Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The probability of rolling a die six times and getting a 6 isn't one since each time you roll it there are 6 possible outcomes. It works out, iirc, 6 to the power 6 -5 to the power 6 over 6 to the power 6, and is according to my phone calculator 0.6651.

You’re quite right – thank you. The probability is indeed about 66.5%, though the general point about probability and the size of sample set remains. 

[Nearly Sane]

And, of course, I'm contractually bound to remind anyone claiming probability to demonstrate supernatural claims is missing that probability is a methodologically naturalistic approach,  and that it has no meaning in the world of the supernatural where there is no such method, or indeed any methodology.

[Nearly Sane]

The accuacy of the cosmological constant needed to balance the forces in our universe to enable the formation of stars and planets has been calculated as 10 to the power of 120.
I do not have figures for the probability of the correct ingredients and environment needed for life, but even assuming we have these, professor Sir Fred Hoyle made the following calculation:
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

And just to point put that you, and Fred, are mistaking abiogenesis for evolution. Not really much of a biologist, Fred.

[Alan Burns]

And just to point put that you, and Fred, are mistaking abiogenesis for evolution. Not really much of a biologist, Fred.

The point Fred was making was the enormous unlikelihood for process of evolution to even get started without intentional guidance..
And intentional guidance does exist in this universe - humans do it all the time.

[Nearly Sane]

The point Fred was making was the enormous unlikelihood for process of evolution to even get started without intentional guidance..

Which misses thar abiogenesis isn't evolution but then if you want to present random quotes that miss the point, and make you look foolish while ignoring what people say, then on you go.

I see you've added a second sentence

"And intentional guidance does exist in this universe - humans do it all the time."

Not sure what point you are trying to make with that since it seems to be addressing a strawman. That there is intent in the universe isn't denied but that's based on a methodological naturalistic approach, and since that's not about what you are claiming is irrelevant, and indeed highlights the problem of your 'logic' 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point Fred was making was the enormous unlikelihood for process of evolution to even get started without intentional guidance..
And intentional guidance does exist in this universe - humans do it all the time.

So he made the same circular reasoning mistake you're making then? 

[Outrider]

The accuacy of the cosmological constant needed to balance the forces in our universe to enable the formation of stars and planets has been calculated as 10 to the power of 120.

I curious as to what information was used to determine that. What are the other options? What constrains that cosmological constant? Can it vary? What are the other options? How many times has it been deployed? Without answers to any of these questions - and so far as I can tell there are no answers to those questions - any number is just pulled out someone's spiritual arse.

I do not have figures for the probability of the correct ingredients and environment needed for life, but even assuming we have these, professor Sir Fred Hoyle made the following calculation: “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it ...

OK, so two billion trillion stars in just our universe - and, we have no idea how many other universes are out there, some with marginally differing cosmological constants, perhaps - and those two sextillion planets in our own universe have had upwards of 12 billion years of opportunity to produce life once. With a 1 in 10^40,000 chance that's pretty good odds, to be fair, there should be dozens of life-bearing planets spread across the universes.

Even if there aren't, though, even if there's just this one universe, and just this one planet of life to be found in it, as improbable as you seem to think that is, that improbability is still not an argument for the magic that you offer as an alternative.

In the 'unlikely vs magic' debate, I'm going to pick the long odds every single time because magic isn't real.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I curious as to what information was used to determine that. What are the other options? What constrains that cosmological constant? Can it vary? What are the other options? How many times has it been deployed? Without answers to any of these questions - and so far as I can tell there are no answers to those questions - any number is just pulled out someone's spiritual arse.
 

OK, so two billion trillion stars in just our universe - and, we have no idea how many other universes are out there, some with marginally differing cosmological constants, perhaps - and those two sextillion planets in our own universe have had upwards of 12 billion years of opportunity to produce life once. With a 1 in 10^40,000 chance that's pretty good odds, to be fair, there should be dozens of life-bearing planets spread across the universes.

Even if there aren't, though, even if there's just this one universe, and just this one planet of life to be found in it, as improbable as you seem to think that is, that improbability is still not an argument for the magic that you offer as an alternative.

In the 'unlikely vs magic' debate, I'm going to pick the long odds every single time because magic isn't real.

O.

Agree with a lot of this but I would suggest that you are doing much the same on the question of the odds of abiogenesis. We don't have enough information to calculate those odds, and while the number of planets are a factor the rest of the equation is both unfilled, and in some parts unwritten.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes there is. You don’t like it or don’t find it credible, but it’s still there nonetheless. Just because there are still lots of unanswered questions about consciousness does not for one moment justify your entirely un-evidenced assertion that a materialistic explanation for it is therefore impossible.

There is no material definition for what comprises a thought or how it is generated - you may continue to presume that it is some sort of pattern of material reactions, but that denies our demonstrable ability to control our thoughts - I know that you will continue use this ability to try to claim this as a logical impossibility, but reality will trump your claim.

A useful rule of thumb here is that a jig-saw with some pieces is more likely to give you an accurate picture than a jig-saw with no pieces at all. You should try to remember this.   

We are both starting with an unfinished an unfinished jigsaw of reality - I do not deny any of the existing pieces, but I see lots of evidence that they form part of an intentional finished picture.

No, I only “presume” to accept for now the evidence I do have rather than to abandon it in favour of a logically impossible alternative for which there’s no evidence of any kind.

I am not abandoning any existing evidence - I see it all as evidence of a creative force beyond our understanding.

“The reality we all perceive” is just a convenient but wrong fiction for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times without rebuttal.

The reality I perceive confirms our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes - you continue to use this ability to try to deny such an ability

Wrong again. It’s not that it’s just “perceived by me” – it’s perceived by anyone capable of rational thought, and it stands until and unless someone produces more robust reasoning – something you’ve never managed to do.

You have yet to give a feasible explanation for how any rational thought can take place without conscious ability to guide our thoughts.

Yes it feels that way doesn’t it. Had you but a basic grasp of reason though, you’d know that reality must be otherwise.

It feels that way because that is the way it is.  It enables our ability to reason.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is no material definition for what comprises a thought or how it is generated -…

Yes there is:

“Fundamentally, our thoughts are maps representing and corresponding to things that our brains have either perceived with our senses, felt with our emotions, or formed as an action plan (e.g. forming an image of reaching for a ripe fruit on a tree branch). All of these are electrochemically mediated processes. Thoughts may be fleeting, or they may later be consolidated as memories. Memory too is a physical process, encoded by structural molecular changes in neuronal connections.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-purpose/201902/what-actually-is-a-thought-and-how-is-information-physical#:~:text=Fundamentally%2C%20our%20thoughts%20are%20maps,these%20are%20electrochemically%20mediated%20processes

…you may continue to presume that it is some sort of pattern of material reactions, but that denies our demonstrable ability to control our thoughts - I know that you will continue use this ability to try to claim this as a logical impossibility, but reality will trump your claim.

I don’t just presume it – I accept the evidence available to me as my working hypothesis, and the rest is just another repetition of your claim to demonstrate something without ever actually demonstrating it.

We are both starting with an unfinished an unfinished jigsaw of reality - I do not deny any of the existing pieces, but I see lots of evidence that they form part of an intentional finished picture.

I start with all the pieces available to me from neuroscience. There are no pieces available to you from the white noise claim “soul”. QED   

I am not abandoning any existing evidence - I see it all as evidence of a creative force beyond our understanding.

Of course you are – the evidence from neuroscience just for starters, and there’s no evidence at all for “how you see it” actually indicating a creative force. That’s just a blind faith claim.

The reality I perceive confirms our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes - you continue to use this ability to try to deny such an ability

Drivel. All it “confirms” is that you’re victim to simplistic and evidence-denying narratives that happen to shore up your religious beliefs. 

You have yet to give a feasible explanation for how any rational thought can take place without conscious ability to guide our thoughts.

Not true, but even if it was true that wouldn’t help you. You’re the one claiming that a materialistic explanation for consciousness is impossible so it’s your job to demonstrate that rather than just to assert it. Telling us instead that you’re not satisfied with the materialistic explanations you are given (so what?) doesn’t explain one damn thing about why you think it’s also impossible. So far as I recall, never once have you taken even one step toward doing that and you have no excuse now for not realising that shifting the burden of proof is yet another of the fallacies on which your tottering house of sand rests.     

It feels that way because that is the way it is.  It enables our ability to reason.

No, it only feels that way because you refuse to think about why in this case perception and reality are misaligned. 

Oh, and you still haven't addressed the circular reasoning problem with your fine tuning argument. 

[torridon]

The accuacy of the cosmological constant needed to balance the forces in our universe to enable the formation of stars and planets has been calculated as 10 to the power of 120.
I do not have figures for the probability of the correct ingredients and environment needed for life, but even assuming we have these, professor Sir Fred Hoyle made the following calculation:
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

However, things have moved on quite a bit since Hoyle's day.  There is a widespread anticipation among scientists that we will find life elsewhere in the universe, and maybe even in our own Solar System.  You just need a habitable zone with water and you have the basic requirements for life.  Chemistry will do its stuff, given time.

[Nearly Sane]

However, things have moved on quite a bit since Hoyle's day.  There is a widespread anticipation among scientists that we will find life elsewhere in the universe, and maybe even in our own Solar System.  You just need a habitable zone with water and you have the basic requirements for life.  Chemistry will do its stuff, given time.

I think that misses the point that probability is not a useful guide to methodological naturalist claims that are being made here.

[jeremyp]

And, of course, I'm contractually bound to remind anyone claiming probability to demonstrate supernatural claims is missing that probability is a methodologically naturalistic approach,  and that it has no meaning in the world of the supernatural where there is no such method, or indeed any methodology.

Probability isn't an argument in a multiverse either or in an infinitely large single Universe. This is one reason I don't like either as a concept, but, of course, me not liking it doesn't make it false.

[Outrider]

Agree with a lot of this but I would suggest that you are doing much the same on the question of the odds of abiogenesis. We don't have enough information to calculate those odds, and while the number of planets are a factor the rest of the equation is both unfilled, and in some parts unwritten.

Largely I'd agree with that - I certainly wouldn't normally just accept those numbers (or probably any numbers) on probability without seeing some rigorous support for it, but it was just an attempt to show that the size of the universe puts seemingly unbelievable odds into perspective.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes there is:

“Fundamentally, our thoughts are maps representing and corresponding to things that our brains have either perceived with our senses, felt with our emotions, or formed as an action plan (e.g. forming an image of reaching for a ripe fruit on a tree branch). All of these are electrochemically mediated processes. Thoughts may be fleeting, or they may later be consolidated as memories. Memory too is a physical process, encoded by structural molecular changes in neuronal connections.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-purpose/201902/what-actually-is-a-thought-and-how-is-information-physical#:~:text=Fundamentally%2C%20our%20thoughts%20are%20maps,these%20are%20electrochemically%20mediated%20processes

I don’t just presume it – I accept the evidence available to me as my working hypothesis, and the rest is just another repetition of your claim to demonstrate something without ever actually demonstrating it.

I start with all the pieces available to me from neuroscience. There are no pieces available to you from the white noise claim “soul”. QED   

Of course you are – the evidence from neuroscience just for starters, and there’s no evidence at all for “how you see it” actually indicating a creative force. That’s just a blind faith claim.

Drivel. All it “confirms” is that you’re victim to simplistic and evidence-denying narratives that happen to shore up your religious beliefs. 

Not true, but even if it was true that wouldn’t help you. You’re the one claiming that a materialistic explanation for consciousness is impossible so it’s your job to demonstrate that rather than just to assert it. Telling us instead that you’re not satisfied with the materialistic explanations you are given (so what?) doesn’t explain one damn thing about why you think it’s also impossible. So far as I recall, never once have you taken even one step toward doing that and you have no excuse now for not realising that shifting the burden of proof is yet another of the fallacies on which your tottering house of sand rests.     

No, it only feels that way because you refuse to think about why in this case perception and reality are misaligned. 

Oh, and you still haven't addressed the circular reasoning problem with your fine tuning argument.

It would appear that we look upon the reality of our existence through very different eyes, Blue.
I look with wonder and awe at the evidence all around us of God's amazing creativity.
I see the precious gift of God's love in action between people on this earth.
I also perceive the dreadful power of evil which has infiltrated humanity and hides the truth from so many.

You seem to perceive nothing but the unintended consequences of unguided material reactions.

I look forward to the true fulfilment of my soul in heaven as God intended.
You, sadly, have nothing to look forward to but eternal oblivion after your brief life on this earth.

I hope and pray that you, and everyone else on this forum, will one day see the light.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

The assertions clerics make about this world may well be about, say, who people should and should not go to bed with but they still cite their supposed gods’ supposed wishes about that and so there’s nothing to test. Politicians on the other hand generally produce manifestos whose promises can be tested after the event, which seems to me to be a pretty important difference between the two groups.     
 
No, what changes is that for the religious faith is put front and centre as if it had epistemological value, whereas politicians rarely in my experience rely on faith claims and instead anchor their statements to real world outcomes that are testable. I can see that in a Venn diagram there is some overlap between the two, but the bigger parts of the two circles are separate.     

Yes.

Politicians make an appeal to voters to vote for them based on voters assessing (1) the ethics of the politician's policies or campaign promises (so an appeal to abstract beliefs about right and wrong and fairness and justice) and (2) whether the voter believes if the politician will deliver on those policies or promises.

The voter's beliefs about ethics or whether the politician will deliver on their promise or policy is not based on a statistical analysis.

Eg. Trump promised if elected he would carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. In response, Voters would first form an opinion on whether mass deportation is ethical or constitutional - much like the religious deciding "who people should and should not go to bed with". What would you suggest voters test in order to decide on the ethics of mass deportation in order to decide how they should vote?

Voters would then form an opinion on the likelihood of Trump keeping his promise. Voters have not analysed how they would verify it was the "largest domestic deportation operation".  Trump has not specified a deportation target or time frame or cost of this operation. So what would voters test?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would appear that we look upon the reality of our existence through very different eyes, Blue.

Yes – reason- and evidence-based working hypotheses vs heavily enculturated wishful thinking.
 

I look with wonder and awe at the evidence all around us of God's amazing creativity.
I see the precious gift of God's love in action between people on this earth.
I also perceive the dreadful power of evil which has infiltrated humanity and hides the truth from so many.

And someone else looks at rainbows as evidence for the joyous beneficence of leprechauns. So what?

You seem to perceive nothing but the unintended consequences of unguided material reactions.

No, I perceive lots of other things too but what I don’t perceive is the frankly bizarre menagerie of spooks whose supposed existence you seek to justify only with very, very bad arguments. Your avoidance of you circular reasoning mistake on which the fine-tuning argument rests is just one example of that.     

I look forward to the true fulfilment of my soul in heaven as God intended.

Good luck with that.

You, sadly, have nothing to look forward to but eternal oblivion after your brief life on this earth.

Spoken like a true Christian. Would Jesus be proud of you for that do you think?

I hope and pray that you, and everyone else on this forum, will one day see the light.

Your total reliance on false arguments to justify your religious claims suggest strongly that the "light" you perceive is actually about as light as a black cat in a coal cellar…

…wearing Ray-bans.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Politicians make an appeal to voters to vote for them based on voters assessing (1) the ethics of the politician's policies or campaign promises (so an appeal to abstract beliefs about right and wrong and fairness and justice) and (2) whether the voter believes if the politician will deliver on those policies or promises.

For politicians (1) policies are much less prevalent than (2) policies though. Consider for example Sunak’s five promises on which he wanted to be judged – all were measurable. Clerics on the other hand have only (1) statements. That's the difference – there's nothing to measure.   

The voter's beliefs about ethics or whether the politician will deliver on their promise or policy is not based on a statistical analysis.

Yes they are. Either inflation came down or it didn’t; either the number of small boats crossing the Channel reduced or it didn’t. There are of course political ethical policy points sometimes too – on equal marriage for example – which are typically free votes not enforced by the party whips, but they’re relatively few in number. 

Clerics on the other hand are almost entirely concerned with (1) statements rather than (2) statements, which are unmeasurable and unverifiable. 

Eg. Trump promised if elected he would carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. In response, Voters would first form an opinion on whether mass deportation is ethical or constitutional - much like the religious deciding "who people should and should not go to bed with". What would you suggest voters test in order to decide on the ethics of mass deportation in order to decide how they should vote?

And at the end of Trump’s term those same voters could count the number of deportations to decide whether or not he’d delivered on the promise. What would you suggest the parishioners count in response to a cleric saying, for example, that same sex people shouldn’t go to bed together? That's a significant difference I think.

Voters would then form an opinion on the likelihood of Trump keeping his promise. Voters have not analysed how they would verify it was the "largest domestic deportation operation".  Trump has not specified a deportation target or time frame or cost of this operation. So what would voters test?

Numbers. See above.