Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's not actually a rational argument. You're trying to argue from the observation that things are way X today, that they had to be way X, and could have been no other way.

It's like arguing thus: The reason I won today's lottery was because my ticket was drawn; and my ticket was drawn because somebody had to win, and I was holding the winning ticket.

Does that pass for any kind of explanation? It really shouldn't.

The moon could have been bigger, and revolved at a different rate, or been too close or too far from the Earth. And there would have been no life on the planet, because the oceans would have either stagnated or been spread over the face of the Earth. There's no reason those sorts of things couldn't have happened. Why didn't they? Well, that's what one has to account for.

But the problems at the molecular level, and the problems at the biological level produce additional issues for which the size of the moon will not even supply an answer. So we're back to irreducible complexity, with no working explanations for any of it.

[Will Bouwman]

You're trying to argue from the observation that things are way X today, that they had to be way X, and could have been no other way.

Lemme stop you there, Mr Can. That is not what I am saying. That is you shooting your mouth off without paying proper attention to what I have said. Go back and try again.

[MikeNovack]

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.

Evolution (as a theory)

Proposed ----- if there is some difference that confers an advantage (to survival and reproduction) the population will evolve till dominated by that variation.

Experiment ------- Take a container with 50 white beads and 50 black beads. Each "turn", withdraw a bead and roll a die. If the bead is white and the die shows 1 or 2, put 2 white beads into the container. If the die was 3,4,5, or 6, discard the bead. A white bead has a 1/3 chance of surviving/reproducing and 2/3 to die without reproducing. If the bead drawn is black and the die is 1,2,3, or 4 put 2 black beads into the container. A black bead has a 2/3 chance of surviving/reproducing, a 1/3 chance of dying. The black beads have an advantage in survival/reproduction. Note that there is only chance whether a particular bead will survive/reproduce or not.

Do this until 1000 beads have been drawn, take the beads from the container and count them. How many white? How many black? What has happened to the population? Has it not evolved to be blacker?

In other words, the CONCEPT is broader than our usual application to Biology. It isn't something that only works in Biology. What would be your argument that "if there is some difference that confers an advantage (to survival and reproduction) the population will evolve till dominated by that variation" would not apply in the specific case of Biology?

Don't try to argue "living things would be different". Instead of black and white beads could have been black or white mice. Could have two chambers each with three exit tubes leading to large chambers. For the white mice, two of the three chambers contain cats. For the black mice, one. It's kinder to experiment with beads.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Evolution (as a theory)

Proposed ----- if there is some difference that confers an advantage (to survival and reproduction) the population will evolve till dominated by that variation.

Experiment ------- Take a container with 50 white beads and 50 black beads.

Beads are stable. "Possible outcomes" are practically infinite. So we should maybe start with an infinite number of different coloured beads, each representing a possible outcome.

The black beads have an advantage in survival/reproduction.

No bead has a particular advantage. Not only the beads change, but the bead-environment (i.e. the conditions required for survival) is continually in flux. So knowing when and if beads will ever match the environment, and thus produce the projected survival advantage, becomes impossible.

What would be your argument that "if there is some difference that confers an advantage (to survival and reproduction) the population will evolve till dominated by that variation" would not apply in the specific case of Biology?

Well, for a start, one cannot assume evolution before proving the fact of evolution. And inter-species evolution is not a scientific fact. It's a mere speculation.

Then we need our match between infinite possible variables and a continually variable environment, also varying in essentially infinite possible ways. There are no constraints on the system, you see. And if we put constraints on it (like, only white and black beads), then we have played "God" by pre-setting the variables in play...and we're back to the God hypothesis. So we have to posit the case this way.

The odds are starting to look difficult, are they not? Randomness, or chance plus time, are just not going to do the work we need them to do. We need constraining variables, a relatively stable environment, and only two types of change (survival versus death, presumably) in order for your model to represent the case posited by those who think God is out of the equation.

But we are wandering again. Let's go back to this: is it true that our default supposition has to be the non-existence of God, as the OP would imply?

[Immanuel Can]

You're trying to argue from the observation that things are way X today, that they had to be way X, and could have been no other way.

Lemme stop you there, Mr Can. That is not what I am saying.

Then perhaps a chance to re-explain is in order. Why is it you DO think the moon ended up being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth?

[MikeNovack]

You really don't understand evolution.

Giraffes did not evolve their super long necks able to reach leaves in the treetops (savanna trees are relatively short)

They evolved such long necks starting with an ancestor species with a normal length neck (for a typical browsing critter). But at any given point in the process it was a survival/reproduction advantage to have a neck just a little longer than others of the species, reach a little bit higher and so able to reach leaves the others could not. OVER TIME (many generations) having a neck just a little longer was an advantage. NOTICE -- required for this to happen the TREES had to exist with a continuum of height (shorter young trees, taller older trees).

At no point in this process would you have observed the proto giraffe species with a mix of neck lengths. At any time there would be an average neck length, some a LITTLE bit longer and some a LITTLE bit shorter. But "longer" remained an advantage for many gerations, so the giraffe evolved.

There NEVER was a driving force "be able to eat leaves way up on a tree". The driving force was "be able to eat leaves just a little higher than the other proto giraffes of my generation.

If there were only low shrubs and tall trees, the giraffe would not have evolved. Of course trees do have a continuum of height but we have other examples where the necessary continuum is not obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

You really don't understand evolution.

I don't think anybody really "understands" it, because it's not a coherent theory.

Giraffes

I never mentioned them. I think, though, you'd have to puzzle out what they ate while they were "evolving" long necks. The African savannah, I have seen. Giraffes, I have seen. I'll bet I know a lot more about both than you will in your lifetime.

[Fairy]

By explicitly naming "God" to deny His existence, you conceptually form the entity you are trying to dismiss. Naming is framing. Attachment to any frame is self-deception. To jailbreak your mind is to realise the Infinity of Frame, unlocking Infinite Intelligence and Infinite Love

So where did God come from, the answer is clear, God came from God within its own conceived known conception.

It’s clear that a concept known cannot be unknown. So that’s the infinite knowing in this conception that cannot be unknown.

By claiming there is no God is to simultaneously form a conceptual idea of God into existence as known, that cannot be unknown ..How can a concept known, be known to not be known? that’s just irrational nonsense. Known concepts are already the conception of everything known. This everything known, is what God is. That’s how God is. That’s where God is. In its conception known. When one thing is known, everything is known. How can the source of the known deny the source of the known. How can what is known conceptually ever know the absence of this knowing, again, that’s just meaningless nonsense.

In the Bible: it states (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God)

To state there’s no God is to simultaneously know God as a no God, which is absurdity. It’s like saying there is no human being.
And yet a human being is a known concept and cannot be an unknown concept. It’s like saying there is no nothing, how can it be said that there is no nothing when the concept of nothing is clearly being known. There’s just no way for knowing to experience its own absence of knowing. It’s like being aware of an unaware state, not knowing you are unaware, and then saying I am aware of not knowing I am unaware.

There’s just no way to unknow a concept once the concept has been conceived/ known.

So what’s it to be..something knows a concept, or nothing knows a concept. Either way, both are identical in this clear immediate knowing that cannot be unknown.

[Will Bouwman]

You're trying to argue from the observation that things are way X today, that they had to be way X, and could have been no other way.

Lemme stop you there, Mr Can. That is not what I am saying.

Then perhaps a chance to re-explain is in order.

Well, you didn't understand it first time and their is no hint that your cognitive faculties have improved, but here goes:

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 is it you DO think the moon ended up being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth?

Perhaps, because it doesn't say so in the Bible, you are unaware that one of the tasks performed by Neil Armstrong amd Buzz Aldrin in 1969, was to assemble an array of mirrors calles a retroreflector, on the Moon. Similar devices were left by the crews of Apllo 14 and 15 in 1971. Since that time scientists have been measuring the distance between us and the Moon with incredible accuracy, by bouncing lasers off them. Turns out that distance increases by 3.8cm every year. From that the people who actually know what they are talking about, deduce that 4 billion years ago which, as previously mentioned, is when scientists who are not trying to retrofit facts to religious texts, believe life on Earth began, the Moon was only about a tenth the distance it is today. It is only literally now that the moon is the exact distance it happens be when you read this.
To anyone not obsessed with proving some religious hokum true, that is enough to demonstrate that at least one aspect of the fine tuning argument is much less critical than intelligent design ignoramuses insist it is.

[Will Bouwman]

You really don't understand evolution.

I don't think anybody really "understands" it, because it's not a coherent theory.

Evolution is not a theory, it is the mechanisms, natural selection or God done it, for example, that are theoretical.

[Fairy]

Immanuel Can simply looked at all the known religious conceptions of concept, because he could. And we all can, thus concluded that ‘Christianity’ resonated the most as the word ‘Christian’ is the the first name that cannot be named in Jesus name because Jesus is God by name, the only true named one, that cannot be named by another. Thus the name is both the first and the last, the alpha and the omega. Both are identical. There’s no other infinity.

The saying He that cannot be named is identical to He that can be named. Because any claiming of “cannot” instantly creates a can that cannot not be a can. A ‘ no can’ is still a can, in its conception known, there’s no way to negate the concept known into a no known.

This is obviously clearly known.

[Fairy]

You really don't understand evolution.

I don't think anybody really "understands" it, because it's not a coherent theory.

Evolution is not a theory, it the mechanisms, natural selection or God done it, for example, that are theoretical.

If evolution is not a theory, then by definition, evolution is unknowable. To claim you know a mechanism is not a theory renders the mechanism unknowable. So what are you talking about? Sounds like you are talking about the unknowable as if you somehow know it in the theoretical sense of the word.

[Immanuel Can]

You really don't understand evolution.

I don't think anybody really "understands" it, because it's not a coherent theory.

Evolution is not a theory...

Yeah, it is. If it's not, then it doesn't have any claim to science. All of science is composed of theories that are up-for-testing. Some will prove out, others will not. But science doesn't pretend to know in advance which ones will test out, and which ones won't. It leaves the door permanently open for evidence.

If Evolutionism is not a theory, then all it can be is a sclerotic ideology, something that has been removed from the realm of science and converted into an article of religious dogma.

Pick your poison, I guess.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's exactly the sort of argument I indicted. It's the "of course," when there is no "of course" about it.

The moon could have been any size, shape, configuration and distance from the earth that chance made it to be. But if the moon had been different, we would probably not be here. So your argument looks like "We're here, so the moon had to be the size that it is," which would be the fallacy I was pointing out.

However, you say that's not the fallacy you were encouraging, even while repeating it...so...?

Why is it you DO think the moon ended up being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth?

Perhaps...you are unaware...

3.8 cm is nothing, in real time. But make it into millions of years, and you get absurdities like the idea that the moon must once have been so close or far from the Earth that it would no longer be in geosynchronous orbit.

...believe life on Earth began, the Moon was only about a tenth the distance it is today.

Here's what AI says about the relative distances.

If the Moon were significantly closer to Earth, the consequences would be catastrophic. The severity depends entirely on the distance, but the primary mechanism at play is gravitational force, which increases exponentially the closer the Moon gets.Here is what would happen:Colossal Tides: The Moon’s gravity creates our ocean tides. If the distance were halved, tides would be 8 times higher. If it were 10 times closer, tides would surge by a factor of 1,000, creating ocean swells hundreds of meters high that would wipe out coastlines and completely submerge many islands.Crustal Deformation and Earthquakes: The Moon's gravity would not only pull on the oceans but on the solid Earth itself. This would trigger unprecedented seismic and volcanic activity, causing devastating, globe-spanning earthquakes and covering the sky in ash and smoke.The Roche Limit: If the Moon reached about 11,000 miles (18,000 km) from Earth—a point known as the Roche Limit—Earth's immense gravitational pull would physically tear the Moon apart. The resulting trillions of rock fragments would form a brilliant, deadly ring around our planet similar to the rings of Saturn, followed by apocalyptic meteor showers.

...that is enough to demonstrate that at least one aspect of the fine tuning argument is much less critical than intelligent design ignoramuses insist it is.

It isn't, actually, as you can see. But it's interesting that of all the various fine tuning cases I've pointed out, you went straight for just the moon one, and have been hammering away at it, as if questioning it would be capable of doing equal damage to all the other cases.

But of course, it won't. Fine tuning is a multi-dimensional reality, manifest on the cosmic scale and down to biology, and beyond that to the subatomic scale. You've got one huge mountain of evidence to climb.

[MikeNovack]

You really don't understand evolution.

I don't think anybody really "understands" it, because it's not a coherent theory.

Giraffes

I never mentioned them. I think, though, you'd have to puzzle out what they ate while they were "evolving" long necks. The African savannah, I have seen. Giraffes, I have seen. I'll bet I know a lot more about both than you will in your lifetime.

Try re-reading what I wrote. No puzzle at all. You imagine that the trees in the savanna were created that way? Taller than a giraffe an reach. That each tall tree had to begin as a seed.

If evolution were not "coherent", then how could I have modeled it with beads/dice.

Might I humbly suggest that you consider that both secularists and people with other notions of deity consider your Christian concepts of deity incoherent. Really now, a deity who created an entire universe gives a damn abut each falling sparrow, about whether a hairless ape acts "sinfully" or not.

Evolution is just a theory, because that's all science has, theories, all truths of science contingent on not yet having been proven false.
Fine, you can have faith and belief in pink unicorns for all I care. But realize, useless for you to say to C "I believe this truth with every fiber of my being; therefore you should believe it also". What YOU believe is not a reason for C to believe.