Bloggist plagiarizes me

[_CypressChristian]

Schmo

The definition of chance is NOT "not being able to attribute a cause to a phenomena." That, once again, since you seem to have missed it, is the definition of ignorance, not the definition of chance.

You are just incorrect about evolution, and the Big Bang, NOT being random in the atheistic worldview. I wrote a post about this on my blog but as I don't expect you to go there, I'll post the applicable parts here:

Nobel prize-winning French molecular biologist Jacques Monod put it:

"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [lies] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution . . . The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game."

Evolutionist K. Rohiniprasad, in her "The Accident of Human Evolution": "As the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould puts it, humans arose as a fortuitous contingent outcome of thousands of linked events. We should humbly acknowledge the fact that any one of these events could have occurred differently and sent history on an alternative pathway" (http://sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=3899). She then goes on to speak about four evolutionary turns, about those turns she says:

"It is important to realize that the above four incidents were totally unrelated and random. Like every other phenomenon or catastrophe that changed the course of events on the earth, biological evolution trundled along without any pre-ordained plan or purpose."

I could go on, so I will. Bertrand Russell, perhaps the most famous atheistic thinker in history puts it:

"Academic philosophers, ever since the time of Permenides, have believed that the world is unity . . . The most fundamental of my intellectual beliefs is that this is rubbish. I think the universe is all spots and jumps, without any unity, without continuity, without coherence or orderliness . . . Indeed there little but prejudice and habit to be said for the view that the is a world at all".

Here comes the nail in the coffin. Astronomer and cosmologist Marcus Chown comments:

Space and the material world come be created out of nothing but noise . . . According to [physicists] Reginald Cahill and Christopher Klinger of Flinders University in Adelaide, space and time and all the objects around us are no more than the froth on a deep sea of randomness.

He goes on to say:

"This is where physics comes in," says Cahill. "The universe is rich enough to be self-referencing. For instance, I'm aware of myself." This suggests that most of the everyday truths of physical reality, like most mathematical truths, have no explanation. According to Cahill and Klinger, that must be because reality is based on randomness. They believe randomness is more fundamental than physical objects. (Marcus Chown, "Random Reality," New Scientist (February 26, 2000)).

As you can see, you are being inconsistent with your own belief system and apparently understand it less than I do. If you want to disagree with scientists in the field, a Nobel prize-winner and Bertrand Russell, then be my guest, but you're not representing academia.

Two more points worth mentioning:

"There may have been something that caused the big bang, but I don't pretend to know what it is. That's religion's job. But what I can say is that magical god creatures that come along and create universes is a cop out explanation."

This is basically saying, "I don't know what caused the Big Bang, but I DO know what DIDN'T cause the Big Bang, and that's God!". Does that sound rational to you? This comment also betrays an apathy towards discovering, or thinking about, the origins of the Big Bang past your already decided upon position. Is this philosophical or scientific?

"I think the universe seems "ordered" because it's been subjected to natural constants."

So, are these "natural constants" outside the universe? If not, how does something that is in the universe also govern the universe? Outside of these questions, you are just flat begging the question about where these natural constants came from, which is exactly what we've been discussing this whole time.

"Oh really? Aren't rivers a part of the universe?"

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of design. Do you really think Creationists believe the Earth hasn't changed since God created it? Design is more about the fact that water just happens to be a necessity for human life and just happens to end up on this planet (and isn't any where else that we can see) and gravity is find tuned to such a degree that if it were any higher or lower we wouldn't survive as a species; things like that.

[_dartagnan]

As you can see, you are being inconsistent with your own belief system and apparently understand it less than I do.

No kidding! And this is one of the frustrating things about debating atheists, particularly on this forum. They are willing to take up one position when it suits them, and then abandon it when it doesn't - all the while pretending it was never an atheistic position to begin with. Just look at how some are trying to suggest the universe had no beginning now!

I think you pretty much nailed that coffin with those citations from prominent atheists, and the excerpts I posted from Patrick Glynn's book prove the same thing. Atheists for years have been arguing for randomness and a mechanistic universe.

[_dartagnan]

Read more carefully, Kevin. The option I raised is that the natural laws have always existed, not that the universe has always existed.

This is incoherent for the reason that these laws goivern the universe. Without a universe there is nothing for them to govern so they don't exist. In what hypothetical context could universal laws exist without a universe?

What about God -- has he always existed? Or was he created?

Well, that's a side issue, but God would not be dependent on the existence of the universe. Laws of the universe would be.

Or did he just appear by random chance? It's the same three options. (This is why regressing to "God did it" is so dumb.)

Who said "God did it"? Science is showing us that the universe appears to be purpose driven from the beginning. As Hoyle noted, the universe seems to have known exactly what it was trying to do, which is how it got everything mathematically tuned before hand.

This is why I think the term "fined-tuned universe" is a bit off. It presupposes the universe existed and then subsequently the laws were "finely tuned." When in fact, these laws had to have been calculated and then implemented before the universe ever existed.

Not the universe. Natural law, as in the laws that allowed for the big bang to occur. In addition to "chance" and "design" the other option is "regularity."

You don't seem to realize that these laws can't exist without a universe. Saying they were already "there" begs the question: Where? There was no place for them to exist since there was no universe.

How can a God, having a nature, exist without a universe?!?!?!!?!!?!?!111oneoneone.

You're trying ever so hard to level the playing field, but you can't just simply foist the limitations of universal laws onto God by merely asserting it. We know that there was some kind of intellectual force at work before the creation of the universe. This is what science is telling us. There are too many advanced mathematical calculations that had to have been made before the big bang. These laws are called "universal" because without the universe, they don't exist. The same is not true for God since - assuming this is the intellectual force responsible for the fundamental constants - he would have had to have been around before the universe. The laws written by this intellectual force are all mathematically connected and work together to serve no other purpose than the creation of life. Everything from the force of gravity to the exact speed of light. If anything were a degree different, life would not be possible.

The universe is also fine-tuned for stars like our sun to exist.

Which in turn, gives life to earth. And you are wrong anyway. Some of these constants could be changed and stars would still exist, but they would quickly burn out.

[_EAllusion]

Hey Kevin. Remember that thread where you were using creationist sources to post quotes, but failing to point that out? Remember how I took an example or two and and exposed them as dishonest quotemines? Remember how it was pointed out that it is customary and proper to quote a secondhand source for a quote if that is where you are getting it from? Yeah, I'd like you to do that here.

[_dartagnan]

You've used the fact you can pick out, of the many possible Gods, the one that wanted to design this particular universe as an explanation for its features.

You know very well that the only attribute I have applied to God is that he/it/she is an intellectual who is responsible for the universe. The fact that this describes virtually every "God" among religions is irrelevant, so what kind of rhetorical point are you hoping to score here? You're diverting. You still haven't explained why the constants are as they are. Saying they are because they are is no different than many faith-based theistic arguments. Science tells us they had to have been predetermined. This logical presupposes an intellectual element. What is so intellectual about a solid chunk of matter exploding, creating the perfect universe for life and then obeying laws that are clearly mathematically calculated for this teleology? You still have to explain the intellectual source.

In other words, your God hypothesis is simply tailored to what the physical constants are.

On the contrary, the God hypothesis has beena round long before these constants were discovered. It just so happens to support the classic notion that an intellectual source was responsible for the universe around us. You're startiung your shell game again and trying to mix things from their natural chronological order, and you do so to create these crazy misrepresentations of the argument. Your ridiculous analogy below is precisely what I would expect to see once you've started down this typical EA polemic.

If they were different, you could just as easily modify the hypothesis to accomidate them.

But I have modified nothing and you know this. You on the other hand, have had to essentially declare out of hand, with no evidence whatsoever, that the universe had a beginning but the laws therein always existed!!

You then point the lack of a natural explanation for those physical constants (or in your case seemingly being befuddled that there could be such a thing)

Excuse me? I am not "befuddled" that there are constants. Again you are not addressing the argument in its entirety. You simplify it and then pretend to be refuting it. It isn't just that there are inexplicable constants. It is that there are dozens which share no common value other than their requirement for life on earth.

and infer that the God explanation, despite simply defining itself to explain the problem, wins. That's an argument from ignorance.

No it isn't. It is a logical deduction of the facts. The universe is mathematically coordinated for a teleological purpose. Hoyle said the universe had to know this in advance. I say the universe isn't intelligent so it didn't "know" anything. So there remains the problem of the intelligent source. And much to your chagrin, just about any God known to the world today, fits this just fine.

In short, this argument:
P1: If the fine-tuner designer exists then we would observe a life-friendly universe.
P2: It is unlikely we would observe a life-friendly universe on the hypothesis of chance
P3: We observe a life-friendly universe
------------------
C: It is likely that the fine-tuner designer exists.

After all this time you still insist on misrepresenting the argument so you can create yet another absurd analogy. Is this how you always try to win arguments? Why not deal with what the opposing argument really is? You begin by saying there exists first the presupposition that a fine-tuner exists. When Carter presented his anthropic principle, it was a simple observation of the facts, not a polemic to prove the hypothesis of God.

Is not different than this one
P1: If a thunder god exists then there would be such a thing as thunder.
P2: It is unlikely thunder would exist in our universe on the hypothesis of chance
P3: There is such a thing as thunder
----------
C: It is likely that the thunder god exists

That is a stupid analogy, and I am surprised you would think otherwise. We understand thunder. There are scientific explanations for thunder. It is not unlikely thunder would exist in our universe on the hypothesis of chance. You keep ignoring the fact that scientists keep pointing to the fine-tuning argument outside the context of religious apologetic. They are overwhelmed by the many constants that keep pointing to an intellectual designer. After all, the universe is not an intellectual being, so how could it have calculated everything so perfectly?

I know, maybe aliens did it.

[_EAllusion]

You don't seem to realize that these laws can't exist without a universe. Saying they were already "there" begs the question: Where? There was no place for them to exist since there was no universe.

There can be metaphysical rules that exist logically prior to the temporal universe that give birth to the natural laws that guide universal "constants." The notion that reality has rules to it is called "regularity." They doesn't need to be a place for them. That doesn't even make sense. Saying they were already there doesn't beg the question anymore than saying a God with a nature such that he had the desire and power to make them begs the question. They'd just be an unaccounted for brute fact of existence. The laws are called "universal" because they apply to the entire physical universe. Yeesh.

Which in turn, gives life to earth. And you are wrong anyway. Some of these constants could be changed and stars would still exist, but they would quickly burn out.

The point is that the sun can be a target of a fine-tuning argument too. The universe exactly as it is, no matter how it is, can be a target. The constants "serve the purpose" of making the universe exactly as it is, no matter how it is. You just need to pick whatever it is we observe, note that among the logical possibilties (which are different from the actual possibilities, which is unknown) it is unlikely, and then note that if you define a God to obtain that result, it would be likely.

There is some leeway for change among the physical constants and still allow for life too, Kevin. Or, better put, there's leeway for change to get at least "earth-like" conditions since we don't know how likely or unlikely it is that life would form. All we know is that if things are exactly as they were, then life would develop. It's a narrow range that they have to be in to get to earth-like places. Read more about the argument you are using. The same holds true for stars like our sun. It only exists within a range. That's why I said things are fine-tuned for it.

[_dartagnan]

Hey Kevin. Remember that thread where you were using creationist sources to post quotes, but failing to point that out? Remember how I took an example or two and and exposed them as dishonest quotemines? Remember how it was pointed out that it is customary and proper to quote a secondhand source for a quote if that is where you are getting it from? Yeah, I'd like you to do that here.

I remember referencing arguments on a webpage written by a creationist scientist who used other citations to that effect.

I just typed more than a dozen pages from Patrick Glynn's book, "God the Evidence." I spent close to an hour last night doing that for your benefit. I am tired of the constant misrepresentation of the argument so I thought maybe he can express it more clearly than I can. What else do you want me to do? Do you want me to type out all the footnotes as well?

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo

The definition of chance is NOT "not being able to attribute a cause to a phenomena." That, once again, since you seem to have missed it, is the definition of ignorance, not the definition of chance.

You are just incorrect about evolution, and the Big Bang, NOT being random in the atheistic worldview. I wrote a post about this on my blog but as I don't expect you to go there, I'll post the applicable parts here:

When did I say I represent "the atheist world view?" And as far as I know, "the atheist world view" is that god is something made up by man. That's it.

Have you ever been to an atheist forum? Very few people agree on much. That's because atheists tend to be independent thinkers.

Have you ever been an atheist? I'm curious what your experience is with having an "atheist's world view."

As you can see, you are being inconsistent with your own belief system and apparently understand it less than I do. If you want to disagree with scientists in the field, a Nobel prize-winner and Bertrand Russell, then be my guest, but you're not representing academia.

Well, I suppose this might be the difference between you and me: I tend to think for myself. I'm not trying to represent academia, as a body of people. I am, however, trying to explain to you (unsuccessfully, of course, since you seem to have incorrect preconceived notions about it that help support your position) that the bulk of the evolutionary process is not random.

Maybe this example will help you. When you play a card game, you are dealt a set of random cards. Depending on the game you're playing and the rules that govern it, however, you will make specific moves in response to those cards. The moves you make determine whether you win or lose the game. What do you think your chances of winning will be if all your moves are random?

Essentially, your position on evolution is the same as a card game where not only are the cards dealt are random, but everything that happens in the game is random. There may as well be no rules, because the responses will always be random.

Now, you're probably thinking, "Yes, but those rules in the card game were created by people" and if you're thinking that, you're missing the point. We're talking about evolution here. The point is that the rules exist (adaptability, survival, environment), and that obeying those rules increase the chances of success (that is, the mutations are passed on to future generations).

But here's the thing... you can quote a bunch of scientists talking about the element of randomness in evolution all you want, but it betrays your lack of understanding of the subject, and I suspect (without checking all your sources) that you're quote mining and taking what these people have to say out of context. I have read much and watched several documentaries on the subject of evolution, and I understand how it works. Forgive me if I don't take very seriously the claim of someone who doesn't understand it himself.

Two more points worth mentioning:

"There may have been something that caused the big bang, but I don't pretend to know what it is. That's religion's job. But what I can say is that magical god creatures that come along and create universes is a cop out explanation."

This is basically saying, "I don't know what caused the Big Bang, but I DO know what DIDN'T cause the Big Bang, and that's God!". Does that sound rational to you? This comment also betrays an apathy towards discovering, or thinking about, the origins of the Big Bang past your already decided upon position. Is this philosophical or scientific?

No, I didn't say that. I know that's what you want to think I said, but I didn't say that. It would be more accurate to paraphrase what I said by saying the idea of magical gods is very improbable, as far as I'm concerned. There are better explanations. Computer simulations, more advanced (yet still natural) species, whatever... are better "explanations" than supernatural or magical beings.

As for what came before the big bang, I'm not foolish enough to go down the path of infinite regress. What's the point? It's not a matter of apathy. It's a matter of practicality. There are more immediate mysteries with a higher probability that I'll understand their natural explanations.

"I think the universe seems "ordered" because it's been subjected to natural constants."

So, are these "natural constants" outside the universe? If not, how does something that is in the universe also govern the universe? Outside of these questions, you are just flat begging the question about where these natural constants came from, which is exactly what we've been discussing this whole time.

Well, to begin with, are your bodily functions governed by something outside of it? How is your body temperature governed from within your body? How about your heart rate? The number of breaths you take a minute? And how did all that stuff come to be? Did your mother "create" you? Or were you born with all that stuff working naturally, by well established natural processes?

I already said that I don't know from where the natural constants come. I'm willing to not know and I'm ok with it. I'm not going to fill that gap with magical thinking. If you want to call those natural constants "god", that's fine, but that's not the definition of god about which I've been talking. I don't believe the constants have a mind at all, anymore than I think "environment" has a mind, or "survival" has a mind.

"Oh really? Aren't rivers a part of the universe?"

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of design. Do you really think Creationists believe the Earth hasn't changed since God created it? Design is more about the fact that water just happens to be a necessity for human life and just happens to end up on this planet (and isn't any where else that we can see) and gravity is find tuned to such a degree that if it were any higher or lower we wouldn't survive as a species; things like that.

LOL

"...fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of design." That's pretty rich. Especially the "principles of design" part. Are you trying to tell me that there's a well-established theory on Intelligent Design or Creationism? I'd love to see that.

Admit it; you just made that crap up, didn't you? At the very least, those are just your ideas about the "principle of design."

I hate to tell you this, but you could likely poll 100 different creationists, or even 100 different Christians, asking them "What is ID?" or "How has the Earth changed since god created it?" and you'll get 100 different answers (whatever their pastor happened to tell them, most likely), because all this crap about creation is made up, with nothing to back it up.

[_dartagnan]

There can be metaphysical rules that exist logically prior to the temporal universe that give birth to the natural laws that guide universal "constants."

But you do not know this. You assume this. You're trying to dismiss the problem by simply arguing via assertion that they were always there, therefore nothing is responsible for them. That won't fly and it isn't science. It is faith-based reasoning.

The notion that reality has rules to it is called "regularity." They doesn't need to be a place for them. That doesn't even make sense.

We are talking about the universe. Laws are designed to govern it. Without the universe there is no reason to believe they exist. Why would they exist? How can the speed of light be X when there is no such thing as light?

Saying they were already there doesn't beg the question anymore than saying a God with a nature such that he had the desire and power to make them begs the question.

Well it is good to see you're finally realizing your argument is no better than the theists who say such things.

The laws are called "universal" because they apply to the entire physical universe. Yeesh.

And the laws of Brazil are those which apply to Brazil. Is it logical to say these laws existed before Brazil? Were the ancient Amazons suing each other under coconut tree courts?

The point is that the sun can be a target of a fine-tuning argument too.

And it is. But it cannot be the final cause. Science tells us that if we keep going back in time, before stars existed, there was the big bang. What caused it? What is responsible for all the mathematical formulae that needed to be calculated beforehand?

The constants "serve the purpose" of making the universe exactly as it is, no matter how it is. You just need to pick whatever it is we observe, note that among the logical possibilties (which are different from the actual possibilities, which is unknown) it is unlikely, and then note that if you define a God to obtain that result, it would be likely.

It isn't about "need." It is just what's more logical. And "God" need be nothing more than a super intelligent force capable of action beyond our comprehension.

There is some leeway for change among the physical constants and still allow for life too, Kevin. Or, better put, there's leeway for change to get at least "earth-like" conditions since we don't know how likely or unlikely it is that life would form.

And?

All we know is that if things are exactly as they were, then life would develop.

That is absolutely false. There is no guarantee life would have developed. If that were true, then we'd expect to find life elsewhere in the universe. The origins of life on earth remains an utter mystery. All we know is that it had to begin in a universe finely tuned to be exactly what it is, and on a planet like earth, with this exact atmosphere, exact oxygen ratio, water availability, distance from the sun, etc. The list goes on and on. To suppose this could have happened by chance is preposterous, which is why the multiple universe theory is so important for the anti-anthropic principle scientists. Their blind faith in the "anything can happen given an infinite number" is based in ignorance too, but at least they are fixed on it.

[_EAllusion]

You know very well that the only attribute I have applied to God is that he/it/she is an intellectual who is responsible for the universe. The fact that this describes virtually every "God" among religions is irrelevant, so what kind of rhetorical point are you hoping to score here? You're diverting.

Good God Kevin. Do you even read what I write? There exist as many possible gods as their exist possible universes. Your God is defined as wanting to create this universe. That's one god of all the different possible gods that could've wanted to create other universes. That's how you've picked one specific kind of god. You've tailor defined your God to obtain what it is we happen to observe. I really don't think we can have a fruitful conversation if you can't even grasp basic points like this I'm making.