothing, a concept that even atheistic
evolutionists must believe in. Many of those who actually believe in
a God solve the problem of God's existence by simply believing certain
statements found in places like the Bible were God is said to describe
himself as "Eternal . . . without beginning of days or end of life . .
. the only self-existent one . . . knowing the end from the beginning
. . . existing is past, present and future at the same time . . .
etc".

Now someone may argue that this is simply a ridiculous notion. After
all, how could something have no beginning? That makes no sense -
right? It even hurts my mind to think about such a concept. And yet,
it is equally difficult to consider the only other alternative; that
something ultimately came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
difficult or even impossible options must be true because we are in
fact here.

So, where does the weight of evidence leave us? Did we and everything
else in the universe come from nothing or did we come from an
eternally existent Creator of Everything, known to some as the "Word"
who is able to "speak" things into existence from absolutely nothing?

For me, the evidence is clear. This universe simply does not
self-assemble itself very far beyond the lowest levels of
pre-established informational complexity. If significantly higher
order informational complexity is realized in any particular place
within this universe, it is always the result of the influence of some
sort of pre-established outside intelligence or higher informational
order. Otherwise, the rule of the universe is to go from higher
informational order to lower and lower states of informational order
(informational homogeny) over time.

The supply of outside energy to a system is simply not enough to order
that system in an informationally rich way that goes very far beyond
what it started with. The type of energy is important to increase the
information or functional complexity (i.e., reduce the chaos) of a
system. Random energy or "heat" is informationally poor. In order to
direct such random energy to aid in the formation of an
informationally rich system or level of functional complexity, it must
be specifically converted into ordered or directed energy by some sort
of pre-established intelligence or system of higher informational
complexity.

For example, if you take a pot of randomly distributed amino acids
with a very low level of informational or functional complexity and
then put a fire under this pot, will the addition of this heat result
in an increase in informational or functional complexity within the
pot? It seems to me that the only result of heating such a pot would
be highly energized "hot" amino acids with the same collective
informational/functional complexity if not less.

The addition of random or chaotic energy to a chaotic system does not
decrease the chaos of that system. Likewise, removing energy from a
chaotic system does not make it less chaotic than the information that
it already had available to it in its individual parts. For example,
crystals are not more functionally or informationally complex than the
same parts in non-crystalline form. Crystalline fractals, such as
snowflakes, are repeats of the same very simply informational formula
with a little chaos thrown in. They are not more highly ordered or
informationally complex than the sum of a very small subpart repeated
over and over again in the same way with the addition of a bit of
chaos into the equation.

On the other hand, informationally rich, highly complex, emergent
functions, such as are found in all living things, simply do not come
about without the pre-existence of other informationally rich systems
of equal or greater functional complexity. These pre-existent systems
must be capable of directing random energy to move building blocks
into very specific non-fractal-type positions that yield collective
highly complex "emergent" functions. This truly is an unbreakable
rule of the universe, as I understand the universe, that I live in.

> You argue that the life is too complex to have originated on its own.
> But we are forced to accept that the creator itself is an exceedingly
> complex entity, with either exceedingly powerful tools or unimaginable
> powers. Since you are fond of chances, tell me: what are the chances
> of such an entity coming into existence without being designed. Since
> you give numbers for chances of evolution of much simpler systems, I
> would like some numbers here too.

Tell me, what are the chances of something coming from nothing or of
something having no beginning?

> In the second case, you have relegated the Designer to the realm of
> imagination. You can say that life was created by an entity whose mind
> operates according to the laws we know nothing about, and whose
> processes are something different then anything we have ever observed
> (we have never observed an intelligence that wasn't just a complex
> structure of mindless processes). I can then, quite equivalently, say
> that there is an undetectable mindless quantum force that puts living
> organisms together, which acts differently from anything we have ever
> observed.

If such a quantum force did exist and put things together in such an
informationally rich and functionally complex way as we find in the
systems and functions of living things, I wouldn't call such a force
"mindless" but "mindful" or at least "intelligent" and "purposeful".
Certainly such a force would be quite different from the mindless
non-directed forces that we currently observe acting in many aspects
of nature.

> The core problems of your proposal, as I see them.

There will always be problems. Neither you nor I can explain or even
remotely hope to understand some of these ultimate questions.
However, the fact that we cannot understand or even remotely grasp
some of these problems does not mean that we cannot understand the
weight of evidence that we can actually get our little minds around as
supporting one or the other of two equally mystifying possibilities.
We are simply forced to choose between one of these two options
because there is simply no other option that I am aware of. So, it is
either an eternal extremely intelligent Creator or a mindless Nature
making something out of nothing. Which one of these two options
carries the greatest understandable weight of evidence?

> M.

Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com

dkomo

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 1:45:51 PM2/29/04
to
Sean Pitman wrote:
>

[snip]

> Yes, that is an unexplainable mystery. But, as I have discussed with
> you before, this problem is no more mysterious than the question of
> how something came from nothing, a concept that even atheistic
> evolutionists must believe in. Many of those who actually believe in
> a God solve the problem of God's existence by simply believing certain
> statements found in places like the Bible were God is said to describe
> himself as "Eternal . . . without beginning of days or end of life . .
> . the only self-existent one . . . knowing the end from the beginning
> . . . existing is past, present and future at the same time . . .
> etc".
>
> Now someone may argue that this is simply a ridiculous notion. After
> all, how could something have no beginning? That makes no sense -
> right? It even hurts my mind to think about such a concept.

Does the real number line have a beginning? Does it have an end? No
math student hurts his mind by thinking about such concepts. Or about
the infinitely large and infinitely small. Or infinite sets. Or even
infinite hierarchies of infinite sets.

In mathematics infinity is a routine idea. In science it is also, if
for no other reason than that calculus is used extensively in science.

> And yet,
> it is equally difficult to consider the only other alternative; that
> something ultimately came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
> difficult or even impossible options must be true because we are in
> fact here.
>

In modern physics there is no such thing as nothing. The quantum
vacuum is anything but "nothing." It is pure potentiality, seething
with virtual particles. One theory proposes that the Big Bang started
as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. This is not the creation of
something out of nothing, as you put it.

If I were you I'd learn something about modern physics before making
any more ignorant statements about "nothing." Your argument is
destroyed at the outset with your erroneous premises.



> So, where does the weight of evidence leave us? Did we and everything
> else in the universe come from nothing or did we come from an
> eternally existent Creator of Everything, known to some as the "Word"
> who is able to "speak" things into existence from absolutely nothing?
>

The idea of an eternally existent Creator of Everything Who speaks
things into existence is absurd. It's an egregious anthromorphism.
Speaking things into existence indeed. It makes much more sense that
the Universe itself, of which our observable local bubble is only an
infinitesimal fraction, is itself infinite in extent and eternal. It
has always existed, hence has no need of a Creator.

--dk...@cris.com

Cry

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 4:36:33 PM2/29/04
to
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:45:51 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
wrote:

>Sean Pitman wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>> Yes, that is an unexplainable mystery. But, as I have discussed with
>> you before, this problem is no more mysterious than the question of
>> how something came from nothing, a concept that even atheistic
>> evolutionists must believe in. Many of those who actually believe in
>> a God solve the problem of God's existence by simply believing certain
>> statements found in places like the Bible were God is said to describe
>> himself as "Eternal . . . without beginning of days or end of life . .
>> . the only self-existent one . . . knowing the end from the beginning
>> . . . existing is past, present and future at the same time . . .
>> etc".
>>
>> Now someone may argue that this is simply a ridiculous notion. After
>> all, how could something have no beginning? That makes no sense -
>> right? It even hurts my mind to think about such a concept.
>
>Does the real number line have a beginning? Does it have an end? No
>math student hurts his mind by thinking about such concepts. Or about
>the infinitely large and infinitely small. Or infinite sets. Or even
>infinite hierarchies of infinite sets.

I just finished reading "A Brief History of Infinity: The Quest to
Think the Unthinkable" by Brian Clegg. It's a fun read but not quite
an "A Dummy's Guide to Infinity". And it descibes that, yes indeed,
many math students hurt their minds thinking about such things.
They've been doing it for thousands of years.

>In mathematics infinity is a routine idea. In science it is also, if
>for no other reason than that calculus is used extensively in science.

So much so that we take it for granted.

Cheers,
Cry

Glenn

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 5:17:59 PM2/29/04
to

"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:404238E5...@cris.com...
> Sean Pitman wrote:
snip

> > And yet,
> > it is equally difficult to consider the only other alternative; that
> > something ultimately came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
> > difficult or even impossible options must be true because we are in
> > fact here.
> >
>
> In modern physics there is no such thing as nothing. The quantum
> vacuum is anything but "nothing." It is pure potentiality, seething
> with virtual particles. One theory proposes that the Big Bang started
> as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. This is not the creation of
> something out of nothing, as you put it.
>
Interesting. Virtual particles are particles which flash into and out
of existence spontaneously?

Real particles that flash into and out of existence?

Doesn't "out of existence" imply "nothing"? Certainly when a
"virtual particle" pops out of existence, there is not another
that is popped into existence in the same space in time?

So this "Big Ball" existed in a quantum vacuum?

What are the properties of this quantum vacuum, and how
do you know? Must this quantum vacuum be infinite?
Was it not part of the "universe"?

snip

Sean Pitman

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 7:14:42 PM2/29/04
to
dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<404238E5...@cris.com>...

> > Now someone may argue that this is simply a ridiculous notion. After
> > all, how could something have no beginning? That makes no sense -
> > right? It even hurts my mind to think about such a concept.
>
> Does the real number line have a beginning? Does it have an end? No
> math student hurts his mind by thinking about such concepts. Or about
> the infinitely large and infinitely small. Or infinite sets. Or even
> infinite hierarchies of infinite sets.

I'm not talking theoretical mathematics here. I'm talking about a
physical dimension. I'm talking about the universe itself. If you
can wrap your mind around eternity, not just in theory but in
understanding, then you have a much bigger mind than I have. We
humans tend to think of every physical thing as having a beginning.
Even the universe, to include all of space and time with all of its
other real and theoretical dimensions, is felt by many to have had a
beginning in the "singularity" that gave rise to the "Big Bang."
While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
singularity or what came before? Did this singularity come from
nothing? Or, was it always there?

Again, you get to a point were you must believe in something that you
cannot really understand much less explain any way you look at it.

> In mathematics infinity is a routine idea. In science it is also, if
> for no other reason than that calculus is used extensively in science.

The idea of infinity is certainly a "routine idea" that is often used,
but never fully understood. Like the concept of zero, there is a lot
of mystery when you true try to unpack the idea of infinity or
eternity as it applies to any real physical concept or property.

> > And yet,
> > it is equally difficult to consider the only other alternative; that
> > something ultimately came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
> > difficult or even impossible options must be true because we are in
> > fact here.
> >
>
> In modern physics there is no such thing as nothing. The quantum
> vacuum is anything but "nothing." It is pure potentiality, seething
> with virtual particles. One theory proposes that the Big Bang started
> as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. This is not the creation of
> something out of nothing, as you put it.

Actually, before the Big Bang it is suggested that nothing much is or
even can be known. There were no particles, as we can possibly
understand particles. There was no time. There were no dimensions.
There was only a singularity (a single point of infinite density and
temperature). In dealing with and trying to understand this
singularity of a universe, empirical science simply breaks down and
"theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic
grounds." Before "Plank Time" (~1e-43sec after the BB), physics simply
cannot explain or even begin to imagine what the universe what like.
"Events before this time are undefined in our current science and, in
particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the
Universe (i.e. what started or 'caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can
describe our efforts to date as probing around the 'edges' of our
understanding in order to define what we don't understand, much like a
blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole, learning its
diameter without knowing its depth."

So you see, the suggestion that a quantum vacuum can easily explain
the origin of the Universe is quite a leap of blind faith. Such a
theory cannot really even be tested in any sort of empirical way. In
reality physicists know nothing about the beginning or original cause
of the universe. It truly seems to have come from absolutely nothing.

And, even if the universe came from something or a "special kind of
nothing", one can always ask how that something (i.e., "quantum vacuum
with all of its potentiality and virtual particles) got here?

Sure, you can always say that something always existed, but you must
admit that this is rather hard to envision or fully comprehend.
Certainly it is no harder, or perhaps just as hard, then, to suggest
that an Eternal Intelligence has also always existed? Where, really,
is the difference? Evolutionists always chide Creationists for not
being able to explain how God was created. Well, isn't it just as
valid to ask how a quantum vacuum or the first singularity was created
with all of its evident potential? If you answer that the quantum
vacuum with its necessarily potentiality was/is eternal, then isn't it
just as valid for me to suggest that an intelligent and purposeful
Creator God is/was eternal? Why is your suggestion any more valid or
believable than my suggestion?

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

> If I were you I'd learn something about modern physics before making
> any more ignorant statements about "nothing." Your argument is
> destroyed at the outset with your erroneous premises.

I have taken a bit of physics and I am aware of the idea of a quantum
vacuum and of the singularity ideas that modern physics proposes as
potential answers for the origin of the universe. I am also aware
that these theories are pretty much entirely based on high-level
imagination and not much more when it comes to understanding such
concepts. The fact is that our human understanding simply breaks down
at some point or another when we try and explain our origins using
either a purely mindless naturalistic model or a mindful supernatural
model. Either way we get to a point were we simply have to throw up
our hands and admit that our minds are just too small and feeble to
even begin to comprehend the great mystery of our ultimate origin. It
is simply beyond us.

Of course, you may be the first to have figured it out and fully
comprehend how it all came to be. If so, I truly stand in admiration.

> > So, where does the weight of evidence leave us? Did we and everything
> > else in the universe come from nothing or did we come from an
> > eternally existent Creator of Everything, known to some as the "Word"
> > who is able to "speak" things into existence from absolutely nothing?
>
> The idea of an eternally existent Creator of Everything Who speaks
> things into existence is absurd. It's an egregious anthromorphism.
> Speaking things into existence indeed. It makes much more sense that
> the Universe itself, of which our observable local bubble is only an
> infinitesimal fraction, is itself infinite in extent and eternal. It
> has always existed, hence has no need of a Creator.

And you know what, that sounds just as absurd to me as my notion that
a God who stands outside of time could simply speak things into
existence from nothing. Certainly you cannot explain the idea of an
eternal and infinite universe any more than I can explain the idea of
an eternal and infinite God. However, based on how I see this
universe working now, there is far more evidence for a directed
intelligent process at play within this universe than there is for
your notion of a mindless non-directed process of creation.

The universe is indeed so perfectly balanced that even well known
secular scientists, to include many physicists, recognize that this
universe seems to be tailor made to support life. Beyond this, life
itself and the level of functional complexity that is involved and
formed by living things simple do not arise in this universe, beyond
the lowest levels of functional complexity, without pre-existing life
or pre-established levels of informational complexity that are at
least equal or greater than those levels of functional complexity that
are subsequently produced. Informational evolution simply does not
happen in this universe in living or non-living matter beyond the
lowest levels of complexity (complexity not chaos) unless it is
directed by a higher source of pre-established informational
complexity - period.

> --dk...@cris.com

Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com

Frank Reichenbacher

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 10:26:44 PM2/29/04
to

"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.04022...@posting.google.com...

> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:<404238E5...@cris.com>...
>
> > > Now someone may argue that this is simply a ridiculous notion. After
> > > all, how could something have no beginning? That makes no sense -
> > > right? It even hurts my mind to think about such a concept.
> >
> > Does the real number line have a beginning? Does it have an end? No
> > math student hurts his mind by thinking about such concepts. Or about
> > the infinitely large and infinitely small. Or infinite sets. Or even
> > infinite hierarchies of infinite sets.
>
> I'm not talking theoretical mathematics here. I'm talking about a
> physical dimension. I'm talking about the universe itself.

So is dkomo.


If you
> can wrap your mind around eternity, not just in theory but in
> understanding, then you have a much bigger mind than I have.

No comment.


We
> humans tend to think of every physical thing as having a beginning.

Speak for yourself.


> Even the universe, to include all of space and time with all of its
> other real and theoretical dimensions, is felt by many to have had a
> beginning in the "singularity" that gave rise to the "Big Bang."

Dkomo spoke directly to that and you weren't paying attention.


> While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
> space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
> singularity or what came before?

We don't know.


Did this singularity come from
> nothing?

We don't know. However, dkomo pointed out very succinctly that modern
cosmology does not require that the universe came from nothing. You weren't
paying any attention to what he wrote, did you? You read what you wanted to
read into what he wrote and you knee-jerked the rest.

He did, in fact, ridicule the suggestion that modern cosmology requires that
the Big Bang appeared out of nothing.


Or, was it always there?
>

That is exactly what dkomo said. You would know that if you had been paying
attention.


> Again, you get to a point were you must believe in something that you
> cannot really understand much less explain any way you look at it.

Again, speak for yourself.


>
> > In mathematics infinity is a routine idea. In science it is also, if
> > for no other reason than that calculus is used extensively in science.
>
> The idea of infinity is certainly a "routine idea" that is often used,
> but never fully understood.

Dkomo was, in fact, pointing out that it is you that does not understand the
concept of infinity.


Like the concept of zero, there is a lot
> of mystery when you true try to unpack the idea of infinity or
> eternity as it applies to any real physical concept or property.
>
> > > And yet,
> > > it is equally difficult to consider the only other alternative; that
> > > something ultimately came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
> > > difficult or even impossible options must be true because we are in
> > > fact here.
> > >
> >
> > In modern physics there is no such thing as nothing. The quantum
> > vacuum is anything but "nothing." It is pure potentiality, seething
> > with virtual particles. One theory proposes that the Big Bang started
> > as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. This is not the creation of
> > something out of nothing, as you put it.
>
> Actually, before the Big Bang it is suggested that nothing much is or
> even can be known.

He knows this. All we can do right now is speculate. However, physicists do
not speculate that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang. This is
a ridiculous notion.


There were no particles, as we can possibly
> understand particles. There was no time. There were no dimensions.
> There was only a singularity (a single point of infinite density and
> temperature).

Interesting. You make the statement (which is quite correct) that science
doesn't know anything about whatever came before the Big Bang, then you make
several completely fanciful statements about the conditions of things before
the Big Bang exactly as if you hadn't been paying attention to what you
yourself wrote.


In dealing with and trying to understand this
> singularity of a universe, empirical science simply breaks down and
> "theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic
> grounds." Before "Plank Time" (~1e-43sec after the BB), physics simply
> cannot explain or even begin to imagine what the universe what like.
> "Events before this time are undefined in our current science and, in
> particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the
> Universe (i.e. what started or 'caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can
> describe our efforts to date as probing around the 'edges' of our
> understanding in order to define what we don't understand, much like a
> blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole, learning its
> diameter without knowing its depth."
>
> So you see, the suggestion that a quantum vacuum can easily explain
> the origin of the Universe is quite a leap of blind faith.

As dkomo pointed out, it is a suggestion only. He really doesn't express any
"faith" whatsoever in the concept, because as a physicist he knows that you
really can't say positively what happened before Planck time. He would, I
suspect quite agree that anyone claiming to know that the universe is
explained by quantum vacuum phenomena would be taking a very big blind leap
of faith.


Such a
> theory

It's not a theory. It's only a speculation.


> cannot really even be tested in any sort of empirical way.

He knows that. He also has good reason to believe that scientists in the
future will be able to break this barrier.


In
> reality physicists know nothing about the beginning or original cause
> of the universe. It truly seems to have come from absolutely nothing.

No, as I already pointed out and dkomo carefully illustrated, the idea that
the universe "came from nothing" is ridiculous.


>
> And, even if the universe came from something or a "special kind of
> nothing", one can always ask how that something (i.e., "quantum vacuum
> with all of its potentiality and virtual particles) got here?

Unless you maintain, as dkomo carefully did, that it was always there.


>
> Sure, you can always say that something always existed, but you must
> admit that this is rather hard to envision or fully comprehend.

Exactly why it is obvious that it is you that has trouble with the inifinity
concept and not dkomo and not cosmologists.


> Certainly it is no harder, or perhaps just as hard, then, to suggest
> that an Eternal Intelligence has also always existed?

Yes, it very much is. Your Eternal Intelligence has absolutely no basis in
empirical fact, while a quantum vacuum does. There is no theory of this
entity, nor is such a theory possible. There is a very vibrant theory of
quantum mechanics.


Where, really,
> is the difference?

The scientific method.


Evolutionists always chide Creationists for not
> being able to explain how God was created. Well, isn't it just as
> valid to ask how a quantum vacuum or the first singularity was created
> with all of its evident potential?

It is highly valid to ask this. It is highly valid to collect data and
analyze it. One day scientists will break the Planck limit barriers and
discover that which is currently unknowable. No serious cosmologist does not
believe this.


If you answer that the quantum
> vacuum with its necessarily potentiality was/is eternal, then isn't it
> just as valid for me to suggest that an intelligent and purposeful
> Creator God is/was eternal?

No it isn't. A quantum vacuum is amenable to scientific inquiry, while your
Creator/God is not. There is no known physical manifestation of a
Creator/God, there is no theory of a Creator/God, nor is any such theory
possible.


Why is your suggestion any more valid or
> believable than my suggestion?

You suggestion has no basis in empirical fact, while dkomo's does.

Oh yes he very much can. The quantum vacuum speculation is based on hard-won
empirical data. The eternal and inifinite God is based on an ancient tribal
superstition which has no empirical data whatsoever. Dkomo has good reason
to believe that scientists in the future will be able to explain an eternal
and infinite universe using the same basic methods and approaches that
scientists use today.

Frank

Richard Forrest

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 4:10:15 AM3/1/04
to
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<2Dt0c.60$5U5....@news.uswest.net>...

Stephen Hawing's contribution to this - the prediction of Hawking
Radiation - is based on the properties of a quantum vacuum. He
theorised that Black Holes would be the source of very high energy
radiation, and we find highly energetic sources which match the
characteristics of the energy spectrum of his calculated values.

RF

Sean Pitman

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 11:11:53 AM3/3/04
to
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...

> > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
> > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
> > singularity or what came before?
>
> We don't know.

Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
begins to be adequate. Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
completely beyond human understanding - "beyond searching out". And
yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true. Even though we
ultimately cannot understand how we came to be, we can in fact see
evidence that supports one of these two options.

As I noted before, our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced that


even well known secular scientists, to include many physicists,
recognize that this universe seems to be tailor made to support life

(i.e., The Anthropic Principle). Beyond this, life itself (as well as


the level of functional complexity that is involved and formed by

living things) simply does not arise in this universe beyond the
lowest levels of pre-established functional complexity. Novel
emergent functions simply do not arise very far beyond their starting
point without pre-existing life or pre-established levels of
informational complexity that are at lest equal or greater than those


levels of functional complexity that are subsequently produced.

Informational evolution simply does not happen in this universe, in
living or non-living matter, beyond the lowest levels of functional
complexity (complexity not chaos) *unless* it is directed by a higher
source of pre-established informational complexity - period. And yet,
life and systems expressing very high levels of emergent
functional/informational complexity are here both within us and all
around us.

Given this evidence, it seems to me that the only reasonable option,
between two equally mysterious ultimate causes, is the option of an
eternal, all-powerful, personal, directed Intelligence that many
people refer to as "God". The evidence clearly rules out all known
mindless processes in this universe as the source of the very high
levels of informational complexity in what we see all around us. We
simply have no rational choice but to recognize the signature of
unimaginably great intelligence and power in all creation.

Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com

James Willemin

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 12:23:36 PM3/3/04
to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:11:53 +0000 (UTC),
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:

>"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
>> > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
>> > singularity or what came before?
>>
>> We don't know.
>
>Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
>explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
>theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
>begins to be adequate. Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
>an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
>completely beyond human understanding - "beyond searching out". And
>yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true.

why? You are taking the honest answer "we don't know" which is
inclusive of a large number of possibilities, and eliminating all but
two. This means that you know that of all conceivable (and
inconceivable) ultimate origins all but two are impossible. How do
you know that? What information on cosmogenesis do you have that the
rest of us do not?


> Even though we
>ultimately cannot understand how we came to be, we can in fact see
>evidence that supports one of these two options.
>
>As I noted before, our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced that
>even well known secular scientists, to include many physicists,
>recognize that this universe seems to be tailor made to support life
>(i.e., The Anthropic Principle). Beyond this, life itself (as well as
>the level of functional complexity that is involved and formed by
>living things) simply does not arise in this universe beyond the
>lowest levels of pre-established functional complexity.

How do you know this? What is "pre-established functional
complexity"?

> Novel
>emergent functions simply do not arise very far beyond their starting
>point without pre-existing life or pre-established levels of
>informational complexity that are at lest equal or greater than those
>levels of functional complexity that are subsequently produced.
>

How do you know this? What exactly is "informational complexity"?

>Informational evolution simply does not happen in this universe, in
>living or non-living matter, beyond the lowest levels of functional
>complexity (complexity not chaos) *unless* it is directed by a higher
>source of pre-established informational complexity - period.

How do you know this?


> And yet,
>life and systems expressing very high levels of emergent
>functional/informational complexity are here both within us and all
>around us.
>
>Given this evidence, it seems to me that the only reasonable option,
>between two equally mysterious ultimate causes, is the option of an
>eternal, all-powerful, personal, directed Intelligence that many
>people refer to as "God". The evidence clearly rules out all known
>mindless processes in this universe as the source of the very high
>levels of informational complexity in what we see all around us.

Why? You have adduced no evidence, merely made several baseless
assertions. Sloppy.

Frank Reichenbacher

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 12:44:26 PM3/3/04
to

"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.04030...@posting.google.com...

> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message
news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...
>
> > > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
> > > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
> > > singularity or what came before?
> >
> > We don't know.
>
> Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
> explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
> theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
> begins to be adequate.

Naturally you snipped two places in my post where I note that there is every
reason to believe that scientists of the future *will* discover the answers
to the questions you pose.


Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
> an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
> completely beyond human understanding

No they are not. The QV is a theoretically sound physical manifestation of
well known physical phenomena. Just because you personally do not understand
it does not mean it is unknowable or mysterious.


- "beyond searching out". And
> yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true. Even though we
> ultimately cannot understand how we came to be, we can in fact see
> evidence that supports one of these two options.
>
> As I noted before, our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced

If it's so "perfectly balanced" how come SETI still hasn't found another
intelligent life form? If it were "perfectly balanced" for life, we should
be swimming in alien monsters. If it is so "perfectly balanced" how come
only one out of tens of millions of species to have lived on the earth is
"intelligent"? Life on earth is believed to have begun about 3.6 bya, less
than 1 billion years after the earth formed. On the other planets, which are
all just as old as the earth, there does not seem to be any life, nor is
there good reason to believe that there ever was life. Earth forms, bam!,
there's life, but nada on all the other planets after all this time.


that
> even well known secular scientists, to include many physicists,
> recognize that this universe seems to be tailor made to support life
> (i.e., The Anthropic Principle).

The AP is a cautionary tale which teaches the exact opposite of what you
apparently think. It suggests that scientific theories should be formulated
on the assumption that there is *nothing* unique or special about us, our
planet, our solar system, our universe.


Beyond this, life itself (as well as
> the level of functional complexity that is involved and formed by
> living things) simply does not arise in this universe beyond the
> lowest levels of pre-established functional complexity. Novel
> emergent functions simply do not arise very far beyond their starting
> point without pre-existing life or pre-established levels of
> informational complexity that are at lest equal or greater than those
> levels of functional complexity that are subsequently produced.
>
> Informational evolution simply does not happen in this universe, in
> living or non-living matter, beyond the lowest levels of functional
> complexity (complexity not chaos) *unless* it is directed by a higher
> source of pre-established informational complexity - period. And yet,
> life and systems expressing very high levels of emergent
> functional/informational complexity are here both within us and all
> around us.
>
> Given this evidence, it seems to me that the only reasonable option,
> between two equally mysterious ultimate causes,

There is not "...two equally mysterious ultimate causes..." You espouse a
cause that is manifestly unknown *and* unknowable. dkomo made a suggestion
based on experimentally derived data that can reasonably be expected to be
experimentally verified when the technology catches up with it.

Your whole premise is mush.

Frank

John Stockwell

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 2:10:50 PM3/3/04
to
> Sean Pitman wrote:

>"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
>> > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
>> > singularity or what came before?
>>
>> We don't know.
>
>Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
>explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins.

Actually, we don't know *that* the singularity was made. Also, there may
not be any meaning to the notion of "before" if time originated in the
singularity.

> No
>theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
>begins to be adequate. Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
>an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
>completely beyond human understanding - "beyond searching out". And
>yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true. Even though we
>ultimately cannot understand how we came to be, we can in fact see
>evidence that supports one of these two options.

The difference between what cosmologists are doing, and what you are
attempting to claim they are doing is night and day. Cosmology does
not begin with the assumption of a singularity or the vacuum. Cosmology
begins with observations of astronomical objects, and with our knowledge
of physics and works backward. It is entirely possible that someday a
mathematical model of the universe will be created that describes everything
that is observed based on this approach.

Furthermore, your dichotomy is a false one. Given that such a mathematical model
be found, such a thing would not preclude the belief in a Deity.

However, if you insist that a necessary condition for the belief in God
is the strict adherence to Biblical literalism, then we can say that
this has already been disproven.


>
>As I noted before, our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced that
>even well known secular scientists, to include many physicists,
>recognize that this universe seems to be tailor made to support life
>(i.e., The Anthropic Principle). Beyond this, life itself (as well as
>the level of functional complexity that is involved and formed by
>living things) simply does not arise in this universe beyond the
>lowest levels of pre-established functional complexity.

This is all rather controversial. It may be that there is "perfect balance"
that is astonishing, or it may be no more astonishing than the
observation that all circles have the same ratio of circumferences to
their diameters. Or, if the quantum fluxuation idea is correct, then it
may be that we are in one of the "lucky" universes, out of all the
myriad other choices.


>Novel
>emergent functions simply do not arise very far beyond their starting
>point without pre-existing life or pre-established levels of
>informational complexity that are at lest equal or greater than those
>levels of functional complexity that are subsequently produced.

Yep. Thanks for noting the strongest argument against design.

>
>Informational evolution simply does not happen in this universe, in
>living or non-living matter, beyond the lowest levels of functional
>complexity (complexity not chaos) *unless* it is directed by a higher
>source of pre-established informational complexity - period.

Apparently it does. Obviously, you are a person who needs to study information
theory and nonequlibrium thermodynamics.

> And yet,
>life and systems expressing very high levels of emergent
>functional/informational complexity are here both within us and all
>around us.

>
>Given this evidence, it seems to me that the only reasonable option,
>between two equally mysterious ultimate causes, is the option of an
>eternal, all-powerful, personal, directed Intelligence that many
>people refer to as "God". The evidence clearly rules out all known
>mindless processes in this universe as the source of the very high
>levels of informational complexity in what we see all around us. We
>simply have no rational choice but to recognize the signature of
>unimaginably great intelligence and power in all creation.


Basically the option that you have been pursuing is the option of waving
your MD in people's faces, while you misrepresent fields of science of which
you have little knowledge.


>Sean

-John

John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049

Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.

Bigdakine

unread,
Mar 3, 2004, 4:40:30 PM3/3/04
to
>Subject: Re: The Two Impossible Options
>From: seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman)
>Date: 3/3/04 6:11 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <80d0c26f.04030...@posting.google.com>

>
>"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message
>news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
>> > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
>> > singularity or what came before?
>>
>> We don't know.
>
>Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
>explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
>theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
>begins to be adequate. Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
>an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
>completely beyond human understanding - "beyond searching out". And
>yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true.

Let me guess? Is there a contest on how many errors one can pack into a
paragraph?

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

SortingItOut

unread,
Mar 4, 2004, 1:34:53 AM3/4/04
to
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote in message news:<80d0c26f.04030...@posting.google.com>...

> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<8NqdnXAiANA...@speakeasy.net>...
>
> > > While the universe was contained within this singularity there was no
> > > space or time at all. The question is then, what made this
> > > singularity or what came before?
> >
> > We don't know.
>
> Thank you. This is exactly my whole point. At some point no one can
> explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
> theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
> begins to be adequate. Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
> an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
> completely beyond human understanding - "beyond searching out".

<snip>

> Given this evidence, it seems to me that the only reasonable option,
> between two equally mysterious ultimate causes, is the option of an
> eternal, all-powerful, personal, directed Intelligence that many
> people refer to as "God".

<snip>

Your opening statements seem in direct conflict with your conclusion.
Why did you write the first part (or the second part, if that's the
case) if you don't really believe it?

Sean Pitman

unread,
Mar 5, 2004, 1:37:41 PM3/5/04
to
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<H9-dnR7YE4s...@speakeasy.net>...

> > At some point no one can
> > explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
> > theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
> > begins to be adequate.
>
> Naturally you snipped two places in my post where I note that there is every
> reason to believe that scientists of the future *will* discover the answers
> to the questions you pose.

It is easy to say this in so many words, but isn't this really nothing
more than a statement of your religious faith? I mean really, I can
say, based on the current evidence that we have available to us, that
an honest investigation of our universe will only detail an ultimate
creative Intelligence/God in a clearer and clearer way. Certainly the
great weight of current evidence already speaks overwhelmingly in
favor of an incredible intelligence behind what we see in this
universe - especially when we look at living things.

Now this is a falsifiable statement. All you have to do to prove me
wrong is to show me where material in this universe organizes itself
very far beyond the lowest levels of functional/informational
complexity without the existence and assistance of pre-established
complexity at that level or greater. If you do this, I will become
like you are. So far though, I have only been able to see matter
organize itself only slightly beyond its original level of functional
complexity if and only if it started out at a very low level of
complexity. Going from a higher level of complexity to a brand new
kind of function at that level or greater simply doesn't happen in
this universe.

For example, evolution can happen between 3-letter words very easily
because, although they do carry a fairly high degree of specificity,
they are coded for by a relatively short sequence of letters. This
creates a ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless of about 1 in 7
potential 3-letter words in the English language system. But what if
the minimum sequence requirement for a particular function was
7-letters? Now the ratio of all 7-letter sequences to include 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6 letter words is around 1 in 250,000. Getting from one
meaningful 7-letter phrase to a different meaningful 7-letter phrase
requires, on average, a fairly long random walk through 250,000
meaningless options. The evolution between 7-letter phrases slows
down significantly when compared to the evolution between 3-letter
phrases.

Just try a little experiment yourself. Start with a short 2 or
3-letter word and see how many words you can evolve that require
greater and greater minimum sequence requirements. No doubt you will
quickly find yourself coming to walls of meaningless or non-beneficial
potential options that separate you from every other meaningful and
beneficial option. Now, the only way to get to a new meaningful much
less beneficial option is to cross the meaningless/non-beneficial gap
of separation. Random walk is all that you have to cross such a gap
and that is a big big problem (Genetic evolution works the very same
way).

Without some sort of outside pre-established guidance, such a random
walk quickly works itself into the trillions upon trillions of years
of average time at fairly low levels of specified complexity. Natural
selection is no help here since nature cannot tell the difference
between equally non-meaningful/non-beneficial options. Nature only
recognizes meaningful changes in the function or expressed information
content of a change in the code that caries that information. Such a
process of random evolution has even been given a name called,
"Neutral Evolution". Again, the problem is that neutral evolution
doesn't make new functions; it only makes new meaningless phrases.



> > Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
> > an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
> > completely beyond human understanding
>
> No they are not. The QV is a theoretically sound physical manifestation of
> well known physical phenomena. Just because you personally do not understand
> it does not mean it is unknowable or mysterious.

No one understands how QV could have created the big bang. It isn't
even a testable hypothesis much less a theory of origins. Certainly
you cannot explain this concept nor can you propose any other purely
natural non-intelligent process to explain what we see in this
universe.

Again, there are only two options: An Eternal Pre-existing Creative
Intelligence vs. All Other Non-intelligent Creative Processes.

So far, the evidence is clearly in favor of the intelligent design
option for everything in this universe because the other option simply
has no evidence beyond the very lowest levels of
functional/informational complexity. Many people confuse chaos with
complexity here, but this is not the form of complexity that I am
talking about in the present sense. Informational complexity is far
different from chaos or chaotic complexity. Again, informational
complexity simply does not come about beyond the lowest levels of
complexity without the input of pre-established informational
complexity that is at or above the level of complexity found within a
newly formed system of complexity.

That is how we can tell if something was intelligently designed or
not. The detection of intelligent activity is dependent upon two
things. In order to detect intelligence one must first be aware of
the potential of intelligence at a certain level or beyond. But, this
knowledge alone is not enough to clearly detect the workings of
intelligence. For example, if I were to go out to the desert around
where I live and find an amorphous rock on the ground, could I
automatically and reasonable assume intelligent design as the origin
for the form of this rock? Certainly not even though it could have
been intelligently and deliberately formed. Certainly its form is not
beyond the abilities of human intelligence to create - right?
However, I also know that its form is not beyond the abilities of
mindless non-deliberate processes to create as well. So, in order to
detect the workings of high intelligence without a doubt, I must not
only know the potential of such levels of intelligence, I must also
have some idea of the limits of mindless non-directed non-intelligent
processes.

For example, if I walk by a house in the morning and find a window
broken I can rationally assume either a mindless or mindful cause for
that broken window as both processes could give rise to such a
phenomenon. However, if I were to walk by this same house in the
evening and find that this window had been fixed, could I rationally
assume anything other than a mindful cause?

The same is true of any other phenomenon. If a given phenomenon goes
significantly beyond anything that any mindless processes has ever
done without the input of higher pre-established information in the
form of a mind or pre-established order, I can effectively rule out a
mindless cause for its origin. Then, since a mindful cause can indeed
explain many phenomena that mindless causes cannot explain, it is
perfectly reasonable to invoke a mindful cause as involved with the
production of such phenomena.

> - "beyond searching out". And
> > yet, one of these concepts must in fact be true. Even though we
> > ultimately cannot understand how we came to be, we can in fact see
> > evidence that supports one of these two options.
> >
> > As I noted before, our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced
>
> If it's so "perfectly balanced" how come SETI still hasn't found another
> intelligent life form? If it were "perfectly balanced" for life, we should
> be swimming in alien monsters. If it is so "perfectly balanced" how come
> only one out of tens of millions of species to have lived on the earth is
> "intelligent"? Life on earth is believed to have begun about 3.6 bya, less
> than 1 billion years after the earth formed. On the other planets, which are
> all just as old as the earth, there does not seem to be any life, nor is
> there good reason to believe that there ever was life. Earth forms, bam!,
> there's life, but nada on all the other planets after all this time.

That is because life simply does not evolve without a higher
intelligence or order creating it. Life doesn't exist on the very
very few other planets that we have been able to explore because it
wasn't created there like it was created here. It is as simple as
that. Certainly some of these other sterile planets could support
life it were put there, but life isn't going to evolve there even if
it would thrive there because the level of complexity found even
within the most simple living thing is way beyond anything that can be
assembled without the input of high intelligence. Even here on Earth
life does not evolve beyond its lowest levels of complexity. The
reason why there is only one intelligence on Earth at the level of
humans is because humans were the only ones designed with such a high
level of intelligence. A universe perfectly balanced to *support*
life does not mean that this universe can *create* life or even new
forms of life beyond its lowest levels of functional complexity. The
Anthropic Universe is just able to support life once it is created,
that is all. It is not the Creator; it is the created.

For those who are interested, I detail to a much greater degree my
views on the abilities and limits of mindless vs. mindful processes
at:

www.naturalselection.0catch.com

Sean

Frank Reichenbacher

unread,
Mar 5, 2004, 11:21:03 PM3/5/04
to
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.04030...@posting.google.com...

> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message


news:<H9-dnR7YE4s...@speakeasy.net>...
>
> > > At some point no one can
> > > explain, in even the most remote sense, our ultimate origins. No
> > > theory or even the most high-level intuitive, educated guess even
> > > begins to be adequate.
> >
> > Naturally you snipped two places in my post where I note that there is
every
> > reason to believe that scientists of the future *will* discover the
answers
> > to the questions you pose.
>
> It is easy to say this in so many words, but isn't this really nothing
> more than a statement of your religious faith?


No, it is not. It is a statement based on evidence. The conclusion that
science will eventually discover the answer to your questions requires no
"faith" whatsoever. It simply requires consideration of the evidence, which
very firmly states that science will eventually come up with answers. This
has been true throughout recorded history: the nature of the Solar System,
the physiology of organisms, the circulation of oceans, the radioactive
nature of isotopes, the inheritance of characters. Physicists would readily
admit that getting past the current known limitations of science in regard
to the Planck limits, the speed of light, and the Big Bang singularity will
be difficult, however, none that I know of would really believe such
investigations are doomed to failure by their natures.

The opposite is true of your so-called "incredible intelligence." This
entity is manifestly outside of the realm of science and cannot *ever* be
subjected to empirical verification.


I mean really, I can
> say, based on the current evidence that we have available to us, that
> an honest investigation of our universe will only detail an ultimate
> creative Intelligence/God in a clearer and clearer way.

You have no such evidence. Please tell me where does this entity live? Is it
living tissue? Does it reproduce? How does an entity with no corporeal
existence interact with the physical universe? How does it transcend the
known laws of physics? Where did it come from?

Answer me this: how does a supernatural being affect the physical universe
in a way that caused the physical universe to become manifest? What possible
mechanisms could be involved?


Certainly the
> great weight of current evidence already speaks overwhelmingly in
> favor of an incredible intelligence behind what we see in this
> universe - especially when we look at living things.

How? How is it possible for an omnipotent being to exist? One which not only
has existed forever, but which actually created the physical universe.

In fact the opposite is true. Every time we get closer to the ultimate
mysteries we find that we can indeed find the correct explanations based on
the ordinary phenomena of the observed universe.


>
> Now this is a falsifiable statement. All you have to do to prove me
> wrong is to show me where material in this universe organizes itself
> very far beyond the lowest levels of functional/informational
> complexity without the existence and assistance of pre-established
> complexity at that level or greater.

This is simply a statement from ignorance. I'm sure that you are aware that
materials scientists are deeply involved in creating self-assembling
systems. This research is crucial for the next phase of computing
technologies. The systems that have been developed were unthinkable two
decades ago. It is only a matter of time before scientists are able to
create living organisms from scratch. There is no reason to expect that this
process of development of increasingly complex systems will not continue.
There is no reason to expect that this research will not eventually result
in the discovery of the origin of life on earth.

Please Sean, with all due respect, this is blather. It is simply an
admission of ignorance.

We have not only the mechanism of natural selection, but the chemical
properties of elements and molecules to generate the needed compounds. On
top of that, many abiogenesis researchers are focused on the morphologies of
certain substrates that may have provided scaffolds for organic molecules to
develop into self-replicating forms.

It is only a matter of time before scientists observe the evolution of
self-replicating complex molecules in the laboratory. It is inevitable.


>
> > > Be the reality an all-powerful eternal God or
> > > an all-powerful, eternal, mindless Quantum Vacuum, both concepts are
> > > completely beyond human understanding
> >
> > No they are not. The QV is a theoretically sound physical manifestation
of
> > well known physical phenomena. Just because you personally do not
understand
> > it does not mean it is unknowable or mysterious.
>
> No one understands how QV could have created the big bang. It isn't
> even a testable hypothesis much less a theory of origins. Certainly
> you cannot explain this concept nor can you propose any other purely
> natural non-intelligent process to explain what we see in this
> universe.

The QV is understood as I have pointed out before. The physical mechanisms
that govern the actions of quanta are well known. There is nothing
mysterious about it. If you work out the equations that describe these
phenomena, there does not appear to be any reason why, in an infinite
universe, whole universes could not be an outcome. As I mentioned already,
this is not a theory, but merely speculation.

"As dkomo pointed out, it is a suggestion only. He really doesn't express
any "faith" whatsoever in the concept, because as a physicist he knows that
you really can't say positively what happened before Planck time. He would,
I suspect quite agree that anyone claiming to know that the universe is
explained by quantum vacuum phenomena would be taking a very big blind leap
of faith."

I say science doesn't know, there is no reason to expect that it won't
eventually, therefore let's just keep on investigating.

You say science doesn't know, therefore the question is unanswerable except
by positing the existence of some exotic omnipotent being whose very nature
is held to be beyond the realm of human knowledge.


>
> Again, there are only two options: An Eternal Pre-existing Creative
> Intelligence vs. All Other Non-intelligent Creative Processes.

Again, you personally cannot imagine how natural processes could be
responsible, therefore you introduce some supernatural being to poof it all
into existence so we won't have to bother our little heads about it anymore.


>
> So far, the evidence is clearly in favor of the intelligent design
> option

There is no such option because it requires the existence of something that
cannot exist: a supernatural being which has existed for all eternity and
which is responsible for the creation of the universe.

Please just give me a hint of the mechanism that God uses to create life.
Did he use some kind of special raygun?

How does an omnipotent being exist? Where did it come from?

You said, "...our universe is indeed so perfectly balanced...". Why would
the whole universe be perfectly balanced if only the very tiniest corner of
the universe was singled out for life? Is it some mysterious purpose of the
"Intelligence/God" that no one is supposed to be capable of comprehending?

Moreover, how does a supernatural being affect the physical universe in a
way that "designs" living organisms. Do you have even the slightest
suggested hint of how this might possibly have occured?

Science is still a long way from explaining the origin of life on earth and
the origin of the universe, but there are hypotheses and there are possible
mechanisms which may have been involved. The groundwork for these
investigations is built on good solid science. There is no reason to believe
that with additional technological advances and time, science will not
eventually get it worked out.

There has been no such progress on the God front. There are no possible
mechanisms, there never was any empirical evidence, and there is no prospect
for future advancement. You present meaningless statistics, misplaced
analogies, and a final admission of ignorance. In the end, all you can say
is that you personally believe that God is responsible for it all.

Frank

sweetnes...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 20, 2004, 9:16:20 PM3/20/04
to
>Yes, that is an unexplainable mystery. But, as I have
>discussed with you before, this problem is no more
>mysterious than the question of how something came from
>nothing, a concept that even atheistic evolutionists must
>believe in.

And there is the core problem, which you very expertly attempted to
dodge.

First, even the most atheistic materialist is forced to resort to
agnosticism when it gets to "something from nothing" question (if he
wishes to keep his rational integrity, that is). The Big Bang
happened, and universe was at one time very small, very dense, and
very hot. And then it exploded. That is the extent of knowledge.

Where did that small, hot point come from? I have no idea. But neither
do you. You can claim that God made it. I can claim that it just
popped into existence. Since neither one of us has *any* proof, those
two ideas are equivalent.

But that is not the issue here.

The issue is the "unexplainable mystery". Why do you expect anyone to
accept it as such?

From my perspective, chances of life arising on its own are far
greater then the chances that a being that has the intelligence, the
will and the means to design all life just simply exists.

Existence of a watch, according to you, implies existence of a
watchmaker. Existence of a watchmaker, however, implies that there is
something that brought the watchmaker into existence. And so on, and
so forth, designers of designers. However you turn it, there *has* to
be an ultimate designer, who *had* to come to existance on its own,
without being designed (either by evolving, or by simply appearing,
with or without a puff of smoke).

And chances of it happening on its own grow less and less with each
step, exponentially. The most probable option, in fact, is that the
first step is true: chances of life arising on its own are much
greater then chances of a designer simply existing.

>And yet, it is equally difficult to consider the
>only other alternative; that something ultimately
>came from nothing. Still one of these two equally
>difficult or even impossible options must be true
>because we are in fact here.

Actually, the issue is evolution, not existence of the universe. As to
the universe, the only thing you can say and remain truthful is "I
don't know".

(snip Sean's Statement of Faith)

>Tell me, what are the chances of something
>coming from nothing or of something having
>no beginning?

I don't know. I never saw something come from nothing, nor did I ever
encounter something that has no beginning (to my knowledge, at least).
Which is why I have trouble believing in your Designer.

>Certainly such a force would be quite different
>from the mindless non-directed forces that we
>currently observe acting in many aspects of nature.

First, mindless forces are very good at assembling complex systems
(take a look at this planet, for example). There is some interesting
mathematics on the subject (mostly within Game Theory).

Second, since "intelligent" forces are nothing else but complex
networks of mindless forces, your answer leaves something to be
desired.

>We are simply forced to choose between one of
>these two options because there is simply no
>other option that I am aware of.

No, not really. The choice is limited by evidence. There is
overwhelming evidence that evolution took place; you won't admit it,
but that is entirely your problem. There is no evidence whatsoever on
how the original point of Big Bang came to be. Therefore, you can say
"modern life arose through evolution", and "I have no clue how the
original point of Big Bang came to be". Or you can choose to invent
your own answer to either.

M.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages