Faith v. Logic

[Drew]

Have you ever seen a house built any way other than by intelligent beings? Isn’t it therefore a principle that things that show organization are governed or built by intelligent beings?

The fact that houses are built by intelligent beings is not strong enough reason to generalize to a statement that organized systems generally must be created by intelligent beings.

Again, we know that it is possible for order to be created without such beings. If a disordered pile of playing cards is blown into the air by the wind, the cards can come down in a highly ordered configuration. This is a situation where a more organized state arises from a less organized state without the application of intelligence. I am not saying this is likely, but it is obviously possible. So there really cannot be an exceptionless law that requires the application of intelligence to produce order.

 

[Drew]

There is no such thing as randomness or chance. The tiniest item that exists is governed by intelligences (called Fate) which ensure that all things unfold they way they are supposed to. Otherwise, no life as we know it could exist.

How you would support such a claim, especially your last statement about "life as we know it"? I actually have an inuition there is indeed no such thing as "randomness". So I have some sympathy with your position. I have no substantial argument to support this intuition. Do you have an argument for your belief?

 

[PDoug]

The fact that houses are built by intelligent beings is not strong enough reason to generalize to a statement that organized systems generally must be created by intelligent beings.

Again, we know that it is possible for order to be created without such beings. If a disordered pile of playing cards is blown into the air by the wind, the cards can come down in a highly ordered configuration. This is a situation where a more organized state arises from a less organized state without the application of intelligence. I am not saying this is likely, but it is obviously possible. So there really cannot be an exceptionless law that requires the application of intelligence to produce order.

Please read the two messages I wrote above your second to last message. Also, the fact that the principle I sighted is seen in all artificial things built by man and beast, means that there is no reason to believe it is not universal law. The example that you gave with the cards does not disprove the law that I sighted. All it means is that the weight of evidence is that the seeming random outcome of the cards is not random at all, but is in fact controlled by intelligent beings.

 

[Drew]

Prophecy is proof of the claim I made above. We know empirically that prophecy is true. If things in fact unfolded by chance, prophecies would never be possible – since chance would cause a cascading effect, knocking events way in the future off course.

While I believe in prophecy, I think this argument does not work.

Let's say that I am playing tennis against the world champ (I am a total hack at tennis). Someone can "prophecy" that I will lose the tennis match. This prophecy will come true even if certain random events occur (e.g. even if this guy's shoe comes off, he will still win).

How you know that the "cascading effect" that you talk of is sufficiently strong to disrupt the fulfillment of a prophecy? You would have to show that God is incapable of "adjusting" his plan to accomodate some randomness and yet still achieve his purposes. That is a tall order. And please remember - no one is claiming that all events are random. If all events were random, then indeed prophecies would often fail to come to pass.

Gotta call it a night - will check in tomorrow.

 

[PDoug]

How you would support such a claim, especially your last statement about "life as we know it"? I actually have an inuition there is indeed no such thing as "randomness". So I have some sympathy with your position. I have no substantial argument to support this intuition. Do you have an argument for your belief?

Please note this message. When you consider a prophecy about what is supposed to happen e.g. 2,000 years into the future, there is no way chance can enter the picture – otherwise it would shatter the prophecy.

 

[Quath]

I happen to agree with Drew about his statements of probability. The car parts in the garage are a good example. If they rattle around, there is a chance that they will just so happen to bounce into the right configuration. The only way to prove this wrong is to show that it is physically impossible. (For example, if the last step has to be the tightening of a bolt and there are no parts flying around to hit the bolt just right to turn it, then it is impossible.)

Now lets take another case. The probability of life coming from nonlife. If you combine atoms in the right way, we get life (or self-replicating molecules). What is the odds of atoms randomly bouncing and joining to create such a structure? Some may guess 1 in a billion. Some may guess 1 in trillion. At an extreme, someone may say 1 in 10 to the billionith power per Earth like planet.

Now lets take that last one as a worst case. That means that you would expect life to develop by pure chance on one planet in 10 to the billionth power. So the big question is "How many Earth-like planets are there?" The current Big Bang theory surmises that there are an infinite number of such planets. Therefore, life is not just possible, it has to occur. In addition, there are an infinite number of planets with life.

Some prophecies are self fulfilled. For example, Jews prefer to live in Israel because they want to fulfill their prophecies. A good prophecy is one that is recorded beforehand and is not vague (like Nostrodameus).

 

[PDoug]

Drew,

Continuing from above, one thing you notice about prophecies: they aren’t just merely predictions of what will happen in the future – they are predictions of events that have been well organized beforehand. In as much as the only way you can exactly predict what will happen at an award show 6 months from now, which unfolds precisely the way you want it to unfold, is if you monitor and control everyone and every event leading up to the show (as well as the show itself). You cannot afford for chance accidents or deaths, or other events to occur. Everything has to be monitored and controlled with adequate precision. Therefore for prophecies to be true, events that people call chance happenings cannot be chance happenings at all – they have been prearranged for the sake of prophecies and other reasons.

Now we see the principle that what appears to be chance happenings in prophetic events and the events leading up to them aren’t in fact chance happenings. There is no reason to believe that this principle does not extend to all things that exist. Therefore the weight of evidence is that the notions of chance and randomness are ultimately false.

 

[PDoug]

I happen to agree with Drew about his statements of probability. The car parts in the garage are a good example. If they rattle around, there is a chance that they will just so happen to bounce into the right configuration. The only way to prove this wrong is to show that it is physically impossible. (For example, if the last step has to be the tightening of a bolt and there are no parts flying around to hit the bolt just right to turn it, then it is impossible.)

The problem is that probability does not undermine the law I sighted – that of organization seen in things requiring an intelligent hand to produce the order. You, Drew and others have to undermine the law above, before you can begin to credibly contend that intelligence does not exist behind all ordering – including those seen in ‘chance’ events.

Some prophecies are self fulfilled. For example, Jews prefer to live in Israel because they want to fulfill their prophecies. A good prophecy is one that is recorded beforehand and is not vague (like Nostrodameus).

If you had genuine faith, you would be amazed by all the improbable events that happen to you that are predicted by the scriptures.

 

[Packrat]

The car parts in the garage are a good example. If they rattle around, there is a chance that they will just so happen to bounce into the right configuration.

Except that would take time. There could be a tremendous earthquake that lasted for one trillionth of a second that would be able to screw in the screws, fasten the bolts, or whatever else. The problem is, though, that an event like that would probably completely obliterate the parts in the process because of the tremendous work that must be accomplished in a single moment. So the problem would be 1. time and 2. environment.

Now look at the earth. Is it logical that life formed on earth in the time allowed and during the events taking place at the time of first life (please fill me in - I personally do not know)? If so, could life have survived? What quantity of life could have survived? What quantity of life could have evolved in the first place? At what point is this life? When did all the parts come together and suddenly become alive on its own? The problem isn't only that a car would need to be formed by an earthquake or a number of earthquakes from all of its separate parts - including scraping the right amount of glue off the ground and sewing the seats just right as the earth quakes. The problem is also getting the car to start and to build other cars on its own and to turn them on as well. That is, if we're still using the car scenario... :-D

So if life can be formed randomly, which may be possible, then is it logical that it could have formed on the earth? If not, why are we here?

 

[Packrat]

So I got a break... Cool.



Within reason I think. I doubt someone could say that it means seventy times seven periods of 22 minutes and 34 seconds. I mean, where's the reasoning in that? But I believe that it was in the Hebraic culture that sevens played the part that tens do in the metric system. I may be wrong, but that's my conclusion from what I've been taught. I had the privilege of attending a lecture (or multiple lectures actually I think) of a rabbi that passed through town one time. I've got all of the tapes of his lecture sessions. At any rate, he was the one who told me that the Hebrews could use sevens in an example in which they could say, "... weeks of years," and it would be accurate usage in their language. A week is seven days, but it can also mean a period of sevens I believe.

Just compare the NIV translation with Young's Literal Translation:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15;

The seventy 'weeks' just means seventy 'groups of seven.' A week doesn't mean the same thing in their culture as it does in ours - it can have multiple meanings I believe. Anyway, gotta go.

So, following up on what I said. What is it reasonable that this passage could be talking about? The two that I can first think of would be periods of seven days or periods of seven years. I draw this conclusion from the fact that there was a Sabbath day in Hebraic culture as well as a Sabbath year. There is also a Jubilee Sabbath after a period of 50 years, but the fifty has nothing to do with this that I can see, so I'm going to rule it out. Feel free at any time to correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15;

Notice the phrase "sabbaths of years" - just as I mentioned about the "weeks of years" but a little different.

 

[Quath]

Except that would take time. There could be a tremendous earthquake that lasted for one trillionth of a second that would be able to screw in the screws, fasten the bolts, or whatever else. The problem is, though, that an event like that would probably completely obliterate the parts in the process because of the tremendous work that must be accomplished in a single moment. So the problem would be 1. time and 2. environment.

True, it may be impossible for a short earthquake and you could prove it impossible. It could also be impossible for a low energy one. So there are some situations in which it is impossible. However, there are some in which you can not show it is impossible. You may have to suppose some extremely unlikely events like parts hitting a screw just right to turn it. But if there is a wa, no matter how improbable, then it will happen if you try it an infinite number of times.

Now look at the earth. Is it logical that life formed on earth in the time allowed and during the events taking place at the time of first life (please fill me in - I personally do not know)? If so, could life have survived? What quantity of life could have survived? What quantity of life could have evolved in the first place? At what point is this life? When did all the parts come together and suddenly become alive on its own? The problem isn't only that a car would need to be formed by an earthquake or a number of earthquakes from all of its separate parts - including scraping the right amount of glue off the ground and sewing the seats just right as the earth quakes. The problem is also getting the car to start and to build other cars on its own and to turn them on as well. That is, if we're still using the car scenario... :-D

Here is one common timeline I have see (from Wikipedia):
4000 (my=million years) of simple cells,
3000 my of photosynthesis,
2000 my of complex cells,
1000 my of multicellular life,
600 my of simple animals,
500 my of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 my of land plants,
400 my of insects and seeds,
360 my of amphibians,
300 my of reptiles,
200 my of mammals,
150 my of birds,
100 my of flowers and
65 my since the non-avian dinosaurs died out

So it is a very slow process at first. It takes about 2 billion years to get complex cells and 3 billion years to get multicelluar life. Billions of years allow for many, many samples.

So if life can be formed randomly, which may be possible, then is it logical that it could have formed on the earth? If not, why are we here?

My view is that we are here and there is no deeper meaning behind it. If God exists, do you think he asks "Why do I exist?"

 

[Solo]

Quath,
I thought that you were much more intelligent than that.
Perhaps I was wrong. 8-)

If so, it would be the very first time. :D

 

[Drew]

In as much as the only way you can exactly predict what will happen at an award show 6 months from now, which unfolds precisely the way you want it to unfold, is if you monitor and control everyone and every event leading up to the show (as well as the show itself).

I understand the intuitive appeal of a claim like this, but I think it is not correct. I think that certain kinds of outcomes can indeed effectively be assured even if some variables are not controlled. This is a very complex issue, however, and for either of us to make our cases stick would probably involve a lot of work.

I will try to at least say something about the position that I hold - namely, that some outcomes can be guaranteed even if some variables are not controllable. Let's say that I am mysteriously drafted into the NFL as a wide receiver. I am a middle aged man with almost no athletic skill. Let's say that I line up at the flanker postion and am being covered one on one by the NFL's best coverage men - whoever that happens to be (let's say Deion Sanders).

The play is a pass to me. The ball is snapped and I start to run downfield. The key question: are there variables that Deion cannot control or predict and yet which he can "accomodate" and assure that his goal of knocking down the pass is achieved?

I think that there are. If I cut to the left, my slow speed is such that Deion can almost instantly get between me and the ball. Same deal if I cut to the right. His skill and speed are such that he can always react fact enough to ensure that I am not open when the ball arrives. Of course, Deion does not know which way I will cut nor does he control this. And, as part of this example, the quarterback does not throw the ball until I make my cut.

Now of course, there are other variables beyond Deion's control that he cannot accomodate and which will allow me to catch the ball. Let's say that Deion's foot gets caught in a seam in the astroturf - I mean really caught. Even though he is a far superior athlete than I am, his being stuck in one place means that I will be able to catch the ball.

I expect that, given more time to think, I could come up with a more watertight example. However, I think that this example powerfully supports the intuition that certain outcomes can indeed be guaranteed by some agent (Deion in this case) even if that agent does not control all variables.

 

[Packrat]

My view is that we are here and there is no deeper meaning behind it. If God exists, do you think he asks "Why do I exist?"

Probably not since he's supposed to be omniscient and the creator of all things. That question would not apply to him as it does to us. We do not have all the answers and we were created. We had a beginning and some of us have an end. For God to wonder how and why he exists, he would have to have limited intelligence and quite probably a beginning. If he were to have a beginning, then we'd be back to the same question of what made God then?

Oh yeah. Another thing I was thinking about, Quath: If the universe is infinite in time in both directions (past and future) and God was not present within the universe at the very moment that time was created, then the universe would appear to be older than God and it probably would be in our understanding. I just find it interesting is all... The universe is older than God, but God made it? :-D Not to say that I believe that - just something I'm throwing out there.

Edit: Ok. I'm thoroughly confused now about my usage of 'moment' in my second paragraph, but it's not the first time I've managed to confuse myself. 8-) Anyway, maybe replace it with 'occurrence.' Time is such a dang tricky thing.

 

[Packrat]

Here is one common timeline I have see (from Wikipedia):
4000 (my=million years) of simple cells,
3000 my of photosynthesis,
2000 my of complex cells,
1000 my of multicellular life,
600 my of simple animals,
500 my of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 my of land plants,
400 my of insects and seeds,
360 my of amphibians,
300 my of reptiles,
200 my of mammals,
150 my of birds,
100 my of flowers and
65 my since the non-avian dinosaurs died out

What I was more concerned with was not the time allowed for something to evolve, but the conditions allowed for something to evolve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Also check out 3900 MA from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

 

[PDoug]

I understand the intuitive appeal of a claim like this, but I think it is not correct. I think that certain kinds of outcomes can indeed effectively be assured even if some variables are not controlled. This is a very complex issue, however, and for either of us to make our cases stick would probably involve a lot of work.

I will try to at least say something about the position that I hold - namely, that some outcomes can be guaranteed even if some variables are not controllable. Let's say that I am mysteriously drafted into the NFL as a wide receiver. I am a middle aged man with almost no athletic skill. Let's say that I line up at the flanker postion and am being covered one on one by the NFL's best coverage men - whoever that happens to be (let's say Deion Sanders).

The play is a pass to me. The ball is snapped and I start to run downfield. The key question: are there variables that Deion cannot control or predict and yet which he can "accomodate" and assure that his goal of knocking down the pass is achieved?

I think that there are. If I cut to the left, my slow speed is such that Deion can almost instantly get between me and the ball. Same deal if I cut to the right. His skill and speed are such that he can always react fact enough to ensure that I am not open when the ball arrives. Of course, Deion does not know which way I will cut nor does he control this. And, as part of this example, the quarterback does not throw the ball until I make my cut.

Now of course, there are other variables beyond Deion's control that he cannot accomodate and which will allow me to catch the ball. Let's say that Deion's foot gets caught in a seam in the astroturf - I mean really caught. Even though he is a far superior athlete than I am, his being stuck in one place means that I will be able to catch the ball.

I expect that, given more time to think, I could come up with a more watertight example. However, I think that this example powerfully supports the intuition that certain outcomes can indeed be guaranteed by some agent (Deion in this case) even if that agent does not control all variables.

It is important to realize that the control of every element of all things that exist, happen on many levels. Intelligences or spirits have to ensure that atoms work within their normal parameters. Other intelligences e.g. have to make sure that all the elements in the earth’s ecosystem work within accepted parameters to sustain life. On top of this, intelligences within and around living creatures have to ensure that each creature lives its life within given parameters, and according to what has been preplanned for it, to ensure that all things unfold the way they are supposed to.

The above does not mean that everything is a robot. Rather it means that all things are regulated, and do have certain levels of autonomy.

 

[Quath]

Quath,
I thought that you were much more intelligent than that.
Perhaps I was wrong. 8-)

If so, it would be the very first time. :D

I once thought I made a mistake. But it turns out that I didn't.

We had a beginning and some of us have an end. For God to wonder how and why he exists, he would have to have limited intelligence and quite probably a beginning. If he were to have a beginning, then we'd be back to the same question of what made God then?

Yeah, good and deep philosopica questions. It also shows the difficulties when dealing with infinity.

If the universe is infinite in time in both directions (past and future) and God was not present within the universe at the very moment that time was created, then the universe would appear to be older than God and it probably would be in our understanding. I just find it interesting is all... The universe is older than God, but God made it? Not to say that I believe that - just something I'm throwing out there.

Most Christians assume thaat God was outside of time and he created everything (including time). The Big Bang theory assumes the universe had a beginning (and that time had a beginning). In other words, the universe had a beginning in time, but has existed for all time.

So if God made the Universe (which includes time) then God is just as old as the Universe. (Whatever happened "before" the creation was over in an instant.)

Trippy stuff.

 

[MaybeNextTime]

Correct, Quath, although the universe did not have a beginning in time - time had a beginning at that very moment too, so you can't really place Big Bang in time.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, if God was to exist "before" time even came to existance, then you can't even call that eternity because by definition it's an infinite ammount of time and "before" time had been created the duration God existed was essentially none.

He also could not make the universe on purpose, because a purpose requires thinking. Thinking is a process, and that means it happens in time. A process is by definition an order of changes happening in time.

So we can actually assume that if universe came to existence instantly and it wasn't on purpose, then it could've happend just by itself just the same. That would mean the probability of God existing is 1/2 and decreases as we ascribe to that deity deeds it's supposed to have made (the flood, plagues etc.).

In conclusion: probability of abrahamic God existing < probability of abrahamic God not existing.

 

[stovebolts]

Ok, I know I'm gonna catch greif on this one, but hey,
What a trip :-D

Now… it simply always was, is and will be.

Time as defined by man is in relation to the distance between heavenly bodies. Does God think as we think?

What exactly is time? What if I told you that time does not exist, but rather, only the now.

So we talk about a long time ago… is it not simply a thought on something that occurred that we can recall? And what of the future? Is it not just a thought on something anticipated? And when do these thoughts occur if not but for now?

What is the difference between a long time ago and a short time ago? Is it not simply a thought in relation of objects that no longer exist in the state that they once were? Lets see, a short time ago would be two objects that are close together while a long time ago are two objects that are far apart. But what causes our view to determine if something is close, or far away? Wouldn’t this be subjective to our understanding in relation to the objects around us? Certainly bacteria would measure time in relation to the objects that surrounded them while a sun’s life could be measured by the solar system that surrounded them.

So we see that time really only exists in relation to objects that we agree upon. If time really is nothing other than a reflection or an anticipation of thoughts, then time really is nothing other than now.

But how much now is there? Things only occur in the now for past and future are only perceived in the now in relation to the now for without now, nothing would exist that anything could be compared with.

But there is a now and now has always been. True Eternity is now and holds no timeline for now never had a beginning nor does it for if it did, it would be in relation to the past and as stated, the past is only a reflection from the now while again, the future is really only an anticipation in the now.

Eternity in the NT is usually the word Aionios. Correctly translated, it means “Of an Age†or rather, a specific period denoted by significant events that are encompassed by the restrictions of time that we place upon them in our feeble attempt to understand.

So I’m left asking the question, how big is the universe? How big is outer space? In comparison, aren’t we really smaller than an atom as it relates to a single cell? If this is true, then how small is our comparison of time if time really is nothing other than a thought that occurs in the now in reflection or anticipation of our current surrounding as we currently view them?

In closing, if now is all there truly is, then how big is now and can we truly restrict now to our views and if so, how bias would our views truly be?

Now… it simply always was, is and will be.

 

[stovebolts]

Ohh, as far as the Big Bang thingy :-D

I just saw something on Discovery on that guy and didn't he think that black holes actually destroyed matter? :o

After all, matter only changes states :wink: