Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _DrW »

huckelberry wrote:Dr W, I can see things in common with what I see and Deist ideas except I see no reason to think God is out of here. I do not think he has to fix or repair daily.

I choose the words mass and energy just as a simple reference. Yes laws of physics or spacetime and fields would also be appropriate.

I found it curious that you choose a few seconds after the singularity. That would reference the physics we are able to know. That which is the basic ,is just because it is, would have to be before that. (whether another laws of another physics or that mind of God which is of course utterly beyond our understanding.)

I chose a few seconds after the singularity because by then the universe (this universe) was well into the physics we do understand at a practical, operational level.

What physics still needs to do to extend understanding to, and beyond, the singularity, as I am sure you are aware, is to figure out how relativity and quantum mechanics (quantum field theory) can be merged to understand (for lack of a better term) quantum gravity. This would finally yield a Theory of Everything, or very close to it.

Progress in this area has been slow. However, postulating a goddidit mechanism for what we do not know yet is not helpful in the least.

With the detection in the 21st century of both the Higgs boson (proving the existence of the Higgs field, further supporting the standard model) and gravitational waves (further solidifying general relativity), a good foundation for progress has been laid and we are moving forward.

The possibility of combining the two leading hypotheses (string theory and loop quantum gravity) as to a Theory of Everything is being discussed. Loop quantum gravity would see to be the best approach, but the point is that progress is being made.

You might be surprised at the number of contributors there are, and have been, both scientifically and philosophically, over millennia, to this endeavor.

You mentioned upthread your belief in "space", or gaps, for God. I mention the above simply to point out that the gaps into which God can fit are shrinking, and rapidly so. They are now on the order of 10 exp - 33 meters, and soon to close completely.

Upthread you also stated:
huckelberry wrote:Trying to replace a natural explanation with a supernatural one would obviously be silly.

And on that we certainly agree.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _Maksutov »

Poor DCP retreats deeper into fringe and pseudoscience. Mopologetics (and Mormonism as we know it) is finding its own proper niche there in the universe of ideas.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _huckelberry »

Dr, W
A theory of everything, unified field theory, should logically be possible,though perhaps difficult.

I do not expect there to be gaps in the natural order. If one is thinking of a creator, gaps in the natural order would represent shortcomings and weakness in design I suspect.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _DrW »

huckelberry wrote:Dr, W
A theory of everything, unified field theory, should logically be possible,though perhaps difficult.

I do not expect there to be gaps in the natural order. If one is thinking of a creator, gaps in the natural order would represent shortcomings and weakness in design I suspect.

Upthread, you stated, "Trying to replace a natural explanation with a supernatural one would obviously be silly." And I agreed.

So if we have a natural explanation for the universe (which we have) why would one try to justify a supernatural explanation?

The real issue here, I think, is a difference in background and the understood meaning of words and concepts.

You are a religionist whose worldview is clearly based on faith (unfounded belief). You made a statement upthread asking how scientists can reasonably discount the possibility of God in the creation.

I am a secularist whose worldview is based on evidence. The answer to your question is that the burden of proof is clearly on the one asserting the existence of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As has been stated on this board countless times, there is no scientific evidence for a creator god - none.

So rather than responding further to statements which seem illogical to me, especially given what you have said so far on this thread, please have a look at this short video and pay particular attention to point #4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKVBrL343K4
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _huckelberry »

DrW wrote:The real issue here, I think, is a difference in background and the understood meaning of words and concepts.

You are a religionist whose worldview is clearly based on faith (unfounded belief). You made a statement upthread asking how scientists can reasonably discount the possibility of God in the creation.

You are correct some block to communication appears to be happening if you think I asked how scientists can reasonably discount the possibility of God. I do not recall thinking that unreasonable or a puzzle.

checking Webster, Definition of religionist. :a person adhering to a religion; especially :a religious zealot.

Dr W your last comment seems to indicate you feel our exchange has reached its limit. Seems reasonable to me.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _DrW »

huckelberry wrote:
DrW wrote:The real issue here, I think, is a difference in background and the understood meaning of words and concepts.

You are a religionist whose worldview is clearly based on faith (unfounded belief). You made a statement upthread asking how scientists can reasonably discount the possibility of God in the creation.

You are correct some block to communication appears to be happening if you think I asked how scientists can reasonably discount the possibility of God. I do not recall thinking that unreasonable or a puzzle.

checking Webster, Definition of religionist. :a person adhering to a religion; especially :a religious zealot.

Dr W your last comment seems to indicate you feel our exchange has reached its limit. Seems reasonable to me.

Agreed.

Just to be clear, however, the passage I was referring to is this one.
These are the solid facts of evolution. The little add on that no God was involved strikes me a mere speculation. Not a silly speculation ,it is a good working assumption for scientific investigation.

My point was as follows: given the solid facts of evolution, as you stated, the involvement of God would be the speculation - not the non-involvement (or non-existence) of God.

Did you watch the video I linked to?

In any case, thank you for the conversation.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _huckelberry »

Dr W, the other day I did not have time to go through the whole presentation you recommended. It was my bedtime.I have since reviewed the whole, made a couple of notes. I think Sean Carrol is a well spoken and clear thinking speaker so I got some enjoyment from the presentation. I can report a few simple reactions.

Point 7, I can believe atheists can be open to new information and ideas. I do not like trying to paint them as closed. It is easier to suspect closed thinking in the individuals who wish to picture others that way.

point 6, I do not feel my view prevents or undervalues gathering data. I respect the process for science and naturalism.

point 5 cosmic artist? ho hum.

point 4 I heard in this a collection of standard but sharp criticism of God as revealer. I believe God reveals very little but calls humans to find their trues self and potential and see the image of God in that discovery.

I might add that I believe what people claim to be revelations should be criticized with reason using real experience in how living works. That living provides data as to the meaning of God.

point3 different levels of credence to different theories, ok.

point 2 nice presentation of consideration about the law thermodynamics, I am unaware of holding any exception to his comments.

point 1 this is the point I liked the best, though there was a good deal in the presentation I felt in agreement with this one was most important to me.
//////

I will try a reexplain on my comment about evolution. I agree completely that viewing the facts of evolution any involvement of God would be the purest speculation. I do not see anything irrational about a person rejecting any involvement of a god. In commenting I was trying to contrast the solid positive evidence for age, development, family relationship, survival of the fittest which is well strong enough to consider these established facts. Though there are reasons to think in terms of no God I do not see that as a conclusion established with the same positive factual clarity as these first things.

Yet nobody really believes in God in order to explain the process of the natural world. Those cosmological arguments are just a tag along fitting for people who already believe. God for believers is first an expression of our ultimate concern and responsibility as individuals and communities.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Dan Peterson Using ID-iotic Argument on Evolution

Post by _DrW »

Huckelberry wrote: Dr W, the other day I did not have time to go through the whole presentation you recommended. It was my bedtime.I have since reviewed the whole, made a couple of notes. I think Sean Carrol is a well spoken and clear thinking speaker so I got some enjoyment from the presentation. I can report a few simple reactions. {SNIP}

Huckelberry,

Glad you were able to watch the video. Thanks for being frank in reporting your reactions and rationalizations.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply