Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
The scientific cosmology of THEISM vs DEISM vs ACCIDENTALISM
In his 2021 book, Return of the God Hypothesis, historian & geo-physicist Stephen Meyer makes a detailed case (science-based and non-scriptural) for Intelligent Design (ID) in evolution as opposed to Dumb Accidents (DA)*1. He's comfortable with the standard evolutionary story, but with a theistic spin(Wiki). So he is touting Christian Theism, but tolerantly admits that Agnostic Deism (intelligent but absentee design) also fits the evidence. In my view, the primary difference between Theistic Creation and Deistic Design is Teleological Evolution (front loaded with criteria set in the beginning) versus Divine Intervention (with a few miracles sprinkled into the process ; mostly done to validate prophets, but also to change social and weather patterns to annihilate unruly humans). Ignoring that proviso, his argument sets the philosophical Design *2 inference against the un-designed serendipity cosmology of Atheism.
He even quotes a Catholic theologian who makes a deist-like argument in favor of Intelligent Design . Surprisingly, Denis Lamoureux uses the term "Evolutionary Creation" in contrast to the Genesis account of Instant Creation. He says "God organized the big bang so that the deck was stacked", and "lets it unfold deterministically" to produce life. That sounds more like a cosmic computer Programmer than the magical spoken-command creation of Genesis. Ironically, the theologian also says that "to invoke a specific instance of design after the initial creation would imply a violation of natural law by invoking the activity of a 'God of the gaps' ". Hence, he thinks pseudoscientific Intelligent Design arguments should be termed "interventionist Design Theory", implying that the supposedly omniscient creator had to make post-creation corrections after his seven day opus, divinely assessed as good and very good in Genesis.
Meyer then argues against the theologian by asking "are laws creative?" Obviously, natural laws (regularities) alone would simply repeat the same patterns over & over. So he astutely concluded that "laws are the wrong kind of entity to generate the informational features of life" (e.g. DNA). However, fixed laws (criteria ; limits) plus fortuitous jostling (competition) would combine stability with variability to produce Natural Selection as postulated by Darwin. Conjecturally, randomness (e.g. energetic vibrations) shuffles the original deck (initial conditions) into novel combinations, then natural Laws (rules of the game), such as thermodynamics, would weed out the lawless (unfit) forms.
For a more mundane example : in a dice game of Craps (pure chance), the little cubes sitting still would spell out a fixed number of dots, up to 12. But by shaking & rolling the dice (jostling), that static combination is randomized to display alternative numbers, and if you are lucky, "seven come eleven". Hence, if evolution works as Darwin observed --- by variation & competition --- then Luck or Chance or Probability plays a role in the Selection of viable (life-possible) forms of material objects*3. Moreover, Quantum Theory has found that statistical uncertainty (probability ) is essential to the fundamental functions of Nature. But Luck alone, sans organizing influences, is not a winning strategy, even given infinite rolls of the dice.
For another instance of the role of regulated irregularity, design engineers originally programmed (initialized) their computers with specific criteria for limiting variables, in order to pre-define the output within a certain predictable range. But as the desired functions became more complex and unpredictable, they were forced to emulate Darwinian natural design. By that I mean their Evolutionary Programs*4 were set-up to use Trial & Error (stochastic*5) procedures to sift-out the "fittest" forms for whatever function the programmers intended : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna .
In Nature, the laws are by definition stable & consistent, but some destabilizing force causes material forms to change over time, to evolve. And not just random change, but progressive evolution : e.g. from simple-minded ape to philosophical homo sapiens. Physical (causal) Energy alone is aimless, except to move toward the "heat death" of ultimate Entropy. But when combined with those specifying Natural Laws (motion, conservation, etc.) the tumbling dice of evolution may occasionally hit upon a lucky (fitness) number, which will allow them to move on to the next stage of the ecological game : Darwinian selection. Darwin's implicit invisible hand then uses the lawful selection criteria (embodied in the environment) to weed-out the unfit, choosing from the various or mutated options resulting from the antecedent randomizing stage.
The vital element in the game of Life, though, is biological Information, as found in the form of complex chemical patterns (DNA). Hence, German bio-chemist Manfred Eigen concluded that "our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law, that leads to the origin of information". Yet, as Meyer noted, "the regularities we refer to as laws describe highly deterministic or predictable relationships between antecedent conditions and subsequent events". And, "potential information content mounts as improbabilities multiply". Subsequently, the probabilistic law of Entropy weeds out the impossible, allowing only the fit forms to pass the sieve. Thus, we know that matter can be transformed over time, as lawlike information is scrambled by competing forces to produce the lovely novelties --- formless Plasma to spiraling Galaxies, and colorless formless Amoeba to the rainbows of flittering-twittering Birds --- that science has discovered in Cosmology and Biology. [images below]
Another kind of vital Information is found in the Initial Conditions (program inputs) of the Big Bang that somehow pointed ahead to the highly-processed current conditions of our blue dot in the darkness of the cosmos. In the 20th century, based on astronomical evidence and the Big Bang theory, cosmologists began to stumble upon surprising coincidences*6 in 26 fundamental Cosmic Constants (tuned pre-settings) that appeared to be essential to evolution of Life and Mind. Based on those parameters, the so-called Anthropic Principle*7 made the emergence of living & thinking creatures seem almost inevitable*8. [image below]
The causal power of the Big Bang, and those law-like settings in initial conditions of the material world, along with the sifting mechanism of competitive selection, could be interpreted to imply that eventually something like genesis-seeking homo sapiens would evolve on a temperate planet without the necessity of remedial divine intervention. Yet Meyer still finds the miracle-working God of the Bible to be more plausible than the nature god (Logos) of Deism & Plato, and more feasible than the Fortuna (goddess of Chance) of Atheism. On the other hand, Anti-Theists seem to find the miracle of Design by Accident*9 (Creative Random Chance ) to be more believable than the notion of Platonic Logic & Intention programmed into the Initial Conditions. Perhaps more relevant to some on this forum, long prior to the 21st century evidences that Meyer analyzes --- Big Bang beginning, Abiotic theories, DNA Genetics, and Information Theory --- David Hume skeptically deconstructed the design arguments of his day*10. Which hypothesis do you find the best fit to explain the existence of the living & thinking creatures of the world as we know it today? :smile:
PS 1 : Apologies for the length and complexity of this introductory post. This is not a formal academic or scientific book review, but merely an amateur philosophical commentary on one chapter : Inference to the Best Metaphysical Explanation. Other constructive comments are solicited. Ad hominems and Straw Men not welcome. [my bold in all quotes]
PS 2 : For transparency, I must admit that I am skeptical of the mythical accounts (Genesis) of instant creation, and the notion of divine interventions in ongoing evolution, that are implicit in the typical Intelligent Design hypothesis. But Meyer's detailed critique of alternative pre-bang origin theories (Multiverse ; Inflation ; etc.) seem to be credible. To his credit, Meyer includes several chapters --- Conjectures and Refutations --- that respond reasonably & cogently to technical criticisms of his previous books by scientists & philosophers, including Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. But he makes no attempt to justify the scriptural basis of on-going or dispensational Interventionist beliefs.
Footnotes & Comments :
*1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview
*2. Design : [i]from de- out + signature to mark, from signum a mark, sign.
The word design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, and is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something its design.[/i]
___ Wikipedia
*3. Viable statistics :According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Statistical Probability is not an accident, since it is predictable.
"Statistical probability is not accidental" means that when a statistically significant result occurs, it is highly unlikely to be due to mere chance; it suggests a real phenomenon or pattern is likely at play, rather than just a random occurrence.___Google AI overview
*4. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve. ___Wikipedia
*5. Stochastic design method : Stochastic design uses random variables and probability to simulate long-term sequences and account for uncertainty. The word "stochastic" means randomness. ___Google AI overview
*6. Five coincidences that make existence possible :
From a hot, dense, near-uniform initial state, stars, galaxies, and living planets emerged.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/5-coincidences-make-existence-possible/
*7. The anthropic principle [i]is a methodological principle that states that the universe's parameters must allow for life to exist. It's also known as the observation selection effect.
The anthropic principle is based on the idea that the universe's conditions are so delicate that life would not be possible if any of the[/i] natural constants were slightly different. It's often used in cosmology to test theories about the universe. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Darwin's model for Natural Selection was intelligent farmers who bred domestic animals with the intention to improve certain features of the stock. But Who pre-selected the critical cosmological parameters, and for what purpose? Nobody knows is the Agnostic & Deist position. But Meyer implies, without specifying, that it was the Yaweh/Jehovah of Judeo-Christian scripture.
*8. Emergence of Life Probability : According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
*9. "Design by Accident" is a concept in design theory, primarily popularized by Alexandra Midal, which argues that significant design innovations and advancements often arise from unexpected sources, unintended consequences, or "accidents" rather than solely through deliberate, planned design processes; essentially challenging the traditional notion of design as a purely intentional and controlled activity, highlighting the role of serendipity and unforeseen developments in shaping design history and practice. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Design by Accident is literally an oxymoron. Yet, we can't deny that randomness (accident ; chance) is an essential factor in Evolution. But without the Selection factor it only results in chaos.
*10. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume criticized contemporary attempts to support religious beliefs in a supernatural deity by inference from appearances of design in the makeup of the world, and then by analogy with human design of artifacts. Hume interpreted the notion of a rational step-by-step designing deity as illicitly humanizing the supernatural God of scripture. When such inferences are disallowed though, we are left with no reasonable answers to the philosophical quest for understanding of ultimate origins. Hence, Hume might advise us Principle Seekers to shut-up and calculate. Pragmatic scientists with here & now projects may be dissuaded by such logic, but theoretical scientists and questing philosophers cannot be so easily turned away from their whys of wisdom.
https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/
PLASMA
GALAXY
AMOEBA
BIRDS
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
In his 2021 book, Return of the God Hypothesis, historian & geo-physicist Stephen Meyer makes a detailed case (science-based and non-scriptural) for Intelligent Design (ID) in evolution as opposed to Dumb Accidents (DA)*1. He's comfortable with the standard evolutionary story, but with a theistic spin(Wiki). So he is touting Christian Theism, but tolerantly admits that Agnostic Deism (intelligent but absentee design) also fits the evidence. In my view, the primary difference between Theistic Creation and Deistic Design is Teleological Evolution (front loaded with criteria set in the beginning) versus Divine Intervention (with a few miracles sprinkled into the process ; mostly done to validate prophets, but also to change social and weather patterns to annihilate unruly humans). Ignoring that proviso, his argument sets the philosophical Design *2 inference against the un-designed serendipity cosmology of Atheism.
He even quotes a Catholic theologian who makes a deist-like argument in favor of Intelligent Design . Surprisingly, Denis Lamoureux uses the term "Evolutionary Creation" in contrast to the Genesis account of Instant Creation. He says "God organized the big bang so that the deck was stacked", and "lets it unfold deterministically" to produce life. That sounds more like a cosmic computer Programmer than the magical spoken-command creation of Genesis. Ironically, the theologian also says that "to invoke a specific instance of design after the initial creation would imply a violation of natural law by invoking the activity of a 'God of the gaps' ". Hence, he thinks pseudoscientific Intelligent Design arguments should be termed "interventionist Design Theory", implying that the supposedly omniscient creator had to make post-creation corrections after his seven day opus, divinely assessed as good and very good in Genesis.
Meyer then argues against the theologian by asking "are laws creative?" Obviously, natural laws (regularities) alone would simply repeat the same patterns over & over. So he astutely concluded that "laws are the wrong kind of entity to generate the informational features of life" (e.g. DNA). However, fixed laws (criteria ; limits) plus fortuitous jostling (competition) would combine stability with variability to produce Natural Selection as postulated by Darwin. Conjecturally, randomness (e.g. energetic vibrations) shuffles the original deck (initial conditions) into novel combinations, then natural Laws (rules of the game), such as thermodynamics, would weed out the lawless (unfit) forms.
For a more mundane example : in a dice game of Craps (pure chance), the little cubes sitting still would spell out a fixed number of dots, up to 12. But by shaking & rolling the dice (jostling), that static combination is randomized to display alternative numbers, and if you are lucky, "seven come eleven". Hence, if evolution works as Darwin observed --- by variation & competition --- then Luck or Chance or Probability plays a role in the Selection of viable (life-possible) forms of material objects*3. Moreover, Quantum Theory has found that statistical uncertainty (probability ) is essential to the fundamental functions of Nature. But Luck alone, sans organizing influences, is not a winning strategy, even given infinite rolls of the dice.
For another instance of the role of regulated irregularity, design engineers originally programmed (initialized) their computers with specific criteria for limiting variables, in order to pre-define the output within a certain predictable range. But as the desired functions became more complex and unpredictable, they were forced to emulate Darwinian natural design. By that I mean their Evolutionary Programs*4 were set-up to use Trial & Error (stochastic*5) procedures to sift-out the "fittest" forms for whatever function the programmers intended : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna .
In Nature, the laws are by definition stable & consistent, but some destabilizing force causes material forms to change over time, to evolve. And not just random change, but progressive evolution : e.g. from simple-minded ape to philosophical homo sapiens. Physical (causal) Energy alone is aimless, except to move toward the "heat death" of ultimate Entropy. But when combined with those specifying Natural Laws (motion, conservation, etc.) the tumbling dice of evolution may occasionally hit upon a lucky (fitness) number, which will allow them to move on to the next stage of the ecological game : Darwinian selection. Darwin's implicit invisible hand then uses the lawful selection criteria (embodied in the environment) to weed-out the unfit, choosing from the various or mutated options resulting from the antecedent randomizing stage.
The vital element in the game of Life, though, is biological Information, as found in the form of complex chemical patterns (DNA). Hence, German bio-chemist Manfred Eigen concluded that "our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law, that leads to the origin of information". Yet, as Meyer noted, "the regularities we refer to as laws describe highly deterministic or predictable relationships between antecedent conditions and subsequent events". And, "potential information content mounts as improbabilities multiply". Subsequently, the probabilistic law of Entropy weeds out the impossible, allowing only the fit forms to pass the sieve. Thus, we know that matter can be transformed over time, as lawlike information is scrambled by competing forces to produce the lovely novelties --- formless Plasma to spiraling Galaxies, and colorless formless Amoeba to the rainbows of flittering-twittering Birds --- that science has discovered in Cosmology and Biology. [images below]
Another kind of vital Information is found in the Initial Conditions (program inputs) of the Big Bang that somehow pointed ahead to the highly-processed current conditions of our blue dot in the darkness of the cosmos. In the 20th century, based on astronomical evidence and the Big Bang theory, cosmologists began to stumble upon surprising coincidences*6 in 26 fundamental Cosmic Constants (tuned pre-settings) that appeared to be essential to evolution of Life and Mind. Based on those parameters, the so-called Anthropic Principle*7 made the emergence of living & thinking creatures seem almost inevitable*8. [image below]
The causal power of the Big Bang, and those law-like settings in initial conditions of the material world, along with the sifting mechanism of competitive selection, could be interpreted to imply that eventually something like genesis-seeking homo sapiens would evolve on a temperate planet without the necessity of remedial divine intervention. Yet Meyer still finds the miracle-working God of the Bible to be more plausible than the nature god (Logos) of Deism & Plato, and more feasible than the Fortuna (goddess of Chance) of Atheism. On the other hand, Anti-Theists seem to find the miracle of Design by Accident*9 (Creative Random Chance ) to be more believable than the notion of Platonic Logic & Intention programmed into the Initial Conditions. Perhaps more relevant to some on this forum, long prior to the 21st century evidences that Meyer analyzes --- Big Bang beginning, Abiotic theories, DNA Genetics, and Information Theory --- David Hume skeptically deconstructed the design arguments of his day*10. Which hypothesis do you find the best fit to explain the existence of the living & thinking creatures of the world as we know it today? :smile:
PS 1 : Apologies for the length and complexity of this introductory post. This is not a formal academic or scientific book review, but merely an amateur philosophical commentary on one chapter : Inference to the Best Metaphysical Explanation. Other constructive comments are solicited. Ad hominems and Straw Men not welcome. [my bold in all quotes]
PS 2 : For transparency, I must admit that I am skeptical of the mythical accounts (Genesis) of instant creation, and the notion of divine interventions in ongoing evolution, that are implicit in the typical Intelligent Design hypothesis. But Meyer's detailed critique of alternative pre-bang origin theories (Multiverse ; Inflation ; etc.) seem to be credible. To his credit, Meyer includes several chapters --- Conjectures and Refutations --- that respond reasonably & cogently to technical criticisms of his previous books by scientists & philosophers, including Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. But he makes no attempt to justify the scriptural basis of on-going or dispensational Interventionist beliefs.
Footnotes & Comments :
*1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview
*2. Design : [i]from de- out + signature to mark, from signum a mark, sign.
The word design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, and is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something its design.[/i]
___ Wikipedia
*3. Viable statistics :According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Statistical Probability is not an accident, since it is predictable.
"Statistical probability is not accidental" means that when a statistically significant result occurs, it is highly unlikely to be due to mere chance; it suggests a real phenomenon or pattern is likely at play, rather than just a random occurrence.___Google AI overview
*4. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve. ___Wikipedia
*5. Stochastic design method : Stochastic design uses random variables and probability to simulate long-term sequences and account for uncertainty. The word "stochastic" means randomness. ___Google AI overview
*6. Five coincidences that make existence possible :
From a hot, dense, near-uniform initial state, stars, galaxies, and living planets emerged.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/5-coincidences-make-existence-possible/
*7. The anthropic principle [i]is a methodological principle that states that the universe's parameters must allow for life to exist. It's also known as the observation selection effect.
The anthropic principle is based on the idea that the universe's conditions are so delicate that life would not be possible if any of the[/i] natural constants were slightly different. It's often used in cosmology to test theories about the universe. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Darwin's model for Natural Selection was intelligent farmers who bred domestic animals with the intention to improve certain features of the stock. But Who pre-selected the critical cosmological parameters, and for what purpose? Nobody knows is the Agnostic & Deist position. But Meyer implies, without specifying, that it was the Yaweh/Jehovah of Judeo-Christian scripture.
*8. Emergence of Life Probability : According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
*9. "Design by Accident" is a concept in design theory, primarily popularized by Alexandra Midal, which argues that significant design innovations and advancements often arise from unexpected sources, unintended consequences, or "accidents" rather than solely through deliberate, planned design processes; essentially challenging the traditional notion of design as a purely intentional and controlled activity, highlighting the role of serendipity and unforeseen developments in shaping design history and practice. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Design by Accident is literally an oxymoron. Yet, we can't deny that randomness (accident ; chance) is an essential factor in Evolution. But without the Selection factor it only results in chaos.
*10. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume criticized contemporary attempts to support religious beliefs in a supernatural deity by inference from appearances of design in the makeup of the world, and then by analogy with human design of artifacts. Hume interpreted the notion of a rational step-by-step designing deity as illicitly humanizing the supernatural God of scripture. When such inferences are disallowed though, we are left with no reasonable answers to the philosophical quest for understanding of ultimate origins. Hence, Hume might advise us Principle Seekers to shut-up and calculate. Pragmatic scientists with here & now projects may be dissuaded by such logic, but theoretical scientists and questing philosophers cannot be so easily turned away from their whys of wisdom.
https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/
PLASMA
GALAXY
AMOEBA
BIRDS
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
Comments (131)
Fwiw by contrast, here is the link to a short summery of particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (2007) ...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
An aside. One of the problems for me is the emotional ladenness of this kind of wording. 'Accident' is already contrived as unfortunate. 'Chance' and 'haphazard' also sound like they have a criticism built into the very wording. It's a way of wrapping it all up as 'meaningful' versus 'dumb luck'... Essentially a William Lane Craig move.
The term "natural laws" also carries the implication of a lawmaker, illustrating how our choice of language can guide us toward specific conclusions and shape a realm of imaginative possibilities. Similarly, the word "design" implies the presence of a designer, though it might more accurately be described as something that 'appears' to exhibit design when viewed from a particular perspective.
I'm not an academic in this field of cosmology, so I won't allow myself the luxury to speculate on things only a handful of experts can understand.
It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion.
'The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe' ~ Prof Ian Stevenson.
Quoting Wayfarer
:sweat:
The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.
Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.
Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).
My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.
Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:
Variations of the teleological argument are amongst the most common arguments we hear, so I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a hot topic for many people.
Quoting Gnomon
Why have you found it important to do this?
I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.
However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.
Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy. :smile:
Enformationism :
[i]This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called Information Age that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because its a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.[/i]
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Quoting Gnomon
There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig.
Atheism is simply about whether or not you belvie a god exists. Some atheists I know are into theosophy, mysticism, magic, astrology, etc.
I think the group you are thinking of are a particular crew of scientistic secular humanists. Those who feel that they must have an alternative physicalist cosmology to the ones provided by mythologies.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.
Does the argument from contingency interest you too?
The first forum I signed up to was on Richard Dawkins website, around 2008, which played host to many of these debates. Hilariously vituperative. Some of the representative atheists' views were hostile to the point of hysteria.
Then there was a labyrinthine thread that ran for years across various forums (although not this one or its predecesor) by one Perry Marshall, who is a software executive that also has an interest in the argument from biological information. His main argument is simply that DNA is a code, not a pattern, and that there are no instances in nature of spontaneously-occuring codes, ergo it implies an intelligent act. Those debates brought in many references to a book by Hubert Yockey, who studied the application of information theory to biology. I looked at a copy in a library, but it really takes postgrad level biology and information science to understand. Suffice to note that whilst Yockey strongly rejected any attempt by ID to enlist him, but he also said that the question of the origin of DNA was an undecideable question in the formal sense. Which could be taken as 'scientific support for agnositicsm'.
Quoting Gnomon
Those accounts are plainly mythological in origin. There are two creation myths in Genesis. There are inumerable creation mythologies in sorrounding Semitic and other ancient cultures. I think attempts to justify any such myths from a scientific perspective are wildly misplaced. But then, for those who never thought that they were intended as literal accounts, the fact that they're *not* literal accounts doesn't have nearly the signficance that the Dawkins of this world seem to want to attribute to it.
And what does 'instantaneous' mean? Like the sudden appearance of the entire Universe from an infinitely minute and dense singularity? (Mind you, Georges LeMaitre, who came up with the 'big bang' cosmology, strenuously objected to the comparison, wanting to keep the religious and scientific accounts separate. )
I think a philosophical point behind many of these arguments is the question of whether and in what sense science accounts for scientific laws. The way popular atheism often frames it, science can account for or explain the order of nature with reference to scientific laws. But the nature of scientific laws is not itself a scientific question, but a metaphysical one. We don't know why the regularities of nature are such that they can give rise to complex matter, as distinct from hot plasma or simple chaos. But I question whether that is a scientifically adjuticable matter, but again, at best that justifies agnosticism (a term, let's not forget, that was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', about just these questions. And it's also interesting to note that he deplored atheism as much as creationism.)
Perhaps some emotionally need certitude, or an illusion of knowledge (i.e. severe allergy to admitting what (that) they don't know (e.g. woo-of-the-gaps)), whereas others do not have such an acute anxiety and even thrive from exploring intractable unknowns, indicative by their willingness to say "I/we don't know". The latter seems to me (I don't mean to stereotype / caricature) an artistic-philosophical-scientific disposition and the former more magical-mythic/cultic-mystical than not.
:up: e.g. Thales and the other Milesian as well as Ionian & atomist Pre-Socratics ...
:chin:
I assume you are saying that there is no specific Atheist dogma. Likewise, there is no single Theist creed. But I was thinking about a general attitude toward the world, that varies between Theism on one end and Atheism on the other. My personal view is somewhere in the middle. As far as my Christian relatives are concerned, I qualify as a hell-bound Atheist and unrepentant unbeliever. :wink:
Atheist Worldview :
Atheism is a label that describes a person's answer to the question of whether or not they believe in a god, but it doesn't define their worldview. Atheists typically believe that the existence of a god is unlikely and that there is no good reason to believe in one. However, an atheist's worldview can vary widely, and they can hold a variety of beliefs and values. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Based on my philosophical research over many years, I have concluded that the existence of something like a First Cause/Creator is not only "likely", but also logically necessary. And Meyer's book gives some philosophical & scientific reasons for reaching that deduction from available evidence. I assume that W. L. Craig has come to a similar conclusion, but he's also a "Christian apologist", I am not. Also, due to my dabbling in Deism, the Atheists on this forum probably would not accept me into the cool-guy club. :cool:
Quoting Tom Storm
Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. So, I don't have any visceral "need" for a slam-dunk cosmology or authoritative assurances of answers to vexing questions. My intellectual rejection of the biblical basis of my childhood religion was not accompanied by strong emotions. And yet, I had been told by my religious authorities that eternal Hell was the destination for unbelievers. So, it took a while to get over that uncertainty about my eternal destiny. But I no longer worry about such mythical maybes. Do you have some "emotional need" that motivates you to post on a philosophy forum? Apparently, I do have some intellectual need to ask philosophical questions. Do you? :nerd:
"Argument from contingency" ? No, I've never given that Scholastic reasoning much thought. But the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our space-time world as Contingent (e.g. not eternal): hence without a plausible First Cause, the Cosmos is open-ended and un-defined. Is that OK for you? Apparently, some scientists are bothered by that discrepancy, so they make up just-so stories about 26-dimensional String Worlds, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, and Many Worlds, none of which is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, no more valid than any God postulate. :smile:
The Argument from Contingency examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
No doubt.
However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview of the few' in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? (i.e. like 'Jacob and the angel' (or 'Sisyphus and his stone'), Logos-seeking self always struggling with Mythos-pretending ego, respectively?)
You are asserting misinformation again. What a surprise.
The Intelligent Design movement might reasonably said to have been kicked off with The Wedge Document:
New atheism might be said to have been kicked off six years later with the publication of The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and planes being flown into buildings by religious terrorists on 9/11 was the motivation for new atheism.
Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip)
Not at all. Im an atheist more by aesthetics and emotion than by reason. The argumentation comes after the fact. Theism doesnt assist me to make sense of the world, so my atheism is ultimately an emotional response. As Ive often said, belief in godsor in any supernatural guiding principleis more like a preference, akin to sexuality. You cant control what youre drawn to; the real task is to understand why.
Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport.
Sounds like you're one of those blasphemous philosophers....
Given the above, this seems the more reasonable thesis about the order we observe. And it does not affect the power of this case to note that the odds of order arising from disorder is vanishingly small.
These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them.
A quip from the hip! :joke:
No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive". :smile:
PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?
I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance.
But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference here is that the nature of reality (which apparently is hidden) is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life.
The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of. :smile:
Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-unable-hamlet-lifetime-universe.html
Richard Dawkinss Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
The program evolves a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel.
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:
I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber, says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena
Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside. :smile:
Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview
In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.
:up: :up:
Quoting Tom Storm
for fact-free, non-corroborative stories (rationalized with pseudo-philosophizing) rather than fact-based, corroborative stories (interpreted via critical philosophizing)
Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained.
Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism?
From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception? :smile:
Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Tom Storm
For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world. :smile:
This sounds defensive. You borrow my phrase here but I have not said anyone is a Muslim or Christian apologist, just that a few moves made here are reminiscent of their moves. does not seem to be saying this to me. He seems to investigate things and then assesses on the basis of his philosophical reading and understanding what fits into the bogus pile and what does not. Isn't that what you do? Don't most of us do this? The difference is that our piles (and the reasoning which built them) look different.
Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them. :smile:
My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissivley attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort. :yikes:
PARTHIAN SHOT
Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.
For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure this is fraught. But so are most other approaches.
Sure you can. Adjusting your own beliefs is a primary goal of philosophy. The alternative is Blind Faith in an adopted model devised by others. My goal is to construct a belief model of my own. It's similar to some others, but also different.
In college I looked into Theosophy. Like Masonic philosophy, I can see the appeal of the general worldview. But I don't have any experience of Mysticism, so I can't relate to the ecstatic communion with God.
Dawkins has been described as an "angry atheist", but I found him open-minded enough to admit that Deism was not contrary to Science. :smile:
The OP was intended to be a book review blog post, for an almost non-existent audience. But at the last minute, I thought, hey why not stir-up some controversy on the Philosophy Forum? At least I get more feedback that way. Unfortunately, most of the feedback is of the Ad Hominem and Straw Man type, as I expected. Consequently, I haven't learned much so far. :smile:
PS___Although I don't agree with Meyer's religion, I find his scientific summaries to be very well done.
It is not an article of faith that if you toss a coin long enough, you'll eventually toss 10 heads in a row. The same applies to the monkey and the typewriter: add enough time and the monkey will eventually type something indistinguishable from the works of Shakespeare.
It misses the point to think that Hume's point is undermined if the odds are longer than previously thought. All Hume's point requires is that it'll happen eventually and that this is the simplest explanation of why we observe an ordered universe. The odds are irrelevant.
First, for any number of ways the universe could have turned out to be, the intelligence could have designed the universe in that way. So if there are 10 trillion ways the universe could have turned out, then there are 10 trillion different designs an intelligent designer could have been working to. For any given way the universe could turn out, is a way an intelligent designer could have wanted it to turn out.
Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. And that is the same probability that it would just turn out that way by chance. (And again, it does not matter what the odds are, the odds are the same either way).
Thus, no explanatory advantage comes from positing a designer. The odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out that way is the same as the odds that chance would produce it.
Funny how those same naturalists see through your bullshit and don't hesitate to call you on it.
It's not dogmatism, it's just that there is so much evidence which proves that you spew bullshit, and I happen to know somewhat about such evidence.
Thomas Nagel had this to say in the beginning of Mind and Cosmos:
[quote=Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (pp. 10-11 ]In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture from a very different direction: the attack on Darwinism mounted in recent years from a religious perspective by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.
Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design positionskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidencedoes not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open.[/quote]
In that, I agree with him (and you!)
There are many alternatives to the Discovery Institute. One is Biologos, which is mainly staffed by scientists with Christian convictions - generally described as advocating 'theistic evolution'. Theistic evolution is the belief that God manifests the process of evolution. It integrates mainstream evolutionary science with a theistic worldview, maintaining that natural processes (e.g., natural selection, mutation) are not in conflict with God's creative plan. Theistic evolutionists typically do not seek to identify direct divine interventions in biological processes.
Classical theists including D B Hart and Edward Feser are generally critical (sometimes extremely so) of ID theory on the basis that it is reductionist in its own way. Hart argues that the ID movement tends to depict God as a kind of cosmic engineera being within the system of causation who intervenes to design complex systems or solve problems that natural processes cannot (J B Haldane's 'the Lord has an inordinate fondness for beetles'). This, he believes, reduces God to a finite agent within the created order, akin to a super-engineer or craftsman. Such a view is incompatible with classical theism, which understands God as the ground of being itself (ipsum esse subsistens), beyond the dichotomy of natural and supernatural. Likewise see Aquinas v Intelligent Design for a critique from a Catholic perspective.
I've often thought that the fundamentalist believers and new atheists kind of mirror each other in a way - Richard Dawkins was called a 'secular fundamentalist' by Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame).
Finally, there's The Third Way, a group of dissident, but mainstream, biological theorists and academics, who reject both neo-darwinian materialism and fundamentalist creationism:
They have an impressive list of contributors and a diversity of views. I'm particularly drawn to Steve Talbott's essays on philosophy of biology, as published on The New Atlantis.
But it's all food for thought and grist for the mill, to mix metaphors. I do think the argument from biological information is quite persuasive, and that the proposal that DNA kind of just spontaneously ravelled itself into existence, which a lot of people seem to take for granted, is far-fetched.
:100:
@Gnomon spews that as if 'methodological Supernaturalists' like him are not "dogmatic" and do not spectacularly fail in every instance to produce testable, explanatory models of natural phenomena.
Quoting Clearbury
:up:
Also, given that only a vanishingly insignificant fraction of the volumn of the observable universe is hospitable to any form of life that we can recognize as such, "the fine-tuning argument"^ is not sound. Like "the cosmological argument"^ which is unsound as well insofar as the universe (i.e. spacetime) had developed from a planck radius of (eternal) a-causal, or random, activity. Such medieval dogmas^, in fact, amount to nothing but 'god-of-the-gaps' appeals to ignorance, of which the OP is a pseudo-scientific, "creationist" specimen. :sparkle: :eyes: :pray:
To wit:
Quoting Wayfarer
:roll: And 'mysterian¹ apologetics' gets us where?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure_(philosophy) [1]
(vide CS Peirce re: abductive reasoning²)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [2]
We only have evidence for one Big Bang and a single Singularity. So, are you placing your Faith in an imaginary chance-driven infinite series of bangs (Multiverse) to try-out all those alternative settings? Sounds like a new twist on a medieval Scholastic theory for the same old eternal creator deity, except presumed to be blind, deaf & dumb (e.g. Tychism) instead of cosmically intelligent.
Another enthusiastically postulated alternative explanation to avoid the implications of deliberate (non-chance) tuning of Big Bang settings was the 26 dimensional String Theory, which blossomed into dozens of weird variations, none with any supporting physical evidence. Would you believe that String Theory was motivated, not by scientific inquiry, but by the discomfort of scientists with the design implications of Big Bang fine-tuning? ST was supposed to fix the "flatness problem". Yet, as Meyer said in the book : "both the homogeneity and the flatness problems are only considered problems by those who regarded the existence of fine tuning a problem".
Today, String Theory has been abandoned by most physicists because it was leading them down the rabbit hole. Beside, some of its essential predictions (supersymmetry) have failed to materialize over 20 years. So, the fine-tuning evidence remains a problem for those who prefer an accidental universe. Has your alternative produced any plausible evidence, besides elaborate estimates of cosmic odds? :smile:
The Greek goddess Tyche is the goddess of chance, fortune, and fate. ___Google AI overview
The "flatness problem" in the Big Bang theory refers to the observation that our universe appears to be very close to perfectly flat, which would require incredibly precise initial conditions in the early universe, making it seem like a strange coincidence that the density of matter was just right to achieve this flatness; essentially, if the density had been slightly higher or lower, the universe would be significantly curved instead of flat today. ___Google AI overview
String theory is a complex theory that has been the subject of much debate and skepticism. While it has passed many mathematical and theoretical tests, it has not yet been proven to be the fundamental theory of nature. Some say that string theory has been superseded by other theories, while others say that the theory has been extended but not progressed much in understanding the physical world. ___Google AI overview
Oh, yes, scathing scorn is the default philosophical argument for faithful Naturalist/Materialists. And they don't seem to be aware of the deficiencies of their own alternative explanations. You seem to be unafraid to go against the grain of this forum. Why do you even bother? As long as their slings & arrows are made of information & ideas instead of mass & matter, I will survive.
I knew going in that I would get knee-jerk responses to Intelligent Design arguments. But the Discovery Institute is careful to present arguments that could make sense, not just to true-believers, but also to those with some extensive knowledge of modern science. And Meyer's book is exemplary in its appeal to reason instead of faith. There is no "reading of the Bible" in the book. And there is no "come to Jesus" chapter. It's just a thorough presentation of atheist arguments in favor of a random Chance world, along with counter-arguments to refute them.
Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind --- A Chorus of Big Bangs ---is quoted saying "without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the the ID (intelligent design) critics." So, Stephen Meyer has provided a comprehensive summary of the questions to be answered. He also gives several scientists an opportunity to respond, so you can see both sides of the design controversy, presented rationally and without rancor.
I have never bothered to read the various Intelligent Design books, in part because I was raised to believe in the designer they are defending. Now I'm looking for evidence of a different kind of designer : one who designs with intelligent Information instead of thus-saith-the-lord. Causal Information (e.g. physical energy) is the kind of creative Intelligence that my non-religious science-based worldview is grounded upon. So, on that point, I am in agreement with Susskind*1. :smile:
*1. [i]Leonard Susskind said Information is indestructible. What kind of information does he mean?
Information is key in the universe. The universe needs to constantly "compute what the present must be like".[/i]
https://www.quora.com/Leonard-Susskind-said-Information-is-indestructible-What-kind-of-information-does-he-mean
There are dogmatists on both sides, although I think the overall atmosphere has changed since the early 2000's and the heyday of New Atheism.
As for Meyer - I think his negative arguments against reductionism are OK, but I'm sceptical of the personalist God that American Protestants advocate. If they interrogated me, they'd probably decide I was atheist, even though I'm not. Here's a critical review of his Signature in the Cell by a believing Christian, but one who doesn't buy into Intelligent Design arguments.
By the way, my take on the so-called fine tuning is simply this: that the process which gave rise to intelligent sentient beings didn't begin on Earth, but with stellar reactions billions of years prior. And even those reactions were dependent upon very specific characteristics of the way the Universe emerged from the singularity in the first place (per Martin Rees and Paul Davies' books). Nobody will ever have an explanation for that, in my view, but I wouldn't make it grounds for a polemical argument, either.
But if what it take for us to be here is extraordinary luck, then that we are here shows how we were lucky. While it is unlikely that some particular person won last week's the lottery, it is certain that someone did. Whoever that winner is, they can justifiably think themselves lucky, but they can not justifiably think it lucky that someone one.
It happened to be us. So what?
(2022) re: @Gnomon's occult teleology (aka "seeing faces in the clouds")
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/770004
Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.
"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction.
Which is why cosmologists have imagined a variety of non-God alternative Cosmic Causes (e.g. Multiverse ; Many Worlds) for which there is no physical evidence, but only metaphysical inferences. Long story short : I don't think the Cause of the Big Bang "wanted the universe to turn out that way". Instead, the initial conditions of the universe --- like the computer settings of Evolutionary Algorithms*1 --- were intended to be loosely bound and open to a variety of outcomes.
In other words : Free Will (maybe Schopenhauer's Will). So, the intention of the Programmer was to allow the universe to find its own state path through a limited set of possibilities. Hence, homo sapiens was just one instance of a googleplex of possibilities, not the apple of god's eye. :nerd:
*1. An evolutionary algorithm is an evolutionary AI-based computer application that solves problems by employing processes that mimic the behaviors of living things. As such, it uses mechanisms that are typically associated with biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation and recombination.
https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/glossary/evolutionary-algorithm
Quoting Clearbury
You seem to interpret the probabilities to be in favor of random chance. But Roger Penrose --- Nobel laureate and certified mathematical genius --- reached a different conclusion. His Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis*2 used the notion of a negative "Censor" (a suppressor of something) instead of a positive "Designer" (creator of something) to characterize the "unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". He showed that there were 10^10^101 possible configurations of mass-energy, but only one actual arrangement (the singularity/seed) that cosmologists have inferred to be the origin of space-time and everything we now experience.
So, "the number that Penrose calculated -- 1 in 10^10^123 -- provided a quantitative measure of the unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". Does that sound like a dumb accident to you, or an intelligent intentional censorship of zillions of possibilities to allow the design of a cosmic system with only a single pattern of 26 cosmic & physical constants? :smile:
*2. According to Roger Penrose's theories, the possible entropy values for the universe at its initial state are considered to be extremely low, bordering on a state of near-perfect order, which is a key component of his "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis" and the idea of a "low-entropy initial condition" for the universe. ___Google AI overview
I don't think that last part follows. I think the intelligent design proponent can claim that the designer is a living intelligent being. As such, the designer will probably be interested in universes with complex structure and life and stars and galaxies and all that. There is a high likelihood a designer will design universes like ours, with lots of interesting stuff and life in it, instead of boring universes where, for example, atomic nuclei never form. In Bayesian terms, the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9
Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable. Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.
What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy.
Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of Existence. If that question does not interest you, then you do you, and I'll do me. Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity.
When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?.
Then he, perhaps jokingly, referred to the Cause of that "grossly improbable" existence as the work of a Cosmic Censor. That reminds me of Darwin's hypothetical Selector who censored (to weed out) the unfit random possibilities put forth by the Evolutionary mechanism, allowing only the fittest to go on to the next stage. You can choose your own analogy for an ontological censor. Most people call it "God". I call it Primordial Cause.
Yes, improbable things do happen in our ancient world. Yesterday, my alma mater's pitiful football team beat the odds to defeat a team supposedly bound for the national playoffs. Yet Penrose's odds do not apply to our space-time world, but to a hypothetical time before time. If such fortuitous events don't matter to you, that's OK with me. Just don't tell me that I shouldn't speculate or conjecture about the original ontological event on a Philosophy Forum. :smile:
PS___ I may address the Intentionality question in another post.
Cosmic censorship hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis
It's true that when we look at the intelligences that exist in this world, we can note general truths about them and on that basis make reasonable inferences about what another intelligence may want.
But we aren't entitled to do that when we're talking about the intelligence that kicked everything off. The proponent of intelligence design is not entitled to assume anything at all about the psychological dispositions of the grand designer. They're not entitled to assume they're approximately the same in terms of desires and so on as one of us. All bets are off on that front.
For an analogy, to allow the proponent of intelligent design to rig the personality of the designer at the outset is no different from the proponent of chance rigging the odds so that it turns out that the chance of a universe like this one arising is 1.
Yes, I'm discussing ontology- specifically the ontology of contingency. What accounts for contingency in the world? Classical physics is deterministic- there's no real contingency. Quantum mechanics entails indeterminacy, and this accounts for contingency in the world. Is that Feynman's basis for his analysis?
"Extremely" contingent? Doesn't that just mean extremely improbable? How is that different from what I said? There are many different ways the universe could have evolved, and each of them is improbable. When all possibilities are equally improbable, it's a certainty that the outcome will be improbable, so it's not anomolous (and not "miraculous").
I think they would argue that the personality of the designer is an extrapolation of the designers we know and there is some basis for assuming a universe designer would prefer non-boring universes. If all you knew was that there was a universe designer, and you were shown this universe, would you be surprised by it? Not surprised at the particulars (e.g., the moon is that exact size and Saturn is exactly X amount of miles from the sun), but rather surprised the universe the designer designed is full of complexity and life?
Consider:
Pr(x/H)>Pr(x), for all x.
That tautology is not grounds for thinking all x are designed.
I think it's less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned).
No. Actually, "contingent" means dependent on some outside force*1. The contingent state, absent some causal input, is indeed "improbable", in the sense that nothing changes. A static state has indeterminate possibilities, and no probabilities. This unchanging state is "anomalous" in the sense that it has no properties, no probabilities, and nothing to relate to.
Imagine a hypothetical pre-big-bang state, whose only property is an arbitrary definition (like Zero or Infinity), and in which all alternative states (patterns of properties) are equally possible --- and "equally improbable" --- because none are actual. Then input some outside force to upset the balance of non-existent internal forces. The effect of that input is to cause a new state, a pattern change. And the new state is contingent upon the causal force*2. Therefore, the new state --- in this case a new world --- is contingent upon some Aristotelian First Cause*3.
The Contingent Cause is "miraculous" in that it comes from outside the natural system that we have evidence for. It's "anomalous" in that it's unpredictable or unexpected : a bolt from the blue. It's "improbable" in that nothing changes without some input of Energy, Force, Causation.
Prior to the Big Bang theory, scientists could confidently assume that the universe itself was self-existent. But the undeniable evidence from Cosmology*4 is that our temporary world is contingent upon some external causation. Which philosophers for millennia have labeled as First Cause, Logos, or God. What would you call the Contingent Cause that precipitated the Big Bang and the emergence of space-time*4 from a background of who-knows-what?*5 The only alternative to space-time is Infinity-Eternity. :smile:
*1. The meaning of CONTINGENT is dependent on or conditioned by something else.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent
*2. A contingent cause is a cause that explains the existence of a contingent being, which is a being that could not have existed. The cosmological argument is a line of reasoning that uses the idea of contingent beings to argue for the existence of a necessary being. ___Google AI overview
*3. First Cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause
*4. According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, spacetime began approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the universe rapidly expanded from a tiny, dense point known as a singularity, marking the start of both space and time as we understand them. ___Google AI overview
*5. [i]The cause of the Big Bang is still a mystery, but scientists have many ideas:
Quantum physics shows that some events happen randomly and without a cause. This means that the Big Bang might not have had a cause, or that we might not be aware of it.[/i] ___Google AI overview
Note --- Those random events occur only within the context of space-time-matter-energy. Hence the mystery (miracle?) of an unexplained beginning to space-time. Your guess is as good as mine, and that's why Ontology is a perennial topic of debate for philosophers.
In general, contingency can be accounted for as follows:
anything (E) that exists contingently, had a cause (C) such that C can cause (E or ~E).
Quantum indeterminacy fits this, but it seems applicable to any conceivable form of contingency.
I'm inclined to believe there is a "first cause" (F) - something that exists uncaused (i.e. its existence is brute fact). F is not contingent, because there is no prior cause to account for (F or ~F). Therefore F exists necessarily. This (assumed) fact of a first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality. As I said in my above post to RougeAI: It seems less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned).
H=an intelligent designer
x=anything and everything
Example:
where x= the winning set of 6 numbers that were drawn in a powerball lottery
Pr(x/H)>Pr(x)
This suggests that any winning set of numbers is more likely to be due to design (i.e. cheating) than it is due to pure chance - but only if there is a designer (i.e. cheater). It tells us nothing about the probability that cheating is going on.
That doesn't follow for the simple fact that there is almost no cheating in lotteries despite the existence of lottery designers. The designers want the games to be fair and so they are.
When you said:" the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9"
I presume you were referring to a designer whose design was intended to produce this particular universe. Analogously, I was referring to a designer of a scheme to produce a particular lottery winner (i.e. a cheater) . The equation is correct: it is more likely that this winner would be produced, if we assume there was a cheater.
Of course, we don't just assume there was a cheater. Similarly, we don't just assume there's a universe designer. No specific outcome can constitute positive evidence that the outcome was intended.
So if there are 10 trillion possible universes that could have arisen, there are also 10 trillion possible desires that a possible designer mind could be in.
Imagine one of those possible universes contains lots of intelligences who love boring stuff. Well, then a design proponent in that universe would infer that any designer there may be probably loves boring stuff....and so designed this universe to satisfy their desire for boring stuff.
But that's clearly fallacious reasoning. We're talking about why this universe exists rather than one of the 10 trillion others. Each and every one of them could in principle have been designed to be as it is, for there is nothing incoherent in an intelligence having a desire for any particular one of them. And so what the proponent of the design thesis has to do is suppose that there are 10 trillion possible ways a designer could be and then ask "given that there are 10 trillion ways a designer could be, what are the odds that they would have the desire to create this universe?". And the answer to that question is 1 in 10 trillion. Which is the same odds that the universe just arose by chance.
So their case is hopeless, i think. It depends upon them mistakenly thinking they're entitled to stack the deck in their favour by inferring personality traits that their only evidence for would be based - queston beggingly - on the assumption that this is the approximately the kind of world an intelligence would design. It's only reasonable to suppose that an intelligence would likely want to create a world like this if one assumes already that this is what has happened - for the basis of one's case would be what intelligences in this world are like. It would not be based on what it is metaphysically possible for an intelligence to be like. There are a potential infinite number of ways it is metaphysically possible for an intelligence to be, and once this is recognized the intelligent design thesis becomes untenable.
I agree that Quantum Indeterminacy (randomness) is a factor in physical contingency : this before that. But the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. Hence, the fundamental randomness of the physical world must be either an improbable accident*1, or something like an intentional act of a cosmic Designer, in order to allow free choice in both physics and in psychology. In other words, the existential path into the future is not pre-determined, but is post-determined by acts and choices within the world system.
Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause. But the Big Bang beginning of space-time raises the question of what came before (e.g. timelessness, changelessness). And the odds of accidental creation of a dynamic universe*3, and questioning sentient creatures, would seem to be astronomically unlikely.
You said "first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality". That's true, the Big Bang could have been a cosmically destructive explosion, instead of the creative beginning of a world of living and thinking creatures. But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. :smile:
*1. Improbable Accidental Existence : with no criteria for judging (posterior probability), such a conclusion would not qualify for probability or credibility.
*2. Bayesian probability criteria include:
[i]Posterior probability: The updated probability after considering evidence
Prior probability: The probability before considering evidence
Likelihood: The probability of the evidence given the belief is true[/i]
___ Google AI overview
*3. The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Paul Davies gives a survey of the range of apparently miraculous accidents of nature that have enabled the universe to evolve its familiar structure of atoms, ...
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-P-C-Davies/dp/0521286921
The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Alan Lightman speculates, without evidence, on the prior eternal existence of an infinite Multiverse that blindly & accidentally spawned the living and thinking universe that we know and love. Mverse is a god-model without any redeeming features, other than winning the lottery once in a zillion years. A blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-World-Thought-Knew/dp/034580595X
That is exactly why I don't claim to know anything about the hypothetical designer of the universe. As an agnostic, and Bible unbeliever, I have no direct revelation from God, and no personal relationship. But I do have professional training and experience as a designer (architect). So I feel that I know something about how design works : from immaterial idea (concept) to material instantiation (something that did not exist before).
For example, if the product of design is "full of complexity and life", I must assume that the designer intended to create that kind of product/result/embodiment. Also, the designer must have the potential (creative & constructive power) for such characteristics. A human designer can have one of many personality types. But the Cause of a whole universe must have the potential for all possible types. Not just the tyrannical ruler or loving father personalities. :nerd:
Are you suggesting the world came from nothing? This would entail a temporally prior state of nothingness, which is metaphysically impossible.
I suggested that there was a first cause - an initial state, that exists uncaused. It didn't come from anything, because that would imply it was caused. If you believe the world itself is contingent, then how do you account for the contingency, ontologically? I argued that the first cause/initial state must be necessary, specifically because it's existence is not contingent upon anything.
Quoting Gnomon
My probability estimate is based on a finite past with a large number of contingent events having occurred during the course of its existence, due to quantum indeterminacy. Quantum collapse is statistical - there is a finite probability associated with the outcome of each collapse, and it is therefore calculable, in principle - actual numerical probability applies.
An initial state implies:
Quoting Gnomon
You're assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of material reality. I don't think many cosmologists would agree with you on that. We simply don't know what preceded it. I believe the past is finite for philosophical reasons: it would imply a completed process of infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps.
"Accidental" existence? I indicated that the initial state (whatever it may be, and that includes a creator) exists as brute fact. As I showed, it's not contingent because there is nothing prior to account for (F or ~F) - where F is the first cause/initial state. Does your definition of "accident" allow for "accidents" that are metaphysically necessary? Traditionally, the term has been considered to imply contingency.
Quoting Gnomon
So...you think it MORE probable that a intentional being (with enormous power and an enormously complex mind) that happens to exist uncaused is MORE probable than the gradual development of beings with small power and limited intellect over the course of billions of years in an enormous universe! (fully consistent with entropy, as described in statistical thermodynamics)?
You seem to treat intelligent life as a design objective, rather than simply a consequence of the way the world happens to be. This is the issue I was referencing when I suggested you were taking a restrospective view of the current state of the universe, and noting the enormous number of low probability events along the way to our existence. Reminds me of a quote of John Earman's":
Imagine, if you will, the wonderment of a species of mud worms who discover that if the constant of thermometric conductivity of mud were different by a small percentage they would not be able to survive.
Were mud different, mud worms would not exist. So what? Were the universe different, we wouldn't exist. So what?
Here's a relevant quote from Richard Feynman:
You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!
The point is, the mere fact that something improbable has occurred is not at all remarkable. It would be worth investigating only if it were a statistical anomaly. But our world is no more, and no less, likely than any other. It happens to have intelligent beings in it, but alternative worlds that might otherwise have come into existence would have had other sorts of things in it that would be improbable.
Usually the design proponent likens the designer to an all-powerful, omnibenevolent god, who would prefer universes with life in it, but that has problems too when you think about all the suffering that goes on in the natural world.
Still, like I said earlier. Suppose all you know is that a universe designer exists and you're presented with a universe that lasts a trillionth of a second before it collapses in on itself. Out of all the designs it could have come up with, it settled on that one? I would be surprised. Wouldn't you?
No. Just the opposite. I agree that such a notion is "metaphysically impossible". Lawrence Krauss wrote a book named A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. But, his "nothing" turned out to be a strange sort of something : a fluctuating quantum field, complete with governing laws and empowering energy. So, his "nothing" simply meant "no gods".
And yet, his powerful & lawful mathematical field has most of the characteristics of a First Cause, including Reason in the form of mathematical logic, but excepting Intention in the form of an idea to be implemented. Do you act with Intention? If so, how do you think that ability to foresee the future emerged from nothing but random fluctuations? :nerd:
Quoting Relativist
Apparently, since you "don't know" the cause of the beginning, the "speculative" Multiverse hypothesis --- "infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps" --- must be just an article of faith for you. I agree that "we don't know what preceded" the Big Bang. So, any preternatural Cause we might postulate is a shot in the dark. That's why I am not a Theist or a Multiversist, but an Agnostic speculating philosopher.
Yet, lack of hard evidence has never deterred philosophers from reasoning about the unknowable. Therefore, just as astronomers reasoned backwards from current conditions to guess at the original state of the cosmos, I observe the world 14B years after the Big Pop, and reason back to the logically necessary conditions required to explode a near-infinite universe into being. One of those conditions is the Potential for Life & Mind must have preceded the Bang. :wink:
The multiverse is a speculative idea that's not considered proven, and there's no direct evidence that it exists. ___Google AI overview
Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Quoting Relativist
Yes. We no longer debate the evidence for "gradual development", just take it for granted. What we do debate is how that process began : by accident or by design? If you don't see evidence of Design in the world, then your definition of "design" may be different from mine. In college, I participated in a Design by Accident exercise, and the lesson learned was that the result of accidents is Chaos instead of Cosmos.
Please note that I make no assertions about a "complex mind". Instead, the world-causing mind is assumed to be Simple in the sense of unitary, yet with enormous Potential. The complexity of our universe came into existence when infinite Potential transformed into finite Actual in an "enormous" act of Creation. Prior to the Bang, Infinity/Eternity is a simple all-inclusive concept implying "all things possible".
Moreover, it is obvious that the Cause of the Big Bang possessed "enormous power". Regarding the notion of "uncaused first cause", perhaps we should just say "eternal Cause". Which would apply to a God or a Multiverse. If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention. That's a belief, not a fact. :smile:
Quoting Relativist
I'm not competent to judge the statistical improbability of a universe popping into existence, from who knows where or when or how. But if anyone is qualified, perhaps Nobel laureate Roger Penrose is the guy. In a previous reply to Relativist, I noted :
Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity. :cool:
Nope. There may, or may not, be a multiverse. Either way, it has no relevance to anything I've said. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the term "this universe". I just meant the actual universe, as opposed to any non-actual, possible universes (where the possibilities are due to the instances of quantum indeterminacy in our history).
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, of course. We form intentions and act upon them. This ability emerged through evolution- there's clearly a survival value.
Quoting Gnomon
A Japanese Cosmologist has estimated the probability that a self-replicating molecule could have formed by pure chance. See this. The probability is low in any given instance, but the larger the universe is, the more likely it would occur at least once. And this is a worst case scenario. This is sufficient to start evolution.
The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this.
Quoting Gnomon
How could a mind intentionally create a universe that would lead to life, unless it could somehow figure out how the universe would evolve? This seems to require considerable knowledge. How could it even work things out in the absence of time?
Theist philosophers claim "God" has magical knowledge (i.e. omniscience; knowledge that wasn't developed but just exists). That is at least coherent. How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning?
Quoting Gnomon
Define "power". Certainly, the inflationary period was a low entropy/high energy state.
No, I don't agree the first cause is/was eternal. As I said, I believe the past finite. But even if you define "eternal" as existing at all points of time, it doesn't imply the first cause fits that, because the first cause was a specific statements of affairs that at its initial conditions. But if we set aside the temporal evolution of reality, we could perhaps say that reality (as a whole) is eternal (existing at all times).
[Quote]If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention. [/quote]
Neither position can be proved deductively, but it's reasonable to draw an inference to best explanation.
We know that complexity can arise from simpler conditions (again, see this).
We also have empirical evidence that minds are dependent on the physical: memories are lost due to disease and trauma. Knowledge is an organized set of memories, memories that are developed over time.
The alternative depends on ad hoc assumptions: an unembodied mind is metaphysically possible; that knowledge needn't be physically encoded nor caused/developed over time. Of course, all of these things are logically possible, so faith in such things isn't vulnerable to being disproven. But if you think this is somehow a better explanation, then please make the case.
Quoting Gnomon
I hope you don't rely on this false dichotomy to make your case. As discussed before, finite past does not entail "popping into existence". If you agree the past is finite, then you should agree that the initial state exists as necessary brute fact (unless you make some addition hoc assumption that exempts a "god" from being a brute fact). The question is: which is the more plausible brute fact?
Quoting Gnomon
Are you making an argument from non-aurhority? Penrose is a physicist, not a metaphysician. He seems to be treating life as as objectively special, which strikes me as chauvinism. Life, especially intelligent life, is important to us. That doesn't imply it is objectively important. Objectively, it is a type of object. This universe (the one that we know exists) happens to have produced types of objects that we label as "living". You and Penrose seem to be treating this type of object in a privileged way. I get it, that this is the nature of religion: that we are special to God.
I acknowledge it's possibly true - but arguments such as Penrose, or proponents of the Fine Tuning Argument, tend to overlook that their arguments depend on the (Theistic) premise that we are something more than a type of thing. If there is no God, who wished to create intelligent beings, then we are not objectively special. So to assume we're objectively special is what entails a God. Fine-tuning arguments add no support to the position.
The typical "omnibenevolent" designer proposal would be a Straw Man argument on this thread. The OP indicates that Stephen Meyer carefully avoids advocating the "omnibenevolent" bible-god, and focuses his attention on the scientific evidence for an intelligent First Cause.
Your second point is more to the point, except that it assumes the Designer created a Big Bang, which like fourth of July fireworks explodes into a puff of dust*1 full of suffering for sentient beings. Sounds like the human rocket scientists whose trial runs self-destruct after a few seconds.
Yet, that's not what the science says happened. Instead, the ongoing creation event was a sudden expansion of cosmic Potential from a mathematical Singularity seed (computer operating system) into a self-sustaining (14B years) Evolution of novel Variations (mutations ; options) to be naturally Selected based on criteria in the Initial Conditions (preset values for a computer program). De-selection might involve suffering for variables that don't pass the fitness filter. Would you be surprised if you observed such an unlikely event from your privileged position as a philosopher in the nothingness of pre-space? :nerd:
PS___ If you were raised to believe in an omni-benevolent God, as I was, you might be disappointed to go out into the real world, and discover that it's not all benevolence & blessings. My philosophical First Cause is intelligent & creative, and pragmatic, but not loving. Something like the Vulcans of Star Trek.
*1. God's Debris : A Thought Experiment - Scott Adams
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Debris-Experiment-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747878
ROCKET SCIENCE
COSMIC DESIGNER
COSMIC EVOLUTION
The default religious answer is Omniscience. But I don't pontificate beyond the bare facts of an inexplicable beginning. Everything else is amateur speculation. And your guess is as good as mine. But, of course, I prefer mine.
The First Cause is a philosophical principle, not a religious deity. But, if you want to conjecture : perhaps an eternal Being passes the timelessness by creating model worlds and learning from failures how to make a world that lasts over 14B sol-cycles.
I don't post on this forum just to parrot scientific facts from "experts". The philosophical fun is in conjecturing beyond what meets the eye, by means of informed inference : reasoning. :smile:
I agree. But only if you include in the statistical analysis a complementary principle (law?) to counteract the destructive effects associated with Entropy. My name for that constructive principle is Enformy. :nerd:
Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Complexity & Progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. Why think this unknown state of affairs is a mind and that it acts intentionally? Labelling it "mind" suggests it has some minimum set of properties common to all minds what are these?
Quoting Gnomon
Your "enformy" is based on the false premise that entropy is a measure of disorder. From the paper I linked:
[I]"Misinterpretations of entropy and conflation with additional misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are ubiquitous among scientists and non-scientists alike and have been used by creationists as the basis of unfounded arguments against evolutionary theory. [B]Entropy is not disorder or chaos or complexity or progress towards those states. Entropy is a metric, a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged.[/b]"[/i]
But whether the world is a product of intelligent design is precisely what is at issue. You can't just assume it and then make inferences from it.
So we must start out by asking the question 'is this world more likely a product of intelligent design or chance'? Well, we are not allowed to start out by assuming a designer with a particular character. So, do to the calculation we must consider how many different plans and intentiosn a designer may have. And there's the problem: there are going to be a potential infinite number. Certainly the odds of there being a designer who wished to create a world such as this are going to be everybit as long as the odds that a world such as this arose by chance. And given that the latter is a simpler thesis than the former - it doesn't assume a designer - then the chance thesis is the more reasonable one, other things being equal.
You might be interested to know that this book got a savage review in the New York Times from David Albert, who is a professor of physics and expert in interpretations of quantum physics:
Quoting David Albert
Story goes that Krauss reacted furiously to this review and kicked up a huge stink. (This is all 12 years ago mind you.) In the end, Daniel Dennett had to take him aside and tell him to cool it.
Krauss may be a good science writer and communicator, but he's an absolutely crap philosopher as far as many are concerned.
:clap: :100:
IME, woo-woo warriors like @Gnomon can't grok parsimony in either science or philosophy.
I don't think of God as being like a kind of super-engineer, a cosmic designer who literally oversees all the details of the cellular biology and organic life. Classical theism - not the beliefs of modern-day evangelicals on the whole - says that God is 'simple' (meaning not composed of parts) - not something which is more complex than the Universe that He has created.
The argument that I think is persuasive, at least to me, is the version of the cosmological anthropic argument that stresses the very small numbers of constants that are required to have very specific properties, in order for complex matter of any kind to form. 'Just Six Numbers' is the title of a book on that. Mind you, that book is not an 'argument from design' and its author stays mum on whether he believes in God, presenting that as one among other hypotheses. But the idea that all of what exists is dependent upon a very small number of specific constraints seems more in line with the idea of divine simplicity, than examination of the massive complexity of life and the universe.
As to the argument that the fundamental constraints are 'brute fact', and the existence of anything is dumb luck, I wonder if that amounts to any kind of explanation at all.
I say this, because the idea of God as a designer or super-engineer is wildly mistaken even for those who don't believe in any kind of higher power. I think it arises from attempting to scale up a naturalistic understanding to a cosmic scale, but it's not informed by any kind of insight into the who or what of God.
That said, Stephen Meyer's 'scientific intelligent design' is subject to criticism by other Christians, as I've already noted upthread, on similar grounds (e.g. here and here). For a popular-level insight into classical theism, have a read of God does not Exist, by Pierre Whalon (and no, it's not atheist polemics) and also He Is Who He Is, a review of a book by David Bentley Hart. These might, at least, make it a little clearer what the God is that we don't believe in.
Heres a summary of your reasoning and calculations:
The Question: Does the existence of a life-permitting universe make the existence of a universe designer (a god who values order, complexity, and life) probable?
Hypotheses and Background Knowledge:
H: A universe designer exists, specifically a god valuing order, complexity, and life.
¬H: No universe designer exists.
Background knowledge k: There is no multiverse.
P(H)=0.3: You started with a 30% prior probability of such a designer existing.
P(E?H)=0.99: A god valuing life and complexity is highly likely to create a life-permitting universe.
P(E?¬H)=0.0001: Without a designer, the probability of a life-permitting universe is astronomically low given no multiverse.
Bayes' Theorem:
Using the formula:
P(H?E)= P(E?H)?P(H) / P(E)
where P (E) = P(E?H)?P(H)+P(E?¬H)?P(¬H)
Result:
The posterior probability of P(H?E), the probability of a universe designer given the existence of a life-permitting universe, is approximately 0.9998 (or 99.98%).
Conclusion:
Based on your assumptions, the existence of a life-permitting universe strongly supports the existence of a universe designer with the specified attributes.
Yes. I have concluded that this material world had a mental origin. That inference is based primarily on the ubiquitous role of Information in the world. I won't attempt to justify that conditional (non-faith) belief in this thread. But it has been explained step by step in the Enformationism thesis. The bottom line is that Information is both mental and causal*1. It's found in human minds in the form of Ideas, and it operates in the material world in the form of Energy. So, I have deduced that the Source of every thing and every action in this world necessarily had properties in common with both Minds and Energy. So, depending on the context, I label that unidentified Source the Enformer, or the Programmer, or the First Cause.
At the beginning of Philosophy, Plato called the universal principle of the world Logos, to indicate that rational relationships are the structure of reality & mentality & mathematics. Aristotle called the origin of all change in the world Prime Mover, which we would today refer to as Energy. With the exception of those I have dialoged with, few posters on this forum are aware that physicists have equated Energy with Information*2. If you don't believe me, you can Google it.
The book in the OP does not make that kind of argument. But it does use beaucoup scientific "facts" to define the logically necessary properties of the Cause of the Big Bang. The author identifies that Cause with his biblical God, but for unstated scriptural reasons, not scientific theories. So, if you ignore the scriptures in the background, what you have left is what Blaise Pascal sarcastically labeled "the god of the philosophers" as opposed to the god of theologians. It's also not the god of pragmatic scientists. So the scientific evidence must be interpreted philosophically, in order to explain what existed before the beginning of the material world : metaphorically, what's north of the north pole. :smile:
*1. Here's an abbreviated sample from the thesis :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self :
[i]One thing that all of these examples of leading-edge science have in common is a prominent role for Information. Not the mundane stuff you get on Google, but the essential stuff as defined by Claude Shannon. In his analysis of communication, he saw that data flows in a manner similar to electricity in wires. Meaningful information is equivalent to potent Energy as opposed to depleted Entropy. Yet in a larger context, Information also has the ability to give meaningful or useful or valuable form or shape to some raw, unformed material. Information is full of potential as opposed to the emptiness of Entropy.
Inspired by that potent metaphor, along with some insights from Quantum Theory, I have concluded that Energy actually consists of Elemental Information. On the most basic levels, such as laws of physics, that invisible in-formation is equivalent to the numerical relationships we call mathematics. According to my developing thesis of Enformationism , as we zoom our perspective from micro (smallest) to macro (human scale) to cosmic (largest), the information we find becomes more and more condensed, compressed, and solid, and then it begins to fade away back into the same ethereal stuff it began from.
This is an essential part of the cycle of evolution: the Ourobouros (snake biting tail) information cycle---what goes around, comes around. In other words, evolution begins and ends as information. In the process, this proto-energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form-like Proteus, the shape-shifting sea-god of the ancient Greeks.[/i]
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page5.html
*2. Information is Energy :
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6
If the odds, given certain background assumptions, of this world arising by chance are 1 in a million, or one in 10 billion trillion, the point is that those are also the odds that there would be a person who happened to want to create a universe such as this in that manner (in fact, the odds of that are longer given that they'd also have to have the ability to create it).
Anything chance can do, an intelligence can do. And anything an intelligence can do, chance can do. But chance is a simpler explanation, and so it wins by default. This is partly why I think design arguments are hopeless. The current rash depend upon people being impressed by long odds (even though no matter how long they may be, the argument is going to fail)
:roll:
So, you have to ask 'what are the odds that there would exist a person who wanted to create a universe such as this and in this manner - whatever that turns out to be - and had the ability to do so?' And to figure that our, you have to consider all the various possible ways a person could be and possible abilities a person may have. The odds are going to turn out to be everybit as large as the odds of teh universe arising by chance processes
@Gnomon @Wayfarer @RogueAI
I agree. In my thesis, I begin with the "assumption" that the world is as defined by Physics : a dynamic cosmos*1 of Matter, Energy, and Laws. But Einstein equated Matter with Energy. More recently, the Mass-Energy-Information equivalence principle of physicists Melvin Vopson and Rolf Landauer condensed three physical principles into one : Information --- the power to inform ; to give form to the formless ; to create meaning in a mind.
Moreover, the third factor of physics is Law : organizing & governing principles that are most often expressed in terms of abstract Mathematical relationships : Logic. Laws are also defined metaphorically as-if they are the intention of a powerful rule-maker. Yet in practice they are simply regularities that allow a society or a world to operate smoothly & efficiently, and in conformance to the Will of the ruling authority.
Combine that multi-purpose physical power with the psychological factor of meaningful/useful Information, and you can begin to see the influence of something like a human mind : intelligent and wilful. If you doubt that the human mind has causal powers, just look at something like the Birj Khalifa tower in Dubai. Can you imagine something that impressive occurring by accident, or by natural processes, or without confidence in the causal power of a human idea : tallest building in the world? Have you ever seen a mountain with elevators and air conditioning?
So physics has reduced three principles down to one : Information*2 --- Causation & Meaning & Logic. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction*3. In your experience, where can you find all three of those factors in one place? Hint : the human mind. If you don't see any signs of Causation, Meaning and Organization in the world, then Science and Intelligent Design are not for you. :smile:
*1. Cosmos :
[i]Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity.
The cosmos is studied in cosmology a broad discipline covering scientific, religious or philosophical aspects of the cosmos and its nature.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
*2. What is Information?
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- The arrangement and sequence of things is what we call Order or Organization.
*3. EnFormAction :
[i]# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Philosophically, causal-controlling-constructive EFA can be favorably compared to Schopenhauer's Will : "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge". How does a blind, unconscious, aimless pig find an acorn? Seldom.
BURJ KHALIFA
Yes. Meyer's book discusses such alternative Something From Nothing theories in his chapter : The Cosmological Information Problem. He says Krauss' book "attempted to describe how material particles emerged from preexisting energy-rich fields in a preexisting space" : the hypothetical Quantum Foam*1. Meyer also notes that physicist Alexander Vilenkin "showed a keen sense of the paradoxical or even contrary aspects of invoking a mathematical equation developed in a human mind as the cause of an actual universe". Talk about violations of Parsimony! Which is simpler : a preternatural creative quantum Field (theoretical framework in a human mind) or an eternal creative Intellect (analogous to a human mind)? :wink:
PS___ Meyer goes on to ask "how can a mathematical equation create an actual physical universe?" Then, he quotes Stephen Hawking, who asked "what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
*1. "Nothing" turns out to be "Quantum Foam" with the laws of Quantum Mechanics already built in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1esl10/can_someone_explain_lawrence_krauss_a_universe/
Thanks for sharing your ideas, and for not responding to my ideas with political put-downs as some do, when faced with belief-challenging concepts of the world. I had no intention of "refuting" anything you said. Instead, this thread is intended to present some ideas from a book by a theist, whose arguments are also valid for Deism : a non-religious philosophical worldview.
Even though it differs from traditional Theism in denial of real-world miracles, Deism retains the necessity for an ideal Mind to create the Real world. Apparently, even the ancient philosophical notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover principle is contrary to your worldview. That's OK, we both have opinions about notions that are unprovable. But how we arrive at those beliefs may vary. :smile:
Quoting Relativist
That is true, yet my "speculation" is based on Science & Philosophy instead of Religion. For example, I accept the Big Bang theory (BBT) --- which is the "most accepted" theory*1 of how the expanding universe began --- and not the Genesis account of creation. But BBT was a shock to some scientists, including Einstein, because their default worldview was that the physical universe was eternal and deterministic. Yet, the sudden ex nihilo appearance of something-from-nothing sounded too much like the Genesis account of Creation. And the Uncertainty of quantum physics undermined the deterministic Newtonian foundation of 19th century science. So, some 20th century scientists began to construct alternative explanations for the otherwise inexplicable existence of an evolving dynamic cosmos, but characterized by Randomness and Entropy instead of Intention and Creativity.
In Stephen Meyer's book, introduced in the OP, he discussed what he labeled as The Cosmological Information Problem. One example is the Hawking-Hartle "no boundary" proposal for how the universe could pop into existence randomly and without any god-like intention. They followed Alexander Vilenkin's suggestion of a quantum basis for the otherwise inexplicable Big Bang. But it assumed the a priori existence of a Universal Quantum Field, complete with god-like logical mathematics & limiting laws. Ironically, the quantum realm has been determined to be fundamentally indeterminate and uncertain.
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle manipulated the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, "based on the use of canonical quantization rules", to calculate the Universal Wave-Function in order to demonstrate how a new universe could be created from random fluctuations of a hypothetical eternal quantum field in a supernatural "superspace". In order to limit the calculation to a world like the one we actually experience though, they arbitrarily pre-set some initial conditions. Ironically, in doing so, they imposed human Intentions on the calculation. As Meyer put it, "the quantum cosmologists are thus like the bakers who allege they have baked a cake before they had the ingredients to do so". So, you could say that they were playing the role of a Designing god. Meyer summarizes, "Hawking and Hartle envision quantum tunneling as an event that converts a preexisting closed universe into a continually expanding universe".
Do you have a better idea --- sans intention --- to explain the existence of our spacetime universe, gradually being deconstructed by Entropy, yet populated by highly-evolved beings who question their origins? Do you take your worldview on faith, or have you done the math? :nerd:
PS___ In a previous post you said a First Cause is plausible, but not an intelligent or logical FC like Plato's Logos. Presumably just dumb matter. How then do you explain the existence of Living & Intelligent beings in the real world? Isn't "brute fact" just a cop-out on a philosophy forum? That's the crux of Chalmers' "hard problem". Material science typically stops at the "boundary" of the Big Bang. But some scientists, such as Hawking, feel philosophically compelled to postulate "no boundaries" in order to legitimize their forays into quantum "speculation" and conjecture.
*1. Yes, the Big Bang theory is widely considered the most accepted theory explaining the origin of the universe, with a vast majority of scientists supporting it based on substantial evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and the observation of an expanding universe.
___Google AI overview
*2. Physicists Debate Hawkings Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning
A recent challenge to Stephen Hawkings biggest idea about how the universe might have come from nothing has cosmologists choosing sides.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
The regularities of the laws of nature are, as you seem to imply, often seen as laws like tax laws that are imposed by an external agent but in reality the law and nature are the same thing. The scientific laws of nature are not imposed on nature, they are nature. But the question remains; even if there are no laws external to the things that look like they are obeying laws, why does nature produce such finely balanced sublime structures? Why is nature so sophisticated? So the question concerning a God-like law maker is rephrased as a question concerning a God-like nature maker. Why does nature produce the sublime?
Well said, and a very easy question to loose sight of.
Actually, those natural laws are Nature as interpreted by law-abiding humans. As Bohr noted, "What we observe is never nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." So, as usual we humans see ourselves reflected in the mirror of the world. And we call that mirror by various names, but the most general is simply G*D. Spinoza hedged his bets by labeling his pantheistic deity as Deus sive Natura. :smile:
:roll: Incorrigible & lazy ...
'Natura deus est' is pantheistic; however, (sub specie aeternitatis) Spinoza's concept is acosmist¹.
(2023, 2020, 2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825698 [1]
As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.
I also believe that this initial state/first cause is not contingent, and this is because I believe contingency depends on a source of contingency. IOW: x is contingent iff there exists some y, that x is contingent upon. This is equivalent to:
Y accounts for (X or ~X).
It is logically impossible for an initial state to be contingent upon anything else. So, whatever this initial state/first cause was, it is metaphysically impossible for it to have been anything else.
What that first cause/initial state IS, is unknown. Although it's logically possible, I see no reason to think it is a "mind" (i.e. an entity that acts with intent). The universe has evolved in a manner fully consistent with laws of nature, which are deterministic (in some cases: probabilistic determination). This purely naturalistic evolution of the universe means there's no evidence of intentionality.
Life exists as a consequence of the way the universe happens to be. However, I see no objective basis for believing life, or intelligent life, to be objectively special. It's just a type of thing, and there are uncountably many types of things that actually exist, and that would exist if the universe had been different (irrespective of whether or not it is metaphysically possible for the universe to have differred).
Intelligent beings engage in mental activities and have mental experiences. These have a clear dependency on physical aspects of the central nervous system, so there's no empirical basis to think mental activity can take place without some such physical "machinery". The emergence of this machinery through evolution accounts for its existence. So the notion that a mind might exist without this complex "machinery", or that it might just exist by brute fact, has no empirical basis. It's logically possible, but logical possibility alone is too weak a basis to form a justified belief about. That's why it seems ad hoc to just postulate that a mind is the first cause.
If you require a hypothesis as to what the first cause was, I can simply state that it was probably some natural state of affairs that evolved (in whole or in part) deterministically (inclusive of probabilistic determination) due to laws of nature. That seems the best explanation, because it's consistent with what we know about the world, and doesn't depend on ad hoc assumptions (e.g. minds can exist independently of complexity physical "machinery").
Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin:
"Brute fact physicalism" asserts that the fundamental laws of physics, which govern the universe, are "brute facts," meaning they exist as they are without any further explanation or justification; essentially, the way the world is at its most basic level is simply a given that cannot be explained by anything else. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Relativist
If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity. :pray:
In evolutionary theory, sources of contingency include chance variation and genetic drift. However, these sources may not always be strong, as they can be non-chancy in some ways. Shannon's information entropy can be used to measure the strength of a source of contingency. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Relativist
Surely you can logically infer (reason) some necessary properties of your unknown First Cause. For example, if the Big Bang has produced intelligent and intentional creatures, then the Original Cause must have the Potential for those properties, yes? Or does "Brute Fact" simply mean Something From Nothing for no particular reason? :wink:
Quoting Relativist
Is your own Life & Mind nothing (subjectively) special to you? Are you no more special than a rock? Are you lacking in purpose, goals, intentions. Does general Intelligence play no (objectively) special role in the evolving world? Is there no hierarchy of intelligence in your world? Did your Brute Fact (First Cause) have the Potential to produce intentional creatures? Or do you mean not specially selected by the First Cause, hence just a random accident or happenstance? Or do you mean not chosen for a special role in the divine plan? In that case, I'll have to agree with you. :cool:
Special :a thing, such as an event, product, or broadcast, that is designed or organized for a particular occasion or purpose. ___Oxford dictionary
Quoting Relativist
Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang?
Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? Again, that sounds like a definition of a creator God. Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. :smile:
Determination : to decide with the intention to achieve a desired end.
___Merriam-Webster dictionary
Modern science and culture has division at its basis - division between self and world, mind and matter, I and other. In the sphere of philosophy it was built around the division of the primary qualities of matter - those attributes such as mass, shape, velocity, and so on, which are precisely measurable and predictable, and those such as scent, colour, etc which were said to be 'in the mind' of the observer. At the same time, any kind of teleological thinking was banished from physics - objects behave as they do because of physical laws and antecedent physical conditions. Furthermore science sees no reason not to treat the human subject as objects, as @Relativist says above. So the natural outcome of that is that of course the physical universe is devoid of morality, subjectivity and intentionality, which are increasingly understood as matters of individual conscience and tantamount to mere opinion. Nietszche was highly aware of that, although it was not something of his invention. Arguably, his 'Death of God' was a reflection on it.
My belief is based on reasoning from conceptual analysis, in the manner of most metaphysicians.
I infer the past is finite, because an infinite past entails completing an infinite number of consecutive steps, of finite duration. This is impossible. You suggest I'm "substituting" for "transcendental time". No. I simply see no reason to believe there exists such a thing - there's no evidence of it. But even if there were, I would still infer a finite past, so I don't see that it matters.
Re: the necessary brute fact:
The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described).
Quoting Gnomon"Self caused" seems unintelligible. It is UNcaused.
[Quote]So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity.[/quote]
Yes, a first cause is consistent with a "creator god" -- but it doesn't entail a creator God.
Yes, if there were a creator God, it would provide a source of contingency. But a natural first cause is also a source of contingency. The only contingency we see in the world is purely natural: quantum indeterminacy, so the simplest explanation is that the first cause is natural.
Quoting Gnomon
I doubt it. I didn't arrive at it this way, and Hawking was a poor philosopher.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state.
Quoting Gnomon
As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent".
Lucky? Luck implies there is a set of contestants, one of which (the lucky one) wins. If this fits your view, then who exactly are the contestants? Frankly, it sounds like you're treating life as a design objective - such that a series of "lucky" coincidences had to occur in order to achieve it. As I said, life is a consequence of the way the world happens to be. Perhaps there are contingent factors that might have produced a lifeless universe. So what? --unless you assume it failed to meet the design objective.
:up: :up:
Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. I guess it's an impractical philosophy quirk to cop-out with a Brute Fact that must be accepted (believed) with no supporting reasons. It's a hypothesis with no evidence, but only a place holder for future facts. :joke:
Quoting Relativist
So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago --- complete with laws to govern evolution --- with no prior cause? Did BFFC also include the Matter & Energy that eventually became the organized world we now see? Sounds like Omni-potential that popped.
Again, the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists trying to make sense of the expanding universe, that when run in reverse vanished into a dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? They also didn't like the alternative idea of infinite Potential (unlimited possibilities) that could --- for no apparent reason --- become the Actual Universe we know and love. :blush:
Quoting Relativist
An uncaused First Cause is traditionally identified with a God of some kind. The Deity's existence is not an "accident" because it is not a Chance event, but either Intentional or a Brute Fact (inexplicable by reference to precedence). Chance accidents only happen in space-time.
Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words. :halo:
Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain, though few take this position. However, it makes no less sense to believe in an infinite causal chain than it does in God, because God is an infinite being himself, and thus his thought process is an infinite causal chain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/smla5i/the_uncaused_first_cause_argument_for_god/
The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely.
___Google AI overview
In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity:
___Google AI overview
Note --- Motion, Change, and Activity are characteristic of the space-time world. Pure Being is characteristic of infinity-eternity.
That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity.
Quoting Gnomon
Jeez, I've explained this twice before to you. An initial state doesn't mean "popping into existence". Popping into existence implies there is something (existence) into which it could pop, and that there was an earlier state at which it did not exist. "Initial state" means exactly what it says: there is no earlier time at which it didn't exist.
Quoting Gnomon
Right. It should make sense to no one. An initial state does not mean "something from nothing". We discussed this, and you seemed to agree.
Quoting Gnomon
As I said, the "singularity" is mathematical, not ontological. It means it is beyond the predictive power of general relativity. That's precisely why earlier times are unknowns. At no time have I claimed the big bang represents the beginning of existence. It's possible that the initial state was around that time, but that's pure guesswork. It's also irrelevant to my position.
Quoting Gnomon
Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"?
How do you know there was no matter and energy? For that matter, how do you define these? Are quantum fields "matter"? Some define matter as the stuff that is composed of atoms, but this ignores the fact that atoms are composed of particles that are (per Quantum Field Theory), quanta of quantum fields.
I gather that you believe the initial state consisted of a God- sans universe. How did this God know how to design a universe? You seem to believe he designed it for intelligent life, so how did he know life would actually be possible when he created it?
Quoting Gnomon
An initial state is not an event. Events occur in time: there is a time prior to the event.
Quoting Gnomon
Yep, that's what cosmological arguments purport to do, but they convince no one because they depend on ad hoc metaphysical assumptions, including the plausibility of an unembodied mind, and that it contains magical knowledge (e.g. knowledge of a design plan.
Quoting Gnomon
It's an outdated paradigm. The nature of reality is better explained by modern physics.
Quoting Gnomon
Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge.
You didn't respond to my statements about "luck". Did you see my point? I hope I won't have to repeat it later, as I did with my discussion of first cause/initial state.
To me it strongly points towards a creator/designer whose attributes are embodied by nature rather than just a disembodied being. This does not mean that this being (God) does not transcend nature itself.
Sure complex systems like biology and life could arise by chance such as they did via evolution yet the chain of events from non-life to life could not have occurred if this matter was inane, strengthening the need for an ever existing intelligence in the universe or God.
Starting off with the simplest chemical reactions to the emergence of complex systems such as plants, trees and even animals which are able to reproduce and self perpetuate. This is too much of a leap no matter what odds it takes for it to occur and happen by chance but rather the signs of a pre-existing eternal intelligence rather than just an emergent phenomena.
'Physics does not show us nature as she is in herself, but only nature exposed to our methods of questioning.'
[quote=Erwin Schrodinger, Nature and the Greeks]I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.[/quote]
Anyway, don't want to derail gnomon's thread, but I did want to call that point out.
It explains more about reality than does anything else, and in a way that is directed toward truth. I grant that it doesn't explain mental life.
Oh, so dualism then? Different laws for the mental?
When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods.
Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile:
*1. [i]In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; this is a concept often discussed in philosophical terms, particularly when considering the relationship between science and religion, where the "uncaused first cause" is sometimes associated with a deity. . . . .
Current scientific understanding cannot explain what caused the Big Bang itself, leaving the question of a "first cause" beyond the scope of current physics[/i]. ___Google AI overview
*2. A "potential" method refers to a calculation or analysis that determines what could theoretically happen under ideal conditions, while an "actual" method looks at what is happening in reality, taking into account all constraints and limitations, meaning it reflects the true outcome based on existing circumstances. ___Google AI overview
*3. A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Relativist
Since I have no better scientific explanation, I simply accept the expert consensus that the BB theory is the best current explanation for "the beginning of material existence"*4. Unlike some speculative cosmologists, I assume that the BB was ex nihilo*5, in the sense of no prior Actual material existence. But, as a philosophical interpretation, it was not ex nihilo in the sense of creative Potential. :wink:
*4. According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, as it describes the moment when all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded, creating space and time as we know them today; essentially marking the start of the universe and all its matter. ___Google AI overview
*5. While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Relativist
Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. :cool:
I've never seen a physicist refer to a "brute fact", but Sean Carroll proposed a cosmological model that entails a finite past (he proposes that time is associated with thermodynamics). It entails an "uncaused first cause", although (AFAIK) he didn't assign this label.
We agree that we're engaging in speculations that are beyond physics. I objected to your treating the big bang as the beginning of material existence because the physics doesn't tell us it is, and because it seems too specific for a metaphysical assumption. It's inconsistent with some cosmological hypotheses (e.g. bouncing branes and loop quantum cosmology), and IMO a metaphysician ought to stay out of the way of science.
Quoting Gnomon
Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists.
Quoting Gnomon
Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause.
Quoting Gnomon
Dr. Google is again being a bit misleading. My description is more accurate: it's a mathematical singularity. No modern cosmologist actually believes there existed a "singularity with infinite density and temperature". It is not strictly true that our "current understanding of physics breaks down at this point." Rather, it breaks down NEAR this point.
Quoting Gnomon
Wrong again, Dr. Google. Cosmologists have proposed a number of hypotheses that proposes causes of the "big bang" from prior states. I mentioned two above, but there are a number of others.
Quoting Gnomon
This omits the basis of the notion that there was a "single incredibly dense point": General Relativity. Virtually all cosmologists recognize that GR breaks down, and becomes inapplicable somewhere around the time of the inflationary period. Most believe a quantum theory of gravity is needed to understand this.
Quoting Gnomon
I've said from the beginning that a God is logically possible. My contention is that it is implausible. It seems a pretty huge assumption to make, if you wish to convince anyone. Nevertheless, if you are a theist (for whatever reason), it's reasonable to embrace a theistic metaphysics. I've read a couple of Ed Feser's books on Thomist metaphysics, and it seems coherent (although unpersuasive to non-theists).
The fact that the (human developed - and limited by our perspectives ) science of physics doesn't have explanations available for mental activity doesn't mean it is not actually grounded in the fundamental, actual, laws of nature.
Teleology is not the kind of thing that exists in the material world. It's an interpretation from observation of trends in the world. Humans commonly infer intentions and purposes from things & processes that perform useful Functions instead of just random changes. For a traditional example, an acorn's purpose is to produce a tree, not by accident, but by programmed causation in the DNA. Can atoms observe, infer and interpret?
A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. The problem with inferring intention in Nature is that we are not smart enough to predict the final ultimate end of the chain of causation, nor to imagine the mind that lit the fuse.
If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3. :smile:
*1. Teleology : the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. ___Oxford dictionary
*2. For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. Carlisle uses the term being-in-God to describe this aspect of Spinoza's thought: the way we are created byand conceived throughGod. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/37996/spinozas-god-einstein-believed-in-it-but-what-was-it
*3. Aristotle's Teleology : Although Aristotle would not be classified as a Theist, in the Abrahamic sense, he was not an Atheist. He may have been a Deist though, in that his notion of god was natural, instead of super-natural. But, his Nature was an intentional (self-organizing ; teleological) organism, not a passive purposeless mechanism. Implicit in that animated worldview was what Ari called immanent causation. Which entails the input, and on-going effects, of an outside agent. So the Cosmos, envisioned as a living organism, requires a higher level of complexity than an inorganic object.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html
Quoting Relativist
I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. Most of those hypothetical options involve some concept of the eternal existence of something outside of the Cosmos (t = -1). Take your pick : random-accident turtles all the way down, or an imaginary eternal designing mind that works more-or-less like a human mind.
The inference from cosmology that the material world is finite, still leaves open the question of an immaterial mental form of existence. What kind of atoms are Ideas made of? If you believe that your Mind is your Brain, then the non-existence of matter would be total nothingness. In which case, could we expect to get material something from immaterial nothing? Which is more likely to exist eternally, perishable Matter, or enduring Ideas, such as those of Plato & Aristotle & Kant? :nerd:
PS___ Thanks for continuing the dialog. This is the kind of exercise my old brain needs in order to continue to process abstract information into ideas and inferences.
I define "evidence" in the broadcast possible way: a set of facts. I do believe that no complete set of facts actually entails teleology. I acknowledge there are facts which are consistent with teleology. However, those facts are also consistent with a naturalistic interpretation. For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection.
Quoting Gnomon
A cosmic mind has features that suggest design too, does it not? In particular: it contains knowledge: an organized set of facts. Furthermore, the existence of knowledge suggests learning and experience. So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time.
And yes, of course, complexity can arise over time. This is discussed in the paper I linked to twice before (here it is again).
Quoting Gnomon
Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.
It seems to suggest God exists necessarily, but everything else exists contingently. That's consistent with my analysis- that a first cause exists necessarily, however that doesn't entail a God. As I've asked multiple times: is it more likely an infinitely complex mind just happens to exist by brute fact, than that much simpler minds developed over time in just a small number of places in a vast (possibly infinite) universe over billions of years of change?
Quoting Gnomon
Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before. I'm happy to answer any questions you have and respond to anything you think I'm wrong about. But I'm tired of repeating myself.
She questions the very idea of there being natural laws in the sense of universally proscriptive or determinative principles. Why? Because what we call "laws" in physics are more like descriptions of observed regularities rather than prescriptions for what must happen. These laws are derived from idealized, abstracted, and isolated conditionsthey describe how ideal objects behave in ideal circumstances. However, in the real world, there are countless extraneous factors and complexities that interfere with and influence outcomes, making reality far less tractable than the clean, quantitative descriptions provided by physics. Which is not to say that they don't work, but to question their universal status, as their universality is very specific in scope.
For that matter, I still stay that much of modern materialism can be seen as a descendant of the tendency in early modern science to reify natural laws as intrinsic features of the physical world. As Karen Armstrong notes in The Case for God, early modern thinkers took Newton's laws and similar discoveries as literal evidence of divine handiwork, turning what began as metaphysics into mechanistic descriptions in a clockwork universe. Much modern naturalism carries forward this approach, treating laws as real entities immanent in nature and universal regularities as the bedrock of reality, sans the God who purportedly put them there, who has become a ghost in his own machine.
However, this perspective inherits the same pitfalls that Nancy Cartwright critiques: it assumes that the abstractions of physicsidealized and purified of real-world complexitycorrespond directly to the way the world is, rather than the way specific aspects of it are modeled under controlled conditions. The result is a metaphysical framework that continues to conflate the descriptive utility of scientific laws with their ontological status as supposedly fundamental truths about reality - however, with the distinct disadvantage of providing no conceptual space for the mind at all, save by way of some kind of ad-hoc epiphenomenon.
Energy is physical and is not "immaterial" but is constitutive of the material. In what way is that "deficient"?
I suspect the ID depiction of God as an engineer is a counter-response to the atheist technical criticism of the religious notion of God as a cosmic magician. Meyer doesn't describe his god-model in the book, except to make it clear that he's talking about the bible-god. Personally, due to my ignorance of transcendent things, I go along with Plato & Aristotle to simply call them Universal Principles, that are necessary to define or make-sense-of our world.
In your Harris cartoon, showing a complex equation on a blackboard, I suspect that the omitted information (unspecified miracle) may be the inexplicit intention/goal of the scientist manipulating the numbers & symbols. Meyer discusses, at length, the various interpretations of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (universal wave-function ; UWF) that allows the scientist to "construct" a possible universe, by "specifying boundary conditions, constraining paths through superspace, and choosing specific functions to define an applicable mathematical structure". Doesn't that sound like a "cosmic engineer" or Programmer to you?
Meyer noted that Hawking & Hartle, who used the W-D equation for their calculations of alternative universes : made "assumptions about the kind of universes they would consider in the construction of the universal wave function clearly appropriated knowledge of the properties of our universe in a question-begging way. They effectively smuggled information into their calculation." Hence, they were surreptitiously emulating an intentional creator.
Hugh Everett also constructed his Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) on the basis of the UWF, which "represents the most fundamental description of reality that we have and every possibility that it describes must exist in some universe". You have repeatedly warned me about the tendency to reify math and mental functions. And Meyer says, "by treating all of the merely mathematical possibilities described by the Universal Wave Function as a real universe, the MWI 'reifies the math' on a literally unimaginable scale. Yet it still does not answer [Hawking's] question of 'what breathes fire' into the relevant equation" {my bold}. Meyer continues : "yet this interpretation does not cite a physical cause of the origin of our universe . . . . It simply imputes a specific meaning to the UWF by positing the existence of these other universes". I suspect that he's implying that the Observer/Theorizer gives meaning ("breathes fire") into the numbers and symbols.
Speaking of symbols, the one chosen to represent UWF, ? , is called "psi". Ironically, that is also what psychics called the "unknown factor" (presumably Mind or Spirit) that "breathes fire" into their theories of extra-sensory perception. For my philosophical purposes, I call it Information or EnFormAction (the power to enform), or simply Energy . :smile:
That is the symbol for the wave-function equation. I go into that in an essay I've published on Medium, The Timeless Wave.
About the 'miracle required' cartoon, that was in respect of 'the proposal that DNA kind of just spontaneously ravelled itself into existence, which a lot of people seem to take for granted, is far-fetched.' But I don't mean to imply or support a kind of inventor or tinkerer God.
You should read God does not Exist (and no, it's not an atheist polemic, it's by an Episcopal Bishop, but very much in acccord with the ancient 'Negative Way'.) It suggests something I've been mulling over, that God and the soul are very much what Terrence Deacon means by 'absentials'. They're not something that exists but they may nevertheless be real.
By the way, in my earlier reply to you about Nancy Cartwright and Karen Armstrong, it shouldn't be taken to imply that either of them would support or argue for Stephen Meyer's types of arguments. Armstrong has written a book (which I haven't read) on religious fundamentalism. But I suspect she would say that Stephen Meyer illustrates just the kind of mistake she accuses the early modern scientists of making, by trying to use scientific arguments in support of belief in God, which really belongs to an altogether different register, so to speak. For a good primer on Cartwright, see No God, No Laws (pdf). For a sympathetic review of Armstrong's Case for God, see In Defense of the True God, Alain de Botton.
:up: :up:
Darwin called his culling factor in evolution "natural selection", but the model upon which it was based was the artificial selection of human breeders. They were teleologically*1 "re-designing" plants & animals to be more suitable for their needs & purposes & intentions. Likewise, theists & deists assume that the "balanced ecosystem" itself was designed, not by Nature, but by the creator of Nature. For Theists, the Creator has communicated his intentions in scriptures. But for Deists --- and scientists, such as Newton --- the Designer has communicated his plans in the logic of Nature and nature's Laws.
Today, in view of the Big Bang theory, some scientists, such as Hawking, have imagined an a priori Cause of space-time Nature, who selected or defined the variables in the Universal Wave Function, by rolling the dice. Presumably, with no purpose in mind. The Genesis myth describes Paradise as a sort of zoo or botanical garden, which needed a gardener or caretaker to continue the divine design by weeding-out (de-selection) of un-fit species. Unfortunately, the gullible humans were weeded-out by a silver-tongue snake, and banished from the garden.
What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. So, Theists can be forgiven for imagining a Cosmic "breeder", who created the zoo or garden in which we find ourselves today. Hence, Nature is just a continuation of the original design process. Can you imagine that? :wink:
*1. Teleologically means to explain something based on its end purpose, or to start from the end and reason back. ___Google AI overview
Quoting Relativist
What facts are proponents of Teleology ignoring? It's basically an inference from the Watchmaker analogy. We find ourselves in a self-organized self-sustaining natural system that began ticking for no apparent reason 14B solar cycles ago. But, based on our experience with causation in the natural world, some thinkers simply imagine the WatchMaker as a "brute fact". Didn't you justify your worldview with a presumed Brute Fact? :chin:
Quoting Relativist
Yes. Isn't that what scientists and philosophers do when faced with a mystery : rationalize*2? When all the facts are obvious, we call it Reasoning. But when the most essential fact is a mystery, it's still Reasoning ; but if we don't like the conclusion, we call it Rationalizing.
For example, Materialism is a metaphysical concept that explains the mystery of the existence of evolving matter by extending the chain of causation backward toward infinity. Even Spinoza's Cosmological Argument is based on an unprovable presumption (brute fact) : that Substance (matter?) exists Necessarily. Do you disagree? :smile:
*2. Rationalize : attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate. ___Oxford dictionary
Quoting Relativist
I'm sorry. What did I repeat? What did you dispute? Is your disputation supposed to settle the question, with no further discussion? Am I supposed to just bow to your superiority? You expressed your exasperation with my counter-arguments before. And yet we continue the dialog. The Cosmological question has been going around in circles for over 2500 years. But on this forum, we continue to disagree without being disagreeable. Yes? :cool:
To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored).
I don't remember you pointing that out. But I have voluntarily mentioned several "qualities of a designer" in this thread. In the example mentioned in the book, Hawking et al, exemplified such qualities in their attempts to demonstrate how a universe could emerge randomly from quantum fluctuations. In their calculations of the UWF equation, they Selected specific values for the variables, based on the teleological goal of causing a world like our own to "collapse" (suddenly appear) from the Nowhere of supernatural superposition. Of course, their equation was lacking the creative power to actualize that statistical Potential, so no new worlds were forthcoming.
Besides the ability to Select from among variables (possibilities), as in Darwinian evolution, the ability to foresee something that does not yet exist is essential for a Designer : as in the Darwinian breeder of such not-yet-real future-things as long dogs with short legs, and plump corn kernels with more vitamin A (yellow corn), developed from the hard hardly-edible Indian corn. But the primary quality of a good designer is the creative ability to envision an unreal future state, and then work to make it a real now state. Unfortunately, the Designer of a universe has no material to work with. Only creative Power.
As a mundane designer myself, I once had an engineer marvel at an Architect's ability to start a project with nothing more than a vague idea and a blank sheet of paper. He said, "give me a plan or layout of a building and I can make it stand-up to all forces". A Designer is the one that creates the plan for others to follow. In the case of the only cosmos we have evidence for, it started with a plan similar to a seed, in the mathematical pin-point Singularity that contained all the information, including natural laws and causal power, necessary to construct a world from scratch. Was that designed, or did it just happen by 1-in-a-zillion accident?
Regarding "special pleading", you need to point out the "exception to a general principle" that I claimed in my "pleading". Which "general principle" did you have in mind? Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc.; Unconditional Existence ; the power to create something from nothing, as exemplified in the Big Bang theory. Is there some missing element (e.g. matter) that you think I am overlooking or ignoring? As defined by Einstein, all the Matter in the world was in the original Energy of the Big Bang. But where did that causal power come from? Formulators of the BB theory simply took it for granted. Is that a case of Special Pleading, by ignoring the principle of "ex nihilo nihil fit" : Nothing comes from Nothing. :smile:
Special pleading is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone claims an exception to a general principle without providing justification. It's a type of misleading argument that uses a double standard and ignores unfavorable evidence. ___Google AI overview
Note --- What "general principle" or "unfavorable evidence" have you presented, that I have ignored? Please be specific.
Obviously.
I've had to repeat myself multiple times. I'm not going to continue doing this. If you want any more responses from me, read through my responses and ask questions about what I said.
He won't respond to your actual criticisms or arguments because he can't. IME, @Gnomon is as disingenuous as he is an incorrigibly poor thinker.
So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low?
Also, by implication, I'm saying that, while "God" and the universe are equally improbable, "God" is completely nonevident such that parsimoniously the universe (as e.g. eternal, cyclical, a vacuum fluctuation, etc) suffices both as a physical explanation and metaphysical presupposition.
In 's Immanentism worldview, the probability of a Creator outside of space-time is minimal-to-impossible, because he doesn't allow any inference from what-is to what-logically-must-be. Yet, cosmologist Max Tegmark constructed an extreme mathematical/logical hypothesis (modal reality) of an infinite array of simultaneously existing universes, of which ours is merely one of uncountable possibilities. Few physicists take his postulation seriously, but some mathematicians might accept it as reasonable. And some philosophers may view his hypothesis as an interesting Thought Experiment.
For me, the God-postulate is also not a provable fact, or even a belief to be taken on faith, but a logical conjecture about what must have caused the Big Bang beginning of the only universe we know anything about. Hence, the Platonic First Cause and the Aristotelian Prime Mover remain as examples of valid reasoning, even in the absence of material evidence. So, as Bayesian Probability exemplifies, your posterior statistical conclusions are dependent on your prior subjective beliefs. {generic you}
Quantum Gravity physicist Stephen Unwin wrote a book, The Probability of God, to present his "simple {Bayesian} calculation that proves the ultimate truth". Of course it's a mathematical proof, not a physical proof. Like Meyer in the OP, he concludes that the bible-god is highly probable. But he also admits that "the math probability does not transfer to the notion of belief".
is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. So, I'm guessing that his Bayesian calculation assigned a low prior probability to anything outside of the physical world (transcendent), which makes the calculation of a low posterior probability almost a foregone conclusion. And that firm belief makes any postulation of a transcendent creator seem absurd. Which may be why he responds to such threads as this one with the sarcasm, derision, and mockery of a true believer, instead of modest & respectful philosophical dialog.
Ironically, until the Darwinian 19th century, most scientists & physicists*1 found the god concept to be both rational and believable, and in the absence of any better explanation : logically necessary. So, what has changed since then, to make a self-existent universe seem plausible? Perhaps, it's because cosmologists have traced the chain of causation back 14B years, which seems almost an eternity. But Quantum physicists have found that the foundation of material reality is grounded on probability, not certainty. Hence our scientific worldview is muddled, whereas religious --- and some philosophical --- worldviews are based on the certainty of Faith. :smile:
*1. Newton's God
Isaac Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism, and several biographers and scholars labelled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity. However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton
PS__ says that his Immanentism worldview is "an application of Occam's Razor". But that pragmatic rule of thumb may not apply to the theoretical question of Cosmic Causation. Nevertheless, if you want the simplest causal entity, a single Mind seems to require fewer assumptions than a hypothetical infinite chain of Multiverses, or Many Worlds, or pre-bang vacuum fluctuations. All are conjectural, and unprovable. So, as I said, to insist on any of those ontological explanations requires either a leap of faith, or a conditional Bayesian belief. The latter is my preference, because it's the only one that addresses the Hard Question of how Mind emerged in a material world. :grin:
:roll:
That so-called "personal belief" is an application of Occam's Razor, or a regulatory principle for abductive reasoning¹ (i.e. philosophy, not "a statement of fact" like e.g. 'the uniformity of nature').
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [1]
Actually, I had never heard of the term, Accidentalism, until I stumbled across it while researching the opposite of Creation & Causation & Determinism. Apparently, it's an ancient concept to characterize a chaotic worldview. So, it was not made-up by Craig or Meyer or Gnomon to troll those who troll Intelligent Design proponents. Apparently, the Accidentalists (Epicureans ?) preferred "dumb luck" to "design".
Denial of Design in the real world seems to require Accidentalism*1 as an explanation for the natural rational order that Science depends on. For example, how did the Big Bang begin with nothing but extreme heat & pressure, yet then evolve into what Darwin described as "From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved".
Many cosmologists, who recognize the "unfortunate" "haphazardness" of Accidentalism, postulate (by inference, not evidence) that the Bang was organized by pre-existing logical Natural Laws, which in the works of men, are signs of design. Since the advent of Quantum Theory, the role of randomness*2 in physics is undeniable, except by Einstein. However, Darwin's theory combined Randomness (variation) with Selection (design) to describe how Nature has evolved into Cosmos instead of Chaos*3. :smile:
*1. Accidentalism
Theory that the flow of events is unpredictable, or for Epicureans, that mental events are specifically unpredictable. See also chaos, determinism, libertarianism, tychism.
https://philosophy.en-academic.com/20/accidentalism
*2. Tychism (Greek: ????, lit.?'chance') is a thesis proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce that holds that absolute chance, or indeterminism, is a real factor operative in the universe. This doctrine forms a central part of Peirce's comprehensive evolutionary cosmology. It may be considered both the direct opposite of Albert Einstein's oft quoted dictum that: "God does not play dice with the universe" and an early philosophical anticipation of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychism
*3. Cosmos vs Chaos
In Plato's Timaeus, he describes the universe as a rational, ordered cosmos created by a divine Craftsman, or Demiurge, from a pre-existing chaos. Plato's use of the term "chaos" is not meant to imply a complete lack of order, but rather a type of order that is opposed to reason. Plato's cosmos is dynamic, with a chaotic tendency that can undermine the rational order of the world.
___Google AI overview
Since most of the posts on this thread have been dismissive of the philosophical arguments presented in Return of the God Hypothesis, for an eternal, logical, intelligent, and intentional First Cause of the physical universe, I'm adding a Post Script to summarize Stephen Meyer's Epilogue, in which he responds to "scientific objections to its arguments" with scientific counter-arguments.
# Anthropomorphic Fine Tuning
"Lawrence Krauss challenged the idea that the physical parameters of our universe were fine-tuned to make life possible". Instead, he argued that "life on earth is fine-tuned to the universe".
Meyer : "the precise fine tuning of many critical factors needed to arise first before any conceivable form of life could have begun to evolve . . . "
Note --- Hence, a nursery world compatible with Life was a necessary prerequisite for fragile life to emerge from thermodynamic processes that produce only Entropy. In my thesis, I labeled that Vital Force (Negentropy) as positive Enformy*1*2.
*1. A Theory of Enformed Systems :
"Under TES, enformy, the capacity to organize, is essential to morphogenesis"
https://vxm.com/2.CompTheory.html
*2. Enformy vs Entropy :
[i]Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy : the tendency to create new forms of matter (morphogenesis).[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
# Eternally Cycling Multiverse
"Several cosmological models have appeared . . . . to portray the universe as infinitely old". "Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology*3 and Paul Steinhardt's cyclic cosmology . . . . oscillating universe".
Meyer : "This model was subject to the problem of steadily increasing entropy . . . . with each cycle". "To address this problem, Penroses's model invokes a hypothetical Phantom Field with powers associated with no known physical field (but instead, only with a god-like agency)".
Note --- Physical Eternity must have some way to deal with destructive Entropy. On Earth, Life has adapted to the seeming inevitability of Death, by importing energy from outside the living organism. Hence, Life is an open system --- organized in a manner to capture and make use of the Morphological Potential that is inherent in ambient Energy.
*3. Is conformal cyclic cosmology really debunked?
". . . . CCC is wrong because it violates the conservation of information, something that you need to do physics in the first place, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, . . ."
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/jfu7mm/is_conformal_cyclic_cosmology_really_debunked/
Note --- Meyer labels his Intelligent Designer theory generically as "Theism", which could apply to any of the thousands of world religions and god-models. Yet, he avoids specifying that his designer is supposed to be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Ironically, his scientific arguments are identical to those of Deists, who don't accept the Bible as the Word of God. Instead, they read Nature as the Work of G*D.