30 thoughts on “It’s life, Don, but not as we know it”

1. Don:
   “Present evidence, not validations, for the natural fine-tuning of the fundamental forces and for the natural origin of those forces and I’ll use that as a model for my evidence for the existence of God.”

   This is wrong from the beginning…it includes the claim in the premise.
   The supposed “ fine-tuning” is what Don has to prove!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓

2. Thanks for your reply.

   In the interest of conversation, The point I’m making is that I want to know how to respond to your request for evidence. I had hoped to take your reply as a guide.
   What I see in your post is a reply. Thank you. But it isn’t much different from what I’ve done.

   “fine-tuning for life.” I think I haver narrowed that down to fine-tuning of the fundamental forces for the existence of the universe. It happens that this also provides for life as I have noted regarding entropy https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/03/evidence.html I have long been interested in Michael Denton’s thesis in Nature’s Destiny. It is that because of the basic constituents of the universe, particularly carbon, life of some sort should be expected.

   So, at the level of carbon, which is quite a few generations up from the elements of the Big Bang the universe is suited for life. And life is not inevitable. It is simply possible. BUT THAT IS NOT MY POINT.

   (Your earlier post about the Big Bang deserves more attention than I’ll take here. I’ll treat it in a post on my own blog.)

   “ what the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for is inanimacy.” If you do the math as you have done, you are right. But that ignores the fact that we are here, and the universe produced the conditions that allow us to be here. We may not be alone, but in either case we are unusual (See Rare Earth). That alone requires explanation. Why are we at all when the universe is unlikely to produce us?

   “fine-tuning … implies conditions were created in order for life to arise.” Not necessarily. It is simply a statement of what scientists observe and can measure. The requirements for the existence of this universe as it is require the basic fundamental forces and laws to be what they are with very little room for variation.

   “ Conditions happened to be conducive for life’s emergence, though only after 3.7 billion years of inanimacy.” Actually quite a bit longer than that. If the universe is 14 billion years old and life on earth is only giver or take 4 billion, that is a period of 10 billion years. And it could not be much earlier because the elements needed for life require several generations of stars to form in sufficient quantity for them to form rocky planets and all the other elements necessary for life as we know it. AND that is all the life we know about.

   “You come at this from the assumption that life is the most incredible thing the universe could possibly produce. We don’t know this. “ No. I said that life at the level of us is the most incredible thing we know of in the universe.

   “No God is required to explain the phenomenon of life” What then is? If we can explain it by purely natural means, why have we not created it? We have the technology, I would think. But even with the technology we would begin with the elements available to us. If we are really going to create life as it was created, we w2ould need to take that process back to the earliest point, which is the Big Bang. That would be a significant feat.

   So, if I apply these same principles to demonstrate God’s existence, let’s start with Occam’s Razor. It “recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. (Wiki) Okay, sense we cannot explain the existence of the universe as it is by natural means, it is reasonable to include a supernatural explanation, which I do. If, of course, you can explain the universe as it is by natural processes alone, there is no need for a supernatural explanation.
   Otherwise, you provide a lot of “ifs” and no actual concrete data and no observable evidence.

   So, when I do something like that, am I not following the pattern that you accept for your thesis?

   What I don’t include is “conditions happen to be.” That implies random chance. But how much random chance? Is there a limit to which random chance can be appealed to? I think Roger Penrose has calculated the probability of random chance. You probably are aware of that.

   I don’t include random chance as an entity because the math does not allow that as a possibility.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

   • No evidence for God here. Dispute what I say as much as you like but that’s not what you said you’d do. You said you’d apply the same principles I used to provide evidence of God and the supernatural. You can’t, can you.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • But plenty of evidence that the world you envision is not what you thought.

       LikeLike

     • Hardly! Did you look at the video koseighty posted? Of course you didn’t.

       In any case this isn’t what you promised you’d do, which was to use the same principles I did to demonstrate that God and the spiritual realm exist.

       It’s another fail, Don.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

   • Young earth creationists like Ken Ham have this strange idea that if they disprove evolution that proves their god by default. They offer no evidence for their god, just bad science and pseudo-science. They prey on the ignorance of their audience in an effort to dazzle them with bullpucky. Feed the audience enough bullpucky, and they will turn to God!

     Don seems to be taking the same approach here. He offers no evidence for his god, just complains that science doesn’t know everything and is also impossible so his god wins! The audience goes wild with applause and his mom pats him on the head for being such a clever boy.

     Don sez: I don’t include random chance as an entity because the math does not allow that as a possibility.

     Wow. Just wow. Probability is a huge part of science. Quantum theory is based completely on probability.

     Have you let science know that probability doesn’t exist? That they’re all doing it wrong?

     Don sez: What I don’t include is “conditions happen to be.” That implies random chance. But how much random chance? Is there a limit to which random chance can be appealed to? I think Roger Penrose has calculated the probability of random chance. You probably are aware of that.

     What?!? What are you even trying to say here?

     What the “conditions happen to be” are always – always – needed to calculate probability.

     What is the probability I’ll be hit by a car? Depends completely on the conditions. Am I in my living room? Am I on a highway? Do I know the highway well or is it new to me and unfamiliar. Hell, am I living in a time when the car has been invented and production broadly available? Without the “conditions [that] happen to be,” the probability cannot be calculated.

     Don sez: I think Roger Penrose has calculated the probability of random chance.

     Random chance where? For what? For the Big Bang? For life to start? For that pimple on my ass to become infected?

     But Penrose is an odd choice to support your claim. He’s an agnostic atheist that doesn’t see a need for god(s). So whatever “probability of random chance” he’s calculated, it doesn’t seem to lead him to conclude the necessity of god(s).

     He’s also the author of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a cosmological model that posits an ever expanding/collapsing universe. Our Big Bang was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. So again, whatever “probability of random chance” he’s calculated, it doesn’t seem to preclude an all-natural universe.

     Don, all you’ve offered us is that you personally don’t think life, the universe and everything is possible naturally, therefore God!

     That’s not evidence, Don. It’s just ignorance.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • Funny how Don quotes Roger Penrose as evidence for his position, and Roger Penrose is in the video denying the very thing Don claims!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Kos, evidence is either direct or indirect. I provided both. (The category of objective evidence is phony. indirect evidence is almost always objective, and direct evidence. Even when it is “scientific.” )

       Direct evidence is also usually objective. I see a car in the parking lot (direct and objective evidence). Or I heard an explosion (direct and objective.) When the disciples heard and saw Jesus that was direct and objective evidence.

       When I tell about what I saw, that is considered direct evidence but is subject to verification by those who hear me. Am I a reliable witness? Am I truthful? Was I there to hear? Corroboration by additional witnesses. And so on. When those conditions are verified my testimony in a court of law is considered direct evidence.

       Nei did not provide any evidence. None. He spent most of his time criticizing the evidence I provided. That’s okay, but it does not substitute for positive evidence.

       He added as his clincher an argument – Occam’s Razor. That is not evidence either. But it also does not work because the entities (facts) he relied on for his conclusion are not sufficient to account for the universe. Something more is required.

       Now, that might be new facts that demonstrate the ability of natural processes and forces to explain the universe. Or it might be something unexpected that can do so. The supernatural is one possibility. But so is a cosmic kid playing with a universe creation kit he got for his birthday. You decide.

       In any event, the entities used in his argument for natural creation need an additional entity. He needs some demonstrated and tested mechanism to explain how the universe is dependent upon initial forces and laws that are not part of the universe themselves but yet determined its origin and development. (If he is going to play the science game, he must play by the rules of science.)

       LikeLike

     • Don:
       “He needs some demonstrated and tested mechanism to explain how the universe is dependent upon initial forces and laws that are not part of the universe themselves but yet determined its origin and development. (If he is going to play the science game, he must play by the rules of science.)”

       Oh, you mean how I’ve been asking you for the exact same thing for your claim of the supernatural?

       You’re a dishonest interlocutor.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

   • Don:
     “Okay, sense we cannot explain the existence of the universe as it is by natural means, it is reasonable to include a supernatural explanation, which I do.”

     It is reasonable? No it’s not! When science gets to a point that it can’t explain something yet, you don’t get to insert a “supernatural explanation”!
     What does that even mean?
     What is the supernatural?
     How does that answer any question?
     What great questions of the past were solved by appealing to the supernatural?
     Lightning from Zeus?
     Earthquakes from moloch?

     Your argument is one big argument from ignorance.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • I don’t get to insert a supernatural explanation? Why? That sounds like a worldview speaking.

       “What great questions of the past were solved by appealing to the supernatural?” Almost all of them. The exceptions are those events caused by Satan.

       That does not eliminate “natural causes.” It only recognizes that natural causes are themselves the effect of God’s creative word. Lightning? Yes. Earthquakes? Yup.

       You know don’t you that those “natural phenomena” are necessary for life on earth. Yes. Lightning fixes nitrogen in the atmosphere and it is precipitated in the rain that accompanies the lightning and makes the earth fetal. In eastern Oregon we looked forward to lightning and rain because the plants grew much better than irrigation and even artificial fertilization could do. Every farmer knows that. Lightning is good and is a gift of God to us.

       Earthquakes are the same. Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plate movement or volcanic activity. Both of those gradually renew the land as either volcanic ash or lava become new earth. Most of the fertile farmland of the Pacific Northwest is the result of ash or weathered lava. Tectonic activity recycles the soil that is washed into the sea as well as other important material (calcium, etc.) and those materials gradually become new land. They are not lost. These processes if they were to cease would result in a sterile lifeless earth. That is just Geology 101.

       God created an earth that is dynamic and whose processes ultimately benefit mankind.

       The people who attributed lightning to Thor were mistaken. God designed it.

       LikeLike

     • Don:
       “I don’t get to insert a supernatural explanation? Why? That sounds like a worldview speaking.”
       No, that sounds like logic speaking.
       Allow me to illustrate:
       Here’s my supernatural explanation… Huitzilopochtli, without doubt, was the most feared and powerful god of the Aztecs. God of the sun and war and sacrifice.
       He created everything!
       I’m asserting without evidence, just like you are.

       What you don’t seem to realize is that when you make a claim, (your god created everything), the burden of proof is on you to show how.

       Don:
       “ The exceptions are those events caused by Satan”

       What? And how do you determine what was caused by satan or by god?

       This is getting frustrating…you keep making unfounded assertions and don’t address any rebuttal. You just keep asserting.

       BTW, atheism is NOT a worldview. Another mistake by you.

       LikeLike

     • goyo, when a person’s only guide to life are bible/fable stories, one can’t expect there to be much substance to that person’s responses when questioned about evidence.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • I have now stopped responding to Don, who fails (declines) to provide evidence for any of his assertions. He is unable to because, as you say, everything he believes derives from myth and fable. He uses the phrase ‘disconnected from reality’ of others, when it applies most appropriately to himself.

       LikeLiked by 3 people

     • Don:
       “God created an earth that is dynamic and whose processes ultimately benefit mankind.”

       Evidence please!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

   • Don:
     “The requirements for the existence of this universe as it is require the basic fundamental forces and laws to be what they are with very little room for variation.”

     “ it is reasonable to include a supernatural explanation, which I do”

     You say a supernatural realm exists populated with a god, a king, a holy spirit, countless angels, demons, spirits of dead xtians (depending on your theology).
     And you say that they interact with us in our physical realm.
     Jesus was able to walk through walls, and just appear and disappear at will, and people who have NDEs say they fly (hover).

     1. What are the basic forces and laws of the spiritual realm?

     3.Can they defy gravity? Does gravity even exist?

     2. How can I as an atheist, experience the supernatural? Don’t tell me talking to god is the only way, because other people who don’t believe in xtianity seem to experience it too. I’m talking supernatural, not just xtian supernatural.
     Be specific, please!

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓

3. When an indoctrinated Christian makes a daft demand like this the best to words I can offer are ….
   Fu… Oops, sorry, I mean, Sean Carroll.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply ↓

   • Two words even…

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓

   • 😅 😂 🤣

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓

4. Circular Arguments Prove God Because Circular Arguments Prove God
   Don’s Great Big Nothing Burger

   P1: Define “God” as the creator of everything.
   P2: The Universe exists.
   C1: Therefore “God” is the creator of everything.

   Problem: The apologist is begging the question. He assumes his conclusion. This is a circular argument. It’s complete and utter bullpucky. We can see that it’s bullpucky with a simple change:

   P1: Define my cat Ensign Tabby Redshirt as the creator of everything.
   P2: The Universe exists.
   C1: Therefore my cat Ensign Tabby Redshirt is the creator of everything.

   This is so fundamentally stupid can’t see why it’s still used. But it is.

   So, the atheist points out that there’s no there there. And the apologist responds, “Yeah, but, the fine-tuning!” Let’s break it down.

   P1: Only “God” could fine-tune the Universe.
   P2: The Universe is finely-tuned.
   C1: Therefore “God” finely-tuned the Universe.

   Again:

   P1: Only my cat Ensign Tabby Redshirt could fine-tune the Universe.
   P2: The Universe is finely-tuned.
   C1: Therefore my cat Ensign Tabby Redshirt finely-tuned the Universe.

   In all these cases P1 assumes the conclusion without presenting any evidence – which is what the apologist is pretending to provide.

   For the first argument, you have to provide some causal link between the God thingy and the Universe, not just assert it.

   For the second, you have to show (at a minimum): 1 – that the Universe is finely-tuned, 2 – that the Universe could have been different (if this is the only possible universe, the fine-tuning argument is moot), and 3 – that the God thingy is the causal agent in this fine-tuning.

   Of course, our fervid apologist will turn to physics to “prove” fine-tuning. But fine-turning is physics, like most things in science, simply describes how the Universe is. (Physical laws describe, they don’t prescribe.). It is a hotly debated subject as to whether the fundamentals providing fine-tuning could have been different. This leaves the fine-tuning argument moot until the physics can be settled.

   As usual, these arguments provide faulty logic and no evidence for the thing they claim to be proving. But, Hey!, they are very impressive to the simple minded.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓

   • The key to any conclusion in a deductive argument is in the premise, Kos, but you know that. If Ensign Tabby Redshirt is capable to fire-tuning and nothing else is, the conclusion follows. It is valid.

     But what if Ensign was capable of fine-tuning the universe, and so was Rover your dog? Then the conclusion is not valid. Is P1 true? That is the question.

     Deductive reasoning assumes the truth of P1. But P1 is in reality the product of inductive reasoning. So …

     1) Is the universe finely tuned? I think that is non-controversial.
     2) Could the universe have been different? In theory, yes. But we know of no such different universe, so our inductive reasoning must be based on what we do know. (All swans are white until we find a black swan.)
     3) There is no evidence for any natural process capable of the fine-tuning. Random chance is likewise so highly improbable that to consider it as the source of fine-tuning is illogical. (It is like flipping a coin once and having it land balanced on its edge. It is possible, but no one would bet on it.) Logically, the level of fine-tuning we can observe is best explained by a mind and not a natural process. Therefore, a mind of some kind is the best explanation. It is not the only possible explanation; a coin landing on its edge is still possible but even that does require a flipper. We know of none.

     So, by inductive reasoning – the particular to the general – we can say with a high level of confidence that P1 is true.

     If P1 is true, and P2 is true, to a high level of confidence, C1 is valid. That is not circular reasoning.

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓

     • What in the hell are you babbling about?
       Write out your syllogism!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • P1 Only God could fine tune the universe.
       P2 The universe is fine-tuned.
       C Therefore, God fine-tuned the universe.

       If P1 and P2 are true, the C is valid.

       That is not a circular argument.

       However, a deductive argument depends on the truth of the premises. If, for example, something else could fine-tune the universe, C is logically invalid. If the universe is not fine-tuned, C is logically invalid.

       In this syllogism, the “only” in P1 is the determining point. As it stands, however, C is valid. unless it can be shown that there are other possible mechanisms of fine-tuning.

       But is the argument sound? P2 is adequately examined to be assumed true. But because there is an insufficient number of possible mechanisms for fine-tuning examined, P1 is possibly not true, and the argument is, therefore, not sound.

       That is the weakness of deductive arguments.

       Example of an unsound syllogism (classic):

       P1 All swans are white.
       P2 this is a swan.
       C Therefore, this swan is white.

       If P1 and P2 are true, C is valid. It sounds circular but it is not.

       But because a larger population of swans reveals that some swans are not white, therefore, it is neither valid nor sound.

       However, though all invalid arguments are unsound, not all unsound arguments are invalid. It only becomes invalid IF one of the premises can be shown to be untrue. So far, in the argument for God being the fine-tuner, no other mechanism has been found. Therefore, it remains valid until one or the other premises is shown to be untrue.

       LikeLike

     • Your P1 is an invalid premise. It presupposes a God exists. You have offered no evidence he/she/it does.

       P1 should read: ‘An infinitesimally small fraction of the universe has conditions that support life and in consequence appears ‘fine-tuned’, when in fact it isn’t.’

       As for Bruce and I venting our anger on proselytising Christians like yourself – perhaps we do. You are, after all, extremely irritating with your ineffectual excuses for God and Jesus. Their disregard of suffering and resulting inaction is enough to make anyone think they don’t actually exist.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • IF P1 is true?

       You can’t begin a syllogism with “if”

       LikeLike

     • It is not my syllogism. Koseighty designed it. And it does not begin with if. It reads, “Ony God can fine-tune a universe.”

       I pointed out its deficiencies in my post. They are not in the syllogism but in the inductive argument that underlies it.

       LikeLike

     • As Neil says…”premise 1 is invalid”

       You can’t presuppose a god…here:

       P1: Only Huitzilopochtli the Aztec god of sun, war, and sacrifice could fine tune the universe.

       You’re a light weight of logic!

       LikeLike

5. I’ll hang this video here. Of course, Don will know more about this subject than some of the most prominent physicists of our time. So it’s kind of silly to post it. With the staggering intellect that is Don Camp Apologist to the Internet I don’t know why I’d turn to experts.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓

6. Okay. Don seems to have a blind spot when it comes to probability. So let’s have a look.

   Probability

   In science, the probability of an event is a number that indicates how likely the event is to occur. It is expressed as a number in the range from 0 and 1, or, using percentage notation, in the range from 0% to 100%. The more likely it is that the event will occur, the higher its probability. The probability of an impossible event is 0; that of an event that is certain to occur is 1.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

   In science probability is always represented as a number between 0.0 and 1.0 – because that’s how the numbers are used in math.

   Percentages require a number conversion every time you want to use them and are only really used when communicating with lay people as are odds. Odds are expressed as 1:1000 or “one in a thousand.” Again, not helpful in math because it requires a conversion every time you want to use it.

   Of Dice and Men

   Let’s look at dice. Assuming a standard, fair, 6-sided die the odds of rolling any specific number (1 to 6) is 1:6 or one in six or 16.67% or 0.1667. Every number, on every roll, has the exact same probability.

   Any number not in the range 1-6 has a probability of 0.0. It’s impossible to roll a 7 in a single roll of a standard 6-sided die.

   Small v. Large Sample Sizes

   It is possible to roll a 6 ten times in a row. The probability is 0.1667 every time. But the results in this case were 1.0.

   But, as sample sizes increase the results will tend toward the probability. If we roll the die 1,000 times we will have gotten a 6 very close to 16.67% of the time or 167 total times.

   Only 0.0 is Impossible

   Which leaves us with this. It doesn’t matter what probability someone has calculated for some event. If that probability isn’t 0.0, it’s possible. It may be very, very improbable. But it’s still possible.

   Many apologists like Don have decided that if the probability is very small, it’s impossible. That simply is not true. Only 0.0 is impossible.

   If something only has a probability of 1 in a quadrillion billion billion billion billion, that thing is still possible. Very rare. But possible.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓

7. Hi Kos, I’ve seen the video before, but watched it again for your sake.

   My take of the video is the same. “We just don’t know.” Repeated again and again.

   Of course we don’t know. There i8s a lot we don’t know. But there is a lot we do know. And that is that we, Homo sapiens with brains and consciousness and the really quite larges ability to examine the universe. know that WE are here because the universe and this planet is fit for life like us.

   We also know that the fundamental laws and forces of the universe were much different WE would likely not exist. Were they different could there possibly be other life forms? WE JUST DON’T KNOW.

   Well according to one of the scientists, “There would be something else.” Okay. Maybe. But WE JUST DON’T KNOW.

   And that really is a red herring in this discussion. It avoids the obvious to elevate the unknown to the place of priority if not certainty. (It reminds me of Carrier’s argument for a mythical Jesus before the Gospels. It is an argument built on silence or ignorance.)

   If you are convinced of the truth of the conclusion you don’t need to be convinced by the argument. ??? What! A philosopher is saying this. Scientists are buying into it. Is that not a violation of the method that underlies science?

   Ther next step, I suppose, is to ignore the counter argument and the evidence. Right? It is just too inconvenient. And to ignore the point of the argument. (Fine-tuning must be a pretty threatening concept for these guys to act so contrary to science in their opposition to it.)

   Kos, this is all crazy-think dressed up in PhDs. Only on this subject would any of these guys say these things. I have to ask why?

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.