Natural Order
- Harris
- Posts: 54
- Joined: February 25th, 2015, 12:17 am
Natural Order
If science is unveiling hidden facts of nature, then in parallel it also pushes us to ponder over the natural order, harmony, and discipline that exist in all natural events. This order and harmony in fact responsible for the continued existence of life on earth.
The questions arise that if universe is the outcome of Chance, Accident, and Nothingness then:
Why there is no chaos and anarchy in the universe?
Why all natural events are deferential to natural laws and are finely tuned?
Why those laws exist in first place?
Where do those laws come from?
Why do they operate universally and unfailingly?
In contrast to the believers, for sure, Chance, Accident, and Nothingness do not provide any arena for the exploration of these questions to the unbelievers who certainly find themselves in total darkness and confusion.
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one”
Page 356, volume 2
A Guided Tour of the Living Cell
Christian De Duve
“A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.”
Pages (64, 67, 79, and 107)
“In The Beginning Was Information,”
Dr. Werner Gritt, (information specialist)
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: Natural Order
I don't really understand this but I think what you're saying is that life couldn't come about in any other way than by intelligent intervention. You seem to be presenting this assertion as though it were an irrefutable fact so I'm just wondering, would the scientific establishment be of the same opinion?Harris wrote: “A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.”
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Natural Order
This kind of idea that the Universe cannot have been created randomly is often used in these kinds of arguments. The trouble is, it makes no sense as an argument. This is because there is only one universe. The definition of randomness is when, in multiple instances, the same initial set of conditions results in a different outcome and there is no correlation, or pattern, between the different outcomes. With one universe, this whole concept is inapplicable. So it's meaningless to ask why the universe is the outcome of chance.The questions arise that if universe is the outcome of Chance, Accident, and Nothingness then:...
Which is why nobody suggests that a bacterium cell is assembled in this way. For a good account of how it actually works, read any book on Evolutionary Biology.“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one”
- Harris
- Posts: 54
- Joined: February 25th, 2015, 12:17 am
Re: Natural Order
Dr Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology. His many original research findings have been published in scientific journals or have been the subject of papers presented at scientific conferences and at universities in Germany and around the world. Dr. Gitt has written numerous scientific papers in the fields of information science, mathematics, and control engineering.Albert Tatlock wrote: I don't really understand this but I think what you're saying is that life couldn't come about in any other way than by intelligent intervention. You seem to be presenting this assertion as though it were an irrefutable fact so I'm just wondering, would the scientific establishment be of the same opinion?
If Dr Werner’s argument is refutable then why I have not yet seen any refutation. Why it is taking so long. Perhaps you know someone who had debunked Dr Werner’s argument. If so then please share the counter-argument with me.
-- Updated October 19th, 2017, 10:18 am to add the following --
I think following two quotes would help you understand why it is not meaningless to ask why the universe is the outcome of chance, nothingness, or accident.Steve3007 wrote: This kind of idea that the Universe cannot have been created randomly is often used in these kinds of arguments. The trouble is, it makes no sense as an argument. This is because there is only one universe. The definition of randomness is when, in multiple instances, the same initial set of conditions results in a different outcome and there is no correlation, or pattern, between the different outcomes. With one universe, this whole concept is inapplicable. So it's meaningless to ask why the universe is the outcome of chance.
“Just as Darwin, albeit reluctantly, removed the need for divine intervention in the evolution of the modern world, teeming with diverse life throughout the planet (though he left the door open to the possibility that God helped breathe life into the first forms), our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance .”
CHAPTER 9
A Universe from Nothing
Why there is something rather than nothing
Lawrence M. Krauss
“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.
I have given the quote from the book written by Nobel Prize LaureateSteve3007 wrote: Which is why nobody suggests that a bacterium cell is assembled in this way. For a good account of how it actually works, read any book on Evolutionary Biology.
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: Natural Order
I could already guess which side of the fence Werner and Gitt were. I asked you if your view coincided with that of generally accepted science ie. the majority of scientists. Do you know the answer to that?Harris wrote: Dr Werner obtained his degree in engineering from
Well I, for one, as somebody who isn't entitled to put Dr. in front of my name am reluctant to take on someone who is, particularly in their professed area of expertise.If Dr Werner’s argument is refutable then why I have not yet seen any refutation.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Natural Order
Harris:This kind of idea that the Universe cannot have been created randomly is often used in these kinds of arguments. The trouble is, it makes no sense as an argument. This is because there is only one universe. The definition of randomness is when, in multiple instances, the same initial set of conditions results in a different outcome and there is no correlation, or pattern, between the different outcomes. With one universe, this whole concept is inapplicable. So it's meaningless to ask why the universe is the outcome of chance.
Quote 1:I think following two quotes would help you understand why it is not meaningless to ask why the universe is the outcome of chance, nothingness, or accident.
I commented on the inappropriateness of the use of the concept of randomness/chance. The above quote does not mention randomness/chance.Just as Darwin, albeit reluctantly, removed the need for divine intervention in the evolution of the modern world, teeming with diverse life throughout the planet (though he left the door open to the possibility that God helped breathe life into the first forms), our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.
Quote 2:
This is true. Natural Selection does not plan for the future. There are various specific pieces of evidence for this.Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison[sic], no foresight, and no sight at all.
Again, how is this in any way relevant to a critique of the proposition that "the Universe came from chance"? Where does Dawkins mention that proposition in this quote?
How does this have any bearing on the straw-man statement about bacteria? Does the fact that the author has been award a prize mean that I should interpret his words differently than I would if he hadn't won this prize?I have given the quote from the book written by Nobel Prize Laureate
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Natural Order
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Natural Order
Fair enough I suppose.
-- Updated Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:15 pm to add the following --
Classic questions, Present Awareness.
Looks like we've got ourselves a good old fashioned Creationism versus Evolution discussion. Damn it, it's been a while.
-- Updated Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:37 pm to add the following --
Albert:
I don't have that entitlement either. But come on. What have we got to lose? Egg can easily be wiped off the human face. And a quick Google search of the good Doctor reveals him to be a full-on Young Earth Creationist. So this could be fun.Well I, for one, as somebody who isn't entitled to put Dr. in front of my name am reluctant to take on someone who is, particularly in their professed area of expertise.
Dr. Werner Gritt (as quoted by our Harris):
The trouble with this statement is that in order to test whether it is true or false, you have to define a "code system". This generally means pointing at code systems designed by humans. So the statement becomes circular.A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
(Incidental point: The grammar of this sentence is wrong, so I'm surprised that it appears to be a quote from a published, and presumably proof-read, book.)All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily [is] exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code.
Again, this is referring to all experiences of codes that we know to have been created by people. So all it's really saying is a tautology: "All code written by humans is written by thinking beings."
The proposed sequence of events, or theory, is called Evolution by Natural Selection. You can argue over the evidence for this theory, but I don't think you can claim that no such theory exists. I think it would have been more accurate for the Doc to say this:There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.
"The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes a way in which the information in the DNA of living things comes about. I dispute the validity of that theory. Here are my reasons..."
- Harris
- Posts: 54
- Joined: February 25th, 2015, 12:17 am
Re: Natural Order
Intricate code that DNA exhibits is simply a brainteaser for scientific community. According to Dr Werner Gitt, coding entails conscious and intellectual activities. There is no supporting scientific evidence that may endorse the idea that code can occur naturally say through Natural Selection.Albert Tatlock wrote: I could already guess which side of the fence Werner and Gitt were. I asked you if your view coincided with that of generally accepted science ie. the majority of scientists. Do you know the answer to that?
“The six feet of the DNA coiled inside every one of our bodies 100 trillion cells contain a four-letter chemical that spells out precise assembly instructions for all proteins from which our bodies are made … No hypothesis come even close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.”
Lee Strobel
Please specify to which scientific idea you are pointing that complies with the norms of scientific procedures and satisfy majority of scientists.
Fair enough. However, it seems you are well aware of generally accepted science and to give few reference arguments of renowned scientists and philosophers who have challenged Dr Werner Gitt should not be a difficult task for you.Albert Tatlock wrote: Well I, for one, as somebody who isn't entitled to put Dr. in front of my name am reluctant to take on someone who is, particularly in their professed area of expertise.
-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:34 am to add the following --
From God.Present awareness wrote:If the universe was created by intelligent design, where did this intelligence come from?
Nothingness cannot create anything and nothingness in its true nature is an impossibility therefore it never existed.Present awareness wrote:If prior to the birth of the universe, there was nothing, how could intelligence spring out of nothing?
Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.Present awareness wrote:If it’s possible that intelligence was always there, why is it not possible that the universe was always there?
-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:38 am to add the following --
Krauss and Dawkins are impeccable promoters of randomness, chance, and nothingness and both quotes highlight this blatant fact.Steve3007 wrote: I commented on the inappropriateness of the use of the concept of randomness/chance. The above quote does not mention randomness/chance.
This is true. Natural Selection does not plan for the future. There are various specific pieces of evidence for this.
Again, how is this in any way relevant to a critique of the proposition that "the Universe came from chance"? Where does Dawkins mention that proposition in this quote?
You have put emphasis on the idea that Universe is ‘one’ and logically ‘one’ cannot fall within the vicinity of chance and randomness. For the sake of argument, if I agree with you then that leaves us with three options:
1. God created the universe
2. Universe is eternal
3. Universe came out of nowhere (from Nothingness)
Which choice is yours?
Secondly, you have not supported your assertion ‘universe is one’ with proper inferential cases to make it conceivable.
-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:51 am to add the following --
I agree! A person is afraid of losing when he has something to lose. I can simply discard what follows based on this fact alone but let us move ahead and see what blather can do.Steve3007 wrote:Well I, for one, as somebody who isn't entitled to put Dr. in front of my name am reluctant to take on someone who is, particularly in their professed area of expertise.
I don't have that entitlement either. But come on. What have we got to lose? Egg can easily be wiped off the human face. And a quick Google search of the good Doctor reveals him to be a full-on Young Earth Creationist. So this could be fun.
The essence of above gibberish is “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes a way in which the information in the DNA of living things comes about”Steve3007 wrote:Dr. Werner Gritt (as quoted by our Harris):The trouble with this statement is that in order to test whether it is true or false, you have to define a "code system". This generally means pointing at code systems designed by humans. So the statement becomes circular.A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
(Incidental point: The grammar of this sentence is wrong, so I'm surprised that it appears to be a quote from a published, and presumably proof-read, book.)All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily [is] exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code.
Again, this is referring to all experiences of codes that we know to have been created by people. So all it's really saying is a tautology: "All code written by humans is written by thinking beings."
The proposed sequence of events, or theory, is called Evolution by Natural Selection. You can argue over the evidence for this theory, but I don't think you can claim that no such theory exists. I think it would have been more accurate for the Doc to say this:There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.
"The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes a way in which the information in the DNA of living things comes about. I dispute the validity of that theory. Here are my reasons..."
You are advocating for Natural Selection. By looking at your confidence and enthusiasm, I am assuming you have proper knowledge about the working mechanism of Natural Selection. Please share that information with the world. In case you fail to provide intelligible working mechanism for Natural Selection complying with all scientific norms then the idea of Natural Selection is merely a wishful desire or a tool to astray naive minds.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Natural Order
Are you saying that there was some point in the past at which God used this power to decide to exist? And you're saying this because you've observed that this is a thing that intelligence can do, yes?Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.
Harris to me:
No they don't.Krauss and Dawkins are impeccable promoters of randomness, chance, and nothingness and both quotes highlight this blatant fact.
Obviously I don't know for sure, and am not even sure if those questions have meaning.You have put emphasis on the idea that Universe is ‘one’ and logically ‘one’ cannot fall within the vicinity of chance and randomness. For the sake of argument, if I agree with you then that leaves us with three options:
1. God created the universe
2. Universe is eternal
3. Universe came out of nowhere (from Nothingness)
Which choice is yours?
Observations so far appear to suggest that the best theory is that both space and time had some kind of starting point a finite amount of time ago. Possibly about 13.7 billion years ago. Obviously that's a very difficult, if not impossible, concept to intuitively get our heads around. Time starting a certain amount of time ago? Sounds bizzare doesn't it? It almost sounds as if the universe is both eternal and startet a finite amount of time ago. Weird eh?
The trouble is, the idea of time itself being anything different from the thing we experience now is, by definition, impossible to intuitively understand. So trying to use our everyday experiences - our common sense - won't help us.
The universe is, by definition, everything that there is.Secondly, you have not supported your assertion ‘universe is one’ with proper inferential cases to make it conceivable.
I agree. And I assume that we can both agree that in a conversation about something as far removed from everyday life as the origins of the universe, clearly neither of us has anything to win or lose. Neither of us will suffer or die as a result of anything said here. I've had these kinds of conversations before and I can tell you from experience that, fun as they are at the time, once they're over they're quickly forgotten, as real life comes back into view again.I agree! A person is afraid of losing when he has something to lose.
So we can both speak freely.
Gibberish = unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing.The essence of above gibberish is “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes a way in which the information in the DNA of living things comes about”
How do you know the essence of it if it is gibberish?
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: Natural Order
I'm no scientist, I'm not even a well informed layman but I'm pretty sure the current thinking in respected scientific circles does not go along the lines that conscious, intelligent involvement had to be responsible for life to arise. If you can't make an argument without being dishonest, Harris, then you've not got much of an argument.Harris wrote: Intricate code that DNA exhibits is simply a brainteaser for scientific community. According to Dr Werner Gitt, coding entails conscious and intellectual activities. There is no supporting scientific evidence that may endorse the idea that code can occur naturally say through Natural Selection.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Natural Order
The watchmaker awakens and starts his work putting together or repairing a fine watch. Presumably nothing happens in his physical brain without a proximate physical cause (or a random-ish nonlocal quantum cause perhaps). No rigorous observer will find consciousness in evidence, and certainly nothing "intelligent" going on (by most definitions, I mean some will say a vending machine is somewhat intelligent and a smartphone is moreso.)
People struggle to gain control over the natural world in order to satisfy their needs and desires.
So do animals, it seems. The movements of a white blood cell or a virus give a similar impression of drama as they are observed going about their day.
This order and harmony in fact responsible for the continued existence of life on earth.
Science excels in finding the underlying chaos and anarchy behind the (sometimes) emergent order of biological life.
Where do those laws come from?
Some laws are just common sense. Scientists struggle to find more of the laws to be unavoidable and to remove any trace of arbitrariness as much as possible. If a flat coin has a top, so it will have a bottom.
There will always be unanswered questions - what does that prove?
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one”
How does one know. The estimate based on current knowledge may be that eternity would not likely create life, but how many universes are there? How wrong are we about our probabilities of life. Molecules arriving on meteors is believed by some.
“A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.”
Basically it looks like things follow the paths of least resistance, and over time, eventually, the particles follow molecules, and those form cells, and it looks like code to us, but it doesn't mean a complex mechanism cannot emerge or evolve on its own.
Brood Awakening: 17-Year Cicadas Emerge 4 Years Early
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ars-early/
Gee, I guess they decided not to follow the established code.
This is what the honest eye sees in nature - these little oases of order that one might be motivated to call a code just emerge on their own - and just as easily are disrupted or annihilated. Perhaps some quantum God has gotten bored of them.
- JamesOfSeattle
- Premium Member
- Posts: 509
- Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm
Re: Natural Order
My question for you is this: if someone provides an explanation tomorrow of how a genetic code could come into existence by natural processes, and within a month there is a consensus among scientists (to the extent that there is a consensus for the theory of general relativity, say) that the new theory makes sense, what effect will that outcome have on you?
*
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Natural Order
From God.Present awareness wrote:If the universe was created by intelligent design, where did this intelligence come from?
Nothingness cannot create anything and nothingness in its true nature is an impossibility therefore it never existed.Present awareness wrote:If prior to the birth of the universe, there was nothing, how could intelligence spring out of nothing?
Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.Present awareness wrote:If it’s possible that intelligence was always there, why is it not possible that the universe was always there?
So what you are saying is, this intelligence which you call “God” was not created but was always there? And if God was not always there, then whom created God? You are right about nothingness not existing, that is why it is called nothingness.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Natural Order
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023