My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:46 am
Hi

My belief is that there is determinism (creative intelligence) in the universe that manifests itself in the fundamental constants also called universal laws.

The Anthropic Principle or intelligent design belief accurately states that there is much evidence of an intelligent design behind the creation of the universe.


I personally like this idea as it makes good sense and so I really believe in a creator GOD call it what you would:


To me the universal laws or fundamental constants give real evidence, even proof that there in an intelligent designer behind existence


I will list them a little further if there is an interest from the forum on in my article.

One must have a basic knowledge of physics and science to understand the statements below. (Of course I assume many of you have this knowledge)


These constants have to be exactly the way they are for life to have evolved. These constant fundamental or laws of nature l believe have been set by what precisely by "God"
.


If the universal laws were only infinitely and minutely different than how they actually are, it would simply not have ever been possible for us to exist.

If the universe were not precisely as it is and differed infinitely even in the minutest quantum or macro of conditions from the way it is, we would simply never have come into existence.

Our universe was "Made" for life

.
Using the example of only one fundamental constant to further my argument

LAW OF GRAVITY


If the universal cosmic law of gravity were much greater than it is. Our sun would still have come into existence, it would have burned itself out in a few thousand years.

It is the precisely set force of gravity that allows our sun to shine and pour out energy for billions of years (10 to 12 billion in fact)

This is not speculation but proven facts by physicists and scientists.

If the cosmic fundamental law of Gravity was greater, or differed even minutely, greater or less, "our universe" could have come into existent and lived and died in a few thousand years, instead of the billion of years it needed to develop carbon based life.


If the force of gravity were greater than it is the universe would have come into existence and consumed all its energy in a "few thousand years" instead of its expected life of hundreds of billions of years, giving no time for life to form

In the case of the law of gravity been much less than it is. The universe would never have warmed up by the process of nuclear fusion, no stars would have formed and it would have existed as a cold dark bleak void for countless trillions of years. Almost eternally, where no life could form


The above examples given is the consequences of "only one" of the fundamental laws differing infinitesimal, there would be no life, no existence.

There are many other constants that have to also be exactly as they are for us to exist.



However a belief in determinism of any sort has immediate profound philosophical implications and one can argue that in it means that I believe in a God. The determinism that I believe in is much constrained ( god sets the universe to run and leaves it at that)

But, nevertheless, I believe that if we do not destroy ourselves first, we will continue to progress, moving up towards something ultimately much better than now.


I do not like exclusiveness belief systems, as these people supposedly know all about an infinite intelligence like god and know all the answers and close the door to god to all but their own puny numbers

Other fundamental constants

There are other fundamental constants not mentioned, but if interest is shown we can go and explore those as swell

Some of these are stated below

Boltzmann's constant, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the cosmological constant, the strong and weak force constants, the rest masses of each particle, the speed of light, the exact age of the universe etc.


Comments?





 
xris
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:46 am
@Alan McDougall,
I was talking to a fish the other day and he told me that god was a fish because we were able to breath under water.I said thats fine for you but what about me i have to have breathing equipment."Sorry" said the goldfish "you have to have breathing equipment?"
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 09:04 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

My belief is that there is determinism (creative intelligence) in the universe...

You messed up in your opening sentence so why should I read the rest?

I don't care that ID is taught; I do care that it is taught as science. Similarly I have no problem with threads on ID, but this shouldn't be in the Philosophy of Science forum. ID is not science - it is abstract theology.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:07 am
@Alan McDougall,
Agreed.

The closest you can come to placing intelligent design in a science conversation is to offer a hypothesis. "I hypothesize that the universe was created by an intelligent, creative power," for instance.

Ok, but what next? Let's see a research proposal for you to test this hypothesis.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:01 am
@Aedes,
Here is more my infinitely knowledgeable members
Thinking Cap #29 - Why I Believe in God


Unlike you I put the topic on the form.

Don't just makes silly comments .

"If you do not like what I wrote refute it with solid logic" point by point


Someone has been providing for our well-being.
  • a. The mass and size of this planet are just right. If it was 10% larger or smaller, life would not be possible upon this planet. It is just the right distance from the sun for heat and cold. Farther and we would freeze, closer and we would be baked.
    b.

    Consider the tilt of the axis of the earth. No other planet has our 23 degree tilt.

    This enables all parts of the surface to have sun light. Without this, the poles would build up enormous ice and the equator would become intensely hot.


    c. Consider the moon. God has provided it as a maid to clean up the oceans and the shores of all our continents. Without the tides created by the moon, all our harbors and shores would become one stench pool of garbage.

    The tides and waves based upon the moon's movement and gravitational pull aerate the oceans and provide oxygen for the plankton, which is the very foundation of the food chain of our world.

    Without plankton, there would not be oxygen and man would not be able to live on the earth. The moon is the right size and the right distance from the earth.

    Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow concludes in his book God and the Astronomers, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.

    He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    d.

    Consider the atmosphere. We live under a great ocean of air --- 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Spectrographic studies of other planets in the stellar universe show that no other atmosphere, no other part of the known universe is made up of these same ingredients. These elements are continually mixed by the tidal effect of the moon, giving man the right balance.
    e.

    Consider the nitrogen cycle. It is inert -- if not, we would all be poisoned by different forms of nitrous combinations. Because of its inertness, it is impossible for us to get it to combine naturally with other things. God gets it out of the air and into the soil for plants by the lightning. 100,000 lightning bolts strike this planet daily, creating a hundred million tons of usable nitrogen plant food in the soil every year.
    f.

    Consider the ozone layer, forty miles up. If compressed it would be only a 1/4 of an inch thick, and yet without it life could not exist. Eight killer rays from the sun bombard our planet. Without the ozone, we would be burned, blinded and broiled by them in just a day or two. T

    he most deadly of these rays are allowed through the ozone layer in just a very thin amount, enough to kill the green algae, which otherwise would grow to fill all the lakes, rivers and oceans of the world.
    g.

    Consider the thin rock crust beneath us, thinner than the skin of an apple in comparison. Beneath that is the molten lava that forms the core of this earth. So man lives between the burning, blackening rays above and that molten lava below, either of which would burn him to a crisp. Yet man is totally oblivious that God has so arranged things that he can exist in such a world as this.
    h.

    Consider the water. Nowhere else in the universe do we find water in any abundance except here on the earth. Water, the amazing solvent, dissolves almost everything upon this earth except those things which are life-sustaining.

    The small drop is in itself ever so complex. It would take 5 billion people, each counting 1 atom every second, 30,000 years to count the number of atoms in a single drop of water.

    This amazing liquid existing as ice, breaks up rocks, and produces soil. As snow, it stores up water in the valleys. As rain, it waters and cleanses the earth.

    As vapor, it provides moisture for much of the arable land of this earth. It exists as cloud cover, in just the right amount. If we had clouds like Venus, Earth could not exist.

    But we have exactly 50% of the surface of the earth covered by clouds at any one time, allowing just the right amount of sunlight to come through. Without these clouds and the tilt of the earth it would be 176 degrees at the equator during the day and minus 220 degrees at night.

    As steam, it runs the powerful machinery that we have here on the earth. Other than bismuth it is the only liquid that is heavier at 4 degrees C than it is at freezing. If this were not so, life could not exist on this planet.

    When it is frozen, it is lighter and it rises. If this were not so, lakes and rivers would freeze from the bottom up and kill all fish. The algae would be destroyed and our oxygen supply would cease, and mankind would die.
    i.

    Consider even the dust; the nemesis of the homemaker. If it were not for dust, we would never see a blue sky, Seventeen miles above this planet there is no dust from the earth, and the sky is always black. If it were not for dust, it would never rain.

    One drop of rain is made up of eight million droplets of water, and each one of those eight million droplets is wrapped around a tiny particle of dust. Think about that the next time you drink the rain water. But without it, the world would become parched and life would cease to exist.
    j.

    Consider the human being and the wonder of God's design. Our life is based upon the blood that flows in our veins. The amazing red blood cell, created in the bone marrow, immediately gives up its nucleus when it reaches the bloodstream.

    For any other cell, this would mean death, like cutting the heart right out of a man. A red blood cell is formed like a doughnut with a thin membrane across the hole. Without a nucleus it is able to carry more oxygen for the body because of this membrane and the shape of the cell. If it were shaped like other cells, it would require nine times as many cells to provide oxygen for the human body.
    k.

    Then there is the wonder of the eye. How could anybody look at a human eye and suppose that it just happened? Evolutionists tell us that where there is want, nature will provide what is needed. Can you imagine that we needed sight?

    No one had ever seen anything, but there was a need to see something. So nature created an eye. Imagine creating two eyes on a horizontal plane so that we not only can see but we also have a range finder that determines distances.

    When confronted with darkness the eye increases its ability to see one hundred thousand times. The finest camera ever made does not even vaguely approach such a thing, but the human eye does it automatically.

    The eye will find the object it wants to see and focus upon it automatically. It will elongate or compress itself.

    Both eyes moving together must take different angels to fix themselves upon what is to be seen. When the eye got ready to create itself, it also had the forethought for its own protection, and built itself beneath the bony ridge of the brow, and also provided a nose on which to hang the glasses that most of us need.

    Then it provided a shutter to protect itself from any foreign object. Inside my eye are 107 millions cells all working together to give me sight. I can distinguish a thousand shades of color. I can distinguish a spectrum of light so broad that the brightest light I perceive is a billion times brighter than the dimmest. How ludicrous to think that it happened by chance.
    l.

    Consider what happens to your tears that continually flow across your eye. In order to keep the eye moist and clean, a wash is constantly supplied by a secretion for that purpose; and the superfluous or extra brine is conveyed to the nose through a perforation in the bone as large as a goose quill.

    When once the fluid has entered the nose, it spreads itself upon the inside of the nostril and is evaporated by the current of warm air which in the course of breathing is continually passing over it.

    It is easily perceived that the eye must want moisture; but could the want of the eye generate the gland which produces the tear, or bore the hole by which it is discharged --- a hole through a bone?

    Let the atheist or the evolutionist tell us who bored the hole in the bone and laid a water pipe through it for the dispersion of our tears. Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson said, "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
    m.

    Consider the incredible brain of man. Weighing but 3.3 pounds, it can perform what 500 tons of electrical and electronic equipment cannot do. Containing 10 to 15 billion neurons, each a living unit in itself, it performs feats that absolutely boggle the imagination. Just the eye alone sends the brain millions of simultaneous reports every second.

    The brain then absorbs a composite set of yes or no messages from all the rods and cones in the eye. It sorts and organizes them all and gives me an image of an object I hold in my hand.
    n.

    Consider your immune system. Despite the fact that most microorganisms are necessary and good, throughout our lifetimes each of us encounters tens of thousands of different infectious bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites.

    Even more remarkable is the fact that most of the time our immune system disables these potentially lethal invaders before we ever show any symptoms of infection.

    At any given time there are more than 100,000 unique sentries posted throughout your body which identify invaders, sound the alarm, and even issue specific chemical instructions for their destruction. These sentries may also be thought of as tiny doctors who identify a potential illness, discover the cure, and apply it even before the infection gets underway.

    I have 50 billion active white cells prowling in my body right now. When an invader enters my body, the white blood cells somehow receive the alert and rush to the scene. They throw themselves around the bacteria and implode, destroying themselves and the invader. Just in case it is needed, there is a backup of white blood cells one hundred times larger in the bone marrow.

    The fact that even medical researchers are in awe over the design of our immune system verifies what the Bible says, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
    o.

    Consider the ear on the side of my head. I can detect sound frequencies that flutter my eardrums as faintly as one billionth of a centimeter (a distance one tenth the diameter of a hydrogen atom). This vibration is transmitted into my inner ear by three bones familiarly known as the hammer, anvil, and stirrup. When the frequency of middle C is struck on a piano, the piston of bones in my inner ear vibrates 256 times a second.

    Further in are individual cilia, comparable to the rods and cones of the eye, that transmit specific messages of sound to the brain. My brain combines these messages with other factors --- how well I like that kind of music, how familiar I am with the piece being played, the state of my digestion, the friends I am with --- and offers the combination of impulses in a form I perceive as pleasure. And, all of this just by random chance?
.
We are designed for a purpose. We live in a universe prepared and designed for us.

A couple of years ago, I read a Time Magazine article titled, "God is Dead." In that article, there was a picture of a wall in Europe. Upon it was written in big letters, "God is Dead. signed Nietzsche." Under it, some enlightened soul had penned the words, "Nietzsche is dead. ... signed God."
5.

In conclusion, people who reject or ignore God do so, not because science or reason requires them to, but purely and simply because they want to! But the open-mined, logical and reasonable person will believe there is a God.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:58 pm
@xris,
Quote:
1. The Biblical Argument. While the Bible is not a science book, it does deal with science. It is interesting to note that thousands of years before so-called modern science "discovered" certain aspects of our world, the Bible already spoke clearly of them. Things such as:

    o the earth being round ([COLOR=#8000ff]Is. 40:22; Ps. 103:12[/COLOR]),


Fair enough... easy to see by looking at the horizon or the shadow cast upon the moon. Not exactly cutting edge.


Quote:

o this round earth was hung upon nothing (Job 26:7),


Good, good. Again, kind of common sense even 3000 years ago since postulating some support of the Earth leads to the same question being raised about that support.



Quote:

o there is a curvature to the earth and the oceans are round (Prov. 8:27),


Fine, fine. Deduced from the first comment no doubt.



Quote:

o the rotation of the earth (Job 38:12,14)


Very good. The night sky rotates around us or we rotate. Makes sense to assume the latter.


Quote:

o the concept of Einstein's theory of E=mc2 can be found in Jer. 10:12,

Uh.... What?!?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:07 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

Unlike you I put the topic on the form.

Don't just makes silly comments .

"If you do not like what I wrote refute it with solid logic" point by point

I didn't need to. Your opening comment had intelligent design as synonymous with determinism. What kind of 'case' can you make after that? I didn't read the rest of this post either. You should either embrace brevity or make your opening gambits sexier.

I'm really hoping someone's going to do the right thing and move this thread to Philosophy of Religion. ID=Science is an affront (to the latter). I take it personally. Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan Macdougall wrote:
If you do not like what I wrote refute it with solid logic point by point
This doesn't come down to logic in the end. It comes down to evidence. Logic is a human construct that is constantly contaminated with rationalization and bias. So if you want to sit at the table with scientists, you need to show evidence and not just string words together.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:26 pm
@Aedes,
Alan,

Analyzing every facet of Earth does not prove anything.

Take the Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hypothesis, for example. It doesn't consider Earth as the 'perfect', 'divine' ball of blue and green matter you do, but simply a probability, a different reality, a parallel universe. Other universes may not have the same laws of physics, some may elicit more of the symmetry you see in our known world, some less.

But, judging from your past responses, I know this won't satisfy you, so let me delve further:


Quote:
Consider the human being and the wonder of God's design. Our life is based upon the blood that flows in our veins. The amazing red blood cell, created in the bone marrow, immediately gives up its nucleus when it reaches the bloodstream.

For any other cell, this would mean death, like cutting the heart right out of a man. A red blood cell is formed like a doughnut with a thin membrane across the hole. Without a nucleus it is able to carry more oxygen for the body because of this membrane and the shape of the cell. If it were shaped like other cells, it would require nine times as many cells to provide oxygen for the human body.
There are many cells that are specifically designed to perform specific function. This has been going on way before the existence of man, or the Bible, or even the conception of "God". If you're interested, I'll provide links for evolution among creatures millennium ago.

Quote:

The brain then absorbs a composite set of yes or no messages from all the rods and cones in the eye. It sorts and organizes them all and gives me an image of an object I hold in my hand.
This can be explained rationally, and even mathematically. Many other brains can do what you say, and the human brain is simply an evolution of the mammalian brain (our developed frontal lobe, our improved senses, reasoning capabilities).

Quote:
Consider your immune system. Despite the fact that most microorganisms are necessary and good, throughout our lifetimes each of us encounters tens of thousands of different infectious bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites.

Even more remarkable is the fact that most of the time our immune system disables these potentially lethal invaders before we ever show any symptoms of infection.
I hope you're aware immune systems are not limited to humans:

"Immune systems appear even in the most structurally-simple forms of life, with bacteria using a unique defense mechanism, called the restriction modification systemto protect themselves from viral pathogens"

They're interesting, yes, but nothing unexplainable. Simply wikipedia "Immune System".

Quote:
Consider the ear on the side of my head. I can detect sound frequencies that flutter my eardrums as faintly as one billionth of a centimeter (a distance one tenth the diameter of a hydrogen atom). This vibration is transmitted into my inner ear by three bones familiarly known as the hammer, anvil, and stirrup. When the frequency of middle C is struck on a piano, the piston of bones in my inner ear vibrates 256 times a second.
Consider the bat's echolocation system: Bat's can generate ultrasound via the larynx with a range frequency from 14,000 to well over 100,000Hz, mostly beyond the range of the human ear (human ear generally can't hear anything over 20,000Hz). There's evolution of sensory perception amongst mammals, so what?

Quote:
Then there is the wonder of the eye. How could anybody look at a human eye and suppose that it just happened? Evolutionists tell us that where there is want, nature will provide what is needed. Can you imagine that we needed sight?
"How could a complex organ with such special physical properties have evolved?

"In their new work, Shimeld and colleagues approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the �?-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, invertebrate cousins of the vertebrate lineage, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of the sea squirt's crystallin strongly suggests that it is the single gene from which the vertebrate �?-crystallins evolved."

Again, not necessarily conclusive, but posted to show you that science doesn't just turn a blind eye (no pun intended) to these phenomenon. Many are explained, or are coming to be explained, as we speak. Shouting, "It must be God" because you cannot rationally understand, or wish to rationally understand the world around you is mindless.

Quote:
If the universal cosmic law of gravity were much greater than it is. Our sun would still have come into existence, it would have burned itself out in a few thousand years.

It is the precisely set force of gravity that allows our sun to shine and pour out energy for billions of years (10 to 12 billion in fact)

This is not speculation but proven facts by physicists and scientists.
Put simply, this is incorrect and not conclusive. If you care to do some research on gravity, you'd find that scientists don't actually have a conclusive grasp concerning gravity at all.

Quote:

Boltzmann's constant, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the cosmological constant, the strong and weak force constants, the rest masses of each particle, the speed of light, the exact age of the universe etc.
Constants are only "true" insofar as the mathematical function they are supposed to support. Not to mention, constants are highly controversial, and many are irrational numbers that merely act as placeholders for, "Well, it's kind close to that, so we're going to leave it!"

Quote:
But the open-mined, logical and reasonable person will believe there is a God.
On the contrary, the open-minded, logical and reasonable person will understand that his interpretation of the world is not necessarily "true". An open-mind implies consistent contemplation, not a stagnant stance, "Oh, we can't explain it now, so it must be 'God'!"

It's hard to actually refute your claim as you make your case almost as if it's immune to infallibility. If I logically show you the evolution of the brain, you could easily just say, "Well, it works the way it does because 'intelligence' must have been behind it!". Even if I logically explain how this order could have come about naturally, you could say, "Well, why did it come about? It must have been God! No other explanation". What would you have us do when everything can be explained by 'intelligent design' by you? :perplexed:
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:04 pm
@Zetherin,
Yea, have to agree with most of what's been expressed here.

I've read these arguments and they all look to be of the "Isn't it neat how it all just fits!"-type; which is fine if it works for you. But it doesn't really say much. The way I look at that aspect is this: Of course all these marvels you listed just seem to fit, they're a part of the world we evolved in; one built upon the other. The fact that they suit us is seems to more support the notion "We evolved in that environment" than "It was all intelligently created for us".

So good luck with this. Again, if that works for you then yee-haw.

Thanks
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:22 pm
@Aedes,
Paul, and others

I am really really perplexed how hot under the collar some of you get when ID is brought up

Philosophy does not always deal with logic, and did you not read my post on the fundamental constants?


The fundamental constants I gave was my evidence that an intelligence much greater than ours is behind the creation of the universes and indeed to sustain the universe so that it became a place where life could form.

"But not proof"

Of course it is not proof , prove to me by empirical science that you really exist!!

You are a life form and you owe your existence to the very infinite mind that created you.

Do you really believe your beloved spouse and children are just accidence, just a bundle of meaningless energy, here today gone tomorrow

I admit no matter what I believe will not alter the truth one iota. And the same goes for you, the truth is the truth.

Zetherin

Quote:
I hope you're aware immune systems are not limited to humans:


Of course I am aware that all life owe their existence to the same source

Quote:
Put simply, this is incorrect and not conclusive. If you care to do some research on gravity, you'd find that scientists don't actually have a conclusive grasp concerning gravity at all.


It is decidedly not incorrect "it is correct" and it is not me that should research gravity but you. If you knew something about gravity you would not have made that statement

I have researched gravity and you are correct that no one really knows what it is. But is is a form of energy that pervades the cosmos..

I also know, for instance that scientists do not know how the singularity was pushed out against almost infinite expected primordial gravity, to form the universe.

There is much speculation around antigravity, and many think dark energy is anti gravity.

When the universe formed in the very first moment, there was an equal amount of antimatter and matter, if these apposing energies had come together they would have annihilated each other and the universe would have just consisted of the most basic form of energy Gamma Rays

My quote below from a previous post

[QUOTE]If the universal cosmic law of gravity were much greater than it is. Our sun would still have come into existence, it would have burned itself out in a few thousand years.

It is the precisely set force of gravity that allows our sun to shine and pour out energy for billions of years (10 to 12 billion in fact)

This is not speculation but proven facts by physicists and scientists. [/QUOTE]


My quote above




You know nothing about me and just go on and assume I am not well informed in physics, science, astronomy etc etc

You are correct that gravity is not understood by science yet, but the consequences of that force is well known and defined

Greater gravity would increase the mass of any star and if our sun where exactly the same volume it now is , but for example the gravity constant were six times as strong the surface gravity would be enormous crushing the sun and making it burn out much much sooner than it under present condition would.

It would have become a blazing blue giant and burned out in a few million years instead of the steady output of energy it gives us on earth

The sun would go supernova and implode on itself and even become a black hole.

Oh !! brains ticking over how could our sun become a blazing blue giant. Under a much greater gravity constant , to reach its present volume it would be a huge star mixed in with billions of lesser stars

It seems that some of you think I am a silly ignoramus!!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:43 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:
It is decidedly not incorrect "it is correct" and it is not me that should research gravity but you. If you knew something about gravity you would not have made that statement
What I meant by incorrect was that of course there is still speculation amongst scientists and physicists. Though we know that there is 'something' that is propagating the sun and every other form matter you can conjure, it is not fully understood. You admit this, and then tell me, "it is decidedly correct"? Perhaps I misunderstood you. If you're saying we know some kind of force is in the works, yes we do, but what does that prove? Certainly not that there is intelligent design, right? Mind you, you used this as a point in your hypothesis.

Quote:
Do you really believe your beloved spouse and children are just accidence, just a bundle of meaningless energy, here today gone tomorrow
It's possible. What makes you so adamant in believing this is not the case?

Quote:

You know nothing about me and just go on and assume I am not well informed in physics, science, astronomy etc etc
If you know a lot about what I've written, then you should have no problem realizing that much of the 'phenomena' you listed can be rationally explained, and the order you recognize as having been from "God", explained by many theories of existence. I never made a judgment concerning your person character, and never presumed I knew you. I simply responded to the writing you posted. Yes, however, I do believe that a stagnant mind is one that stops critical consideration of these abstract notions, shouting, "Well, we can't understand any of this currently, so I'm just going to leave all the unexplained to 'God'". The points you've typed all concern this innate assumption of mystical order, and even though much of what you say can be understood scientifically, you choose to ignore this. You haven't presented any logical standing for your hypothesis.

And even though you say:

Quote:
Philosophy does not always deal with logic
If you're going to present 'My case for intelligent design', I wouldn't expect it to be riddled with unfounded interpretation, but rather encompass a logical progression backed by something conclusive. And since you really haven't presented anything except the interpretation of the 'wonders' of the known world, this does scream "ignoramus" to me. I truly don't mean to attack your personal character, I'm simply attacking the way you've gone about making your 'case'.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:52 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

I am really really perplexed how hot under the collar some of you get when ID is brought up

Not always. If it is brought up in a theological or even philosophical conjecture, then groovy. Even as an atheist I often play God's advocate here on these forums. It's fine. What gets me 'hot under the collar' is the 'let's pretend' approach to science that people with a vested interest in undermining it play. After nigh on a thousand years of battling scientific progress, the best the fanatical could do was give science a bad name by associating ID with it. I've never met a scientist who didn't react the same way. It simply takes the pi55.
And another thing... if it were a science, it would be fringe science at best, like the Many Worlds Interpretation or Relational QM. This stuff gets studied by science students at earliest at postgrad level, so people have a good enough grounding not to be misguided by it. ID was forced on schoolkids. The purpose of ID is to indoctrinate children in order to make them less susceptible to the tests of faith real science may present them with by pretending there's a bit of science on their side. They're screwing with kids minds in order to perpetuate a religion. It's pretty despicable, so yeah... people get annoyed. Wouldn't you be annoyed if you had a child who learned that, for instance, the holocaust probably didn't happen, or that rattling bones in a cup is as good as penicilin?
Alan McDougall wrote:

Philosophy does not always deal with logic, and did you not read my post on the fundamental constants?

No, but philosophy of science does always deal with science. I did, perhaps in the hope of being wrong, read your post on fundamental constants. Someone else has already addressed the issue. That the universe supports life is not an indication that it was created for that purpose, anymore than corners of rooms in houses are designed to provide refuge for spiders.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 09:18 pm
@Bones-O,
You really think the Anthropic principle is the best explanation for god?....wow
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 09:57 pm
@Kielicious,
First allow me to congratulate you on your joining of the thoughtful monkey avatar association.

Now, you say that the fact that physical 'laws'(theories derived by controlled correlation) hang in such delicate balance demonstrates that there is a higher intelligence which begot our universe. Lets assume that the physical laws which attempt to describe nature are accurate, and that they are bounded only by logical consistency. This is certainly reasonable, as we cannot imagine object which are logically inconsistent such as round-squares ect. those objects have no sense to them.

So, it is logically possible that the current state of affairs could allow for us to have horns on our heads. This is probably just as improbable as us not having horns, thus it can also be used as evidence of the absence of intelligent design that we have no horns; for it would be evidence of a higher power if we did have horns, as it would be such an improbable circumstance it must surely require a very great intelligence to plan it out. Thus since if we have horns, then surely that is evidence of intelligent design, but we do not have horns, thus the intelligent design theory has evidence against it.

That things follow the path of least resistance is interesting, but we cannot show it to be a logical necessity. We can say that given a slight change in a universal constant, when we consider the sun, an isolated state of affairs, X happens. What we do not say, due to our inability to predict it, is what REALLY happens in the overall scheme of things of a fundamental aspect is changed. We have absolutely no clue what 'changing a universal constant' actually means. The constant and its source are unknown to us and the ramifications of a fundamental change of physical law is unfathomable. Thus the argument you put forth is scarcely valid, as it has implicitly unacceptable assumptions. Assumptions which cannot be tested, assumptions which may be inconsistent.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 12:33 am
@Alan McDougall,
OH!! GOOD!!

I got a reponse right out of the minds of great demigods
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 12:42 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
OH!! GOOD!!

I got a reponse right out of the minds of great demigods


Phewww, I thought for a moment there you regarded us as normal human beings. I'm glad we got that cleared up, and I'm sure you see the light now, yes?
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 01:22 am
@Zetherin,
Sorry chaps but here is more for your mighty consollidated minds to absorb and debunk Smile

Note; I not trying to prove ID just indicating by evidence that my belief in ID could be true

Can you give evidence the ID is not true, or can you go as far as proving ID is not true? :perplexed:


It has only been comparatively recently, however, that there has been recognition that design may also apply to gross features of the universe. In 1937, Paul Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the universe is almost exactly equal to the inverse square of the gravitational constant, and to the square of the age of the universe.

Dirac, later in 1961, noted that these relationships would imply a narrow age range of the universe during which time life could come forth. Stars of the right type for sustaining planets capable of supporting life can only occur during a certain narrow age range for the universe.

Similarly, stars of the right type can only form within a narrow range of values for the gravitational constant. It was this latter interesting fact that led for the search and documentation of other "coincidences" that must occur simultaneously for life to exist on earth.


a. The Gravitational Coupling Constant. The force of gravity determines what stars are possible in the universe.

If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all stars would be more massive than our own. These large stars are important in that they manufacture elements that are heavier than iron, and they along can disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. However, these stars also burn too rapidly ad too inconstantly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets.

More stable and longer lived stars such as our sun are required for life. On the other hand, if the gravitational constant were too weak, then all stars would be smaller than the sun.

Although such stars burn long enough and stable enough to maintain life-supporting planets, there would be no heavier elements formed for the building of rock planets upon which life could occur.


b. The Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant. This force holds together the particle sin the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, then multi-proton nuclei could not form because they would just fly apart due to the repulsion from like charged protons.

Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If on the other hand, the strong nuclear force were slightly greater, then nuclear particles would tend to bind together more frequently and more firmly. Then hydrogen would be rare in the universe, and elements more massive than iron which are necessary for life that are produced from the fission of very heavy elements would be insufficient.

Either way, life becomes impossible.
Similarly, if the strong nuclear force were only increased by 2 percent, then mean that protons would never form from quarks. A similar decrease would mean that certain heavy elements essential for life would be unstable.


c. The Weak Nuclear Force Coupling Constant. The weak nuclear force affects the properties of leptons. Leptons are a whole class of elementary particles (e.g., neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions; they are not contained within the nucleus. The most familiar weak nuclear force is radioactivity; in particular, the beta decay reaction whereupon a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino.

The number of neutrons available as the universe first cooled after the big bang determines the amount of helium initially produced. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, then neutrons would decay more readily and would therefore be less available.

Therefore, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang, and then heavy elements sufficient for the construction of life would not be formed.

On the other hand, if the weak force were too small, then most of the available hydrogen would have been burned into helium during the initial explosion producing an over-abundance of heavier elements and again, life would not be possible.


Another restriction is placed on the weak nuclear force since a certain amount of neutrinos must be formed when a supernova explodes to disperse the heavy elements formed in the outer layers of the star.

If the weak nuclear force were less, then too many neutrinos would be made and would not interact sufficiently with the outer layers of the star to sufficiently disperse its contents.

On the other hand, if the weak nuclear force were larger, then neutrinos would be trapped inside the star and again would be unavailable to disperse its outer layer sufficiently


d. The Electromagnetic Coupling Constant. This force binds electrons (a lepton) to protons (a baryon) in an atom. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atomic nuclei determine what molecules can be formed as the atoms bind to each other.

If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, then few electrons would be held in their orbit about the proton. If on the other hand, the electromagnetic force were too large, then a proton would not "share" its electrons with other protons in other atoms and molecules would not form. Either way, the molecules necessary for life could not form.


e. The Radio of Protons to Electrons. During the first few seconds of the universe's existence, there was a great destruction of anti-matter by matter; namely, anti-protons were destroyed by protons, and anti-electrons (positrons) were destroyed by electrons.

Amazingly, the number of electrons and protons that were left over after this destruction almost exactly equaled each other to better than one part in 10^37. If this had not balanced out almost exactly, then there would have been a prevalence of either electrons (net negativity) or protons (net positivity) and electromagnetism would have so overwhelmed gravity as a force, that the formation of the current universe would not have been possible.


f. The Radio of Electron to ProtonMass. This particular ratio determines the characteristics of the orbit of the electron around the proton. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If the electron to proton mass were much larger or small, then the necessary molecules for life could not form and life would then be impossible.


g. The Age of the Universe. The age of the universe determines what kind of stars exist. It took about 2 billion years for the first stars to form, and then another 10 billion years for supernovae to disperse enough heavy metals for our planets to form.

Another few billion years were then necessary for solar-type stars to form and then stabilize in order to support advanced life.

Therefore, if the universe were only a few billion years old, then there would not be enough heavy medals formed to produce planets such as the earth.

On the other hand, if the universe were much older, then there would no longer be solar-type stars in order to support life either.


h. Expansion Rate of the Universe. If the expansion rate of the universe were slower, then the whole universe would have collapsed back toward singularity again before any solar-type stars could develop and stabilize to support life.

On the other hand, if the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, then no galaxies or stars could have condensed from the original elements of the explosion. Alan Guth has estimated that this expansion rate must be accurate to one part in 10^55!


i. The Entropy Level of the Universe. This level affects the degree to which massive systems such as galaxies and stars condense. The ratio of photons to baryons is an indication of the entropy level; our universe has a ratio of about a billion to one.

Therefore, there are about a billion photons for every baryon. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, then no galactic systems would form (and hence no stars).

The degree of entropy (tendency toward disorganization) would prohibit the entropy defying increased organization of galaxy or star formation. If the entropy level were slightly smaller, then galactic systems that would form would not form stars. Either way, the universe would be devoid of stars - and hence, life.


j. The Mass of the Universe. If the mass of the universe were slightly larger, then too much deuterium would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear reactions in stars; the extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on planets.

On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, then no helium would have been generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce heavy elements necessary for life.


k. The Uniformity of the Universe. The universe had to be created in a way so as to ensure considerable uniformity; otherwise, the universe would consist of a large number of black holes separated by empty space. Such uniformity is thought to be consistent with a brief period of inflationary expansion near the time of the origin of the universe which spread the early matter evenly throughout.

On the other hand, if the universe were smoother, then the condensations necessary to form galaxies, stars, and then planets would never have come to exist either.

Thus, the uniformity of the Universe is precisely what is necessary to form the proper conditions for life.


l. The Stability of the Proton. Each proton contains three quarks. Quarks themselves decay into antiquarks, pions, and positrons. The decay process occurs on the average of only one proton per 10^32 years.

If that decay rate of the proton were higher, then lethal doses of radiation would be produced and the consequences for higher, more complicated organisms (like man) would be catastrophic.

On the other hand, if the decay process were slower and protons less likely to decay, then less matter would have emerged from the first split second of the creation of the universe, and life would again be impossible.


m. Fine Structure Constants. These constants relate to each of the four fundamental forces: gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic.

Fine coupling constants typically yield strict design constraints for the universe.


n. Velocity of Light. The velocity of light can be expressed as a function of any of the fundamental forces of physics, or even as a function of one of the fine structure constants.

Therefore, any significant change in the velocity of light would also affect all of these other constants which again would negate the possibility of life in the universe.


o. Nuclear Energy Levels of 8Be, 12C, and 16O. Atomic nucleii exist at strict energy levels. A transition from one energy level to another occurs through the emission or the capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two nuclear energy levels. 8Be decays in just 10^-15 second - it is very unstable.

Because it is so unstable, it slows down the fusion process.

If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so rapidly that catastrophic stellar explosions would occur.

On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, then element production beyond 8Be would not occur and life again would be impossible.


The next element to be considered, 12C, happens to have a nuclear energy level that is very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and 4He.

Anything other than this precise energy level for 12C would mean there would be insufficient carbon production for life.


Finally, 16O has just the right energy level to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen and to facilitate adequate production of 16O for life.
In summary, the ground state nuclear energy levels for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O could not be any higher or lower than they are with respect to each other to more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen or carbon for life to occur.
Interestingly,

Fred Hoyle, who discovered these remarkable "coincidences," remarked that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."


p. Distance between Stars. The distance between stars affects the orbits or planets - and even whether they can exist at all. The average distance between stars in our region of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, gravitational interaction among stars would destabilize planetary orbits.

On the other hand, if the distance between stars were too great, then there would be an insufficient concentration of heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae to produce the rocky planets that produce life forms.


q. Rate of Luminosity Increase for Stars. The luminosity of stars affects the surface temperature on planets orbiting those stars. Small stars, like the sun, settle into stable burning once hydrogen fusion ignites within their core.

However, during this stable phase, stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity.

This gradual increase in luminosity is perfect for the gradual introduction of life forms in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. Naturally, the start date for the introduction of life forms, and the rate of introduction of subsequent life forms are very critical upon the successful intelligent creatures.

If the rate of luminosity were slightly greater, then a run-away greenhouse effect would ensue.

However, if the rate of increase in stellar luminosity were slightly smaller, then a runaway freezing of the oceans and lakes would occur.

Either way, the planet's temperature would become too hot or too cold for advanced life to generate.


This list is by no means complete, and yet it demonstrates why a growing number of astronomers and cosmologists agree in the possibility that the universe was not only divinely created, but also divinely designed.

American astronomer George Greenstein said, "As we survey all the evidence, the though insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved.

Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?

Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafter the cosmos for our benefit?"


The Earth as a Fit Habitat for Life. We are hearing much in recent months about the discovery of planets encircling distant stars.

Modern cosmology would predict that this would be the case; the same forces that shaped our own solar system to allow it to be able to support life, also have shaped other regions of our galaxy and the universe.

For example, we can look out into the universe and see many other spiral galaxies just like our own. However, the major difference is that other spiral galaxies are now, of course, just like ours in all respect, and certainly other planetary systems are not just like ours either.

There must be many "chance" occurrences happen in order to make life suitable on these distant planets.

Without all these occurrences all happening together, then life would be impossible.
Most children are probably familiar with the calculations and arguments made by Scklovsky and Sagan, who claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life.

This argument was made many years ago before it became obvious that such could not be the case.

Their calculations overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances, in addition to ignoring many other factors that must be calculated into the equation. T

hese are some of those characteristics that need to be calculated, all of which are independent variables;


a. Number of stars in the planetary system. If there are more than one star in the planetary system, then tidal interactions would so disrupt planetary orbits as to make them unstable and unfit for advanced life; if less than one star then no hear would be produced for advanced life to occur.


b. Parent star birth date. If more recent, then the star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; if less recent, then the star system would not have enough heavy elements to make earthen planets,


c. Parent star age. If older, then the luminosity of the star would change too quickly; if younger, then the luminosity of star would change too quickly {again}.


d. Parent star distance from the center of its galaxy. If farther, then the quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for making rocky planets. If closer, then stellar density and hence radiation would be too great.

e. Parent star mass. If greater, then the luminosity of the star would change too quickly, and the star would burn too rapidly; if lesser, the range of distances appropriate for life would be very narrow. Tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period of a planet at "correct" distances for the planet would need to be quite close to the star. Also, ultraviolet radiation would be inadequate for planets to make sugars and oxygen.


f. Surface gravity. It the gravity were stronger on a planet, then the atmosphere would retain too much methane and ammonia and life would be poisoned; if the gravity were weaker, then the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.


g. Distance from parent star. If the distance were farther, then the planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle; if the distance were shorter, then the planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.


h. Axial tilt. If the axial tilt were greater, then surface temperature differences would be too great; if the axial tilt were smaller, then surface temperature differences would be too great.


i. Rotation period. If the rotation period were longer, then diurnal temperature differences would be too great; if the rotation period were shorter, then atmospheric wind velocities would e too great.


j. Gravitational interaction with a moon. If the gravitational interaction with a moon were greater, then the tidal effects on the moon, atmosphere, and rotaoin period would be too severe; however, if the gravitational interaction with a moon were less, then there would be climatic instabilities.


k. Magnetic fields. If the magnetic field around a planet were stronger, the electromagnetic storms would be too severe; however, the magnetic field around a planet were less strong, then there would be inadequate protection from stellar radiation.


l. Thickness of planetary crust. If the planetary crust thickness were thicker, then there would be too much oxygen transferred from the atmosphere to the crust; however, if the planetary crust thickness were thinner, then there would be increased volcanic and tectonic activity.


m. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total light falling upon a planet). If the albedo of a planet were greater, then runaway ice ages would develop; however, if the albedo were less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.


n. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere. If this rate were larger, then advanced life functions would proceed too quickly; if this rate were smaller, then advanced life functions would proceed more slowly.


o. Carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in the atmosphere. If these levels were greater, then a runaway greenhouse effect would ensue; however, if these levels were less, then the greenhouse effect would be insufficient and an ice age might develop.


p. Ozone level in the atmosphere. If the ozone level were greater, then surface temperatures would be too low; however, if the ozone level were less, then surface temperatures would be too high and here would be too much radiation at the surface of the planet to support life.


q. Atmospheric electric discharge rate. If the atmospheric electric discharge rate were too high, then there would be too much destruction from fire; if the electric discharge rate were too small, then there would be too little nitrogen fixed in the atmosphere.


r. Oxygen quantity in the atmosphere. If the oxygen quantity in the atmosphere were greater, then plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too readily; alternatively, if the oxygen quantity in the atmosphere were less, then advanced animals would have too little oxygen to survive.


s. Seismic activity. If planetary seismic activity were greater, then too many life-forms would be destroyed; however, if seismic activity were less, then nutrients on ocean floors would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.


Many other potential similar relationships are currently being actively researched. However, the twenty planetary characteristics listed above would be fulfilled in much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars.

Considering that the universe only has about a trillion galaxies each of which averages one hundred billion stars, statistics argue that not even one planet would be expected by natural processes alone to harbor life.

Many astronomers such as Robert Rood and James Trefil, among others, are now deciding that given the above statistical probability, it is unlikely that life, especially intelligent life, exists anywhere else in the
 
Purist
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 03:11 am
@Alan McDougall,
Hey everyone.

Firtsly, I will admit to not having read most of the posts, as this argument for ID is not exactly a new one. I will however offer a word of caution. It is dangerous to argue backwards when probability is involved. For instance, if me and three friends were to play bridge and we dealt the cards, the probability of that precise arrangement of cards occurring is astronomically small. However, of course it makes no sense to then assume that some magical force was at play to ensure that particular configuration took place.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:05 am
@Purist,
I'm still curious how pointing to aspects of our universe and proclaiming, "There! See?!" equates to a "Case for Intelligent Design".
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » My Case for Intelligent design behind existence
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2014 at 06:12:46