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

Its 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.

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.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf

When you see  a factory production line, a complex machine, a computer, a message, a translation diccionary, 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 explain the possible mechanisms and  cause of origins, the physical universe,  life and biodiversity, there are following options.
As cause of: 
1. The universe : a intelligent creator, or random unguided natural events
2. The fine-tuning of the universe  and the origin of life : a intelligent creator, random unguided natural events, and physical necessity
3. Biodiversity : above three, and evolution

Chance. What kind of causal power has chance ? Chance expresses the odds or likelihood of a 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 a event taking place. But in modern thinking, 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. Its 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 a 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  a 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 its granted that no thing has no causal powers, its evident the universe could not have emerged from absolutely nothing. Nobody times nothing equals everything is irrational to the extreme ( nontheless, 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 of not being able to know what can be known and understood easily. And claim to know what nobody really knows for sure.
They claim of 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 a 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 of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolutionary and ecological mechanisms, we know that things are EXTRAORDINARLY 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 differenciation, 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 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 phenomenon are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scaresely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in 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 of origins, either there was a causal agent, or there was not. Its 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 todays 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, lets begin with reality check. When the argument from ignorance objection is 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 of 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, its 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 Darwins theory.  James Shapiro , molecular biologist at the university of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibit specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in atributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scentists do generally, which is 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 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.

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