Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

But we do not know the true source of the processes which generate the "random" variations.

We know some of them - genetic drift, natural variation, genome insertion, faulty gene replication, chromosome fragmentation. It's not an exhaustive list I'd expect - either this or the complete list know to geneticists at the moment - but I guess that depends on what you mean by 'true source'. Nothing in the science, of course, disproves the idea that there could be a supernatural guiding hand at work, but nothing in the science requires it, either.

O.

[Outrider]

#4838 Outrider


May I just quibble very slightly with 'are destroyed'? I wonder if 'do not survive' might be more accurate?

If you'd like Seems a semantic rather than substantial difference, to me, but I only chose 'destroyed' to compare against the original.

O.

[torridon]

There may be limits to what we can discover, that is not a reflection on the limits of science, per se, but a general acknowlegement of epistemiology.  Whatever there is that we can discover, however, can be discovered by scientific enquiry, in the broadest sense.  If there is a god, which can be discovered, then it can be discovered by science, ultimately.  My view on that is that science will never discover god, the reason being that, like four sided triangles,  god is not part of the set of discoverable things - because that is how we define god; we define god as inexplicable, beyond all human comprehension. A god that was amenable to dissection and analysis wouldn't really be god at all, it would be a parody, an effigy, a mere representation.

A real god could not actually exist as it would always fall short of the properties of a conceptual god.  Just as mathematicians use a concept of infinity to help them solve numerical problems, humans use a concept of god to aid them with their moral compass and existential horizons; and likewise god could not actually exist in reality just as in reality you could not actually have a real piece of string of infinite length.  Like 'infinity', 'god' only works as a concept.

But there is no way you can say that infinity does not actually exist.  If there is something which is finite, there is always the question of what lies beyond the finite.  What lies beyond space?  What occured before time began?  Will time come to an end? Will the burnt out universe exist forever?  What is the ultimate source of all existence? These are not just concepts, but real questions which my limited brain capacity just can't comprehend, and the answers will lie somewhere in the reality of existence.

Could space, or spacetime, be infinite, good questions, trying to answer that might boil down to how infinity is defined; my general concept of infinity is something like 'greater than that which can be attained in actuality', which means that generally speaking something of infinite quality cannot actually exist.  So imv people who make claims for god such as 'infinitely wise' or 'infinitely merciful' are unwittingly describing god as an impossible being. 'Infinitely merciful' is anyway totally meaningless, but nonetheless we design god in such terms, attributing abstract mathematical concepts to a mythical being in the hope perhaps of establishing some working frame of ultimate reference in which we make moral decisions in our daily lives. Underlying that and driving that I detect our existential discomfort of not knowing what lies beyond. What the hell does happen after death, what the hell does lie beyond the edge of space ? We don't know so we put god there to block out the emptiness beyond and then we can get on with the chores of living.

[Enki]

Quote from Alan, mess 4837:

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.  The process of natural selection in itself does not create a single beneficial mutation - it just eliminates the species not equiped to survive.

Really.   Try reading this from the New Scientist, April 2008:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

which ends with the words:

So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from Alan, mess 4837:

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.  The process of natural selection in itself does not create a single beneficial mutation - it just eliminates the species not equiped to survive.

Really.   Try reading this from the New Scientist, April 2008:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

which ends with the words:

So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.

You misunderstood my original post.  I said the process of natural selection was destructive, not the process of mutation.  However, truly random mutations are heavily oriented towards the non-beneficial end.

[Outrider]

You misunderstood my original post.  I said the process of natural selection was destructive, not the process of mutation.  However, truly random mutations are heavily oriented towards the non-beneficial end.

No, gross mutations are oriented towards the non-beneficial end. Random mutations, by definition, are not 'oriented' at all, and the mutation is neither beneficial nor harmful in isolation, only within a given environment. That's why you don't have a single chain of inheritance from once current species back to a single ancestor - without mutation that was situationally beneficial you wouldn't get speciation.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Nothing in the science, of course, disproves the idea that there could be a supernatural guiding hand at work, but nothing in the science requires it, either.

O.

But what is required to bring us into existence are billions of beneficial mutations to be generated by random forces.  I do not dispute that these mutations took place, but there is no feasible method of accurately determining the true probability of all these mutations occuring by chance.  And there is still the perplexing problem of how physical mutations can bring about the (as yet undefined) property of self awareness.

[Outrider]

But what is required to bring us into existence are billions of beneficial mutations to be generated by random forces.

Every time a cell divides or is replaced there is the opportunity for mutation. That means just within one person's body in one life there are billions upon billions of opportunities.

Some bacteria reproduce within hours, small complex organisms are having multiple births weekly - the opportunities for mutation and random variation to occur are mind-boggling in their quantity.

I do not dispute that these mutations took place, but there is no feasible method of accurately determining the true probability of all these mutations occuring by chance.

Each and every single one of them, though, is a version of a relatively minor event that has been repeatedly witnessed. The specific combination is an incredibly small chance, but I'm sure there are many people who can point out to you that the probability of an event that has already happened is 1.

And there is still the perplexing problem of how physical mutations can bring about the (as yet undefined) property of self awareness.

Only if you aren't prepared to accept the evidence that awareness is a pattern of activity within brain biochemistry.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I'm sure there are many people who can point out to you that the probability of an event that has already happened is 1.

The probability of me typing these letters in the correct sequence is 1, because it has already occured, but the action was not driven by random events.

[Outrider]

I'm sure there are many people who can point out to you that the probability of an event that has already happened is 1.

The probability of me typing these letters in the correct sequence is 1, because it has already occured, but the action was not driven by random events.

We have evidence, though, not just for the letters, but for the originator - which we do have evidence to say is the result of 'random' events. What we don't posit, because we can't immediately see you, is 'well the letters must have magically appeared'.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Only if you aren't prepared to accept the evidence that awareness is a pattern of activity within brain biochemistry.

O.

The pattern of brain activity may be an observed physical consequence of awareness, but there is no real evidence to show how this pattern of brain activity can generate what we perceive to be awareness.

[Alan Burns]

What we don't posit, because we can't immediately see you, is 'well the letters must have magically appeared'.

O.

So because we can't see God do we have to assume that all the beneficial mutations occured by chance? Or do we see compelling evidence of the hand of God in the amazing complexity of life on this earth?

[Outrider]

Only if you aren't prepared to accept the evidence that awareness is a pattern of activity within brain biochemistry.

O.

The pattern of brain activity may be an observed physical consequence of awareness, but there is no real evidence to show how this pattern of brain activity can generate what we perceive to be awareness.

Brain activity correlates to consciousness. Brain activity pre-empts the correlating consciousness, so whilst they might both be the consequence of a third element the brain activity is not caused by the consciousness. There is no evidence of any other correlating system. Manipulating the brain activity artificially alters the consciousness.

It's not proof, no, but it's a fairly solid evidentiary framework.

O.

[Outrider]

What we don't posit, because we can't immediately see you, is 'well the letters must have magically appeared'.

O.

So because we can't see God do we have to assume that all the beneficial mutations occured by chance? Or do we see compelling evidence of the hand of God in the amazing complexity of life on this earth?

Because we can't see any evidence of God, nor does the concept make any sense, nor is there a clear consensus on what 'god' is, nor do we see any evidence for any of the corollary concepts (souls, spirits, angels, afterlife), nor do we see any evidence for specific claims of the innumerable cosmologies that spring up around these ideas of deities.

By contrast, naturalistic thinking which ignores supernatural concepts has been inordinately and consistently successful in discovering more and more about how and why phenomena that we experience and encounter occur.

On the track record available, I'll stick with the science.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Every time a cell divides or is replaced there is the opportunity for mutation. That means just within one person's body in one life there are billions upon billions of opportunities.

But it is not mutations in the whole body which get reproduced - it is only mutations in the DNA molecule (defined at birth) which get passed on.

[Enki]

Quote from Alan, mess 4837:

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.  The process of natural selection in itself does not create a single beneficial mutation - it just eliminates the species not equiped to survive.

Really.   Try reading this from the New Scientist, April 2008:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

which ends with the words:

So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.

You misunderstood my original post.  I said the process of natural selection was destructive, not the process of mutation.  However, truly random mutations are heavily oriented towards the non-beneficial end.

I suggest you read the link again. You say that "the process of natural selection was destructive". The article suggests, for instance, that the mutations  which allowed 'several groups of people in Europe and Africa" to continue digesting milk after their teens "show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly beneficial." Of course such random mutations in themselves are neither destructive nor beneficial, but the process of natural selection favours those that are  beneficial, as Outrider says, "within a given environment".

[jeremyp]

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?

No it isn't. What stupid ignorant twat told you that?

[torridon]

What we don't posit, because we can't immediately see you, is 'well the letters must have magically appeared'.

O.

So because we can't see God do we have to assume that all the beneficial mutations occured by chance? Or do we see compelling evidence of the hand of God in the amazing complexity of life on this earth?

I don't see any compelling evidence of the hand of god in the diversity of life.  Neither do the scientists who study these things for a living.  To me, nature looks completely natural. I don't understand why a god would use natural evolutionary mechanisms to create Man (for instance), a mechanism which depends on trillions upon trillions of essentially random occurrences to provide the source organic novelty out of which successful life designs can then emerge through competition and refinement.  What would be the point in having such awesome supernatural powers but then restrict yourself to using natural means, apart from unless you wanted to hide your evidence trail ? No, a god would just design things from scratch how he wanted them. If you can see the hand of god at work in the natural world, then it must be a product of your faith acting like coloured spectacles through which you see things. Take off the faith specs, then you can start to see things as they are, without affectation, let the evidence speak and listen to what it says.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see any compelling evidence of the hand of god in the diversity of life.  Neither do the scientists who study these things for a living.  To me, nature looks completely natural. I don't understand why a god would use natural evolutionary mechanisms to create Man (for instance), a mechanism which depends on trillions upon trillions of essentially random occurrences to provide the source organic novelty out of which successful life designs can then emerge through competition and refinement.  What would be the point in having such awesome supernatural powers but then restrict yourself to using natural means, apart from unless you wanted to hide your evidence trail ? No, a god would just design things from scratch how he wanted them. If you can see the hand of god at work in the natural world, then it must be a product of your faith acting like coloured spectacles through which you see things. Take off the faith specs, then you can start to see things as they are, without affectation, let the evidence speak and listen to what it says.

But do you not see the startling contrast between the abundant life on this planet and the hostile nature of the observed universe outside?  What we call nature on this planet does not seem natural in comparison to other planets in our vicinity.  I believe that God's powers involve interacting with the nature of our universe, not overriding it, just as humans interact using their powers of free will to bring about human creations. 

[wigginhall]

What we don't posit, because we can't immediately see you, is 'well the letters must have magically appeared'.

O.

So because we can't see God do we have to assume that all the beneficial mutations occured by chance? Or do we see compelling evidence of the hand of God in the amazing complexity of life on this earth?

I am cross-posting with torridon really, but why would God go to such lengths, over such a long period of time, to create the diversity of life?   Why not just create it ab initio?   I think the creationists have realized that God creating through evolution is a very wonky idea, so they are sticking with direct creation, which is itself, of course, bizarre and baseless. 

In any case, having these various arguments for God seems highly suspect.   It's odd to make an argument for X existing, as normally existence is obvious. 

[Alan Burns]

It's odd to make an argument for X existing, as normally existence is obvious.

Existence is only obvious because we have been given the amazing gift of awareness which we take so much for granted, but for which there is no natural explanation.

[wigginhall]

It's odd to make an argument for X existing, as normally existence is obvious.

Existence is only obvious because we have been given the amazing gift of awareness which we take so much for granted, but for which there is no natural explanation.

What, you mean that there is no natural explanation for eyes?   So God magicked them into existence. 

[ekim]

..... but isn't it amazing that cats have holes in their fur... right where their eyes are!

[torridon]

I don't see any compelling evidence of the hand of god in the diversity of life.  Neither do the scientists who study these things for a living.  To me, nature looks completely natural. I don't understand why a god would use natural evolutionary mechanisms to create Man (for instance), a mechanism which depends on trillions upon trillions of essentially random occurrences to provide the source organic novelty out of which successful life designs can then emerge through competition and refinement.  What would be the point in having such awesome supernatural powers but then restrict yourself to using natural means, apart from unless you wanted to hide your evidence trail ? No, a god would just design things from scratch how he wanted them. If you can see the hand of god at work in the natural world, then it must be a product of your faith acting like coloured spectacles through which you see things. Take off the faith specs, then you can start to see things as they are, without affectation, let the evidence speak and listen to what it says.

But do you not see the startling contrast between the abundant life on this planet and the hostile nature of the observed universe outside?  What we call nature on this planet does not seem natural in comparison to other planets in our vicinity.  I believe that God's powers involve interacting with the nature of our universe, not overriding it, just as humans interact using their powers of free will to bring about human creations.

The very fact that the universe is overwhelmingly hostile to life is a evidence against creation by a theist god.  We persist here in this place and time, against all odds, life is very much the exception.  If I were planning to have a baby I woud not be pulling out all the stops to augur against my baby's survival, I would do the opposite. Likewise, a god wishing to create sentient life would set conditions in favour of life, not against it.

[Alan Burns]

It's odd to make an argument for X existing, as normally existence is obvious.

Existence is only obvious because we have been given the amazing gift of awareness which we take so much for granted, but for which there is no natural explanation.

What, you mean that there is no natural explanation for eyes?   So God magicked them into existence.

You are confusing reaction with perception.
Of course there is a chain reaction set in place from our sensory organs, but science can only explain this in terms of discrete reactions as you would get in a robot.  This is not the same as perception.