Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

Much like a fingerprint would be indirect evidence, fine-tuning would be indirect evidence.

You can claim that as soon as we're finished with the fine-tuning argument and you have shown that God is the best explanation for the apparent fine-tuning. It is somewhat preëmptory to claim it as evidence quite yet.

Again, this is not evidence of a God, merely the tautological observation that the universe exists and that it is finite.

My computer exists. But it is also evidence of a computer manufacturer.

There is a bit of mold still growing on one of my grapes. It is not evidence of a mold manufacturer. So the outstanding question remains: Is the universe a deliberately manufactured thing or not.

Let me ask this, exactly what type of evidence would you consider to be valid evidence for a God?

I don't know. I suppose that the one making the positive claim should be the one to come up with the evidence. Try to make it compelling. What type of evidence would you consider to be valid evidence for garden gnomes?

[wrt extra-terrestrial life]I go further than simply lack of detection. I claim that there is nothing to detect.

Wonderful! Now present some compelling evidence to support your opinion. Thus far we have agreed on the following. Life is rare in the universe. You believe that there is no life except on Earth.

[...] a creator has multiple lines of evidence to support it (fine-tuning just being one).

Maybe I'm stupid, but I seem to have missed these multiple lines of evidence.

Let us agree that logic and mathematics apply to God and any possible universe.

Why should mathematics apply to other universes? On what grounds can you assume this to be true?

Let's start again. There are a number of fundamental parameters of the universe which if slightly different would yield universes that could not possibly support life as we know it. The universe that we observe therefore appears to be finely tuned to support life. There have been three possible explanations for this apparent fine tuning:

1. Some great being outside of time and space, magically set the dials with intent and precision in such a way as the universe we know came about with the attributes we observe. Of course, the rules of logic and mathematics apply to this God. Even outside of our spacetime, God cannot do what is logically impossible to do.
2. There are a whole lot of universes, with different sets of values for these parameters, and we could only have come into existence in the one that happened to have these particular values. Of course, the fundamentals of mathematics and logic apply to all of these hypothetical universes.
3. The apparent fine-tuning is merely an illusion, the fundamental values are really just that, fundamental, like the values of pi and e.

This is assuming that there is a finite number of each discrete quanta. And also assuming that the physical laws remain the same and only the parameters vary.

Yes. Or perhaps it is infinite. Or maybe there are many but not all possible universes.

God is the cause of the universe. Sure, you can view the term "God" as a label.

If we define god as being the cause of the universe, it ceases to have the meaning traditionally attributed to god. I have yet to see convincing evidence that the cause of the universe

1. has intent
2. still exists

Please describe what you mean by intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose sans tempus.

Again, it is more a reflection of a limitation of our language.

I suggest that the limitation is quite a bit deeper than merely linguistic.

We only experience living in time and all of our actions involve time. Our vocabulary and definitions are within the concept of time. But, because our language can only describe what we normally experience and cannot adequately describe things outside our experience, it does not mean those things cannot exist. Just because a baby does not have the vocabulary to express things does not mean those things are invalid.

Or perhaps such things are imaginary.

Another example. We cannot adequately define what "life" is. Yet, we have approximate definitions to give a general concept of what is life. But, life exists even though we cannot fully define it.

We can say this is alive, this is inorganic and this is dead. We may not be able to fully define the edges of the definition of life, but we do have a reasonable grasp on it. I have seen no attempt to describe what you might possibly mean by intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose outside of time or a time-like dimension.

Our vocabulary to describe anything outside our complete level of understanding would likewise be limited. I use words to describe God to only convey an approximate understanding of God. And I acknowledge that I cannot fully describe it given the limitations of my experience and understanding.

On that we can agree. I cannot fully describe the mathematics of relativity either. My understanding is limited and approximate. You have claimed that God has intent, purpose, deliberateness and purpose but may exist outside of any time-like dimension. What do you mean by that?

Or is it that the discovery of extra-terrestrials would nullify your theistic beliefs and you would come over to our side?

Yes, it would nullify my arguments.

If I did not understand statistics as well as I do and thought that SETI had a ghost of a chance of succeeding, I'd be out in the backyard now with a radio telescope hoping to disprove your God.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, go ahead and present your evidence of how the first cell came about.

I don't know.
It could be that on the prebiotic earth, chemicals formed monomers such as amino acids which combined to form polymers. The first self-replicating molecules could have been nucleic acids. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes. Or they could have been proteins. Somewhere about 3.5 billion years ago.

Or it could have been that the great spirit used his magic and formed life fully formed during a few days in the Creation Week.

It is so hard to tell which of these two sounds more promising.

[otseng]

You can claim that as soon as we're finished with the fine-tuning argument and you have shown that God is the best explanation for the apparent fine-tuning. It is somewhat preëmptory to claim it as evidence quite yet.

I think you and I have difference definitions for "evidence".

Here's what I mean by evidence:

"that which tends to prove or disprove something"
"an indication or sign"
"information, exhibit"
"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

I'm not using the term evidence as information that definitively proves a conclusion.

There is a bit of mold still growing on one of my grapes. It is not evidence of a mold manufacturer.

Neither you nor I would claim the mold is caused by a "mold manufacturer". So, I fail to see the relevance.

Let me ask this, exactly what type of evidence would you consider to be valid evidence for a God?

I don't know. I suppose that the one making the positive claim should be the one to come up with the evidence.

Which is what I've been doing. But, you say that it is not evidence. So, I'm asking for clarification by what you would consider to be valid evidence.

I believe also you make the positive claim that god is imaginary. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

What type of evidence would you consider to be valid evidence for garden gnomes?

By you asking this, here is what I suspect - no evidence for a god would be valid for you because it has already been predetermined that any god can not exist. Since a god can not exist, no evidence can exist, even if information is presented as evidence.

Wonderful! Now present some compelling evidence to support your opinion.

I already have.

There are a whole lot of universes, with different sets of values for these parameters, and we could only have come into existence in the one that happened to have these particular values. Of course, the fundamentals of mathematics and logic apply to all of these hypothetical universes.

This is different than what I proposed at the beginning. And I don't recall this being proposed since then. But, we can discuss this.

An additional factor is whether the physical laws are the same or different in the universes. Force might not equal to mass times acceleration. But it could be some other unknown equation. This can't be proven one way or the other either.

Or perhaps it is infinite. Or maybe there are many but not all possible universes.

So, the list of assumptions for a multiverse so far is:
- other universes exist
- mathematics is the same
- physical laws are the same
- only the parameters/constants vary
- if a finite number of universes, then a very large number of universes
or
- infinite universes

If we define god as being the cause of the universe, it ceases to have the meaning traditionally attributed to god.

What traditional meaning are you referring to?

I have yet to see convincing evidence that the cause of the universe - has intent - still exists

Suppose I go to the casino and play poker and get 5 royal flushes in a row. The casino manager would pay me a visit because there's no way I can get that lucky. He would suspect that someone intentionally made it to happen. Either I pulled the cards out of my sleeves or perhaps the dealer purposely dealt me those cards.

When we see that there is very little chance of something happening, and it happens, we most often attribute it to intent, rather than sheer luck.

As for the creator still existing or not, if we get to the point of agreement that God existed to create things, then we can explore if it still exists.

Or perhaps such things are imaginary.

Go ahead and make your case that it is imaginary.

I have seen no attempt to describe what you might possibly mean by intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose outside of time or a time-like dimension.

Because we both know what "intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose" means. So, there is no need to offer definitions for it. We do not have any terms (to my knowledge) for actions outside of our spacetime. So, of course our language will be deficient in describing things outside of time.

If I did not understand statistics as well as I do and thought that SETI had a ghost of a chance of succeeding, I'd be out in the backyard now with a radio telescope hoping to disprove your God.

You don't have to try to do it. There are others trying to detect those signals now.

It could be that on the prebiotic earth, chemicals formed monomers such as amino acids which combined to form polymers. The first self-replicating molecules could have been nucleic acids. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes. Or they could have been proteins. Somewhere about 3.5 billion years ago.

Is there any evidence to support any of these claims?

[McCulloch]

I am not attacking the idea of going directly from simple chemicals to a fully functioning cell. Everybody acknowledges that it would be impossible (though I guess theoretically it could still be probable). Life origin scientists instead believe that it'd be a sequence of steps from chemicals to a cell.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, go ahead and present your evidence of how the first cell came about.

In order for you to get from where you are to the door, you must first get from where you are to half way to the door. In order for you to get from that half way point to the door, you must first get half way between them. Thus there is an infinite number of stages you must pass through in order to get to the door. Therefore it is impossible for you to get from where you are to the door.

There is no single night when a child goes to bed and wakes up as an adult. Therefore it is impossible for children to grow into adults.

Offspring are always the same subspecies (breed or race) as their parents, when the parents belong to the same subspecies. In the case where parents are from different subspecies, the offspring will have some characteristics from each of the parents and thus be a mixture¹. Therefore it is impossible to have any new subspecies (breeds or races) other than ones which are a mixture of already existing ones.

Offspring are always the same species as their parents, when the parents are the same species as each other. Therefore it is impossible for new species to arise, except by crossbreeding.

Life always comes from life. Everything that is living is formed from something that is living. Thus it is impossible for life to have ever come from non-life.

Collectively, these are known as paradoxes. They have been named for an ancient philosopher, Zeno. The solution to all of them is roughly the same. For someone to insist that it is impossible for life to have ever come from non-life, is equivalent to claiming that children cannot grow up or that you cannot get to the doorway.

_________________
¹ Except in America where the son of this woman has been described as their first black president.

[otseng]

I am not attacking the idea of going directly from simple chemicals to a fully functioning cell. Everybody acknowledges that it would be impossible (though I guess theoretically it could still be probable). Life origin scientists instead believe that it'd be a sequence of steps from chemicals to a cell.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, go ahead and present your evidence of how the first cell came about.

In order for you to get from where you are to the door, you must first get from where you are to half way to the door. In order for you to get from that half way point to the door, you must first get half way between them. Thus there is an infinite number of stages you must pass through in order to get to the door. Therefore it is impossible for you to get from where you are to the door.

It would not be an infinite number of steps because it would involve a finite number of molecules and a finite amount of time. But, you don't need to describe every step at the molecular level from simple chemicals to a single cell for me.

However, you have stated it is a sequence of simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria. What evidence supports that this is the path from simple chemicals to bacteria?

For someone to insist that it is impossible for life to have ever come from non-life, is equivalent to claiming that children cannot grow up or that you cannot get to the doorway.

It's not that I insist on it, but rather I'm simply stating the law of biogenesis.

[McCulloch]

However, you have stated it is a sequence of simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria. What evidence supports that this is the path from simple chemicals to bacteria?

I have stated that that is the current theory of abiogenesis as distinct from the one usually attacked by creationists. I do not know how it happened, neither do you and neither do any of the biologists doing research in this field. But God is not a suitable explanation for those things we currently do not understand.

Did God put the baby in mommy's tummy? That seems to be the conclusion you draw, unless I can prove all that we know about embryology.

We know that humans develop from a single cell to a baby in about nine months. We know that some kind of pye-dog has developed into the various breeds of dog from Shih Tzu to Labrador Retriever. We know that Wild Cabbage, has evolved into such varieties as cauliflower, broccoflower, kale, collard greens, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, Chinese broccoli, Romanesco broccoli and broccoli. We know that bacteria can evolve, within a human lifetime, remarkable new abilities. We know that many of the life forms now on earth were not present long ago and that many of those present long ago no longer are here.

For someone to insist that it is impossible for life to have ever come from non-life, is equivalent to claiming that children cannot grow up or that you cannot get to the doorway.

It's not that I insist on it, but rather I'm simply stating the law of biogenesis.

And misapplying it. If you are going to use a law from the science of biology, then apply it as biologists would apply it. In fact, if you were to as strictly and mindlessly apply the laws of inheritance, you could equally show that Brussels sprouts are impossible.

I don't know how life started. Those who study it think that the path from simple chemicals to polymers to replicating polymers to hypercycle to protobiont to bacteria, is a simplified general description of one likely way that it may have happened. I am not qualified to confirm or refute that particular path. But fortunately that is not my duty here. The question here is which is more plausible, that some yet undiscovered process produced life or that God magically started life? Judging from similar questions about other unknown processes; embryology, meteorology, seismology, cosmology, biology, virology and neurology, the pattern seems to be that it is far more useful to pursue the naturalist cause than to leave it to the God-of-the-gaps.

[otseng]

I do not know how it happened, neither do you and neither do any of the biologists doing research in this field.

I agree. Nobody knows any natural explanation for the first cell.

But God is not a suitable explanation for those things we currently do not understand.

I'm not proposing that God is the solution for everything that we do not understand. I'm only proposing it for quite a limited number of things. So far, I've only claimed God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and origin of life.

Did God put the baby in mommy's tummy? That seems to be the conclusion you draw, unless I can prove all that we know about embryology.

Of course I do not claim that.

It's not that I insist on it, but rather I'm simply stating the law of biogenesis.

And misapplying it. If you are going to use a law from the science of biology, then apply it as biologists would apply it.

How is it being misapplied?

[McCulloch]

But God is not a suitable explanation for those things we currently do not understand.

I'm not proposing that God is the solution for everything that we do not understand. I'm only proposing it for quite a limited number of things. So far, I've only claimed God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and origin of life.

Why limit yourself? God can be used to explain anything you don't understand. What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness? Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified? What Determines Species Diversity? How did human morality arise? How Did Cooperative Behavior Start? Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality? Why are there 12 notes to the octave in music? Why not 8, 10, 16 or 159? What keeps intracellular traffic running smoothly? Why do we sleep? Where and how did language start? Why do humans have so many languages? What are the origins of Disease? Where are my car keys? You've got a ready made answer to all of them. God!

Why do you single out these three things? My point is that God is not an explanation for anything. God is merely your way of saying you don't have an explanation, therefore, because we cannot find any other explanation, it must be God.

Did God put the baby in mommy's tummy? That seems to be the conclusion you draw, unless I can prove all that we know about embryology.

Of course I do not claim that.

I don't understand why not. After all, it is the biologists who tell us that it has to do with various gametes coming together, forming a single human cell which then grows into a human. You have already displayed an attitude that you do not trust the experts in biology, so why do you take their word on that.

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; "

These materialist biologists who deny scripture think that God is not the one who does it. Have you ever seen a human split into two?

It's not that I insist on it, but rather I'm simply stating the law of biogenesis.

And misapplying it. If you are going to use a law from the science of biology, then apply it as biologists would apply it.

How is it being misapplied?

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria produce after their own, that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life.

Each of these steps in evolution violate the Law of Biogenesis

1. The origin of biological monomers
2. The origin of biological polymers
3. The evolution from molecules to archaeons
4. From archaeons to bacteria
5. From bacteria to simple eukaryotes
6. From simple eukaryotes to eukaryotes with flagellate cells
7. From unicellular life to multicellular life forms
8. From asexually reproducing life forms to sexually reproducing life forms
9. From invertebrates to vertebrates
10. From water to air
11. From cold blooded to warm

The Law, as stated, correctly tells us that life forms produce after their own. All evolution is impossible!

Similarly, there is no single night when a child goes to bed and wakes up as an adult. Therefore it is impossible for children to grow into adults.

Offspring are always the same subspecies (breed or race) as their parents, when the parents belong to the same subspecies. In the case where parents are from different subspecies, the offspring will have some characteristics from each of the parents and thus be a mixture. Therefore it is impossible to have any new subspecies (breeds or races) other than ones which are a mixture of already existing ones.

We learn the language of our parents and our peers. New languages are impossible.

[otseng]

I'm not proposing that God is the solution for everything that we do not understand. I'm only proposing it for quite a limited number of things. So far, I've only claimed God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and origin of life.

Why limit yourself? God can be used to explain anything you don't understand.

There are actually others that I can add to the list, but for now, I'm limiting it to what I've mentioned so far. Let's address these first before going on to any others.

My point is that God is not an explanation for anything. God is merely your way of saying you don't have an explanation, therefore, because we cannot find any other explanation, it must be God.

It would not be an explanation if you've already excluded it as a possible explanation.

God is a valid explanation because it is the only alternative to "I don't know". God is also a valid explanation because it is falsifiable. If a naturalistic explanation is found for the origin of the universe, or for fine-tuning, or for the origin of life, my proposal has been falsified.

The Law, as stated, correctly tells us that life forms produce after their own.

I think it was more in relation to rotten meat doesn't produce maggots. It wasn't really addressing that offsprings of species must be the same species.

All evolution is impossible!

I would tend to agree with this.

[McCulloch]

I'm not proposing that God is the solution for everything that we do not understand. I'm only proposing it for quite a limited number of things. So far, I've only claimed God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and origin of life.

Why limit yourself? God can be used to explain anything you don't understand.

There are actually others that I can add to the list, but for now, I'm limiting it to what I've mentioned so far. Let's address these first before going on to any others.

I agree with Popper who said, "a theory that explains everything explains nothing". The notion of God is such a theory. How did X happen? God did it or God allowed it to happen or God made things so that it would happen. It does not matter what X is. God can be used to explain it.

My point is that God is not an explanation for anything. God is merely your way of saying you don't have an explanation, therefore, because we cannot find any other explanation, it must be God.

God is a valid explanation because it is the only alternative to "I don't know".

Is an honest "I don't know" such a bad thing? We really don't know. Saying God did it and pretending then that you do know is not a good strategy to my view.

God is also a valid explanation because it is falsifiable.

No it is not. Everything we find out leads to more questions. There will always be gaps in our knowledge. You plug those gaps with the concept of God.

If a naturalistic explanation is found for the origin of the universe, or for fine-tuning, or for the origin of life, my proposal has been falsified.

I predict that if biologists get closer to finding out how life started, you still would not abandon the concept of God. We have discovered how the diversity of life has come about, through evolution, yet many theistic evolutionists embrace the evidence as being simply the method by which God has achieved this end. God as an answer is completely unfalsifiable.

The Law, as stated, correctly tells us that life forms produce after their own.

I think it was more in relation to rotten meat doesn't produce maggots. It wasn't really addressing that offsprings of species must be the same species.

Rotten meat (an organic substance) does not produce maggots, therefore primitive life could not have possibly been formed by a process involving only inorganic substances. Thank you for clarifying that for us.

All evolution is impossible!

I would tend to agree with this.

This plant, Brassica oleracea, or Wild Cabbage has seven major cultivar groups:

• Acephala Group - kale and collard greens
  
• Alboglabra Group - Chinese broccoli
  
• Botrytis Group - cauliflower, Romanesco broccoli and broccoflower
  
• Capitata Group - cabbage
  
• Gemmifera Group - Brussels sprouts
  
• Gongylodes Group - kohlrabi
  
• Italica Group - broccoli
  

Clearly, selection (in this case human agricultural selection) has shaped this one species in an evolutionary way into quite diverse forms. How can you say that all evolution is impossible?

[otseng]

I agree with Popper who said, "a theory that explains everything explains nothing". The notion of God is such a theory. How did X happen? God did it or God allowed it to happen or God made things so that it would happen. It does not matter what X is. God can be used to explain it.

I do not disagree with this. But I'm not proposing a theory that explains everything. As I've stated, I've only presented 3 things so far that it explains.

Is an honest "I don't know" such a bad thing? We really don't know. Saying God did it and pretending then that you do know is not a good strategy to my view.

I'm not simply "pretending" that I know.

The issue is which position is the more rational position to take. It would be much more reasonable to accept an explanation that has multiple lines of evidence and arguments to support it than to accept a series of "I don't know", even if it is honest or sincere.

God is also a valid explanation because it is falsifiable.

No it is not. Everything we find out leads to more questions. There will always be gaps in our knowledge. You plug those gaps with the concept of God.

And as I've stated, if these gaps are filled in with naturalistic explanations, my arguments are falsified.

I predict that if biologists get closer to finding out how life started, you still would not abandon the concept of God.

Depends on what you mean by "gets closer". Simply knowing how to take one step up Mt Everest doesn't mean one can get to the top. But, if one can show how to scale the entire mountain, then that would be more convincing.

Again, if they find a viable explanation for the origin of life, it will falsify my arguments. Will I still believe in God? Perhaps. But, I will not be able to rationally defend my belief in God.

We have discovered how the diversity of life has come about, through evolution, yet many theistic evolutionists embrace the evidence as being simply the method by which God has achieved this end. God as an answer is completely unfalsifiable.

Debating evolutionary theory is another matter. I have not stated that it is one of the ways to falsify my arguments. None of my arguments for the existence of god rest on attacking evolutionary theory.

Clearly, selection (in this case human agricultural selection) has shaped this one species in an evolutionary way into quite diverse forms. How can you say that all evolution is impossible?

I only said I tended to agree with your statement. I did not state that I completely agreed with it.

Anyways, evolutionary theory has no bearing on origin of life, which is what we were discussing.