Bloggist plagiarizes me

[Alf'Omega]

There are clear indications that the symmetries of the universe point to a purpose and that is to promote the existence of human life. This is consistent with virtually all theistic belief systems. This in and of itself screams intelligent design. And when I say intelligent design, I mean to say there are indications that the universe was not an accident and the laws therein were tweaked by something intelligent. Likewise, human life was not a "backwater accident" or whatever Russell called it. Atheists keep maintaining these assumptions for their own reasons but the more we learn from science the more we see a design and purpose.

Whenever a theist proposes this, I just have to laugh. "...the symmetries of the universe point to a purpose and that is to promote the existence of human life?"

I'd like to see how Kevin would do in the vast majority of the universe, where it is uninhabitable by human life. If all we were looking at was this planet, this argument might have some weight, but given that this planet is barely a spec of dust in the vastness of the universe, where anywhere else, human life would immediately be terminated, the argument is just stupid. Thinking the universe exists for the sake of this one planet is like saying that all the beaches on Earth exist for the sake of one particular grain of sand.

[_EAllusion]

Schmo -

The universe has properties such that it is friendly to the existence of life. We know this, because we know at least some life exists. If the universe had different properties, it could've precluded life. Of course, with those universes we could just pick a different target - a particular physical phenomenon - and say it must've been designed because that universe had to have the properties it did in order for that phenomenon to exist. We just need to shift our target based on what is observed. Remember, whatever ever is or could ever be observed, just say "God did it" and you've explained it. A being that can be defined to have the power and intention to create a given phenomenon is a possible creator of any possible phenomenon. Why is the sun yellow? Why do microwaves work? Why are plants green? Why do humans not live much over a century? Why do people get sick? Why are hyper-intelligent cockroaches enslaving the human race? Any thing you do not have an answer for, just say God. But were' totally not talking about an argument from ignorance here.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo -

The universe has properties such that it is friendly to the existence of life. We know this, because we know at least some life exists. If the universe had different properties, it could've precluded life. Of course, with those universes we could just pick a different target - a particular physical phenomenon - and say it must've been designed because that universe had to have the properties it did in order for that phenomenon to exist. We just need to shift our target based on what is observed. Remember, whatever ever is or could ever be observed, just say "God did it" and you've explained it. A being that can be defined to have the power and intention to create a given phenomenon is a possible creator of any possible phenomenon. Why is the sun yellow? Why do microwaves work? Why are plants green? Why do humans not live much over a century? Why do people get sick? Why are hyper-intelligent cockroaches enslaving the human race? Any thing you do not have an answer for, just say God. But were' totally not talking about an argument from ignorance here.

Well, I completely agree with the thrust of what you're saying here, and was actually thinking something similar earlier. The example I thought of was, "Saturn has rings, therefore, the entire universe was designed so that Saturn could have rings."

The problem with this line of thinking isn't so much the reliance on the fact that the properties of the universe support a particular thing, it's the inference that it was designed a particular way to support one of its many attributes, and claiming that the entire thing was set up with that singular purpose in mind, particularly when the occurrence of that thing is so seemingly rare in the overall "design."

Clearly, people who fall into this mental trap could benefit from learning a bit more about the idea of emergence and looking at natural examples of it.

[_CypressChristian]

Hello everyone

I am the Christian at intelligentscience.org that was arguing with Bad at badidea.wordpress.com.

I'd like to copy a part of a reply I gave Bad on my blog in the comments section of this post: http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com ... omment-133

I think it will help clarify my point to Bad about explanations. And we can discuss from there. This reply went unanswered by Bad, possibly because he went of vacation shortly after but that's just me giving Bad the benefit of the doubt. Those in italics are quotes from Bad.

“I would put “uniformity of nature” down as simply a subset of the ontological nature of the universe. All my criticisms are exactly the same for all such claims: there’s no actually explanation going on in this explanation. You keep getting hung up on me calling it an “explanation” and then saying that it’s not really one: my meaning is that it is an alleged explanation (i.e. you call it an explanation, and I refer to it like that), but one that does not actually do what an explanation needs to do. It fails as an explanation of anything.”

Ok, I see what’s going on here. My response to this paragraph will respond to most of the post, so I apologize if it seems like I’ve skipped over some of your points.

Let’s briefly define some terms first. If you disagree with any of these definitions we can, of course, discuss them. Empericism: the idea that the only true knowledge can be gained through the studying of our sense experience. Scientific results are “emperical” results. Metaphysical: describes phenomena that cannot be viewed with our senses or tested as a sense experience. Worldview: a set of presuppositions that cannot be emperically tested that are the basis for one’s beliefs. Everything we reason through is filtered through the basic presuppositions of our worldview. See “Worldviews are for Everyone”.

When I state the premise, “Science requires the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical premise. We can’t test it empirically. When I ask the question, “What worldview (set of presuppositions) better explains our collective presupposition that nature is uniform?”, this is metaphysical question. When I say, “God explains the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical answer. When you say, “Well that’s not an explanation at all, it doesn’t do what explanations should do,” you are expecting an empirical answer to a metaphysical question. In fact, you reject all of my “explanations” as not being explanations. You are correct, they are NOT empirical explanations. But I’m not asking empirical questions. I’m not putting forth empirical evidence. There can be no empirical explanations for metaphysical issues such as the uniformity of nature and the existence of God.

Now, what you might be thinking is something along the lines of, “Well, if metaphysical issues cannot be tested empirically then there is no point in discussing them, they are useless” (I have gathered you lean in this direction, if I’m wrong then please let me know). You’ll have two problems, #1: You’ll have to define your idea of “utility” and prove that metaphysics are indeed useless but #2, (and this is the big one) EVERY SINGLE empirical result REQUIRES a metaphysical assumption. As you’ve touched on, in order to get an empirical result you must first assume that matter exists (a metaphysical assumption). You must also assume that nature is uniform, which is the point of this discussion.

To pass over your metaphysical assumption and focus on the empirical results based on it, is to be irrational and inconsistent. To expect empirical explanations to metaphysical issues (Does God explain the uniformity of nature or the beginning of the universe?) is to be disingenuous.

I said: “I have a simple premise; Science requires that nature is uniform.

You responded: “Only in the sense that we could not do science without that being true. But if it wasn’t true, then we couldn’t do science. So what?”

EXACTLY. Every single empirical result you get is useless without the metaphysical assumption that nature is uniform.

“They are simply your beliefs: a hypothetical assertion that you a) can’t provide any reason to believe is true and b) can’t provide any reason to believe is useful for explaining any mysteries about the natural world."

Ok, here’s the problem. You have a worldview too. The most basic presupposition of your worldview is that “God doesn’t exist”. You can say, “No, I just haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me…”, but you start your reasoning with the assumptions that God doesn’t exist. “God doesn’t exist” is what you believe; if you didn’t believe that you wouldn’t be an atheist. You can’t provide any empirical reason that this is true, and “God doesn’t exist” isn’t useful for emperically explaining the mysteries about the natural world.

But, here’s the MAIN POINT: Atheism can’t provide any METAPHYSICAL explanations EITHER. Your atheistic metaphysics has no explanation for the uniformity of nature, because, by definition, the universe was a chance occurance and is unguided by anything, nothing sustains the universe and causes it to be ANY certain way. You have no reason to believe that nature is uniform, you must simply have blind faith that it is so.

“If you want to play the game with a being that can do anything, I’ll just counter with a universe in which anything can happen. So what? That doesn’t really explain anything either.”

But see, that’s the problem, you have no metaphysical or empirical reason to think that “anything can happen” in the universe. And if you do postulate some all powerful universe that can do “anything”, you have merely replaced the word “God” with the word “universe” because the word “God” doesn’t allow you to be an atheist anymore. Also, again you are expecting an empirical explanation for metaphysical statements and you are incorrect that Christians believe God can do “anything”.

I'm not sure if that backtracks, or helps, the discussion going on here but I hope it helped it. I look forward to the comments I get.

[_Mad Viking]

When I state the premise, “Science requires the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical premise.

Your premise is metaphysical, or uniformity in nature is metaphysical? Either way I disagree. I observe uniformity in nature every day.

[_CypressChristian]

Your premise is metaphysical, or uniformity in nature is metaphysical? Either way I disagree. I observe uniformity in nature every day.

Of course we see uniformity every day, that's one of my points. However, the statement, "nature is uniform" is a metaphysical statement. In order to empirically test that nature is uniform, we would have test every single square inch of nature to see if it acted the same way. Since that's impossible, we test a miniscule amount of nature and believe the rest follows suit. "Nature is uniform" is a metaphysical belief because it cannot be empirically tested.

Like you said, our sense experience tells us that nature is uniform. The Christian worldview allows us to explain our sense experience while the best the atheistic worldview can do is, "Well nature is uniform because nature is uniform, it is because it is." Which, obviously, isn't an explanation at all.

[_EAllusion]

You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question.

[Guest]

Like you said, our sense experience tells us that nature is uniform. The Christian worldview allows us to explain our sense experience while the best the atheistic worldview can do is, "Well nature is uniform because nature is uniform, it is because it is." Which, obviously, isn't an explanation at all.

As was explained to you in some detail, one response to this part of the problem of induction is simply to say that we must act as though nature is uniform - regardless of whether it is - because that is the only way rational discourse can take place. If nature isn't uniform, that way lies madness, so we might as well go about acting as if it is. But, even if the atheist does as you suggest, that's one step above simply saying "God's nature is uniform because, well, because it is and the rest of existence is uniform because he chooses to make it so." Not only have you still failed to explain anything, but you've also smuggled your brute fact about the uniformity of nature into a more complex set of claims concerning the existence of a powerful, good, knowledgeable, etc. deity.

[_The Dude]

Three explanations that are universally interchangeable:

1. God did it,
2. It happened because of good/bad luck,
3. It was fate.

Natural disasters, outcomes of games of chance, death, finding/loosing car keys, origin of life/species... whatever!

The fact that these "explanations" are so interchangeable shows that they are each far less explanatory than we at first may think.

[_Sethbag]

CypressChristian, we judge that the universe is most likely uniform in its operations because that explanation actually allows us to make some pretty far-reaching predictions, which so far as they have been testable have proven to be remarkably accurate. Also uniformity has been observed in every case we've been able to test. Given these facts, it makes sense for scientists to assume that the universe really does operate in a uniform fashion until and unless evidence arises that contradicts this notion.

Your argument is really akin to something like "there could actually be a Santa Claus because, even though no evidence of a real Santa Claus has ever been found, and we can actually explain in large part how the Santa Claus myth came about, we haven't actually searched every square centimeter of the entire universe for evidence of Santa Claus, so he might still really be out there."

There are plenty of reasons to believe the universe operates uniformly, and no good reasons to suppose it does not.