If there is no proof for the existence of a supernatural realm

FISMA

Ah, the "p" word again, proof - Proof. What is it to Prove? What is it to exist? Let the colloquial philosophical not too scientific definitions fly!

Supernatural is a man made term. There's the natural world - Physics, the un-natural world - where entropy spontaneously increases overall, and the supernatural world - stuff we don't understand.

Fundamentally, what you are trying to do is use the tools of the natural world to demonstrate something in the supernatural. I think that's fundamentally flawed.

Science may be the best analytical toolset we currently have for the slower than speed of light mass bound world, however, what makes anyone think that it is the appropriate tool for the supernatural world?

Do you believe in Atoms? Can you prove they exist?

No, you cannot, no-one can.

There's a lot of experimental evidence that suggests atoms exist. However, evidence DNE proof.

I believe in atoms, I love the little buggers and what they're made up of. However, their existence cannot Truly be Proven.

Einstein, contrary to popular belief, never said that there's no such thing as faster than light speeds. What he was saying was that there's no way any object with mass, even an atom, could be accelerated to the speed of light in our world.

"c" is not an absolute speed limit of the universe, only an upper limit for the mass in the Universe. That's what people get confused.

If you read Einstein, he held out that there was a possible super-luminal world, one which faster than c speeds could be possible. Just not by mass limited particles in our world.

He believed that we could not, in our present form, observe, understand, or perceive such a super-luminal realm.

Perhaps, this realm, for the lack of a better world is heaven.

Modern Physics is based on three theories: Quantum, General, and the Standard Model of Physics. All of the other stuff, like inflation cosmology, super-strings, M-Theory et al have yet to root themselves in the experimental evidence that science demands before colloquially stating something has been proven.

Our world is probabilistic. Your post treats it as if it were deterministic. Probability is not a statement of reality, rather, about our limited knowledge, not what will actually occur. Colloquially, probability is an expression of our ignorance. However, QM goes one step further and shows that it is impossible to overcome this ignorance. Nothing is every Truly Knowable or Provable.

I don't remember Jesus ever using the term supernatural, however, I do remember the statement "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. Remember - you must accept multiple worlds if you are a scientist. If you reject it, you are an activist.

You will often hear people say the many worlds interpretation of QM, however, that's what I call Phynglish (Physics and English mish mash). Many worlds is the only interpretation of QM.

He also claimed to be the light. Hmmmmm. Duality - particle/wave and man/God.

He also claimed that he, the father, and the Holy Spirit were one. But how can that be - that's just silly?. No wait, Quantum Mechanics has finally figured this one out - super-position. Yay!!!

There's plenty of evidence that God exists. You are, however, unlikely to find it on the Atheism & Agnosticism board.

The problem is when people believe that there evidence IS proof. Sorry, it is not. Nothing is Knowable, nothing is Provable.

As our science gets better, it seems that more things in the bible that people find incredulous are scientifically possible and explainable.

Do you really believe that God could be bound by our science? If we could analyze God, like some amoeba, wouldn't we be the superior being? IMHO, we are the subset, and the subset does not get to know the superset.

To the OP, if you really want to explore this subject, I encourage you to do so. If you are looking for enlightenment on the subject, you'll have to try again with your placement of posting.

Ush1

Very nice but you're just arguing semantics to be honest. Mathematics is the only area of science which can actually ascertain provability.

What evidence gives us as you seem to have eluded to, is probability.

Empirical evidence for God is non-existant, unless you're going to enlighten us all.

You seem to speak as if the only alternative to not knowing something is believing in God, just saying "We don't know", as science often does, is okay.:)

Sam Vimes

FISMA wrote: »

As our science gets better, it seems that more things in the bible that people find incredulous are scientifically possible and explainable.

Scientists found a talking snake did they?

Long Term Louth

ANY Opinions?

In 2003 my mother was given 6 months live, she had seconday cancer which had spread to other parts of the body.

After 2 years she was still coping well but a scan revealed she still had the same prognosis. I spoke directly to the Head of the department dealing with her case and during our conversation I asked why did they indicate to us that she had only 6 months to live?

His reply amazed me and still does to this day, he said that people with the extent of her condition in 99.9% live no longer than 6 months and certanily for no longer than 1 year. He asked if I had heard of a "higher power"? to which I replied I had, but had'nt given the subject much thought. This he said was the only thing he could attribute her survival to.

My mother who was extremely religious lived for another 2 years 1.5 in fairly good health until her inevitable demise resulting in death in 2007, 4 years arfer been given 6 months to live.

I would not consider myself all that religious but have thought about the aforementioned "higer power" a lot since.

Ickle Magoo

My grandpa complained of a sore stomach, he went to the doctors and was sent to the hospital for a scan. Turns out he was riddled with cancer, the oncologist couldn't believe he was still alive, far less going about his daily life as if nothing was going on. He wasn't a religious man at all.

I think funny things can happen, certainly no two medical cases are alike and even if 99% of diagnoses result in a particular prognosis, there is always going to be the 1% that buck the trend. Those that are religious put it down to the intervention of a higher power, those like my grandpa just put it down to luck.

Long Term Louth

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

My grandpa complained of a sore stomach, he went to the doctors and was sent to the hospital for a scan. Turns out he was riddled with cancer, the oncologist couldn't believe he was still alive, far less going about his daily life as if nothing was going on. He wasn't a religious man at all.

I think funny things can happen, certainly no two medical cases are alike and even if 99% of diagnoses result in a particular prognosis, there is always going to be the 1% that buck the trend. Those that are religious put it down to the intervention of a higher power, those like my grandpa just put it down to luck.

There must be some reason, whatever it may be?

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure. Sometimes medical scenario, and recovery in particular, can be a bit of a mystery. Some people smoke 60 a day for 70 years and never get cancer, or throat issues or emphysema - and yet others who never smoke a day in their life and are otherwise very healthy do. Some people recover without any ill effects from the devastating injuries that take the lives of others. For pretty much every single medical scenario you will find cases, patients from all walks of life, religions and none who, for whatever reason, confound the experts. I think it's probably something to do with their particular biological make-up or even something unusual about the pathology of their illness.

Long Term Louth

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure. Sometimes medical scenario, and recovery in particular, can be a bit of a mystery. Some people smoke 60 a day for 70 years and never get cancer, or throat issues or emphysema - and yet others who never smoke a day in their life and are otherwise very healthy do. Some people recover without any ill effects from the devastating injuries that take the lives of others. For pretty much every single medical scenario you will find cases, patients from all walks of life, religions and none who, for whatever reason, confound the experts. I think it's probably something to do with their particular biological make-up or even something unusual about the pathology of their illness.

Yes! but those diagnosed with terminal illness will die regarless of biological make up.

You'd imagine though that those i.e. Heads of medical departments would be of the same opinion as yourself, but apparently this does not appear to be the case.

liamw

drifting wrote: »

Well, lets put it this way, my father in law, who recently died, reported being visited by what he described as an angel shortly before his death. Try disputing that one.

Oxygen deprivation in the brain. Next...

nozzferrahhtoo

drifting wrote: »

OK, I'll concede that some of the ghost photos could be fakes.... snip.... but the sheer number of photos and other evidences is really just too much now.

I am sorry but it appears here you have chosen to essentially say "Some evidence is faked, but the more faked evidence you get the more real it is".

Faked is faked, regardless of whether you have 1 faked photo or 1 million.

Maybe you can adumbrate for us the technique you personally use to distinguish a faked photo from a real one?

antiskeptic wrote: »

In other words: so what if there is no proof for the existance of the supernatural realm

The main problem is there is no proof on offer AND no evidence on offer.

drifting wrote: »

Well, lets put it this way, my father in law, who recently died, reported being visited by what he described as an angel shortly before his death. Try disputing that one.

Looked up the word “anecdotal” recently? I suggest you do it now. There is no onus whatsoever on us to dispute what you can not verify. This could be entirely made up by you.

Long Term Louth wrote: »

This he said was the only thing he could attribute her survival to..

I love rubbish like this. Essentially the "doctor" is saying here "Because it can not be explained.... it can be explained" or "Since I do not know what did it, I know what did it". Either way it is tripe.

Daftendirekt

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure. Sometimes medical scenario, and recovery in particular, can be a bit of a mystery. Some people smoke 60 a day for 70 years and never get cancer, or throat issues or emphysema - and yet others who never smoke a day in their life and are otherwise very healthy do. Some people recover without any ill effects from the devastating injuries that take the lives of others. For pretty much every single medical scenario you will find cases, patients from all walks of life, religions and none who, for whatever reason, confound the experts. I think it's probably something to do with their particular biological make-up or even something unusual about the pathology of their illness.

It may even just be down to dumb luck, either. I think the whole area of miraculous recoveries would be far more interesting if it happened more often than 1 in every 100 (random figure) cases.

Long Term Louth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am sorry but it appears here you have chosen to essentially say "Some evidence is faked, but the more faked evidence you get the more real it is".

Faked is faked, regardless of whether you have 1 faked photo or 1 million.

Maybe you can adumbrate for us the technique you personally use to distinguish a faked photo from a real one?



The main problem is there is no proof on offer AND no evidence on offer.



Looked up the word “anecdotal” recently? I suggest you do it now. There is no onus whatsoever on us to dispute what you can not verify. This could be entirely made up by you.



I love rubbish like this. Essentially the "doctor" is saying here "Because it can not be explained.... it can be explained" or "Since I do not know what did it, I know what did it". Either way it is tripe.

Perhaps when its a member of your own family you will not consider it rubbish whatever you do or do not believe?

nozzferrahhtoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Perhaps when its a member of your own family you will not consider it rubbish whatever you do or do not believe?

I am not sure how familial relationships affect the truth or non-truth of a proposition or the useless method in which it is made.

Regardless of whether it is no one i know, someone I know, or someone in my family, the point still stands... the “doctor” is simply saying no more than “Because we can not explain it, we can explain it"

Clearly you have fallen for what is called the "appeal to emotion fallacy" and you are, with the quoted line above, suggesting I should too.

Long Term Louth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure how familial relationships affect the truth or non-truth of a proposition or the useless method in which it is made.

Regardless of whether it is no one i know, someone I know, or someone in my family, the point still stands... the “doctor” is simply saying no more than “Because we can not explain it, we can explain it"

Clearly you have fallen for what is called the "appeal to emotion fallacy" and you are, with the quoted line above, suggesting I should too.

At no point did I say I believed what the doctor said.

nozzferrahhtoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

At no point did I say I believed what the doctor said.

At no point did I say you said you believed what the "doctor" said.

Long Term Louth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At no point did I say you said you believed what the "doctor" said.

Time to give this one a rest.

Ush1

Long Term Louth wrote: »

ANY Opinions?

In 2003 my mother was given 6 months live, she had seconday cancer which had spread to other parts of the body.

After 2 years she was still coping well but a scan revealed she still had the same prognosis. I spoke directly to the Head of the department dealing with her case and during our conversation I asked why did they indicate to us that she had only 6 months to live?

His reply amazed me and still does to this day, he said that people with the extent of her condition in 99.9% live no longer than 6 months and certanily for no longer than 1 year. He asked if I had heard of a "higher power"? to which I replied I had, but had'nt given the subject much thought. This he said was the only thing he could attribute her survival to.

My mother who was extremely religious lived for another 2 years 1.5 in fairly good health until her inevitable demise resulting in death in 2007, 4 years arfer been given 6 months to live.

I would not consider myself all that religious but have thought about the aforementioned "higer power" a lot since.

With all due respect, what this consultant "scientist" told you is the most deeply unscientific thing one can essentially say.

If he was infering as an explanation, just look to God, that's appalling and I should imagine, deeply unsatisfying to you.

He may or may not have been able to explain what happened, perhaps he didn't want to get into details of something complex with a layman, but what he has given you is nothing. A failure of an explanation.

If we were to look at anything we can not yet, or can't ever, explain as simply God, we would discover nothing and your ill mother would have a much less chance of a prolonged life.

nozzferrahhtoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Time to give this one a rest.

As you wish, but there is no onus on me to.

What I am saying is that you have fallen for “appeal to emotion”. That a proposition is more worthy of consideration, or should logically be looked at differently, if that proposition somehow asserts itself in a more personally emotional situation.

What I said above would not change regardless of the person I am saying it about being a complete stranger, the closest personal person in the world to me, or an evil mass murdering dictator. My point stands apart from emotional concerns.

So the answer to your question "Perhaps when its a member of your own family you will not consider it rubbish whatever you do or do not believe?" is no, I will not be changing how I consider it in that hypothetical situation.

I repeat, the alleged “doctor” in the alleged anecdote is basically saying that his lack of explanation gives him an explanation. This is inherently ludicrous.

Long Term Louth

Ush1 wrote: »

With all due respect, what this consultant "scientist" told you is the most deeply unscientific thing one can essentially say.

If he was infering as an explanation, just look to God, that's appalling and I should imagine, deeply unsatisfying to you.

He may or may not have been able to explain what happened, perhaps he didn't want to get into details of something complex with a layman, but what he has given you is nothing. A failure of an explanation.

If we were to look at anything we can not yet, or can't ever, explain as simply God, we would discover nothing and your ill mother would have a much less chance of a prolonged life.

I am not sure he was refering to God as the higher power as he never mentioned God directly.
Just to make it clear in no way am I promoting God or associated beliefs I may or may not have. But as yet I can still not attribute the inconsistency with the prognosis to anything of significance.

Ickle Magoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Yes! but those diagnosed with terminal illness will die regarless of biological make up.

You'd imagine though that those i.e. Heads of medical departments would be of the same opinion as yourself, but apparently this does not appear to be the case.

Of course, but there are no hard and fast rules regarding terminal illnesses. All the medical fraternity have to go on is other documented cases and the averages and probabilities calculated from the majority of atypical cases. I don't think any doctor would suggest that a patient may be in the 0.001% who appear to spontaneously go into remission, any more than they would suggest a patient may be in the 0.001% who don't see the end of the week.

I presume the head of a medical department knows his cases and in a religious country with many religious patients I would think it most unusual for a doctor to suggest longer than average survival is just down to luck or a fluke set of pathology or particular biology.

I don't mean any disrespect by my scepticism, I can't imagine how tough it must have been/is for you & yours.

Long Term Louth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As you wish, but there is no onus on me to.

What I am saying is that you have fallen for “appeal to emotion”. That a proposition is more worthy of consideration, or should logically be looked at differently, if that proposition somehow asserts itself in a more personally emotional situation.

What I said above would not change regardless of the person I am saying it about being a complete stranger, the closest personal person in the world to me, or an evil mass murdering dictator. My point stands apart from emotional concerns.

So the answer to your question "Perhaps when its a member of your own family you will not consider it rubbish whatever you do or do not believe?" is no, I will not be changing how I consider it in that hypothetical situation.

I repeat, the alleged “doctor” in the alleged anecdote is basically saying that his lack of explanation gives him an explanation. This is inherently ludicrous.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours.

King Mob

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I am not sure he was refering to God as the higher power as he never mentioned God directly.

Yea, he was probably talking about Quetzalcoatl the Aztec Feathered Serpent.

Long Term Louth

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course, but there are no hard and fast rules regarding terminal illnesses. All the medical fraternity have to go on is other documented cases and the averages and probabilities calculated from the majority of atypical cases. I don't think any doctor would suggest that a patient may be in the 0.001% who appear to spontaneously go into remission, any more than they would suggest a patient may be in the 0.001% who don't see the end of the week.

I presume the head of a medical department knows his cases and in a religious country with many religious patients I would think it most unusual for a doctor to suggest longer than average survival is just down to luck or a fluke set of pathology or particular biology.

I don't mean any disrespect by my scepticism, I can't imagine how tough it must have been/is for you & yours.

Thanks for your opinion!:)

Ush1

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I am not sure he was refering to God as the higher power as he never mentioned God directly.
Just to make it clear in no way am I promoting God or associated beliefs I may or may not have. But as yet I can still not attribute the inconsistency with the prognosis to anything of significance.

Well a higher power sounds unscientific to my ears but we'll leave that.

That's fair enough and it's a perfectly reasonable stance. In fact, it's the only logical stance.

There might be research on what could have happened and a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation but even if there isn't, a stance of ignorance is logical. I simply don't know. To make the leap of assuming some divine intervention from a supernatural force is simply unreasonable, it is not seeking "the truth".

Long Term Louth

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, he was probably talking about Quetzalcoatl the Aztec Feathered Serpent.

Perhaps!:)

nozzferrahhtoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

But as yet I can still not attribute the inconsistency with the prognosis to anything of significance.

I can quite easily. For the same reason that most of the time an army of 1000 will defeat an army of 20.

This is all disease is... a battle inside us of our army against some invading army.

Some invading armies are weak and we beat them easily and often, like the common cold, but not 100% of the time.

Some invading armies are strong and beat us most of the time, like cancer. But not 100% of the time.

Our “prognosis” from doctors is merely based on the average outcome. We are shocked when an army of 20 effectively holds off an army of 1000 merely because this is not the norm. However such heroic battles are documented.

It is merely human subjectivity that attributes shock, miracles, surprise or confusion when the “norm” is not the actual outcome. However I have never understood why this is so, given that things out of the “norm” happen every single day.

What does make me feel uneasy however is when the “norm” of a women with cancer type X outlives the average prognosis people turn to “higher powers” and “miracles”. However when someone breaks the “norm” by dying of a common cold people just think “Oh, that’s unfortunate”.

Yet how is one even remotely more fantastic than the other? In both cases the result is different to our vast experience of the “norm”.

Long Term Louth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can quite easily. For the same reason that most of the time an army of 1000 will defeat an army of 20.

This is all disease is... a battle inside us of our army against some invading army.

Some invading armies are weak and we beat them easily and often, like the common cold, but not 100% of the time.

Some invading armies are strong and beat us most of the time, like cancer. But not 100% of the time.

Our “prognosis” from doctors is merely based on the average outcome. We are shocked when an army of 20 effectively holds off an army of 1000 merely because this is not the norm. However such heroic battles are documented.

It is merely human subjectivity that attributes shock, miracles, surprise or confusion when the “norm” is not the actual outcome. However I have never understood why this is so, given that things out of the “norm” happen every single day.

What does make me feel uneasy however is when the “norm” of a women with cancer type X outlives the average prognosis people turn to “higher powers” and “miracles”. However when someone breaks the “norm” by dying of a common cold people just think “Oh, that’s unfortunate”.

Yet how is one even remotely more fantastic than the other? In both cases the result is different to our vast experience of the “norm”.

As good as analogy as the one I received.

TwoShedsJackson

Long Term Louth wrote: »

ANY Opinions?

In 2003 my mother was given 6 months live, she had seconday cancer which had spread to other parts of the body.

After 2 years she was still coping well but a scan revealed she still had the same prognosis. I spoke directly to the Head of the department dealing with her case and during our conversation I asked why did they indicate to us that she had only 6 months to live?

His reply amazed me and still does to this day, he said that people with the extent of her condition in 99.9% live no longer than 6 months and certanily for no longer than 1 year. He asked if I had heard of a "higher power"? to which I replied I had, but had'nt given the subject much thought. This he said was the only thing he could attribute her survival to.

My mother who was extremely religious lived for another 2 years 1.5 in fairly good health until her inevitable demise resulting in death in 2007, 4 years arfer been given 6 months to live.

I would not consider myself all that religious but have thought about the aforementioned "higer power" a lot since.

Did the head of the department give any reason why the higher power would not simply prevent your mother from getting cancer in the first place? Why does God always get the credit for the miraculous healing/saving, and not the brickbats for smiting the religious in the first place?

Long Term Louth

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Did the head of the department give any reason why the higher power would not simply prevent your mother from getting cancer in the first place? Why does God always get the credit for the miraculous healing/saving, and not the brickbats for smiting the religious in the first place?

No reason given and unfortunately no miracle either she still died.

Goduznt Xzst

Long Term Louth wrote: »

He asked if I had heard of a "higher power"? to which I replied I had, but had'nt given the subject much thought. This he said was the only thing he could attribute her survival to.

Doctor (thinking): *Crap, I got it wrong. Choices? Admit my God complex is merely a delusion or... pass the buck to another deity... Bingo!*

A friend of mine who studied Electronic engineering said that whenever his professor failed in a demonstration of an IC would always just say: "Well that's cosmic rays for you, nothing I can do about that" rather than admitting he did it wrong. Only difference is Cosmic Rays are quantifiable, deities are not.

Long Term Louth

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Doctor (thinking): *Crap, I got it wrong. Choices? Admit my God complex is merely a delusion or... pass the buck to another deity... Bingo!*

A friend of mine who studied Electronic engineering said that whenever his professor failed in a demonstration of an IC would always just say: "Well that's cosmic rays for you, nothing I can do about that" rather than admitting he did it wrong. Only difference is Cosmic Rays are quantifiable, deities are not.

Perhaps youre right

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Cosmic Rays are quantifiable, deities are not.

Well, most religious people think their deity is quantifiable -- say a prayer in the correct mood, and hey presto, the deity will change the universe for your benefit! It's only when nothing at all happens that the deity turns into something with "his own higher plan".

Incidentally, Victorian records suggest -- when cancer sufferers were confined to sanatoriums with no treatment -- that the spontaneous remission rate of cancer is somewhere between one and two percent.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Two things that science has tracked down so far are:

1. How evolution accounts for all of our complexity that you attribute to god

Firstly, I never mentioned God. Secondly, Evolution does not explain life. If Evolution is a fact, then the theory is still waiting on its programmer or beginning.

I'm afraid the gap you have placed your god in was closed 150 years ago by Mr. Charles Darwin

Certainly not. Darwin theorised the concept of evolution. He certainly never theorised our beginning, or indeed the beginning of existance. Also, my post is not about God.

As for existence existing, that indicates to me that existence exists and says little or nothing about whether or not the stories in a book from Israel 2000 years ago are true

I agree. Maybe you missed that part of my post. You should really stop letting your pig headed presumptions about your intellectual inferiors get in the way of your literacy.

paultheviking

i didn't/don't believe. now that i'm with my wife for so long i WANT to believe that there is something else after death..

presume church goers feel the same for their own reasons..

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Secondly, Evolution does not explain life.

Unfortunately, it does. And rather well too

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I never mentioned God. Secondly, Evolution does not explain life. If Evolution is a fact, then the theory is still waiting on its programmer or beginning.

Actually if evolution is a fact then it doesn't need a programmer and its beginning needs nothing that can't happen through purely natural processes. You probably should read up a bit on it because suggesting that evolution needs a programmer shows that you don't really understand it. The whole point of it is that complex structures can arise through an extended period of mutation and natural selection with no intelligent intervention required.

JimiTime wrote: »

Certainly not. Darwin theorised the concept of evolution. He certainly never theorised our beginning, or indeed the beginning of existance. Also, my post is not about God.

You said the fact that we are here in all our complexity. What I said was that Darwinian evolution explains the complexity. The idea that simply being here indicates the existence of a human like being outside our universe indicates the second thing that I told you science has already discovered, hyperactive agency detection

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. Maybe you missed that part of my post. You should really stop letting your pig headed presumptions about your intellectual inferiors get in the way of your literacy.

Well that's unnecessarily rude, especially for someone who has gone to great pains in the past to tell me how "lacking in decorum" I am. I know you didn't say you did say that, religious people never say that. They always put forward these generic philosophical arguments that argue for at best a deistic god when that's not actually the type of god they believe in. It's called the tin man argument, the opposite of a straw man, where you misrepresent your own position to make it easier for you to argue it. You argue for a some kind of generic being that could theoretically be seen as reasonable when in reality you believe in one specific god as described by one specific holy book and you believe in one particular interpretation of this specific being and that's a hell of a lot harder to logically justify than just "something had to have started the universe" type arguments. The "something" that started the universe could be anything from a quantum foam explosion to a flying spaghetti monster but you believe it was your particular view of the christian god and we shouldn't forget while these arguments are being made

Dades

Yes, decorum please, Jimi (and others).

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And doesn't actually make any sense. As we've been saying to Jakkass for the past few days, saying that something is so complex that it must have been created by something even more complex creates an infinite regression of increasing complexity. Explaining complexity with more complexity explains nothing. The only workable solution is one where complexity arose from simplicity as described by evolution.

See updated discussion about this on the Christianity forum. I am starting to see some sense in the McGrath / Platinga take on the argument.

As for biological evolution, it remit is limited. It cannot explain the physical situation. So Dawkins' argument pretty much results in waiting in hope that physics will give him what he wants, and that God of necessity must be complex.

All God's knowledge about the universe is only because He imagined it to be. Isn't it possible that we can imagine things which are incredibly more sophisticated than ourselves?

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

See updated discussion about this on the Christianity forum. I am starting to see some sense in the McGrath / Platinga take on the argument.

Yeah, that discussion is abit of joke like most of the others. Both McGrath and Platingas arguements are particurlarly weak.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for biological evolution, it remit is limited. It cannot explain the physical situation. So Dawkins' argument pretty much results in waiting in hope that physics will give him what he wants, and that God of necessity must be complex.

Yes but you're still missing the point. Darwin not only solved the riddle of life he also raised our conciousness. Before his dangerous idea, the religious were 100% sure God designed everything we see before our eyes. He designed it perfectly and that's the only answer. Darwin came along and destroyed this, we discover no life has been designed at all so religion regresses to the design of the universe. This makes no sense since they have already had their fingers burnt by the very idea of design.

Trying to explain the universe and complexity comes down to improbability. Saying it came about by luck negates the problem, indeed it is the problem as that is what improbable alludes to. But trying to explain improbability by adding in a divine engineer absolutely exaggerates it. You are trying to escape improabability with something even more unlikely.

Jakkass wrote: »

All God's knowledge about the universe is only because He imagined it to be. Isn't it possible that we can imagine things which are incredibly more sophisticated than ourselves?

Yes but they would have to be very complicated indeed and worthy of an explanation in their own right.

philologos

It appears that his argument may have more sway amongst Young Earth Creationists rather than theistic evolutionists.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, it does. And rather well too

Actually depending on how you take his really fuzzy statement he could be right.
Evolution only explains how life changed after it first existed, thus explaining the diversity of life.
It has nothing to say on how life first arose.

Luckily there are many good solid theories backed up by evidence to how life did arise from non life.
None of which require magic.

So evolution doesn't explain life by itself, but it's a big part of the explanation.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that his argument may have more sway amongst Young Earth Creationists rather than theistic evolutionists.

You're the same really, you just shoved God into a different gap.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

See updated discussion about this on the Christianity forum. I am starting to see some sense in the McGrath / Platinga take on the argument.

As for biological evolution, it remit is limited. It cannot explain the physical situation. So Dawkins' argument pretty much results in waiting in hope that physics will give him what he wants, and that God of necessity must be complex.

All God's knowledge about the universe is only because He imagined it to be. Isn't it possible that we can imagine things which are incredibly more sophisticated than ourselves?

You're still, after my multiple attempts to explain it to you, missing the point.

Firstly, any time this discussion happens (not just with you) it goes thusly:
Religious person: Life's complexity indicates a designer
Non-religious: No it doesn't, evolution accounts for that
Religious person: Well evolution doesn't explain the creation of the matter

The problem being that they start off talking about complexity and shift the conversation to matter creation when that line of argument is refuted. That would be fine if they then accepted that the complexity argument had been refuted but of course they make it again the next time and do the same seamless shift from complexity to matter creation every time as if the two are interchangeable and evolution is useless unless it explains both. It doesn't try to explain both. They're separate issues.

So, let's just accept that evolution accounts for life's complexity. Now we move onto the creation of matter:


The point is that god is complex. This idea that god is simple because he's comprised of few parts is quite simply bullshit. God may not have a body but his mind is extremely complex, since he is defined as being capable of designing an entire universe from scratch with exactly the "finely tuned" laws needed to produce life and with all its complexity. It's not what god is made of that makes him complex but the fact that he is intelligent and what he is capable of. Any attempt to define god as simple is nothing but dishonesty from people who have realised that their whole argument falls apart if he's not. And that's Dawkins point, that the whole argument that complexity requires a designer falls apart if god is complex, it just adds a redundant level of complexity that is still unexplained. The only logical solution is that complexity arose from simplicity, ie not from a god.


Alister McGrath's assertion:

Alister McGrath suggests that the leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is problematic, as a theory of everything would be more complex than the theories it would replace, yet one would not conclude that it is less probable. He then argues that probability is not relevant to the question of existence: life on earth is highly improbable, and yet we do exist.

shows that he hasn't understood the point being made. The idea that complexity is improbable is the theist's position, the whole point of Hoyle's fallacy is to try to say that evolution is as improbable as a hurricance sweeping through a junkyard and producing a 747. I would totally agree that probability is not relevant to the question because we do exist. McGrath is providing his very own refutation to Hoyle's fallacy that I'm sure Dawkins would agree with. Dawkins only adopts the position to show that any argument against evolution based on complexity can be applied just as easily to god. So you, me, Dawkins and McGrath all agree that probability is irrelevant. Tell that to the people that think complexity indicates design

The problem with McGrath's assertion is that for some reason instead of leaving it there he starts talking about what's "defined by classic theology". The issue being of course that I don't give a crap if classic theology defines god as a necessary being because their defining of him as such does not make it so. We don't know that there is a "necessary" anything, let alone a "necessary being" and even if we could, we certainly could not say that this "necessary being" is a god

philologos

Sam Vimes: Do you mean God is complex, or His knowledge is complex? I believe the questions are different. This was largely brought up by the thread I posted.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: Do you mean God is complex, or His knowledge is complex? I believe the questions are different. This was largely brought up by the thread I posted.

In terms of Hoyle's fallacy the difference is unimportant. If we accept that complexity requires a designer then god's knowledge requires a designer and we've just added a redundant level of complexity that remains unexplained. If we don't accept that complexity requires a designer as anyone who truly accepts evolution shouldn't, then god is an unnecessary addition imagined because people like to think he was involved even though there is no reason to think he was.

Also, both god's knowledge and his mind are complex. He (supposedly) has both infinite knowledge and the wisdom and ability to wield this knowledge to produce a universe with life as compelx as ours.

Something like "quantum foam" following the laws of whatever passed for nature "before" the universe existed is simple. An intelligent being deliberately deciding to create an entire universe with complexity that assembles itself in the specific way that he designed over billions of years is not simple in the slightest

Morbert

A little offtopic:

"Alister McGrath suggests that the leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is problematic, as a theory of everything would be more complex than the theories it would replace, yet one would not conclude that it is less probable. He then argues that probability is not relevant to the question of existence: life on earth is highly improbable, and yet we do exist."

A theory of everything would be less complex than the theories it would replace though. Physics is all about simplifying principles.

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

"Alister McGrath suggests that the leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is problematic, as a theory of everything would be more complex than the theories it would replace, yet one would not conclude that it is less probable. He then argues that probability is not relevant to the question of existence: life on earth is highly improbable, and yet we do exist."

I'm kind of glad that McGrath left biology for religion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Long Term Louth wrote: »

As good as analogy as the one I received.

To which one do you refer? I have no recollection of you mentioning another analogy you received.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Secondly, Evolution does not explain life.

Erm it has never claimed to. Ballistics does not explain why gunpowder explodes either. What is your point?

JimiTime wrote: »

Darwin theorised the concept of evolution.

Erm no he did not. The concept of evolution existed long before he did. Are you sure you even know who he was?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In terms of Hoyle's fallacy the difference is unimportant. If we accept that complexity requires a designer then god's knowledge requires a designer and we've just added a redundant level of complexity that remains unexplained. If we don't accept that complexity requires a designer as anyone who truly accepts evolution shouldn't, then god is an unnecessary addition imagined because people like to think he was involved even though there is no reason to think he was.

This is where I disagree. The question also depends on the source of the knowledge. If God knows only because He created what He knows about, that is very different than knowing independent from what He created. It's kind of like saying, how could you know about what you have just imagined.

The question of whether or not the knowledge existed before the Creation is debatable. How could one know about what doesn't exist? Probably a question you will ask of people who believe in God, but also applicable in this context.