Help With An Argument For God Creating The Earth And Interacting With Human History

[Neverlandrut]

One thing to keep in mind is that arguments a priori (based on pure reason) cannot establish matter of fact. There are some scientific facts discovered on the quantum scale (for example) that seem to defy logic, but we know these things because there is physical evdence of them. Generally, for something to be true, it must be logically coherent though. Not all logically coherent ideas are true on the basis of coherence alone (the ones that are, generally are so due to definition) such as the existence of a divine being. You may be able to logically prove the possibility of said being's existence, but logical coherence of the idea does not prove it by itself. Even if the first cause argument does succeed (it does not due to a number of logical fallacies) in proving a first cause, there is nothing in the argument to say what that cause is, or even if it is intelligent. So, it is a far cry to say that a particular monotheistic conception of god is true because you may have a logically coherent reason to believe the universe has a cause.

[pantheory]

Neverlandut,

 

"There are some scientific facts discovered on the quantum scale (for example) that seem to defy logic, but we know these things because there is physical evidence of them."

 

Although some things in the quantum world appear to defy logic, it may just be our misunderstandings of the so-called physical evidence why we might so easily misunderstand what we observe in the quantum world.

[RipVanWinkle]

I read a fair amount about on the issue of whether there was a beginning of the universe and other scientific topics. What I have decided is that I really don't have enough educational background in science to go toe to toe with these Xtian scientists who begin their research after already having committed

to Xtianity and also committed to their scientific conclusions on matters they feel bear on their

faith.

 

Fortunately, I don't have to debate them toe to toe on these matters. Take a look at Genesis as a

starter.It is in conflict with very basic science that even I know.The earth is not flat. There is not a body of water above the firmament.The sun was not "created" after god created light. Genesis has two creation stories which directly conflict with each other. In one man was created before animals and

plants; in the other man was created after plants and animals.The sun does not revolve around the earth.There are many more. Genesis does not make scientific sense to a reasonable person.

 

You can get books by scholars who go through the prophesies of the OT and show how either they are not prophesies at all or, if they were, they were not fulfilled as claimed by apologists. The attempts by

apologists to force fulfilled prophesies from the OT amounts to stretching the biblical language to say what it clearly does not say.

 

The point is that even if there were a supernatural origination of the universe, it still cannot be shown to be described in Genesis. Further, even if there is a god, the

bible is so unreliable and conflicting that it can't possible be the word of god. bill

[Neverlandrut]

I read a fair amount about on the issue of whether there was a beginning of the universe and other scientific topics. What I have decided is that I really don't have enough educational background in science to go toe to toe with these Xtian scientists who begin their research after already having committed

to Xtianity and also committed to their scientific conclusions on matters they feel bear on their

faith.

 

Fortunately, I don't have to debate them toe to toe on these matters. Take a look at Genesis as a

starter.It is in conflict with very basic science that even I know.The earth is not flat. There is not a body of water above the firmament.The sun was not "created" after god created light. Genesis has two creation stories which directly conflict with each other. In one man was created before animals and

plants; in the other man was created after plants and animals.The sun does not revolve around the earth.There are many more. Genesis does not make scientific sense to a reasonable person.

 

You can get books by scholars who go through the prophesies of the OT and show how either they are not prophesies at all or, if they were, they were not fulfilled as claimed by apologists. The attempts by

apologists to force fulfilled prophesies from the OT amounts to stretching the biblical language to say what it clearly does not say.

 

The point is that even if there were a supernatural origination of the universe, it still cannot be

shown to be described in Genesis. Further, even if their is a god, the bible is so unreliable and

conflicting that it can't possible be the word of god. bill

Totally agree bill. Your last paragraph is what lead me away from Christianity. I finally faced the biblical errors and contradictions, concise red ten from very angle I could. I read apologists explanations and critics. When you alow yourself to concise the possibility that it isn't god's word, it becomes pretty clear that it cannot be. As an atheist, I don't omit the possibility of there being a creator god. But it is no more possible than magic fairies, the great elephant in the sky, or any other fable. There is simply no evidential reason the think that it is the case.

[Neverlandrut]

Neverlandut,

 

"There are some scientific facts discovered on the quantum scale (for example) that seem to defy logic, but we know these things because there is physical evidence of them."

 

Although some things in the quantum world appear to defy logic, it may just be our misunderstandings of the so-called physical evidence why we might so easily misunderstand what we observe in the quantum world.

Right. It very well could be that we just don't fully understand quantum physics yet. In fact, that's almost certainly the case. The difference between asserting logic defying quantum theory and asserting a logic defying god is that quantum theory has been rigorously tested, measurements have been conducted, and accurate predictions have been made based on quantum theory. Even though we don't fully understand it, we have ample physical/observational/measurable evidence that real phenomena exists which we label quantum physics. No such evidence has ever been demonstrated for the god hypothesis. I'm fine with people wanting to assert a divine being who defies logic (could be so), but in order to establish matter of fact for something that seems illogical, an extraordinary amount of evidence must be shown to demonstrate it. Illogical concept - evidence = not believable. Illogical concept + evidence = forced to follow the evidence where it leads.

[RogueScholar]

I'm not sure that QM defies logic. I'd have to get a feel for what people mean when they say it defies logic. QM makes great predictions and is based on a sound body of evidence. At least the bit of QM that I've been exposed to. It's certainly not intuitive, but humans didn't really evolve to intuit such things, so I'm not surprised. However from a chemistry standpoint, QM has a pretty logical framework IMHO. Sure, there are models and approximations that have to be used when looking at complex systems (pretty much anything beyond a Hydrogen atom), but they are still logically developed and make good predictions.

[Neverlandrut]

I'm not sure that QM defies logic. I'd have to get a feel for what people mean when they say it defies logic. QM makes great predictions and is based on a sound body of evidence. At least the bit of QM that I've been exposed to. It's certainly not intuitive, but humans didn't really evolve to intuit such things, so I'm not surprised. However from a chemistry standpoint, QM has a pretty logical framework IMHO. Sure, there are models and approximations that have to be used when looking at complex systems (pretty much anything beyond a Hydrogen atom), but they are still logically developed and make good predictions.

Good point. I emphasize "seems" to defy logic. I'm referring to such phenomena as sub atomic particles that can be in two places at once, and the ones that can move from point A to B without traveling the distance inbetween. "Not intuitive" as you say is probably a better description. I have no expertese in physics, just know what I've read. It's all fascinating either way. Thanks for the input. I wonder if we have any resident physists who know more about this?

[RogueScholar]

These things you speak of are rather “interesting” when first confronted. I had some serious issues a few years back when looking at applying QM to the atom.  Specifically, with the concept of an atomic orbital, I had a difficult time understanding how an electron could be in one place and in another place, but not between the two places. However, if you spend time working with wave equations, it's not really hard to begin to understand. I will show you a picture of what I mean. Rather than actually try to impress you with my mad skillz, there's an app for that and I am not too proud to use it:

 

 

I took a screenshot of a programme that will solve what is known as the non-relativistic time independent Schrodinger equation for the electron in a Hydrogen atom.  On the top right of the picture, there is a trident symbol that looks something like this:  | y >  This is a way of representing what is known as the wavefunction. Basically, the wave function, or an interpretation of the wave function will give you all the information about the state of the electron.  In this simulation, the wavefunction contains information about three concepts n, l and m.  The values for n, l and m are known as the quantum numbers.  I went with the numbers n = 3, l =1 and m = 0. I will not go into great detail, but the l value is what determines the "orbital" that an electron occupies in an atom. In this case, we have what is known as a "p" orbital.

 

Under the quantum numbers, we have a mathematical way of looking at the wavefunction in what are known as spherical polar coordinates. Under that, is a way of describing the Schrodinger equation.  Under that, is the binding energy, the energy that binds the electron to the nucleus with this specific orbital. The energy for the 3p orbital in a Hydrogen atom is rather modest at -1.55 electron volts or ev. Under that is a graph of what is known as the radial probability density.  Basically, as we move away from the nucleus, how is the probability density cloud of the electron. The x axis is the distance in angstroms. A common distance in atomic theory is the Bohr radius which is around 0.5 Angstroms. In this particular orbital the most probable radius is at 12 Bohr radi.

 

Under the quantum numbers, we have a mathematical way of looking at the wavefunction in what are known as spherical polar coordinates. Under that, is a way of describing the Schrodinger equation.  Under that, is the binding energy, the energy that binds the electron to the nucleus. The energy for the 3p orbital in a Hydrogen atom is rather modest at -1.55 electron volts or ev. Under that, is a graph of what is known as the radial probability density.  A common distance in atomic theory is the Bohr radius that is around 0.5 Angstroms. In this particular orbital the most probable “radius” of the electron is at 12 Bohr radii.

 

Okay, enough with that stuff.  I want you to take a look at the picture to the left off all the information.  This picture is a plot of the electron probability density around the nucleus.  The centre of the plot would be the nucleus. What I found crazy was that there was high probability of finding the electron in the coloured areas but there were nodes where the electron could not be in-between the coloured areas. How can this be, how is it that the electron behaves like this? How could an electron be found in one area and in another area but could not exist between the two areas? So, the electron is basically “popping” in and out of different areas of probability density around the nucleus?

 

Well, if you spend some time studying waves and wave mechanics and the history of quantum mechanics from about 1900-1930, you can really develop a basic understanding of what is going on.  For me, it was a matter of looking at the wave aspects of the process. I am not sure that helped much, but hopefully it illuminated the fact that if a dumb ass like me can to some extent, understand this stuff, there is certainly hope for most anybody else and we do not have to go around talking about super mystical, spiritual, supernatural stuff in order to get to that understanding.

 

With that said, please do not look at me as an expert in QM and it's less provencial applications. I am no expert and I am only familiar with QM to the extent that it helps us understand atomic structure and the nature of the chemical bond.

 

 

[Neverlandrut]

Hey, thanks for that Roguescholar! That's very interesting stuff! I was really into chemistry in highschool. I'm actually planning on pursuing a degree in chemistry when my wife gets finished with school. I haven't dabble in it in a long time. The wave property you described (which I remember learning something about before) does add some understanding to the "electron existing in two places without existing the space inbetween" issue. Thanks again! I'll look into the app.

[RogueScholar]

 

Rather than looking at it existing in one place or another, perhaps it is better to start with the understanding that we cannot know the exact location of the electron.  Rather, the electron, according to it's quantum numbers will have areas where it has a higher probability of existing and areas of lower probability.  The orbital can be thought of as a probability density plot. From there, you can start thinking about waves and better intuit other concepts as these concepts really are better viewed in the context of wave mechanics.

 

This will be really helpful as you go through organic chemistry where understanding the hybridisation of atomic orbitals into molecular orbitals is critical to master as it underpins our ability to understand the covalent bonding that occurs with Carbon. The hybridisation of orbitals is a direct consequence of the wave nature of electrons.

[jdparker520]

I'll tackle a few of these:

 

Instances of evil and injustice actually provide an argument for God, as

follows:

i. If evil and injustice actually occur, then there is an objective, perfect

standard of morality and justice.

ii. The best explanation for an objective, perfect standard of morality and

justice is God.

iii.Therefore, God exists.

 

The first premise is circular.  To make it obvious,  let's rephrase it as, "If evil and injustice as defined by an objective standard actually occur, then there is an objective, perfect standard of morality and justice."  This rephrasing is correct because evil and injustice are value judgements, and any value judgement presupposes some standard of judgement.  In this case, the standard of judgement being presupposed is an objective and perfect one, since that's a rather convenient assumption for the author.

 

Although it's a bit unnecessary,  I'll also point out that the second premise is laughably week.  I'm not at all certain why it must be the case that the best explanation for an objective, perfect standard of morality is god.  I'm pretty sure that this premise only seems true if you are currently trapped in a religious mindset.

 

 

A primary prediction of Darwinian theory is that the functional

information17,18,19 encoded within the genomes of biological life began at

virtually zero and has steadily increased with time to encode all of

biological life as it diversifies.

...

One example is bacteria, which appears to be experiencing a net deletional bias

in the DNA, with the result that the genetic information in bacteria is slowly

decreasing.20 Another example is drosophila, or the fruit fly, which is

experiencing a high rate of DNA loss as a general process, not merely in

once section or in one species.21

 

The author is misrepresenting the studies referenced.  To quote from the bacteria study,

"Although bacteria increase their DNA content through horizontal transfer and gene duplication, their genomes remain small and, in particular, lack nonfunctional sequences."

 The study is not claiming that bacteria genomes are becoming simpler, as the author implies.  It is providing an explanation for why they are remaining at the same small size in spite of the presence of factors that would tend to increase their size.  There is a rather obvious reason why bacteria would tend to get rid of genetic garbage.  Copying DNA takes energy, so getting rid of unnecessary genetic data reduces the amount of energy wasted copying useless code.

 

The fruit flies are similar.  Their genetic machinery is biased towards deleting code.  This doesn't mean that the genome will shrink over time.  It means that it won't accumulate many useless bits.  This is made clear by considering the fate of the fruit fly who deleted an essential sequence of DNA.  That fruit fly would die, and would not pass on its deletion.  Essentially, selection pressures will keep the genome from becoming too small.

 

Finally, it is incorrect to take these two examples and then generalize to all of life with the conclusion that evolution can only remove information over time.  A clear counter example is amoeba dubia, which has a genome 230 times larger than ours.  It's genetic machinery seems to have a strong bias towards duplication of code and random insertions.  It's reasonable to say that the rest of life is probably somewhere between these two extremes.

 

 

Positive evidence for an intelligent creator

...

i. A unique attribute of intelligence is the ability to produce statistically

significant levels of functional information

ii. Protein coding genes carry a statistically significant level of functional

information.

iii.Therefore, the unique fingerprints of an intelligent designer are all over the

genomes of life.

 

This is phrased as a syllogism, so I will treat it as such.  It's a bit informal, so I'll need to transform it into the formal style first:

i. No life form that contains statistically significant levels of functional information is a life form that was produced without intelligence.

ii. All life forms containing protein coding genes are lifeforms containing statistically significant levels of functional information.

iii. Therefore, no life form containing statistically significant levels of functional information is a life form that was produced without intelligence.

 

This syllogism is logically valid.  However, when transformed into formal style, the issue becomes blatant.  The first premise boils down to, "No complex life form was produced without intelligence."  Well, if I grant you that premise, then I agree, the argument is over, you win.  However, I do in fact strenuously object to this premise.  To state the obvious, the theory of evolution gives a method by which statistically significant levels of functional information can arise without intelligence.