Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

I don't see how a particular Physicist's understanding of the subject alters anything. Feynman was no doubt aware of the K-G equation and used it often. Him knowing or not knowing the K-G equation should have no bearing on whether or not electrons behave according to QED. Unless you refer to the interview where he says he can't explain it to "someone who doesn't know anything at all about [physics]", but I don't know for sure that's what you're referring to. According to youtube, that's not until the 80's anyway.

Well, that's was what I was talking about in the paragraph you quoted. I made a perhaps hasty conclusion that that was related to what you were talking about.

Alter2Ego said there is complexity in the pattern of atoms, I said we can demonstrate how they chose the pattern they do, and that's what you quoted.

 

Who said it does?

See above.

He made a comparison between the rules of QED and the method developed by the Mayans to figure out when a certain planet would be at a certain point in the sky without any knowledge of gravitational influence on celestial bodies. Should be in here somewhere.

There's complexity in a trash pile too.

Excuse me??

 

This single sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to be clever by using the username as a series of words? Why do you include the word "a"? No matter how I parse it there's something missing.

"Is that a self imposed David?" makes no sense. "Is that self imposed, David?" does. So does "Is that a self imposed rule, David?" You've chosen an option which, while it makes sense to you, is completely opaque to everybody else.

This is a perfect example of your writing and why nobody understands what the hell you're trying to say. It's because you write with such imprecision it's impossible to tell if you're tremendously inarticulate, speak English as a second language, or are just insane.

 

Well, you were the one who insisted that I tell you whether Feynman knew about it or not. That was never a point on my part.

I don't see how he links the thing about Mayans to QED, as I understand it, he's discussing the why-question and why we can't trace whys back forever but sometimes further than we are at the moment. And then he made the point that modern scientists stopped using the Mayans' method of explaining the "why"s by gods or numerology, because it turned out to be false more often than not.

I did find some other relevant quotes in there, though,

"Now, when this Quantum laws of motion were applied to electrons to explain the properties of matter, it was a fantastic success. The properties of the atoms can be all worked out matematically, in principle at least, and the simple atoms in detail."

which was my point, there are no "accidents" or otherwise random processes that influence the chemical behaviour of the atoms.

"The rules of the game, by which we make computation, the laws underneath everything that makes nature work, are simple."

which is a related point, the complexity alter2ego describes is an imagined one, where he seems to compare things to themselves saying that it is fantastic that 1 is exactly equal to 1.

I know, these quotes aren't really relevant to the discussion between the two of us (yguy), I just wrote them down because they were relevant to the other part of the discussion and they came from your link.

Is that an argument that complexity can be provided by unguided processes or that larger systems than atoms need to be explained in order to make non-design theories credible?

Fine, "chose" was perhaps the wrong word to use, but you get the idea.

 

Indeed I did, so as to get an answer to the question I asked initially, which you have yet to answer.

And I don't see how you missed it.

If there is a "why" question left unanswered, is there a mystery?

No, just a reminder that complexity per se is not the issue here.

The question is whether you get the idea. If the behavior of a class of particles conforms to a pattern, the obvious question is why. The goal of materialists, OTOH, is to purge God from every possible gap, and to declare off limits any gaps that remain, even if they can comfortably accommodate a million galaxies.

 

Brilliant, then maybe you can explain it to me?

You don't need to understand all foundations of nature to understand a concept in general. You can understand how an engine works without understanding the finer points about how all the atoms behave. We do know that electrons behave according to QED, we know the workings of QED a few steps back, to a simple rule, the K-G eq, just as a person looking at an engine can regard the walls of an engine as blocks of matter, despite them actually being made out of atoms themselves. Sure, there are whys and mysteries, but how electrons align around an atom is not one of them.

Well, this is the issue I'm discussing:

If you're discussing another issue, please tell me, and if it is an unrelated issue, such as the existence of matter, please do it in a thread designated for that discussion.

 

All indications are to the contrary, I'm afraid.

Had you said that to begin with, this conversation would never have happened.

I am discussing specific statements made by you.

Mods permitting, I will discuss anything I damm well please, anywhere I damm well please. If you find that inappropriate you are more than welcome to go snivel about it to someone who cares.

 

REGENS KÜCHL -to- ALTER2EGO:

GOTCHA

http://forums.musculardevelopment.c...or-Accidents?p=3053364&viewfull=1#post3053364

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic. Precision is seen in everything in the natural world. Precision indicates deliberation, and deliberation indicates an intelligent Designer/God intervened and guided the outcome. If it takes an intelligent human to create a stick of crayon, logic tells us it must have taken a supremely intelligent person to create the human and the complex universe.

Evidence of God's existence is dismissed every single time one ignores the complexity of the natural world. Flawed logic also results from ignorance or lack of knowledge of certain scientific facts. To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.

The Big Bang Theory is just that—a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. By ignoring the complexity in the natural world, atheists opt for the Big Bang THEORY and evolution THEORY as a means of explaining why the universe and life on planet earth exists. Both theories leave everything to spontaneous events aka accidents and therefore, they fail miserably in overcoming the evidence of precision, because precision indicates deliberation and intelligent design.


For instance, nobody can explain how Big Bang, which is nothing more than a theory about expanding space, resulted in the appearance of planets. The millions of planets in the universe each have separate gravitational fields that keep them within their own orbits and prevents them from crashing into each other. Big Bang theory is unable to explain why certain planets work to the advantage of earth because Big Bang theory relies upon spontaneous, unguided events (accidents).

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results."


If one were to tell a group of atheists that their computers are the result of accidents in which someone placed all the parts of the computer into a large mixer and left it there to put itself together, they would reject that. These same people have no problem accept the theory that the complex universe—against which the computer looks like child's play—happened by itself. It raises the question: What logic are these people using?

The earth is a prime example of precision, as noted below.


EARTH IS THE RIGHT SIZE:
Not only is earth the right size, its location in our solar system is beneficial for life on earth. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen—a light gas—would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The accumulation of hydrogen would kill all of us. At the opposite extreme, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would die from dehydration.


EARTH IS AT THE RIGHT LOCATION:
The earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)


In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)

~***~​

 

"Complex" is just another word for "too hard for Christians to grasp".

Life is shaped by natural selection.

 

.. And that is where public education is failing us all. If people acquired more knowledge in the sciences, creationism wouldn't be the obstructive monster that it is today.

 

who made god?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- STIG42:

Jehovah has always existed. You are attempting to put human limitations on a being that is beyond the realm of human concept.

"Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalms 90:2 -- New World Translation)


"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)



RHETORICAL QUESTION #1: Can humans create planets and put them in the heavens?

ANSWER: No.



RHETORICAL QUESTION #2: Can humans create anything from nonexistent elements?

ANSWER: No.



RHETORICAL QUESTION #3: Can humans create life from non-life such as the endless varieties of plants, animals, insects, humans, etc.?

ANSWER: No.


So if human's can't do any of that, how do you expect them to understand the concept of Jehovah who created everything in our universe?

We know accidents aka spontaneous events cannot cause precision because something that happens by accident is the polar opposite of something done deliberately. The universe presents complexity and precision, which indicates it was done deliberately. We know humans didn't do it. So who did?

 

not at all just exposing wher your argument fails your saying order cant exist on its own so an orderly god that exists on its own must exist so order even at its most complex can exist on its own removing the need for god

your idea kills itself

 

Can God make a TV? Can God remove a bad internal organ from you and replace it with another one? If your legs get amputated who will give you the means to walk again, God or man?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- STIG42:

Next you will be arguing that because you cannot see oxygen, gravity, or carbon monoxide, they don't exist. In reality, without oxygen we will die; without gravity, buildings will collapse; and carbon monoxide will kill us.

Everything in the human world had a beginning. Jehovah is not human. Therefore, you cannot apply human limitations to Almighty God. Until you can present a credible alternative for why everything in the natural world is precise—which indicates intelligent design rather than spontaneous events because precision indicates deliberation—you are simply expressing you atheistic philosophy. Do you have a right to express it? Certainly. Do I have a right to reject it because it relies on accidents rather than intelligent design? Definitely.


Obviously, the millions of planets in the heavens didn't just pop up out of nowhere and assumed orderliness. Big Bang Theory fails because it relies on everything happening by spontaneous, unguided events aka accidents. And obviously this planet we're living on, along with its wide variety of life forms, didn't just "happen" by a long string of accidents. Evolution theory cannot even explain how life came from non-life to produce the "common ancestor" from which everything else supposedly evolved. So Big Bang and Evolution Theories are major FAILS.


It requires far more faith to believe our universe just "happened" than to believe an intelligent God intervened and guided the outcome. Logic tells us that if it required an intelligent human to create a balloon, it must have required a vastly intelligent, supernatural, Designer/God to have created the universe and life on this planet. It could not have happened by accident, because there is too much precision in everything within the natural world. Precision indicates it was done deliberately.


Tell you what: you stick with your atheism, and I'll stick with my belief that it was done by an intelligent Designer/God.

"For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;..." (Romans 1:20)

~***~​

 

Who created man? Who created the human brain that enables people to learn and become doctors and do the things you are asking?

 

your god violates your argument for god

 

If Yahweh is "beyond the realm of human concept," 1) how can you claim to know anything about it? and 2) why is it so human-like in its "regret" at having made us prior to the fictitious global deluge, its jealousy, pettiness, cruelty and so on?

 

Invalid question. No "who" "created" human beings; homo sapiens is the descendant of a long line of evolving oragnisms AND is itself an evolving organism.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:

We know about Jehovah by means of his inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. In it, he presents language that we can relate to. His ability to feel regret shows he has compassion and love. In other words, he is not a cold, unfeeling Creator. That's why humans are said to have been made in God's image--not to look like him, since God is a spirit and cannot be seen, but because we have to capacity to reflect his four outstanding attributes:

(1) LOVE
"He that does not love has not come to know God, because GOD IS LOVE." (1 John 4:8 )


(2) WISDOM
"With him there are WISDOM and mightiness; He has counsel and understanding." (Job 12:13)


(3) JUSTICE
"The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are JUSTICE. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4)


(4) POWER
"As for the Almighty, we have not found him out; He is exalted in POWER, and justice and abundance of righteousness he will not belittle." (Job 37:23)


Humans and angels are the only creations of God capable of displaying those qualities, because they are the only ones made in God's image. All that other stuff you mentioned about God's pettiness and cruelty are your opinion, and yours alone.

 

Just an angry mass murderer with regrets.

 

hmm universe exists the way it is because that’s the nature of things vs incomprehensible complex yet unengineered itself god engineered the universe to exist like this because that’s how the nature of things happens to be

no god universe is more simple and involves the least amount of undirected complex order let’s face it its more likely

Watchmaker argument defeated

 

1. No

2. Who knows? It could very well be random. The elements are formed in the stars. The very heavy elements are formed in novae - exploding stars. Heavier elements are more rare which would lead one to think that the process that fuses protons has an easier time with lighter elements. I'd rather call the laws of physics god rather than to call some intelligence god simply because intelligence implies undertanding and choice. I don't see much of that going on in the formation of elements. The unanswerable questions are things like "why is there an absence of chaos in the universe?," "Why do the observed laws of physics behave so consistently?," "What caused the big bang, what was there before it, and have there been many big bangs?" Nobody can answer these questions. They are mysteries. Scientists shrug their shoulders and say they don't know. Religions provide explanations based on belief. They are mysteries. There are no definitive answers.

3. There is no question that what drives evolution is mutations. So why does DNA mutate? Again, nobody knows. Science only knows that it does happen. So some mechanism for mutations is built into the "laws of physics" or "god" or whatever you want to call it. It is another mystery. While the results of mutations are unpredictable, the process doesn't seem to be random. What happens after mutations occur could be called random, I suppose, but it might be better to think of it as environmental. And the environment also changes. From my view the whole thing seems pretty organized and predictable. From your view, apparently not. Understand that by predictable I mean mutations will occur and their affects will play out in the environment and cause the possibility of changes in future versions of the species. We can't predict what those changes will be like we can predict heavier elements that do not exist on earth, but the process is pretty well understood.

 

Just understand that quoting the bible is not a proof. It is a piece of literature based on belief and faith. While you obviously believe it, it isn't a good argument because it can't be tested or observed. So it's fine to read it and believe it but not so fine to rely on it as a proof in a debate.