Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Or possibly, even, we describe as 'useful' those parts of the universe that we have evolved to use.

Indeed, and that the parts we've evolved to use are the parts of most utility to the genome. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Is it Occam or Ockham, the simplest explanation, Godidit.

Dear Blue,

you’d have to pouffe into existence a hugely complex “something”

Why!! because it is complex to you, what was it Vlads pin up boy said, something about we have evolved from an ancestor whose  brain was only geared to judge the speed of a antelope so he could chuck his spear at the right time, or words to that effect

Of course it seems complex to us, to God, first take some sticky backed plastic ain't that the great goal, the grand unifying theory, one that we will all understand, Occam/Ockham Razor, the simplest solution.

Gonnagle.

PS: Yes I know Occams Razor is a bit more complex, poetic license

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Why!! because it is complex to you, what was it Vlads pin up boy said, something about we have evolved from an ancestor whose  brain was only geared to judge the speed of a antelope so he could chuck his spear at the right time, or words to that effect

Of course it seems complex to us, to God, first take some sticky backed plastic ain't that the great goal, the grand unifying theory, one that we will all understand, Occam/Ockham Razor, the simplest solution.

Gonnagle.

PS: Yes I know Occams Razor is a bit more complex, poetic license

Always a treat to hear from you. Why a complex god? Because "He'd" have to be to create such a complex entity as the universe, unless you'd want to argue for a simple god who had no idea that a few basic forces and materials would lead to such an unforeseen outcome.

Either way, it's all a bit circular: complex universe is evidence for god, but you need a god for there to be a complex universe in the first place etc.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Just shooting the breeze old chap, but I don't understand this need for a complex God or a complex universe, it all works ( although why we need the Scottish midge  )

Science in its limited capacity tells us that there are laws/forces in operation that keep it all ticking over nicely,  I can't tell you what God is or the even bigger question, WHY but it is ( the universe that is ) and it all works, I can't help but think that in a thousand years ( if we are still here ) we will wonder at all the fuss science created.

A simple solution to what WE think is complex question.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Is it Occam or Ockham, the simplest explanation, Godidit.

Not quite - Occam's razor (I've seen various spellings, I'm not sure which is considered 'right') in most instances can be resolved to 'the simplest explanation is probably the best', but it formally involves not inventing unevidenced elements to explain missing steps.

If you posit 'god' for information you don't have, you just substitute things you don't know about god for the things you didn't know before. If you have an explanation that doesn't need any unevidenced elements - like, say, the Big Bang theory of the universe - you don't gain anything by positing gods.

O.

PS: Yes I know Occams Razor is a bit more complex, poetic license

Not just poetic license, but rather a fairly critical component

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

, but it formally involves not inventing unevidenced elements to explain missing steps.

I don't see missing steps, I don't stick God in the gaps, I see us/humans trying to figure out the universe, and I honestly think we have only scratched the surface, oh and God having a good chuckle at our feeble attempts.

Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of God.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

, but it formally involves not inventing unevidenced elements to explain missing steps.

I don't see missing steps, I don't stick God in the gaps, I see us/humans trying to figure out the universe, and I honestly think we have only scratched the surface, oh and God having a good chuckle at our feeble attempts.

Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of God.

Gonnagle.

And perhaps you're right

That's not the argument, though, that Alan was making.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

I don't see missing steps, I don't stick God in the gaps, I see us/humans trying to figure out the universe, and I honestly think we have only scratched the surface,...

Fine so far...

... oh and God having a good chuckle at our feeble attempts.

...and the leprechauns are dancing a slip jig to boot no doubt.

Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of God.

Or possibly better put as, "ripping the mask off God to see the face of nature"?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

That's not the argument, though, that Alan was making.

Mr Burns can make his own arguments, I was replying to your good self and Blue.

Dear Blue,

...and the leprechauns are dancing a slip jig to boot no doubt.

I was once told, with God all things are possible ( not sure about that ) but if God wants dancing leprechauns 

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Outrider,

That's not the argument, though, that Alan was making.

Mr Burns can make his own arguments, I was replying to your good self and Blue.

Dear Blue,

...and the leprechauns are dancing a slip jig to boot no doubt.

I was once told, with God all things are possible ( not sure about that ) but if God wants dancing leprechauns 

Gonnagle.

But the Leprechauns could be Instead of, not As Well as, and be nothing to do with a god.

Would you be happy with that?

[Alan Burns]

Providing a scientific explanaton for how something works does not in itself deny that it has a purpose.  A motor car functions according to the laws of science, but it has a purpose.

Oh dear – Paley’s watch again. Of course a car has purpose – because people design and build it for that purpose. What you’re attempting though is a false analogy – “complex thing A (the car) has a purpose, therefore complex thing B (the universe) must have a purpose too” despite all the evidence being to the contrary. It’s child-like thinking – much as a six-year-old who walks into a tree will say, “that branch hit me”: he supposes both that the tree has deliberate agency and that he is the focus of its attentions.

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

It does have a "purpose" inasmuch as the genetic mutation that gave rise to it conferred some advantage - more easily recognising the tiger stalking you in the grass for example - but if you want to claim a purpose in the sense that something designed it that way, then still you have all your work ahead of you finally to make an argument for it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

It does have a "purpose" inasmuch as the genetic mutation that gave rise to it conferred some advantage - more easily recognising the tiger stalking you in the grass for example - but if you want to claim a purpose in the sense that something designed it that way, then still you have all your work ahead of you finally to make an argument for it.

What I have been inferring is that the properties of some basic elements of our universe such as light, gravity, sound may exist for the purpose of sustaining and enhancing life.  The genetic mutation is just a physical means of implementing this purpose.

[Outrider]

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

The notion of evolution via natural selection acting upon random variation very solidly does speak against the idea that any trait has a purpose - they have uses, certainly, but purpose implies something intending that solution, and evolution doesn't require that.

O.

[Outrider]

What I have been inferring is that the properties of some basic elements of our universe such as light, gravity, sound may exist for the purpose of sustaining and enhancing life.  The genetic mutation is just a physical means of implementing this purpose.

They may exist for that purpose, but there's no reason to think so.

O.

[Shaker]

Alan Burn's whole post(5124) reminded me amusingly of  Ray Comfort's 'atheist's nightmare' . For those who have not seen it, it is certainly worth a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

That was the one so embarrassingly, shamefully witless that Comfort a year or two later disowned the "argument."

[Alan Burns]

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

The notion of evolution via natural selection acting upon random variation very solidly does speak against the idea that any trait has a purpose - they have uses, certainly, but purpose implies something intending that solution, and evolution doesn't require that.

O.

But would evolution have taken place if light waves did not eminate from certain chemical reactions?  Was the light there for a purpose?

[Outrider]

In this case I was not talking about complexity, just recognising things which have a perceived purpose.  The scientific explanation for how the human eye can interpret different wavelenghths of light can't be used to say that our perception of colour does not have a defined purpose.

The notion of evolution via natural selection acting upon random variation very solidly does speak against the idea that any trait has a purpose - they have uses, certainly, but purpose implies something intending that solution, and evolution doesn't require that.

O.

But would evolution have taken place if light waves did not eminate from certain chemical reactions?  Was the light there for a purpose?

In this form, possibly not - what might have happened in its place?

Was the light there for a purpose? Not that we know of, not that we have any evidence for. It is a possibility, but we have a perfectly good explanation of where light came from that doesn't involve unexplained conscious choices.

O.

[Shaker]

But would evolution have taken place if light waves did not eminate from certain chemical reactions?  Was the light there for a purpose?

Alan: you need to start wrapping your head around the fact that evolution occurs within/according to prior conditions and parameters, and not vice versa.

I thought you reckoned you knew how evolution works? Start showing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I have been inferring is that the properties of some basic elements of our universe such as light, gravity, sound may exist for the purpose of sustaining and enhancing life.  The genetic mutation is just a physical means of implementing this purpose.

You are of course welcome to infer that if you wish, just as (in Douglas Adams's famous analogy) a puddle might infer that the hole it occupies so perfectly had been designed for just that purpose.

As all the logic, evidence and scientific theory tells us though that it's the other way around - we fit the universe, the universe doesn't fit us - you're almost certainly wrong to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But would evolution have taken place if light waves did not eminate from certain chemical reactions?

Evolution does take place where's there's no light - deep underwater, or in pitch dark caves for example.

Was the light there for a purpose?

No, and it would be exceptionally arrogant as well as contrary to the evidence to think otherwise.

[BeRational]

Some creatures as blue said live deep underwater where no light can get, and Iive around deep sea vents spewing very hot water and other chemicals.

[Alan Burns]

But would evolution have taken place if light waves did not eminate from certain chemical reactions?  Was the light there for a purpose?

Alan: you need to start wrapping your head around the fact that evolution occurs within/according to prior conditions and parameters, and not vice versa.

I thought you reckoned you knew how evolution works? Start showing it.

I was just postulating what pre conditions might be needed to facilitate the process of evolution, and what might happen if some of these pre conditions were different or missing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just postulating what pre conditions might be needed to facilitate the process of evolution, and what might happen if some of these pre conditions were different or missing.

Either organic life wouldn't start at all if the conditions weren't right, or if it did it would probably adapt and evolve as its environment changed. Your big mistake here seems to be your assumption that Homo sapiens is some kind of end-game or goal rather than the chance outcome of a hugely long chain of genetic mutations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gonners,

Why!! because it is complex to you, what was it Vlads pin up boy said, something about we have evolved from an ancestor whose  brain was only geared to judge the speed of a antelope so he could chuck his spear at the right time, or words to that effect

Of course it seems complex to us, to God, first take some sticky backed plastic ain't that the great goal, the grand unifying theory, one that we will all understand, Occam/Ockham Razor, the simplest solution.

Gonnagle.

PS: Yes I know Occams Razor is a bit more complex, poetic license

Always a treat to hear from you. Why a complex god? Because "He'd" have to be to create such a complex entity as the universe, unless you'd want to argue for a simple god who had no idea that a few basic forces and materials would lead to such an unforeseen outcome.

Either way, it's all a bit circular: complex universe is evidence for god, but you need a god for there to be a complex universe in the first place etc.   

Hillside, The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.
That stands as a corrective for your claim.

I always thought chaos theory came and went quite quickly in popularity. I often wonder if The Dawkinistas stymied it like they tried to stymie Giaia theory as their Lord and Master didn't go a bundle on it.......or is that just me wanting to pin some shit on the good Dawkter?