quote:

Originally posted by arctic When calculating the probability of the universe arising out of design as opposed to it coming into existence from a 'random' event - isn't one forced to assume that the universe is designed first? Let's operate on the premise that the evidence points to the fact that the universe isn't designed (which I believe it does). Running with this line of reasoning, surely then any statistical analysis is nothing short of meaningless? Irrespective of how likely something is, shouldn't we be looking at the evidence rather than the probability of the event in question?

I'm not totally sure of what you are saying, but in probability theoretical terms I guess it is that we should condition our prior probability of design vs. random by the evidence we have. That I would agree on, but I do not see what evidence would possibly classify in this manner? What evidence do you think that we have which suggests the universe the result of a random event and not a design?

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Forgetting the above argument for a minute, I'm still yet to be convinced that the universe arising from a divine, perfect, all-loving, all-powerful being is indeed more probable than a naturalistic explanation of things.

But what do you mean by a "naturalistic explanation"? Nature and its laws *are* the universe, and hence cannot be used to reason about its existence.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Couldn't it be argued that, considering what we know about the world today, the likelihood of a god existing is somewhat minute?

Possibly, I do not see the argument myself though. When we specify probabilities or likelihoods they are either based on explicitly or implicitly recorded data. I am not aware of any data on God's existence though.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Since the probability of god's existence is relatively low, wouldn't it logically follow that the probability of the universe being created by god is intern lowered??

It would imply that the joint event of God existing and him creating the universe is lowered, yes. If you furthermore demonstrate a link between the evidence we have and the existence of God, then we have a solid argument.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 First of all, there's no reason to believe that this is the only existing universe. Secondly, it is more likely that humans appeared in a somewhat organized universe like this one than a completely random one where natural laws aren't constant. There could be thousands of other universes with different properties than this one which could make life impossible.

I do not like this argument as it replaces one supernatural entity (a Creator) with a lot more (lots of universes we cannot know about). That is, even if it would destroy the design argument I'm not sure that atheist would really believe in its assumption.
I have some other problem with it, but I cannot put my finger on it presently. I'll write some more when/if I get it

I think the most telling problem with creation arguments is that they generally rest upon a false premise: that if something exists, it must have had a genesis of some sort inside of objective "time."

But the very existence of such an objective time is, in my view, very questionable. To me it seems rather like the notion of up and down. I know that what is "down" for me would be the ground. But if I were to tunnel through the mantle and the core, I would eventually emerge on the other side of the planet. Is this location down from my position? And am I down from the position where I emerge? If so, then both directions are down, and the concept itself is reduced to absurdity.

The property of "down-ness" exists only relative to a given perspective, and I see no compelling evidence to suggest that temporal relationships do not follow the same rules as spatial ones. That is, we only say that yesterday is "before" insofar as we live today.

But there is no ultimate foundation upon which all the Earth rests. The soil lies upon the bedrock, which lies upon the mantle, which lies upon the core which cannot genuinely be said to lie upon anything but perhaps itself. To to expect some point in time upon which all known existence rests seems to me to be quite an unsubstantiated leap in reasoning (and, incidentally, the introduction of an unnecessary entity vis-a-vis Occam's Razor).

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I do not like this argument as it replaces one supernatural entity (a Creator) with a lot more (lots of universes we cannot know about). That is, even if it would destroy the design argument I'm not sure that atheist would really believe in its assumption. I have some other problem with it, but I cannot put my finger on it presently. I'll write some more when/if I get it

No it doesn't, it replaces one supernatural entity with many natural entities, which is quite different. And unlike god, the theory could be tested in the future. It's not far from the theory that there are other planets orbiting other stars, except that we have luckily moved on and propagators of this one will not end up as barbecue meat. Unlike god, which has no proof of existance whatsoever, it is not unreasonable to consider the existance of other universes simply because one is proven to exist, and we're all eyewitnesses. So far we know of 0 gods and 1 universe that are out there and we can assume that universes are more likely to exist than gods. If I'd be betting on what's on the "outside", I'd put my bet on another universe.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic First, I'm going to answer your post in a slightly skewed order, please bear with me. Second, the reliance on Occam's Razor is in the assumption that the "simple" mathematical statement of the Laws of Nature should be attributed any significance compared to any other, more complex, explanation of nature. I'm not a proponent of Occam's Razor, which was why I pointed out the connection between it and the design argument.

Well now I’m really confused as to this interpretation of Occam’s Razor. Could you maybe clarify this a little more for me?

quote:

As to "Occam's Razor excludes anything which doesn't have evidence that can be explained by existing mainstream models", I guess you mean "cannot" instead of "can"? I would say that Occam's Razor usually is stated as "do not multiply beyond necessity" and I cannot see how the design argument should be rejected because of this. The competing hypothesis (that the universe happened by chance) cannot really be said to be simpler, and it certainly provides much less in terms of explanation IMO.

Again, on the most elementary level you’re right – no, randomness is not the most “simplest” means of an event creating a complex designed structure or phenomena. However, applying Occam’s Sword metaphysically directly involves the Conservation of Energy – this is essentially why entities or phenomena in an ontological sense can neither be multiplied, reduced, or eliminated because matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (www.wikipedia.org). Agreed?

Given this maxim for Occam, how can we apply a design argument, if by definition a designed entity or phenomena directly implies a designer, which at present cannot be detected in any manner? If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can we apply a conservation of energy principle that demands energy present and detected in some manner, yet this is exactly what we cannot do with a designer who designed a given entity, phenomena, or event?

quote:

First of all, I am not arguing that an event "couldn't possibly happened as a result of a random event". The design argument argues that it is less likely to happen than given a design.

Yes, but how does one detect design? We have a myriad of evidence that demonstrates random events creating complex designs, yet we have no evidence for a designer deliberately creating a complex designed event in the natural world and universe. This is my problem with design theory utilizing, or rather abusing probability. We could argue any given random event (E) is highly unlikely to create complexity, despite the known evidence that demonstrates otherwise. But why must we therefore conclude a designed E as a result of random E being highly improbable without positive evidence to support a designed E occurring? IOW, why must we conclude a false positive for design, esp. when that is logically fallacious to do so?

quote:

On this we have plenty of evidence. Take the probability of "me hearing a coin dropping on the floor". It is negligible in general, but if I told someone next to me to drop a coin, it would be much different.

I don’t think I’m quite grasping your analogy. Could you maybe elaborate on this a little more?

quote:

According to regular scientific practice, when we are asked to choose between two models with equal a priori probability based on a set of data, we compute the likelihood of obtaining the data given the first model is correct, and then the likelihood of obtaining it given the second model is correct. This is one of the cornerstones of science, but (philosophically speaking) I find it highly questionable. However, as arguments for God's existence is usually presented for believers in science, it suffices in this setting. If you reject it, you are rejecting the "facts" of science as well.

But where and how did we start with an equal a priori probability based on data to begin with? To my knowledge, there is no data to support any detection of a designed E in the first place, so why would I give that equal footing to a random E?

quote:

I was speaking philosophically. I do not believe that science can "prove" God's existence. I also agree with you that the creator could be anything - not only the Biblical God. I am not a religious Christian, but an agnostic.

This might be a communication problem between us, and I freely admit my lack of depth in philosophical issues. If I am misunderstanding you, it is likely a result of my knowledge in science overtaking my ineptitude in philosophy, so I apologize if I am mixing the two up in advance. It is clearly unintentional.

quote:

This made no sense to me, but I would like to hear more about it?

My pleasure. William Dembski is a mathematician and philosopher who teaches at Baylor University (surprise, a Christian school). He expounded the design theory that was revived most famously by Michael Behe’s 1994 Book, “Darwin’s Black Box” by applying mathematical probability. His two most famous books are “No Free Lunch” (1996?), and “The Design Inference” (1998). In the former he lays his argument that design (the action of a conscious agent) was involved in the process of biological evolution. He then utilizes probability theorems which in essence is what you are referring to that rules out random chance (mutations in this instance), and then concludes that we must therefore infer design. Aside of the fact that this is nothing shy of the argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) logical fallacy, and aside of the fact that his theorems and use of universal probability bound are highly suspect (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/revolution.cfm#2, and http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm, the second link is a critique of one of the originators of the theorems Dembski erroneously uses), what’s clear is Dembski’s idea of evolutionary processes, and his attempts to apply mathmatical theorems to these processes (and thereby ignoring well known and established evolutionary algorithms) is highly questionable at best. In fact, I feel pretty confident to say that he is deliberately misleading.

The latter book, “Design Inference”, Dembski comes out with his mathmatical inferential method of detecting design through a process he calls the “Explanatory Filter”. In essence, the breakdown is as follows:

1. If an event E has high probability, accept Regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.
2. If the Chance hypothesis assigns E a high probability or E is not specified, then accept Chance; otherwise move down the list.
3. Having eliminated Regularity and Chance, accept Design.

You take an event E and move it through this filter one step at a time. Of course there is a great deal of probability numbers and calculations involved throughout the way, esp. utilizing the Universal Probability Bound (10 ^-150, I believe), but you eventually move down to point 3 where you must concluded Design, if you didn’t drop off somewhere on 1 or 2. Talk origins has a good counterargument shown here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html) if you’re interested as well as some links, and I’ll be repeating some of their points with my argument that follows:

First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.

However, why is design the default? Shouldn't the probability that the phenomenon is the direct product of intelligent agency be assessed independently, just like chance and necessity? It only looks like Dembski is trying to make it harder to conclude design by assessing the other possibilities first; in fact he's ensuring that by the time we make it to step three, no probability for design need be assigned.

In addition, the second step of the explanatory filter assumes that we know all the natural forces or mechanisms that could conceivably exist. Historically, it's plain to see that with scientific progress comes a better understanding of the power of natural mechanisms. It certainly does depend on our ignorance of possible natural mechanisms to assume that no such mechanisms exist or will ever be discovered and understood.

Lastly, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a combination of chance and natural mechanisms could give rise to a certain phenomenon. This is exactly what Darwinism claims is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth: time, chance mutation, and the deterministic process of cumulative natural selection. It seems Dembski wants people to think that no such combination of forces exists, and it may be in his best interests if they believe him.

And finally, the 2 questions that will continue to plague design theorists is as follows:

How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we
1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?

I’d say that the ID argument should logically be dead and buried, but yet it still finds its way into our school systems, which clearly irks the crap out of me. They almost pulled it off here in Kansas, and they’ve successfully pulled it off in places like Georgia, and most recently Ohio. People just want to believe what they want to believe, despite reality’s nutsack slapping them in the face.
(Uhh, I’m not sure where that last statement came from, sorry.)


If you want more information on Dembski and other design theorists, a Google search will give you more than what you'll ever ask for.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I just have to let this out There is no God There is no Heaven There was no supernatural Jesus When we die, we rot. We become one with existence itself in another form (creamation, burial, organ donar, frozen..etc..) Do you beleive in the tooth fairy...santa clause...elves, magical wizards, dragons, ghosts, the sandman....if not.. what makes you beleive such a similar character?? Jesus was supposed to return in 2000 wasnt he???? 2000 years after his death? To judge us? WHERE WAS HE?? I know.. i know.. you are going to give me some bullshit excuse or explanation about why or how he came or didnt come... If God was all powerful.. WHY WONT HE PROVE HIMSELF????? oh yes.. i forgot... we are a test!

+1, Don't be offended by the movie, because it's all made up bullshit

___________________
Why must I walk this wicked path?

Good discussion guys.

I'll jump in head-first later on, but while I'm here (I'm at uni so I can't really get into everything I want to discuss) I'll just say something about Occam's Razor.

Trancaholic:

quote:

I would say that Occam's Razor usually is stated as "do not multiply beyond necessity" and I cannot see how the design argument should be rejected because of this. The competing hypothesis (that the universe happened by chance) cannot really be said to be simpler, and it certainly provides much less in terms of explanation IMO.

Your first definition of the Razor there (about "multiplication beyond necessity") is more or less accurate but I don't think you've applied it correctly to the issue at hand. The most important thing to remember about Occam's Razor is that it concerns parsimony not simplicity. Elsewhere I have defined Occam's method as:

"In deciding between two competing theories - ceteris paribus - the theory invoking the least number of pluralities takes precedence."

Now the point here is that Occam's Razor is only a valid tool assuming that the two competing theories are more or less equally valid - that is, they explain the observed phenomena equally well. Assuming that they do, then Occam's Razor may be applied, and the theory invoking the lesser number of pluralities takes precedence.

So, to use an example, take competing theories for the movement of bodies: Newtonian physics and modern quantum physics. If we were to blindly apply Occam's Razor then we would see that Newtonian physics is both the most simple explantion (it's obviously easier to understand) and the most parsimonious (it invokes less "pluralities" - i.e. it doesn't depend on a plethora of subatomic factors / entities as the quantum theory does). However, in applying the Razor this way, we are overlooking the fact that Newton's theory doesn't actually explain the observed phenomena as well as the quantum theory - if you apply Newtonian physics to the movement of the planets, for instance, you will notice that it imperfectly describes their motion. Although the difference may be minute, the Newtonian interpretation of the movement of bodies is innaccurate - or, at least, less accurate than than the interpretation offered by quantum physics - and so applying a doctrine of empirical parsimony as the primary factor in deciding between these two theories would be a fallicious application of the doctrine. In other words, if one theory offers a better description of the observed phenomena than the other (and the Razor only concerns observed phenemena - it's a doctrine of empirical parsimony) then Occam's Razor is inapplicable.

On the other hand, let's use another example. Say that these are these facts:

- A ball is seen to be heading towards a window.
- The window is seen to smash.
- The ball is seen on the other side of the window amongst the broken glass.

There are then two competing theories explaining the chain of events:

- The first says that the ball hit the window, causing it to smash, allowing it pass through into the room.
- The second says that just before the ball hit the window, an invisible ghost smashed the glass and allowed the ball to pass through.

(It's a pretty dumb scenario, I know, but bear with me.)

Now assuming that the only facts are the ones described (i.e. we don't have vision that we can play in slow motion to see the ball break the window, or we can't find any ghostly footprints in the flower bed etc.) then both theories, technically, explain the events equally well. If we forgo any other methods in deciding between the theories (i.e. we discount the likelihood that ghosts do not exist rendering the second theory invalid, or that the glass is exremely hard or the ball extremely soft, rendering the first theory invalid) then we can apply Occam's Razor and suggest that the first theory will take precedence, simply because it is the most empirically parsimonious. The reason we can say this is because the second theory relies on one more plurality (namely the ghost) than the first theory does to render it valid. Unless the necessity of this additional plurality can be justified (i.e. if lots of people saw the ghost smash the window before the ball arrived, or something along those lines) then the application of Occam's Razor will favour the first explanation.

But note, also, just how difficult it is to apply. It isn't particularly helpful unless you can find two competing theories that explain the totality of observed phenomena equally well - how often does that occur in science? Its application to the origin of the universe is similarly questionable, but let's give it a try:

Theory #1: God is the uncaused cause of the big-bang, which in turn is the cause of the universe.

God -> Big Bang -> Universe (3 steps/pluralities)

Theory #2: The big-bang is the uncaused cause of the universe.

Big Bang -> Universe (2 steps/pluralities)

Assuming the two theories are equally valid (they describe what we can observe equally well) and identical evidence has been used in the formation of each (neither is including or excluding evidence that other isn't) then we may invoke Occam's Razor and suggest that Theory #2 is the more preferable, because, all other things being equal, it requires the invokation of fewer pluralities.

However, as I said, applying Occam's Razor like this requires a pinch of salt, because it can quite easily be argued that the theories are not equally valid and that they are not drawing upon the same set of (which should be the totality of) observed evidence.

I'm very tired, so I hope that made sense. More to come when I get the chance.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think the most telling problem with creation arguments is that they generally rest upon a false premise: that if something exists, it must have had a genesis of some sort inside of objective "time." But the very existence of such an objective time is, in my view, very questionable. To me it seems rather like the notion of up and down. I know that what is "down" for me would be the ground. But if I were to tunnel through the mantle and the core, I would eventually emerge on the other side of the planet. Is this location down from my position? And am I down from the position where I emerge? If so, then both directions are down, and the concept itself is reduced to absurdity. The property of "down-ness" exists only relative to a given perspective, and I see no compelling evidence to suggest that temporal relationships do not follow the same rules as spatial ones. That is, we only say that yesterday is "before" insofar as we live today. But there is no ultimate foundation upon which all the Earth rests. The soil lies upon the bedrock, which lies upon the mantle, which lies upon the core which cannot genuinely be said to lie upon anything but perhaps itself. To to expect some point in time upon which all known existence rests seems to me to be quite an unsubstantiated leap in reasoning (and, incidentally, the introduction of an unnecessary entity vis-a-vis Occam's Razor).

Good example Arbiter. It's already well established in physics that time is hardly an independant dimension. Space-time is exactly as the name implies, two entities in dependant co-existence. We already have observed instances of elements in our universe where combinations of space-time result in the non-existence of time as we know it (black holes for instance). Therefore it boggles the mind how creationists continually attempt to separate space and time into two distinct, independant entities in an effort to prove the existence of God on the merits of circular reasoning and a simplistic timeline.

___________________
Retro ...

Ok. Quite a bit of reading there. You guys should apply Occam's Razor to your posts.
I'll try to see if I can get to read and answer tonight, but I doubt it. Otherwise I'll be back friday night or saturday morning.

Excellent description and examples, Renegade. My compliments!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 No it doesn't, it replaces one supernatural entity with many natural entities, which is quite different.

I have a feeling that we disagree fundamentally on the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural". Could you please tell me your definition of these two concepts? I have a lot of comments to the rest of your post, but if the problem is a radical distance in understanding of these two terms, then I feel that they will be useless.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well now I’m really confused as to this interpretation of Occam’s Razor. Could you maybe clarify this a little more for me?

Well, the entire design argument is really targeted at the atheist who claims his belief of no God is more logically consistent/flawless than that of the theist, and who thinks that science provides truth. If you do not fit this category then argument's course is probably not that logical to you.
Anyway, I will try to describe what I meant in more detail, although I expect it to be hard: We could describe our observations of the universe as one (very) long list of "facts". However, science provides a compressed version of all these facts. That is, from the relations uncovered by science we can describe all of these observations to a degree of precision where the inaccuracy is deemed insignificant. The science fan would in other words consider the list of observations and the laws of science to be equivalent descriptors of our observations.
As long sequences of information goes, information theory tells us that there is a lot more of the completely random ones than the compressible ones. Therefore, we may say that we have a "rare case" on our hands. But a lot of other attributes of long sequences of information might be thought of, which would render other sequences "rare" and the one we are facing to be "common", in effect stating that there is nothing "special" about our universe. For the design argument to be succesful we therefore need to establish that a scientist *should* attribute significance to the compression measure rather than any other measure.
To do this we notice that, when all other things are equal, the scientist use simplicity (or compressibility) as a deciding factor when choosing between two theories explaining a series of observations, and we thus have the permission to accept as signigicant that our observations are compressible into "natural laws".
When asked why the scientist have this preference his answer would be "Occam's Razor". But, from a epistemological point of view Occam's Razor really has little justification, and must be classified as belonging to science's axioms, along with two-valued logic, induction, the maximum likelihood principle, etc. Therefore, the design argument needs its target to subscribe to Occam's Razor.
Hope I have been clear.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again, on the most elementary level you’re right – no, randomness is not the most “simplest” means of an event creating a complex designed structure or phenomena. However, applying Occam’s Sword metaphysically directly involves the Conservation of Energy – this is essentially why entities or phenomena in an ontological sense can neither be multiplied, reduced, or eliminated because matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (www.wikipedia.org). Agreed?

In the universe, yes. But when you go beyong the boundary of the universe (in time in this case), no such principle can be justified IMO.
But at this point, I would have to apologize if I have given the impression that the design argument builds on a temporal reasoning. The argument states that the universe is likely to have a designer, and claims nothing on whether this design was carried out "prior" to existence of the universe in some kind of supernatural temporal ordering.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Given this maxim for Occam, how can we apply a design argument, if by definition a designed entity or phenomena directly implies a designer, which at present cannot be detected in any manner? If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can we apply a conservation of energy principle that demands energy present and detected in some manner, yet this is exactly what we cannot do with a designer who designed a given entity, phenomena, or event?

Given what I wrote above, is this still an issue?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yes, but how does one detect design? We have a myriad of evidence that demonstrates random events creating complex designs, yet we have no evidence for a designer deliberately creating a complex designed event in the natural world and universe. This is my problem with design theory utilizing, or rather abusing probability. We could argue any given random event (E) is highly unlikely to create complexity, despite the known evidence that demonstrates otherwise. But why must we therefore conclude a designed E as a result of random E being highly improbable without positive evidence to support a designed E occurring? IOW, why must we conclude a false positive for design, esp. when that is logically fallacious to do so?

But that is the maximum likelihood principle for you. It is totally fallacious, but *it is what scientists do*! You cannot state priors for competing theories, no matter the phenomena that is being explained. In an attempt at a response to this total ignorance scientists considers all theories equally likely a priori.
This goes back to my initial comment: The design argument is targeted at the atheistic scientist who for some reason believes he is discovering objective truth and therefore have no need for a god. If he knows that his house is build on nothing but unstable sand, and hence knows that his atheism is a *belief*, the design argument won't be of much interest to him.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don’t think I’m quite grasping your analogy. Could you maybe elaborate on this a little more?

I was trying to give an example of a real-life situation where the probability of an outcome (me hearing a coin dropping) have a different likelihood when given a design (me telling the someone to drop it), than when no design is given. Probably it was a stupid example.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But where and how did we start with an equal a priori probability based on data to begin with? To my knowledge, there is no data to support any detection of a designed E in the first place, so why would I give that equal footing to a random E?

The same reasoning as before. That's what scientists do.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This might be a communication problem between us, and I freely admit my lack of depth in philosophical issues. If I am misunderstanding you, it is likely a result of my knowledge in science overtaking my ineptitude in philosophy, so I apologize if I am mixing the two up in advance. It is clearly unintentional.

If there is a communication problem, I guess the probable cause would be my non-native English, and the fact that I'm not a proponent of God-proofs in general and thus have been a little lazy in my argumentation. Furthermore, the argument tackles atheist with a scientifical belief, and if you do not fit the bill then there's bound to be trouble

Thanks for the info on Dembski. It seems that his agenda is a different one than the one I have described here. He wishes to prove God's existence, whereas the philosophical point I have tried to get across is that you cannot definately reject the existence of God unless you reject the spoils of science.