The Limits of Science

[Kuznetzova]

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

You have claimed that DNA is evidence for divine intervention in the universe. On top of that you have claimed that God must be a first cause. (I will assume for brevity, that you mean God was the direct cause of the Big Bang. Honestly, Aristotle knew not an iota of our modern understanding of the cosmos.)

Now let's do a little exercise I like to called Reductio ad Absurdum. In Reductio, you go ahead and pretend like the premises are completely true, then you derive consequences that are absurd. This tells you that the original premises stink, and should be thrown out the window.

Okay, let's do this. Let's pretend like God actually caused the big bang, and that God directly interfered with the Earth in order to design DNA. Those are the premises. Now let's draw some conclusions.

God did the Big Bang directly. When he was finished, he left the universe alone and did not touch it. The universe went about forming stars and galaxies by completely natural forces. It later formed the solar system and earth by completely natural processes. DNA molecules are composed of atoms, mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphorous. These elements were all formed completely naturally (no God involved) in the explosions of stars during their supernovas. DNA chains are made of nucleotide bases. These bases can form naturally and Miller and Urey showed how that can happen, sans God.

So God did the Big Bang, then he departed the universe and went on vacation for 9.7 billion years. The universe did everything naturally by itself while he was gone. Then suddenly, at around 3.5 billion years ago, God comes back to the universe and finds this one little planet near a star in the Milky Way and he says to himself : "Golly gee wizz boss -- I think imma design me some DNA today!"

So God did not create DNA... he sort of fashioned it like a chef from existing ingredients found directly on the Earth already. Yeah that's right. The necessary ingredients were already sitting right there on Earth, ready for God to come along and start stitching them together.(what a coinq-ee-dink!).

What was the first thing God made? God made a bunch of bacteria to slosh around the ocean. And then he took his spanking-new Divinely-Fashioned DNA Molecules and placed most of them where? Yeah, I'm asking you. Where did God put most of the DNA on this planet? Do you know the answer to that question? (Have ever even considered asking it?)

Welp, God put most of his Special Divine DNA in microscopic little bags with needles on them that slosh around in the ocean infecting various bacteria that they ram into (by accident). Those things are called Marine Bacteriophages. They are the most common DNA container on the face of planet earth - by far - by far!

So basically God did the Big Bang, went on vacation for 9 billion years, then came back and decided to cover the entire face of some little rocky planet with viruses that squirt DNA into bacteria. Oh, and by the way, he specifically designed these things to-order, according to his genius plan.


So skakos, we have completed our little Reductio exercise, and we have landed on an absurdum. At this point you have two choices. 1. You can try to amend or discard your premises. or 2. You can continue to make yourself look completely idiotic. Your choice. Ball's in your court, buddy.

[skakos]

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

You have claimed that DNA is evidence for divine intervention in the universe. On top of that you have claimed that God must be a first cause. (I will assume for brevity, that you mean God was the direct cause of the Big Bang. Honestly, Aristotle knew not an iota of our modern understanding of the cosmos.)

Now let's do a little exercise I like to called Reductio ad Absurdum. In Reductio, you go ahead and pretend like the premises are completely true, then you derive consequences that are absurd. This tells you that the original premises stink, and should be thrown out the window.

Okay, let's do this. Let's pretend like God actually caused the big bang, and that God directly interfered with the Earth in order to design DNA. Those are the premises. Now let's draw some conclusions.

God did the Big Bang directly. When he was finished, he left the universe alone and did not touch it. The universe went about forming stars and galaxies by completely natural forces. It later formed the solar system and earth by completely natural processes. DNA molecules are composed of atoms, mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphorous. These elements were all formed completely naturally (no God involved) in the explosions of stars during their supernovas. DNA chains are made of nucleotide bases. These bases can form naturally and Miller and Urey showed how that can happen, sans God.

So God did the Big Bang, then he departed the universe and went on vacation for 9.7 billion years. The universe did everything naturally by itself while he was gone. Then suddenly, at around 3.5 billion years ago, God comes back to the universe and finds this one little planet near a star in the Milky Way and he says to himself : "Golly gee wizz boss -- I think imma design me some DNA today!"

So God did not create DNA... he sort of fashioned it like a chef from existing ingredients found directly on the Earth already. Yeah that's right. The necessary ingredients were already sitting right there on Earth, ready for God to come along and start stitching them together.(what a coinq-ee-dink!).

What was the first thing God made? God made a bunch of bacteria to slosh around the ocean. And then he took his spanking-new Divinely-Fashioned DNA Molecules and placed most of them where? Yeah, I'm asking you. Where did God put most of the DNA on this planet? Do you know the answer to that question? (Have ever even considered asking it?)

Welp, God put most of his Special Divine DNA in microscopic little bags with needles on them that slosh around in the ocean infecting various bacteria that they ram into (by accident). Those things are called Marine Bacteriophages. They are the most common DNA container on the face of planet earth - by far - by far!

So basically God did the Big Bang, went on vacation for 9 billion years, then came back and decided to cover the entire face of some little rocky planet with viruses that squirt DNA into bacteria. Oh, and by the way, he specifically designed these things to-order, according to his genius plan.


So skakos, we have completed our little Reductio exercise, and we have landed on an absurdum. At this point you have two choices. 1. You can try to amend or discard your premises. or 2. You can continue to make yourself look completely idiotic. Your choice. Ball's in your court, buddy.

You are performing a classical sofistical trick here: You ask from the other one all the details (when God did that, how he did the other et cetera et cetera) and if the other fails to provide them you believe you have "proved" something. But I am not buying. "God" is a very "heavy" word and that is why I prefer to avoid using it - at least in the beginning of such discussions.

Let us start with the simple things...

Do you accept that the Universe having a Cause is a valid scientific hypothesis?
Do you believe that claiming "random" is the cause of everything is a valid scientific hypothesis?

This is all I aksed in the first place. No "history" of God's acts. Not his diary posted online. Just simple questions, which are hard to answer...

[Kuznetzova]

This is all I aksed in the first place. No "history" of God's acts. Not his diary posted online. Just simple questions,

That is all you are doing? (!!) You are a liar.

There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes,

Are you backing out of your claim that DNA is evidence of divine intervention on the earth?

[skakos]

This is all I aksed in the first place. No "history" of God's acts. Not his diary posted online. Just simple questions,

That is all you are doing? (!!) You are a liar.

There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes,

Are you backing out of your claim that DNA is evidence of divine intervention on the earth?

I do not understand what you mean. There is no need for hostility here. I am trying to have the conversation step by step here. Are you willing to do that? Would you please tell me if you think it is logical for the Universe to have a cause and - similarly - if you think "chance" can be a valid scientific answer for cause?

As for the question of the DNA, it is an indication of something being designed. Again you are asking for details, which I have not. But that does not nullify the fact that when one sees something "encoded" the first thing he does is look for the... encoder.

[Kuznetzova]

Again you are asking for details, which I have not.

I am asking a perfectly clear, coherent question. Do you believe that DNA constitutes evidence of divine intervention on planet earth?

[skakos]

Again you are asking for details, which I have not.

I am asking a perfectly clear, coherent question. Do you believe that DNA constitutes evidence of divine intervention on planet earth?

I believe that the DNA is an indication of some kind of design. I do not know who is the designer, why he designed it or how. I just understand that something which encodes life in such a way cannot be a result of pure chance. Especially if we take into consideration the FACT that random is equivalent to "noise" in systems...

[Kuznetzova]

Maybe you could first tell us who you are responding to. None of my books here say that DNA was the resulting molecule from a process of thermodynamic noise (aka 'heat').

However, my books do say that DNA is replicated through a complicated enzyme, and that this enzyme itself is encoded in DNA. The thing which forms DNA -- is itself encoded by DNA. There is also something called a ribosome, which translates proteins from RNA strands. My books are unanimous in that science does not know the origin of these things.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogene ... ox-faq.htm

[skakos]

Maybe you could first tell us who you are responding to. None of my books here say that DNA was the resulting molecule from a process of thermodynamic noise (aka 'heat').

However, my books do say that DNA is replicated through a complicated enzyme, and that this enzyme itself is encoded in DNA. The thing which forms DNA -- is itself encoded by DNA. There is also something called a ribosome, which translates proteins from RNA strands. My books are unanimous in that science does not know the origin of these things.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogene ... ox-faq.htm

OK.

But what drives this process? Is it designed or did it occur randomly?

[Arising_uk]

Any reply to the idea that if we can have an uncaused cause why the 'big bang' can't be one?

Or, if we can't, then what caused 'God'?

[artisticsolution]

Any reply to the idea that if we can have an uncaused cause why the 'big bang' can't be one?

Or, if we can't, then what caused 'God'?

Arising, you can't reason with "godbotherers". God always was according to them...and they don't have to explain it because God knows all and has a reason for everything even though our puny brains can't understand it. Not that it is a sin to want to understand...only that it is an impossibility so why try...not only that...just look what happened to those fellows who tried to build that tower to heaven...God showed them...didn't he? You want the same fate? Well, do you?!

I see it more like this...did you even read flatland? I loved that book...soo artistically cool...anyway, remember how it was against the law to think outside of their little 2 dimensional world? That is kinda like it is in religion. Religion believes that some inquiries are sins against God. After all...that is why God banished Lucifer from heaven...he thought he knew better than God. God showed him didn't he? You want the same fate? Well, do you?!

[skakos]

Big Bang COULD be the First Cause. Why not?
But are you really telling me that an explosing with so many "known physical characteristics" defies the "universal" law of causality so easily?
Are you ready to defy Science so easily?

I am not trying to tell that MY theory is right and the others are wrong.
I am just trying to make it clear that the possibility of the existence of a First Cause is as plausible as the non-existence of a First Cause (if not more plausible)

Research should be done in both ways.
Accepting the dogma that "No First Cause exists for the Universe" is just... dogmatic.
And largely unscientific!
Scientists should search for ALL possibilities! Not only the ones that suit their personal beliefs!

[Arising_uk]

Big Bang COULD be the First Cause. Why not?
But are you really telling me that an explosing with so many "known physical characteristics" defies the "universal" law of causality so easily?
Are you ready to defy Science so easily?

Sorry? Are you now saying that a cause has to have a cause? If so where does that leave your 'first cause'?

I am not trying to tell that MY theory is right and the others are wrong.
I am just trying to make it clear that the possibility of the existence of a First Cause is as plausible as the non-existence of a First Cause (if not more plausible)

Then why can't the big bang be it?

Research should be done in both ways.
Accepting the dogma that "No First Cause exists for the Universe" is just... dogmatic.
And largely unscientific!
Scientists should search for ALL possibilities! Not only the ones that suit their personal beliefs!

No offense but you appear to be arguing in contradiction and also that its your dogma that wants this 'first cause' to be a 'God' rather than this 'Big Bang'.

Have you read Leibniz? I think you might like him.

[skakos]

Big Bang COULD be the First Cause. Why not?
But are you really telling me that an explosing with so many "known physical characteristics" defies the "universal" law of causality so easily?
Are you ready to defy Science so easily?

Sorry? Are you now saying that a cause has to have a cause? If so where does that leave your 'first cause'?

I am not trying to tell that MY theory is right and the others are wrong.
I am just trying to make it clear that the possibility of the existence of a First Cause is as plausible as the non-existence of a First Cause (if not more plausible)

Then why can't the big bang be it?

Research should be done in both ways.
Accepting the dogma that "No First Cause exists for the Universe" is just... dogmatic.
And largely unscientific!
Scientists should search for ALL possibilities! Not only the ones that suit their personal beliefs!

No offense but you appear to be arguing in contradiction and also that its your dogma that wants this 'first cause' to be a 'God' rather than this 'Big Bang'.

Have you read Leibniz? I think you might like him.

I have no dogmas. I try to search for the truth free of them.
That is why I believe that both possibilities with the Universe having a First Cause or the Universe being eternal are plausible.

You are confusing some things said though.
Causation (everything has a cause) is a basic element of todays science. This is what science does: looking for causes. (and formulating prediction models based on these causes)
However the First Cause does not have a cause, by definition.
I do not know what that first cause might be, I just asked you the obvious: If you think it is the Big Bang, then do you have evidence to support your claim?

[Kuznetzova]

OK.

But what drives this process? Is it designed or did it occur randomly?

You have seen bubbles forming in soap. These are stable structures. Lipid membranes can form in water because of amphiphilic and hydrophilic ends on the lipid molecules. When water is boiled at a certain temperature, Bénard cells form in a honeycomb pattern. When water freezes in midair, it forms snowflakes who always have six-fold symmetry (despite their otherwise unusual characteristics).

In natural settings, rocks can form into patterns from volcanic activity. These appear to look remarkably like human-constructed bricks.



These photographs came from the coast of Ireland. Do you attribute this pattern formation to spirits? Do you attribute the formation of bubbles to a "designer"? I would assume your answer is 'no' to both questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

[skakos]

OK.

But what drives this process? Is it designed or did it occur randomly?

You have seen bubbles forming in soap. These are stable structures. Lipid membranes can form in water because of amphiphilic and hydrophilic ends on the lipid molecules. When water is boiled at a certain temperature, Bénard cells form in a honeycomb pattern. When water freezes in midair, it forms snowflakes who always have six-fold symmetry (despite their otherwise unusual characteristics).

In natural settings, rocks can form into patterns from volcanic activity. These appear to look remarkably like human-constructed bricks.



These photographs came from the coast of Ireland. Do you attribute this pattern formation to spirits? Do you attribute the formation of bubbles to a "designer"? I would assume your answer is 'no' to both questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

Are you serious?!? I am asking you about the DNA which encodes life and you bring me examples of autocatalysis and rocks with geometrical shapes? Do you really think this is even close to being related to the topic? I am asking how meaningful (actually "complicated meaningful and encoded", but let's stick to the simple version for now) information can be generated through a random process. In no system have I known how such things can happen. And this is PRECISELY why we take precautions to minimize the random noise in electronics and communications: not only it cannot produce valuable information but it also hinders the transmission of the already existing information. And no, hexagonical rocks cannot play the role of TCP Error Handling if you get my meaning...