Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I am sure that scientists will come up with a sequence of naturally occuring events which can produce a simple self replicating cell.

Certain is perhaps a little strong, but I think it's likely

My certainty of God's interaction is based upon the improbability of these events being generated in the correct sequence and timing by unguided forces to produce the specific complexity in a living cell.

Which conveniently ignores the number of planets on which these precursors have existed, and therefore the number of chances for this to successfully happen. It also conveniently ignores the fact that we don't know if there's a specific timing required.

Most importantly, though, it completely glosses over the fact that it's orders of magnitude more improbable that a being capable of designing a universe should spontaneously emerge than a sequence of relatively likely incidents should happen, potentially amongst an infinite number of opportunities.

Looking at an equally improbable scenario, it is possible that I can win the National Lottery seventeen times in succession, but if I did I suspect that someone would come to the conclusion that my winning streak was not generated by totally random selections.

However, if we have billions upon billions of galaxies with billions upon billions of planets (which we do), all of which were running the lottery, one of them having a 17 times winner after billions of years wouldn't be that much of a surprise. A god still would.

O.

But the "random" forces have not finished their job by creating the first living cell.  They have to go on to generate DNA molecules with billions of beneficial mutations to drive the process of evolution.

[Alan Burns]

So your creator also needed a creator.

Who created the creator?

You never get an answer to that one!

I have come across a definition of God as simply "That which exists"
You will have to admit that something must exist outside our universe, otherwise nothing would exist.

Following on from this thought I am reminded of this short extract from the book entitled “Revelations of Divine Love”, written by the famous English Mystic, Julian of Norwich in the 12th century:

“He showed me a little thing, the size of a hazelnut, in the palm of my hand, and it was as round as a ball. I looked at it with my mind’s eye and I thought, ‘What can this be?’ And answer came, ‘It is all that is made.’ I marvelled that it could last, for I thought it might have crumbled to nothing, it was so small. And the answer came into my mind, ‘It lasts and ever shall because God loves it.’ And all things have being through the love of God. In this little thing I saw three truths. The first is that God made it. The second is that God loves it. The third is that God looks after it.”

At one time, nanoseconds after the Big Bang, our universe was indeed the size of a hazlenut.

[torridon]

No evidence for that I'm afraid.

You clearly haven't got the hang of this evidence thing yet Alan. We can't just go round looking for gaps in our knowledge and stuffing your creator in there. We might not yet know all the detail about how to get from complex carbon chemistry to simple biology, but people working in that field see no show stoppers requiring magic intervention; there are likely innumerable pathways, we just don't know the detail and we are currently filling the detail in. Likewise,  we might not fully understand how we get from prokaryote to eukaryote, but imagining there must be some invisible mythic being of undescribed provenance with special powers busy bridging those gaps doesn't really help; not unless you are disinterested in the real answers, that is.  Sometimes we need to still our minds so we can discern the quiet voice of evidence; be not so quick to bury the possibility of real understanding under a landslide of our personal beliefs and prejudices.  Ancient peoples couldn't understand how the Sun moved across the sky, so they invented a story that is was pulled across the sky by a horse drawn team of angels. Nonesense, of course, they had no idea about how gravity as described by Newton explains planetary motion. The moral to learn from this, is that pushing myth and magic into gaps in knowledge does us no favours in the long run, it only works against and slows our growing collective understanding.

I am sure that scientists will come up with a sequence of naturally occuring events which can produce a simple self replicating cell.  My certainty of God's interaction is based upon the improbability of these events being generated in the correct sequence and timing by unguided forces to produce the specific complexity in a living cell.   Looking at an equally improbable scenario, it is possible that I can win the National Lottery seventeen times in succession, but if I did I suspect that someone would come to the conclusion that my winning streak was not generated by totally random selections.

Don't get carried away thinking you know things the scientists don't, people working in biogenesis understand probabilities I'm sure.

Maybe the fact that we are here and able to ponder on such things is related to the size and age of the universe.  A universe will need a certain level of maturity to do its base chemistry, creating the heavy elements for instance requires cycles of stellar evolution and death and then, given a fully stocked periodic table, more complex chemistry can and will happen.  Given enough space, matter and time, anything that can happen, will happen, so if I were in your shoes looking for a role for God in all this, I would concentrate my thinking on God as being an architect of natural laws, one who designs a universe that would eventually produce sentient life given its starting conditions. A god that has to constantly fiddle with his creation to get desired results looks incompetent from the outset.

[Outrider]

These examples do not contain the specific complexity needed for a self replicating cell.

That's not what the examples were cited for - they were simply examples of randomness being creative. If you want a random occurence that's self-replicating then you have life.

Looking inside a single living cell with an electron microscope shows a fascinating arrangement of biological machinery to handle growth, reproduction, food processing, waste disposal and both internal and external communications.

Yes. And?

O.

[Outrider]

But the "random" forces have not finished their job by creating the first living cell.  They have to go on to generate DNA molecules with billions of beneficial mutations to drive the process of evolution.

Only if you're working on the assumption that there's a 'goal' of creating humanity. Whatever the outcome of the natural selection of those randomly occuring variations is comes at the end of a specific chain of fortuitous random events, but that specific random sequence has no cosmic significance.

O.

[Outrider]

I have come across a definition of God as simply "That which exists"

I've come across the definition of god as simply 'that which is made up to explain the bits of reality we don't know yet'.

You will have to admit that something must exist outside our universe, otherwise nothing would exist.

Exist is a difficult term for extra-universal space, as it suggests the possibility of non-existence and therefore change, which in the absence of time makes no sense. There is extra-universality, but what it constitutes is beyond our comprehension.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I've come across the definition of god as simply 'that which is made up to explain the bits of reality we don't know yet'.

To me, God simply explains how reality itself came to exist.

[Alan Burns]

That's not what the examples were cited for - they were simply examples of randomness being creative. If you want a random occurence that's self-replicating then you have life.

I see nothing creative about the formation of sandbanks,  cloud formations, or weather patterns.  How can these be compared with the specific complexity needed within a living cell to make it function and reproduce?

[Outrider]

That's not what the examples were cited for - they were simply examples of randomness being creative. If you want a random occurence that's self-replicating then you have life.

I see nothing creative about the formation of sandbanks,  cloud formations, or weather patterns.  How can these be compared with the specific complexity needed within a living cell to make it function and reproduce?

They are creations - they are durable, stable, lasting things. Then, with time and the application of physics they become rocks, and with weathering they become minerals, and with consumption they become integrated into living things.

Random events creating something out of the raw materials of the universe.

O.

[Alan Burns]

That's not what the examples were cited for - they were simply examples of randomness being creative. If you want a random occurence that's self-replicating then you have life.

I see nothing creative about the formation of sandbanks,  cloud formations, or weather patterns.  How can these be compared with the specific complexity needed within a living cell to make it function and reproduce?

They are creations - they are durable, stable, lasting things. Then, with time and the application of physics they become rocks, and with weathering they become minerals, and with consumption they become integrated into living things.

Random events creating something out of the raw materials of the universe.

O.

So would you describe a motor car as being created by random events?
I am sure that every step in the production of a car will involve natural forces acting on materials, but trace all these events back through the "cause and effect" chain of events and they will ultimately be sourced from free will events occuring in human brains.  I speculate that events which caused the formation of life on this earth can be traced back through "cause and effect" to events caused by God's will.  The specific complexity within a motor car is designed to perform a function, just as the specific complexity found in a living cell is designed to reproduce.

[jakswan]

The specific complexity within a motor car is designed to perform a function, just as the specific complexity found in a living cell is designed to reproduce.

Assertion.

[torridon]

I've come across the definition of god as simply 'that which is made up to explain the bits of reality we don't know yet'.

To me, God simply explains how reality itself came to exist.

'God' is inexplicable though, therefore 'God' explains nothing.  God isn't an explanation at all; it is a substitute for an explanation, useful only for its psychological side-effects.

[Outrider]

So would you describe a motor car as being created by random events?

No, I wouldn't describe a motor-car as having been 'created' at all, I'd describe it as having been manufactured.

I am sure that every step in the production of a car will involve natural forces acting on materials, but trace all these events back through the "cause and effect" chain of events and they will ultimately be sourced from free will events occuring in human brains.

We'll put aside your assertion of free will as a discussion we've had elsewhere, in much the same way I've been using random despite, at heart, being a determinist. Yes, we can trace the various stage of car design and manufacture back to human designers and manufacturers.

I speculate that events which caused the formation of life on this earth can be traced back through "cause and effect" to events caused by God's will.

And I can speculate that it's traceable to natural effects and forces. One of us has evidence on their side, and one doesn't.

The specific complexity within a motor car is designed to perform a function, just as the specific complexity found in a living cell is designed to reproduce.

No, that's just an assertion. You mistakenly presume that because some things are designed that all things must be designed, and you mistakenly presume that because something has an effect that must have been an 'intent' - both of these are unwarranted assumptions.

As an aside, could you please explain what you mean by 'specific complexity' - it's a phrase I've seen and heard used, and whilst I grasp complexity the 'specific' part of it has never really been well defined.

O.

[Alan Burns]

As an aside, could you please explain what you mean by 'specific complexity' - it's a phrase I've seen and heard used, and whilst I grasp complexity the 'specific' part of it has never really been well defined.

O.

It is complexity which is needed to perform a specific function, such as reproduction.

[Outrider]

It is complexity which is needed to perform a specific function, such as reproduction.

Given, though, that there are multiple evolutionary pathways to most biological functions, that complexity is not particularly 'specific'.

O.

[Andy]

I really don't get this regurgitation of the complexity argument when it has been so thoroughly trounced over and over again... but I'll try another way nonetheless.

I'm a designer - I coordinate building services. It's my job to find the most efficient and cost effective way of routing things like pipes, ducts and electrical cables through buildings. I am always looking for the simplest solution. If there was a light switch a metre from a distribution board and I took the complex route of sending the cable all the way around the rest of the building, I would never get any work because it would be inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, stupid design. Complexity is not an attribute of intelligent design - simplicity is.
If life doesn't even need physicality in order to exist, then adding it in is an unnecessary complexity that adds unnecessary risk. God would never get a job as a designer.

[floo]

I really don't get this regurgitation of the complexity argument when it has been so thoroughly trounced over and over again... but I'll try another way nonetheless.

I'm a designer - I coordinate building services. It's my job to find the most efficient and cost effective way of routing things like pipes, ducts and electrical cables through buildings. I am always looking for the simplest solution. If there was a light switch a metre from a distribution board and I took the complex route of sending the cable all the way around the rest of the building, I would never get any work because it would be inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, stupid design. Complexity is not an attribute of intelligent design - simplicity is.
If life doesn't even need physicality in order to exist, then adding it in is an unnecessary complexity that adds unnecessary risk. God would never get a job as a designer.

No it would be sued for making a complete pig's breakfast of any design!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Andy,

Complex to us, to God, simplicity.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

But in that case, Gonners, he designed babies' heads to be big enough to sometimes get caught in their mother's pelvis. Before c-sections were a safe, normal procedure the way to get the baby out was to crack its skull.

Babies still die in childbirth, and mothers damaged permanently. It's not just a shit design, it's sadistic, because according to the Bible it's part of our due as daughters of Eve.

[Andy]

Dear Andy,

Complex to us, to God, simplicity.

Gonnagle.

Which 1. makes no sense as you are flipping meanings on their head to mean the opposite, and 2. is just wrong if there is anything unnecessary. Basically, if god did my job and used 10,000% more cable than necessary, that would a more simple system with less risk.

[Outrider]

Dear Andy,

Complex to us, to God, simplicity.

Gonnagle.

No, not really. It's not about whether it's difficult to achieve it, it's about whether there is  simpler solution to the given problem or requirement. In many, many instances in nature, structures have been 'hijacked' by evolutionary developments to given inelegant solutions - ingenious, given the raw materials to work with, but inelegant from a pure design point of view.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon and Andy,

Take a leaf out of our Leonards book, we just don't know.

We/us/humans look at the world and think, no this can't be right!!

We have discussions on this forum about what is right and wrong, we can't even decide on that.

I am asked, if there is a God, why is it not all sweetness and flower gardens, I just don't know!

I think the word I am searching for is Humility, you don't have to believe in God/gods to feel this, the universe is vast ( vast, that word does not do it justice ) our little planet, it all works, everything in its place a place for everything, WHY but that is only the start of WHY us/humans, why are we all different.

The list of WHY is endless.

For me, if you say, it just is, is no answer.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world, I just don't know.

Gonnagle, stop rambling and tell us what you do know, I know that Jesus Christ was/is my salvation, not for an after life, but here and now, and I think/feel that we are all part of something bigger, call that bigger God, what is God, next question.

Gonnagle.

[Andy]

Yeah, there's plenty we don't know so let's not make wild guesses. Let's work with what we've got and draw provisional conclusions. So, working with the complexity argument, we can conclude it is dumb.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Rhiannon and Andy,

Take a leaf out of our Leonards book, we just don't know.

We/us/humans look at the world and think, no this can't be right!!

We have discussions on this forum about what is right and wrong, we can't even decide on that.

I am asked, if there is a God, why is it not all sweetness and flower gardens, I just don't know!

I think the word I am searching for is Humility, you don't have to believe in God/gods to feel this, the universe is vast ( vast, that word does not do it justice ) our little planet, it all works, everything in its place a place for everything, WHY but that is only the start of WHY us/humans, why are we all different.

The list of WHY is endless.

For me, if you say, it just is, is no answer.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world, I just don't know.

Gonnagle, stop rambling and tell us what you do know, I know that Jesus Christ was/is my salvation, not for an after life, but here and now, and I think/feel that we are all part of something bigger, call that bigger God, what is God, next question.

Gonnagle.

I entirely concur with your view Gonners  (hope you are well, by the way.)  You make your position clear despite the aggressive attitude you often respond to,  and don't find it necessary to deal in expletives.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon and Andy,

Take a leaf out of our Leonards book, we just don't know.

We/us/humans look at the world and think, no this can't be right!!

We have discussions on this forum about what is right and wrong, we can't even decide on that.

I am asked, if there is a God, why is it not all sweetness and flower gardens, I just don't know!

I think the word I am searching for is Humility, you don't have to believe in God/gods to feel this, the universe is vast ( vast, that word does not do it justice ) our little planet, it all works, everything in its place a place for everything, WHY but that is only the start of WHY us/humans, why are we all different.

The list of WHY is endless.

For me, if you say, it just is, is no answer.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world, I just don't know.

Gonnagle, stop rambling and tell us what you do know, I know that Jesus Christ was/is my salvation, not for an after life, but here and now, and I think/feel that we are all part of something bigger, call that bigger God, what is God, next question.

Gonnagle.

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in. It's the concept of a god that singles out women for punishment. A god that can do anything. A god that could fix this, a god that chooses not to.

The something bigger? Sounds like pantheism to me.

And just a thought - unbelief/questioning/difference does not mean a lack of humility or an attitude of arrogance.