Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Its not justified to claim ignorance. Limited causal alternatives for origins do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

Its not justified to claim ignorance. Limited causal alternatives for origins do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Limited causal alternatives  do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing

Atheists, rather than admit a creator as the only rational response to explain our existence, prefer to confess ignorance despite the wealth of scientific information, that permits to reach informed conclusions.
 
John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

As far as the existence of the universe goes, it was either created or it was not created (that is the logical axiom called the Law of the Excluded Middle).

If God as causal agent is excluded, the only two alternatives to explain the origin of the universe are either an eternal universe in some form, or it came into existence without a cause. Both alternatives are impossible. We cannot reach now by successive additions of past events from no starting point. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no causal powers.   Atheists escape of not knowing is as claiming ignorance of how much is 0 + 0. Furthermore: Either life was created, or it emerged through self-organisation by natural, unguided, random events. Physical laws or necessity cannot be the driving force of the origin of the genetic code and the genetic information for the first living being. The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length to emerge randomly are 1:10^451. According to Borel's law, any occurrence with a chance of happening less than in one out of 10^50 is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero.

Paul Davies:
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.
The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative reasonable explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause.  

Luke A. Barnes:
“I don’t know which one of these two statements is true” is a very different state of knowledge from “I don’t know which one of these trillion statements is true”. Our probabilities can and should reflect the size of the set of possibilities.

In the same manner, as I use my mind and intelligence to make a blueprint of a factory, a mind is required to make the blueprint of life. In the same sense, as a piston has no function by its own, an enzyme in a prebiotic soup or hydrothermal vent would have no function on its own.

A piston has no use if not installed in the cylinder of the engine, and the engine is fully functional. Similarly, a protein has no function if not installed in the cell in the proper location, and the cell is fully functional. So why would a prebiotic soup, or hydrothermal vents, produce proteins that have no purpose by their own? A factory with machines, production lines, computers, software/hardware, waste bins, recycle devices, quality check , control and repair, communication lines, and internal delivery mechanisms etc.,  always has an inventor.  The building instructions for a factory or machine always have an intelligent origin. Biological cells are factories, full of machines, computers, and building instructions, stored in DNA. Abiogenesis is impossible. Life can only come from life.

Biological systems are functionally organized, integrated into an interdependent network, and complex, like human-made machines and factories. The wiring or circuit board of an electrical device equals to the metabolic pathways of a biological cell. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, not only the origin of the genome information to produce all proteins/enzymes with their respective subunits and assembly cofactors must be explained, but also parts availability ( The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into a usable form.  All this requires specific information. )  synchronization, ( these parts must be read on hand at the building site )  manufacturing and assembly coordination ( which required the information of how to assemble each single part correctly, at the right place, at the right moment, and in the right position ) , and interface compatibility ( the parts must fit together correctly, like lock and key ) . Unless the origin of all these steps is properly explained, functional complexity as existing in biological systems has not been addressed adequately.

How could the whole process have started " off the hooks " from zero without a planning intelligence?
Why would natural, unguided mechanisms produce a series of enzymes that only generate useless intermediates until all of the enzymes needed for the end product exist, are in place and do their job?
My conclusion is: The origin of biological cells, and life,  can only be explained by the acting agency of an intelligent mind.



Resumed: For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, following steps must be explained: the origin of the genome information to produce all subunits and assembly cofactors. Parts availability, synchronization, manufacturing and assembly coordination through genetic information, and interface compatibility. The individual parts must precisely fit together. All these steps are better explained through a super intelligent and powerful designer, rather than mindless natural processes by chance, or/and evolution since we observe all the time minds capabilities producing machines and factories, producing machines and end products.

Everything *has* to be in place at once or else an organism has no survival advantage. The thing is, there's no driver for any of the pieces to evolve individually because single parts confer no advantage in and of themselves. The necessity for the parts of the system to be in place all at once is simply evidence of creation. Photosynthesis missing one piece (like chlorophylls) is like a car missing just one piece of the drive train (such as a differential); it's not that it doesn't function as well - it doesn't function at all!



So we can by simple reason conclude that a creative agency is the best explanation for our existence. The ONLY, unique, exclusive, possible, rational, obvious mechanism and cause of the physical universe and life is GOD. Atheists often excuse of " not knowing " is, because there is no other mechanism. So claims of not being able to conclude what makes the most sense is not an honest position, but wilful unjustified irrational untenable ignorance at its best.

When you see a factory production line, a complex machine, a computer, a message, a translation dictionary, a watch, do you intuitively conclude somebody made it? Yes, of course.
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self-replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor?
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book like a random letter generator using a computers number generator? if you see a message on a sand dune, like " John loves Sandy ". Would you intuitively and immediately recognize that someone past there a short time ago, and wrote the message on the sand dune? Or would you be unable to recognize that intelligence was required to write the message? The universe, the cell, and organisms are far more complex than the most complex machines made by man, and the simplest cell stores as much information as contained in a CD.

When it comes to explaining the possible mechanisms and cause of origins, the physical universe,  life, and biodiversity, there are following options.
As the cause of: 
1. The universe: an intelligent creator, or random unguided natural events
2. The fine-tuning of the universe  and the origin of life: an intelligent creator, random unguided natural events, and physical necessity
3. Biodiversity: above three, and evolution

Chance. What kind of causal power has a chance ? Chance expresses the odds or likelihood of an event taking  place. Chance isn't a thing or a mechanism or a physical being or a causal agent. It's not a directing force. Chance doesn't make anything happen.  It's only a way to quantify the probability of an event taking place. But in modern thinking, the chance is being transformed in the ingredient of evolution theory through random mutations, a causal ingredient of biodiversity. 2
Physical necessity is  the term that is given to the situation where something is forced to take a certain course of action. Events that are conditioned by some values, forces, laws, norms or goals.  In physics, the concept of necessity was applied to cases of strict determination and restriction due to so-called causal laws. It's the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do so that the universe and the earth could not take any other course, than the one it did. 1,3
Intelligent design/creation stands for guided, reason based , directed , planned , projected , programmed , information based,  goal-constrained, willed  causation by a conscient intelligent powerful eternal, non-caused agency. Chance and evolution could be a included mechanism in the intended goal, but that would in the end still be an intelligence-based process.
Evolution: Biodiversity by evolution through random mutations and natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, or pre-programmed evolution 

There are only these options.  Either is there an intelligent creator, or there is not. Those are the only options.  If there is no God, then everything is a result of ..... what exactly?
Chance, as exposed above, isn't a thing. Physical necessity could only act once a physical universe exists. Beyond the universe, there were no physical laws.

Once it granted that no thing has no causal powers, it's evident the universe could not have emerged from absolutely anything. Nobody times nothing equals everything is irrational to the extreme ( nonetheless, some very "smart" people think that proposition makes sense, and write extensive books about the subject ). Or, behind this complex universe is an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful eternal being who made everything.

The capacity of atheists to invert things is remarkable. They claim to not being able to know what can be known and understood easily. And claim to know what nobody really knows for sure.
They claim to not being able to know how the universe and life might have emerged and what mechanism was most probably in play, based on the evidence. And on top of that, argue that this is the most honest position someone can take.
But they are absolutely certain of common ancestry, and that microevolution leads to macroevolution and biodiversity during long periods of time. That - they claim, is an unquestionable fact.
The inversion is evident.
Based on logic and reasoning, and the scientific evidence, we can infer with certainty that a causal agent was required to create all physical things, the universe, life, and biodiversity.
But in regard to chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolutionary and ecological mechanisms, we know that things are EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX, cannot be easily known and understood. And in fact, many things, we still don't know. But atheists think they do.
The proponent of evolution believes that a theory from the 19th century is right, despite the fact that back then, knowledge in biology was limited, and that its rather simplistic explanation through mutations and natural selection is supposedly able to account for all biodiversity, bacterias, plants, fish, birds, apes, humans, body plan development, histology, and cell differentiation, the origin of pluripotent stem cells, and the enormous complex modifications observed in living beings , which are able to adapt to the environment.
Be aware of all these ultracrepidarianists. If you do not agree with them, they call you a pigeon playing chess, Dunning-Kruger and alike, but never really look into the mirror to see who is in front of them !!


5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

Either the cosmos 
(1) had no beginning, or 
(2) it had a beginning. 
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something. 
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics: energy can be neither created or destroyed; it can only change form. So the cosmos did not emerge from non-being.
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. It must also possess more energy (power) than the total energy within our cosmos. We may call it the First Cause.

Fine-tuning of the universe
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

1. If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.
2. Our universe permits life.
3. Therefore, the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss the man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University

Abiogenesis is impossible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351: 
The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique events are not conducive to scientific study.

Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self-replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor?
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book?

Objection: Marcello Barbieri writes: Comparing living cells to man-made self-replicating machines, and books is a false analogy
Answer: Molecular biology has proved that there is a genetic code in every cell and that genes and proteins are molecular artifacts because they are manufactured by molecular machines. Coding and artifact-making, in other words, take place both in our society and inside the cell, and this does create a parallel between culture and molecular biology. Code Biology A New Science of Life, page 28
In other words. Intelligence produces self-replicating machines and books. And so only intelligence can produce life, that depends on coded information, proteins, and molecular machines. 

If the analogy of two phenomena are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause of the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

When you see that:
the way genetic information encoded in the DNA is exactly the same as what we humans would do to encode information in our books, computers, etc;
the way that the nucleus communicates with its ribosome is similar to how we humans has designed computers to communicate with one another,
then one has to AT LEAST stop and wonder whether some intelligent being has designed the genetic code and made the communication system between the nucleus and its ribosomes.... 
Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0, 1

Although this is not a conclusive proof of the existence of God, it should AT LEAST make one STOP and THINK about the possibility of the existence of God....


In regard to origins, either there was a causal agent, or there was not. It's not sufficient to say: I don't believe in God and think this is a solid epistemological framework. All possible mechanisms of origins need a serious consideration, including design. The question: What would have to be observed in the natural world to detect design ? is essential.
Abiogenesis, Dawkins blind watchmaker hypothesis, and common ancestry is all based on indirect observations. That is, from today's observed evidence, past causal action is inferred, similar to a detective getting his conclusions on a crime scene from the evidence on the crime scene. To do so, it must be established what could be recognized as a designed structure and patterns of intelligent interference. 

In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220: 
So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let's begin with a reality check. When is the argument from ignorance objection raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact IMHO is, that despite decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here? The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, it's safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so?

 Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity, but global disciplinary failure, and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwin's theory.  James Shapiro, the molecular biologist at the university of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibits specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is an attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false.



Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.

Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.

Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes the most sense?


http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm

The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude — a “willful blindness.”  This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism — although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”

Because the existence of God is a massively important topic, we cannot afford not to pay attention — especially in an age of so many diversions. Philosopher Tom Morris points out that sports, TV, restaurants, concerts, cars, billiards, and a thousand other activities can divert us from the ultimate issues of life. As a result, we don’t “tune into” God. And when a crisis hits (death, hospitalization, natural disaster), we are not really in the best condition to process and make accurate judgments about those deep questions.  The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance; this ignorance is the result of our neglecting our duty.

So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic worldview. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apatheist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle: At that time, the very notion that life might spring into being spontaneously from a nonliving chemical mixture was greeted with fierce criticism from theologians, and even from some scientists. The eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin dismissed the whole idea as “a very ancient speculation,” opining that “science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis.” He stated unequivocally, “Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive.” This left only two alternatives: either life has always existed or its origin was a miracle.


It's not justified to claim " we don't know ", when a limited range of alternatives and options are available. If you assert that there is a god...then ok, let's move on. If you assert that there is no god, then let's lay your evidence and argumentation for that assertion against the evidence and argumentation for the existence of god...and let's get on with it. And if you are undecided, then that's fine too. But the reason that you are undecided is not a lack of evidence on either side...it's your own unwillingness to make a decision and support a position.



Last edited by Admin on Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
The world view of the " i don't know" ists......

I guess it's time to put the foundations of a new church and religion. No, it's not similar to worship Jahwe. Nor Allah. Nor Santa. Nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nor the Pink invisible Unicorn ( PIMU ). It's the church of the courageous " I don't know"ists. The new churches name is IGNORANTE, and our Gods name is NON SÓ ! ( i don't know in Italian ). Let's openly celebrate the lack of knowledge. People, you don't need to hide anymore, nor be ashamed. It's gonna be finally official now. It will be the next BIG movement, and if you were afraid until now, you can come out of the closet and declare yourself. If being willingly ignorant was tabu until now, we will unite and stand our man/woman towards the growing challenge of Atheists, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Pantheists, Theists, Deists, and united, be the force. Besides Theism and Naturalism, we will be the third answer to humanities questions of origins and place in the universe. Our official position will be to not know. No, we are not agnostics looking for an answer. I don't know is our final answer and solution. It settles it. It's NOT A SHAME, TO BE HONEST, AND CONFESS IGNORANCE. How can we best explain our origins? We don't know. What options are there, just theism or naturalism? We don't know ". How was the universe finely tuned? No idea. What about the physical laws? How could I possibly know? Was the universe eternal, or had it a beginning? That's not possible to answer. How did life begin? " We don't know". We will start our evangelism campaigns, and challenge every Theist, and drag them down to our delightful ignorance. Our answer stands as the newest, finest, smartest philosophical approach and is undefeatable !! Let them try and they will see !! Become a don't knowist, and intellectual satisfaction guaranteed. Can I inform you my patreon account to start our first flyers campaign??!!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum