Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

The point I was making is that in order to have the effect that it has, the Moon has to be the size it is.

That's actually not an explanation of anything. It amounts to, "the reason the moon is the size it is, is that it is the size it is."

Exactly.

It doesn't even come close to explaining why it didn't end up being some other size, among the vast possibilities, and why that size should be ideal for the kind of world and life we have.

Well, the thing with teleology is that it puts the cart before the horse. Of course the size of the Moon is ideal for the kind of world and life we have. Why, since you think the question pertinent, is the kind of world and life we have ideal?

[Immanuel Can]

Yet here we are. Some explanation required. None available but design. "Time plus chance" simply isn't adequate to the job.

Why not? ENOUGH time plus chance.

The mechanism is not adequate. "Time" doesn't "do" things. "Chance" doesn't "do" things. You'd need to be able to posit something beyond mere time and chance.

No matter how small the probability of event X, as long as not zero, given ENOUGH time the event may be expected to occur.

Actually, that's a non-sequitur, a "does-not-follow," logically.

Infinite time would give infinite alternate possibilities. Unless something constrains the number of possible outcomes, then any amount of time does not increase the chances of anything...the chances against always remain infinite.

And the different possibilities are clearly infinite. Is it not obvious that there could just as easily as this one, be a universe in which the pen on your desk was one micrometer to the right, but everything else was identical? What about another with the pen two micrometers to the right? Or three? You can play that game infinitely. So you're never going to run out of "possible worlds" that could have been actualized, and there will forever remain an infinite number of other ways things could be.

Then ask yourself this: it's possible to think of a universe in which Superman is real, but is also a cow. One can imagine it. Does that mean that somewhere in the infinite universe, Superman is real and a cow? Something's clearly wrong with that kind of imagining, right?

You need more than saying "the universe coming into existence as a chance event is very, very, .........,very unlikely.

Actually, that's not correct. All you need is probability. You don't need to prove certainty. If something (like Supercow) is so astronomically unlikely as to not be reasonable, a reasonable man does not rest his belief in that possibility. In fact, a reasonable man always goes with the most probable hypothesis, since all human knowing is probabilistic, not absolute. But when something is shown to be significantly higher in probability than an alternative explanation, then the more probable hypothesis is the one a reasonable man should accept as true by default, and only change it if the balance of probability shifts significantly, for some reason.

So we can banish Supercow. And we can banish "time plus chance," since they don't do anything. We need a new causal hypothesis for how the universe gets going. And what would that be?

[Immanuel Can]

The point I was making is that in order to have the effect that it has, the Moon has to be the size it is.

That's actually not an explanation of anything. It amounts to, "the reason the moon is the size it is, is that it is the size it is."

Exactly.

That's not an explanation at all, you'll find. There's no particular reason the moon had to end up the size that it is. How would we think that the universe "owes us" to deliver to us a moon, or Jupiter, or a Sun, or a whole cosmos that is fine-tuned for our existence to an immaculate degree of fineness? We're not owed any such thing, are we?

So, "the moon is the size it is because it's the size it is" is a sterling example of circular thinking: I'd say "reasoning," but honestly, it doesn't even rise to the level of reasoning or logic.

Of course the size of the Moon is ideal for the kind of world and life we have.

Why "of course"? Why couldn't it have been different? I don't think there's any reason for this confidence.

[MikeNovack]

Every creature that has ever lived, or ever will, including you, is a transitional form.

That's not true, actually. A transitional form is a "bridge" between species, not merely a variant of an existing species. If Evolutionism were true, there should be billions of such transitional forms for every single complete species on the planet: yet neither in the present situation, nor in the fossil record, do we find such forms in the vast numbers that the theory would lead us to expect.

[/quote]

THAT is for what Darwin gave an explanation, why his work was titled "On the Origin of Species". Earlier advocates of "evolution" were unable to explain why we do NOT observe the "smear" of transitional forms at any given time of observation. Your stated objection to "evolutionism". Yes, in the fossil record we DO observe transition, but only over time. Fossils from any given time do not.

In other words, at any given time we observe only the species, adapted to its niche, with SMALL variants. If the niche also has some variation, species variants better suited to that niche variant do better in it than those of the species that do not. This proceeds with niche variation greater but in the same "direction" so the species variation follows. Eventually resulting in a split of the species into two.

Again, at any given time we see these populations existing as species, not a smear of transitional forms. We see species gradually changing over time, sometimes splitting (when variations of the niche exist at the same time. We don't see giraffes of all neck lengths from short to long at the same time, but in the fossil record we do see transition of a species that once had a normal short length to a species with the very long neck we expect of giraffes << in this case the niche variant always existed, leaves on trees that normal neck length browser could not reach.

Look, I don't care that you don't believe in evolution. But you cannot expect to convince C basing your argument for religion that way, because being rational, C believes in science. Science does NOT preclude sensible arguments for deity. LOL, back in uni days, I'd expect to find a morning minyan in the Math/Physics building, not some humanities building.

[Immanuel Can]

Every creature that has ever lived, or ever will, including you, is a transitional form.

That's not true, actually. A transitional form is a "bridge" between species, not merely a variant of an existing species. If Evolutionism were true, there should be billions of such transitional forms for every single complete species on the planet: yet neither in the present situation, nor in the fossil record, do we find such forms in the vast numbers that the theory would lead us to expect.

THAT is for what Darwin gave an explanation, why his work was titled "On the Origin of Species". Earlier advocates of "evolution" were unable to explain why we do NOT observe the "smear" of transitional forms at any given time of observation.

Actually, what Darwin gave was his explanation for variation within species. Remember his finches? He may have wished he had more; he didn't.

Yes, in the fossil record we DO observe transition,

We don't, actually. Moreover, for every "fixed" species, we should also observe billions of variants...not just in the fossil record, but everywhere, on every side. If species morphed into other species, there should be innumerable variants, and after billions of years, nothing like "fixed" species at all, perhaps.

In other words, at any given time we observe only the species, adapted to its niche, with SMALL variants.

Small variants, plus billions of years, = huge variation. That's what we should see.

Again, at any given time we see these populations existing as species, not a smear of transitional forms.

This is true. But it's not what should be true, if Evolutionism were true. So it raises the question: what force "fixes" species, and keeps them from being interfertile, for long periods of time?

We see species gradually changing over time,

We don't see inter-species changes. We see only intra-species changes.

We don't see dogs becoming cats. We see dogs becoming different kinds of dogs...and all interfertile. And cats becoming cats...all interfertile.

C believes in science.

Let's see if that's so. I think you'll find that real science doesn't require "belief," but rather, it responds to evidence. I don't know that real "science" has a particular agenda it intends to work out in advance, and in indifference to the evidence. And the evidence for transitions between species just isn't there, and isn't what the pseudo-scientific myth of Evolutionism would induce us to expect.

[commonsense]

Sorry...I'm not seeing an answer to my questions. Just an ad hominem, with an attempt to escape.

Let me ask you again, and most pointedly: is Israel "chosen"?

You said Israel, but do you mean Israel or the Jewish people or the Jewish religion?

It won't matter. Because "chosen" means there has to be a "chooser."

To say that the Jewish religion is only "chosen by Jews" would be unremarkable, and in fact tautological. What does it amount to, if some belief is merely "chosen" by those that choose it? If the Jews only "choose" to believe they're the people of God or the inheritors of the Law or the rightful denizens of Jerusalem, then what information does that give us? Only that they want something that, plausibly, is not even theirs, if God is not the "chooser".

But Jews understand "chosen" to mean, "chosen by God." They refer to things like God's promise to Abraham, or the selection of Israel out of Egypt, or the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. All these would signal interventions from the Creator, and more...that He had specially chosen Israel for some destiny or purpose unique to them, and which He was guaranteeing them to attain. Likewise, the "giving" of Jerusalem to the Jewish people signifies an intervention...and if God did not "give" anything to them, then they have no title to it at all.

But Janoah insists no such thing can happen: God can't act into His creation. So the term "chosen" would cease to have any meaning...nobody "chose" it, and it isn't "chosen" to be anything, then.

So I would like to know what he believes about all that.

I thought the Jews were the chooser, choosing to follow God’s 10 Commandments.

In another regard, I am in possession of evidence of a world of spirits of the dead. Can this be linked to evidence of the existence of God?

[Impenitent]

sorry, couldn't resist

]Well, the thing with teleology is that it puts the cart before the horse.

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks, “Do you want a beer?” The horse replies, “I think not,” and then disappears.

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

You said Israel, but do you mean Israel or the Jewish people or the Jewish religion?

It won't matter. Because "chosen" means there has to be a "chooser."

To say that the Jewish religion is only "chosen by Jews" would be unremarkable, and in fact tautological. What does it amount to, if some belief is merely "chosen" by those that choose it? If the Jews only "choose" to believe they're the people of God or the inheritors of the Law or the rightful denizens of Jerusalem, then what information does that give us? Only that they want something that, plausibly, is not even theirs, if God is not the "chooser".

But Jews understand "chosen" to mean, "chosen by God." They refer to things like God's promise to Abraham, or the selection of Israel out of Egypt, or the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. All these would signal interventions from the Creator, and more...that He had specially chosen Israel for some destiny or purpose unique to them, and which He was guaranteeing them to attain. Likewise, the "giving" of Jerusalem to the Jewish people signifies an intervention...and if God did not "give" anything to them, then they have no title to it at all.

But Janoah insists no such thing can happen: God can't act into His creation. So the term "chosen" would cease to have any meaning...nobody "chose" it, and it isn't "chosen" to be anything, then.

So I would like to know what he believes about all that.

I thought the Jews were the chooser, choosing to follow God’s 10 Commandments.

Quite the opposite: they are "The Chosen," the select nation, chosen out of the nations, that worships the One True God. That's what a Jewish person understands by it.

In another regard, I am in possession of evidence of a world of spirits of the dead. Can this be linked to evidence of the existence of God?

It would be evidence of various things...afterlife, for example. Some would say it's evidence for spirits -- benign or malign. But it would certainly undermine the Materialist insistence that only what they can physically touch can be real, and would argue for more than the material world.

[Immanuel Can]

sorry, couldn't resist

]Well, the thing with teleology is that it puts the cart before the horse.

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks, “Do you want a beer?” The horse replies, “I think not,” and then disappears.

-Imp

A Buddhist walks into a sandwich shop, and says, "Hey, Mac...make me one with everything."

[MikeNovack]

We see species gradually changing over time,

We don't see inter-species changes. We see only intra-species changes.

We don't see dogs becoming cats. We see dogs becoming different kinds of dogs...and all interfertile. And cats becoming cats...all interfertile.

There was once a species, the LCA of dogs and cats (in family carnivra) , that became both dogs and cats

A grey fox looks much like a red fox, yes. THAT is an example of the sort of thing you mean "dog becoming cat" << grey foxes and red foxes are actually about as far apart in terms of genetics as dogs and cats. --- it's like cats becoming dogs (grey foxes can still climb trees and at least partially retract their claws >>

All infertile B....S....... Canis latrans (coyote) moving east encountered Canis rufus (red wolf) and now all up and down the East Coast we have the "eastern coyote" (aka "coy dog")

And forget animals -- I work with chestnuts. All members of the genus Castenea (chestnuts and chinkapins) will fertilize each other. How viable/fertile the offspring of that cross depends on direction (which was the male parent, which the female), the species in question, and on the particular trees. Figure abut 50% will be viable/fertile hybrid chestnuts.

How about grapefruit? They reproduce just fine as if a naturally evolved species. But they came into being from a natural cross of C. sinensis (sweet orange) and C. maxima (pumelo) after humans brought a third species into proximity on Barbados. FIRST C. reticulata (mandarin, original "orange") crossed with the pomelo to make the sweet orange and that crossed back with pomelo to make the grapefruit.

[Immanuel Can]

A grey fox looks much like a red fox, yes. THAT is an example of the sort of thing you mean "dog becoming cat" << grey foxes and red foxes are actually about as far apart in terms of genetics as dogs and cats. --- it's like cats becoming dogs (grey foxes can still climb trees and at least partially retract their claws...

If this is a case of "evolution," it should be totally easy to locate other such cases. In fact, evolution is supposed to be a very "wasteful" process, in that for every successful survival-advantaging mutation, there should be literally millions or even billions of "failed" cases, in which the mutation in question led to a survival "dead end." So there should not be merely one cat-dog (which is not what a grey fox is, by the way), but thousands of specimens of living mutations tending in different directions: some heading to extinction, and a far smaller number heading to permanent species change.

We have far too few of such cases. Yet the entire process is supposed to be a product of random chance: therefore, nature cannot "favour" one kind of mutation to happen, and another not to, except by killing the host. So there should be a ton of dead ends for every successful mutation, however small it may be. And there should be lots and lots of trials, lots of false starts, and very, very few successful ones by comparison of numbers.

Darwin was also very clear that nature could not select for a trait unless is presented a survival advantage. But intermediate stages, stages in which the survival advantage is yet-unrealized but developing, cannot then be selected-for. Lacking any survival advantage (yet) they cannot present to nature as advantageous. So there should be even more evolutionary dead-ends from that variable, as well.

So we shouldn't be looking for weird cases in which a fox can climb. We shouldn't have one archaeopteryx, or one Neanderthal fossil. We should be up to our neck in them...millions for every one developed instance.

And yet we are not. And foxes remain foxes, not cats, genetically. And people remain people, not apes. And the fossil record has no buried us. It's far too sparse to make Darwinian explanations scientifically compelling. But for some, they remain ideologically compelling. And that is quite a different thing.

Anyway, I guess we can milk the old evolutionary myth indefinitely, and you can continue to insist on it, and I can continue to point out how many more holes it has in it than one's average Swiss cheese; but where does all that get us? Only to an argument, but not to a conclusion.

I suppose, therefore, we might return to the main question. Is there a reason to think there is no God? And is there any evidence that would suggest there is? I think that by now, we've certainly shown that it is rational for a thinking person to at least doubt the contrary stories on offer, and to point out things that give reason to believe in the existence of God...or at least not to be doctrinaire about His alleged non-existence, as the OP suggests we might be.

[phyllo]

Why are there any cases if God created animals in 1 day?

[MikeNovack]

If this is a case of "evolution," it should be totally easy to locate other such cases. In fact, evolution is supposed to be a very "wasteful" process, in that for every successful survival-advantaging mutation, there should be literally millions or even billions of "failed" cases, in which the mutation in question led to a survival "dead end." So there should not be merely one cat-dog (which is not what a grey fox is, by the way), but thousands of specimens of living mutations tending in different directions: some heading to extinction, and a far smaller number heading to permanent species change.

<< no, of course the grey fox is not a "cat-dog" in the sense you mean. Back when the LCA of the canidae and felidae "split" into these two line, some we would classify as canidae retained more "cat-like" features (of the LCA) and vice versa. >>

We have far too few of such cases. Yet the entire process is supposed to be a product of random chance: therefore, nature cannot "favour" one kind of mutation to happen, and another not to, except by killing the host. So there should be a ton of dead ends for every successful mutation, however small it may be. And there should be lots and lots of trials, lots of false starts, and very, very few successful ones by comparison of numbers.
<< more or less correct. The genus Urocyon is from a very early split of the line that became the Canidae, Canis the other genus. IN THE BEGIINING there were many species of Urocyon, but now down to two (while there are many species of genus Canis . So go ahead and argue that in the split of proto-Canidae into Urocyon and Canis, Urocyon was unsuccessful relative to Canis Only two surviving species, one of which restricted to some islands so not facing competition from Canis species -- the other very successful/widespread >>

Darwin was also very clear that nature could not select for a trait unless is presented a survival advantage. But intermediate stages, stages in which the survival advantage is yet-unrealized but developing, cannot then be selected-for. Lacking any survival advantage (yet) they cannot present to nature as advantageous. So there should be even more evolutionary dead-ends from that variable, as well.

<< absolutely wrong. The variation must be of some survival advantage at all stages. Your mistake is in assuming that was the SAME advantage as the final form. Birds didn't evolve feathers and wings to fly well. >>

We shouldn't have one archaeopteryx, or one Neanderthal fossil. We should be up to our neck in them...millions for every one developed instance.
<< You really DON'T understand "On the Origin of Species". The fossils you find from any one time will be from ONE SPECIES. The variations will be too small for you to notice. >>

And yet we are not. And foxes remain foxes, not cats, genetically. And people remain people, not apes. And the fossil record has no buried us. It's far too sparse to make Darwinian explanations scientifically compelling. But for some, they remain ideologically compelling. And that is quite a different thing.
<< We ARE "apes". You mean we are a different species of ape than say Pan troglodytes or Pan paniscus. And in some ways, the Neanderthals still exist. They were NOT a different species in the way that matters most -- so you are part Neanderthal (the equivalent of one Neanderthal great-great-great-grandparent) >>

Anyway, I guess we can milk the old evolutionary myth indefinitely, and you can continue to insist on it, and I can continue to point out how many more holes it has in it than one's average Swiss cheese; but where does all that get us? Only to an argument, but not to a conclusion.

<< Unacceptable --- you can of course continue to disbelieve in evolution, just like you can continue to believe the Earth flat with four corners. But using those beliefs in argument will get you nowhere. You do yourself a disservice if you tie your belief in God to nonsense like that. Plenty of people in science are able to believe in a god. >>

[Will Bouwman]

There's no particular reason the moon had to end up the size that it is.

Well, you can go into celestial mechanics and attempt to explain why the conditions of the early solar system resulted in the Moon being the size it is, but you can make up any old nonsense about why that is perfect for the exact conditions we experience today.

Of course the size of the Moon is ideal for the kind of world and life we have.

Why "of course"? Why couldn't it have been different? I don't think there's any reason for this confidence.

Because if the Moon were a different size, there would a different kind of world and life.

[Immanuel Can]

Darwin was also very clear that nature could not select for a trait unless is presented a survival advantage. But intermediate stages, stages in which the survival advantage is yet-unrealized but developing, cannot then be selected-for. Lacking any survival advantage (yet) they cannot present to nature as advantageous. So there should be even more evolutionary dead-ends from that variable, as well.

<< absolutely wrong.

Actually right. Because: if, as you say,

The variation must be of some survival advantage at all stages.

Then anything that has not achieved that level is a genetic injury or a neutral feature, and cannot be selected-for.

So, for example, an unfunctioning flagellum or a non-vision-granting light spot cause a given organism to suffer an anchor instead of a propulsion unit, and a division of attention to something that does not yet yield survival information...which means it's a genetic injury, a survival liablity (to say the least) and not only cannot be selected-for, but is actually a survival-disadvantage.

The fossils you find from any one time will be from ONE SPECIES. The variations will be too small for you to notice. >>

Two problems: if one is trying to describe the origin of the phenomenon of different species, one cannot assume the already-existence of species to do it. But more importantly, if we were to think, contrary to Darwin, that mutations can persist without producing a survival advantage -- which is what the theory of evolution would require us to think -- then we should expect some to be small, some to persist longer, and some to persist even longer...which means the variations should be notable.

Anyway, I guess we can milk the old evolutionary myth indefinitely, and you can continue to insist on it, and I can continue to point out how many more holes it has in it than one's average Swiss cheese; but where does all that get us? Only to an argument, but not to a conclusion.

<< Unacceptable

I find it reasonable.

Plenty of people in science are able to believe in a god. >>

I agree. The problem is not with science, but with the ideology of Evolutionism, which is a form of "Scientism," meaning the naive belief that if people label ANYTHING as "science," from geocentrism to COVID protocols, then anybody who takes issue or asks questions about the belief is "anti-science."

That, of course, is quite absurd. I'm very pro-science. I just insist it must be science, and not Scientism: that is, it must conform to the scientific method, not depart from it in wildly speculative and non-evidentiary ways or become a sclerotic ideology. Science itself is never afraid of questions or critiques: it thrives on them, it requires them, it would stagnate without them. So to accuse those who question of "anti-scientism" is actually, itself, anti-scientific, ironically.