Science is bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real

[pellinore]

Dr Alexander has co-edited a book of essays written by scientists who ultimately came to find Dawkins' critiques of religion lacking, after their own bouts of atheism: Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity.

He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God.  

But two emerging scientific discoveries stood out to him as the most compelling: The Universe's Physical Constants and 'Convergence' in Evolution

Science was meant to disprove religion - so why is it bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real? | Daily Mail Online

Edited September 9 by pellinore

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Dr Alexander has co-edited a book of essays written by scientists who ultimately came to find Dawkins' critiques of religion lacking, after their own bouts of atheism: Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity.

He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God.  

But two emerging scientific discoveries stood out to him as the most compelling: The Universe's Physical Constants and 'Convergence' in Evolution

Science was meant to disprove religion - so why is it bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real? | Daily Mail Online

HI Pelinore

I wasn't aware science evolved simply to prove god doesn't exist. Science is about understanding our environment and giving humans a better life. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

That never ends well….

 

[MrsGently]

3 hours ago, pellinore said:

Dr Alexander has co-edited a book of essays written by scientists who ultimately came to find Dawkins' critiques of religion lacking, after their own bouts of atheism: Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity.

He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God.  

But two emerging scientific discoveries stood out to him as the most compelling: The Universe's Physical Constants and 'Convergence' in Evolution

Science was meant to disprove religion - so why is it bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real? | Daily Mail Online

Isn't she just an awe inspiring beauty or universe? That's where that's coming from I think? Some people look at it and just feel it: this is no coincidence, this is perfect!

[+Liquid Gardens]

That was a pretty terrible article, let's throw as many disparate things against the wall and see what sticks.  We've got 'fine-tuning', 'convergence' in evolution, Aquinas, and what Daily Mail article would be complete without a reference to the Shroud of Turin...

Quote

'I see the sheer complexity of the immune system as truly staggering,' Dr Alexander explained. 

'For sure, as an evolutionary biologist, I see that complexity as the outcome of millions of years of evolution,' the scientist clarified. 'But at the same time the finely-tuned immune system reflects the intelligibility of the universe we inhabit.'

I'd suggest the 'fine-tuning' reflects the millions of years of evolution he just admitted occurred.

Quote

The statistical chances that the universe's so-called 'physical constants' would be exactly what they are is astonishingly low.

Be nice if they showed their work on this claim which I've seen a zillion times.  "If the force of gravity was just a hundredth stronger (or whatever) then life could not form" is a variation of one of the claims for this.  "What is the probability that the force of gravity can be a hundredth stronger, or any different at all?" in my experience seems to lead to a lot of hand-waving answers.  Lots of assumptions about other universes based on a sample size of 1.

Edited September 9 by Liquid Gardens

[Portre]

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

[pellinore]

6 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

That never ends well….

 

I can't follow the argument in this.

[pellinore]

9 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

HI Pelinore

I wasn't aware science evolved simply to prove god doesn't exist. Science is about understanding our environment and giving humans a better life. 

I think the author worded this badly. I think he means something like: 'many thought science would explain to us how and why things are the way they are, but it hasn't'.

Mind you, I think some people put too much faith in science, it is like a religion to them.

Edited September 9 by pellinore

[MrsGently]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

...

I'd suggest the 'fine-tuning' reflects the millions of years of evolution he just admitted occurred...

My suggestion is you don't understand what he's saying:

For sure, as an evolutionary biologist, I see that complexity as the outcome of millions of years of evolution,' the scientist clarified. = in this first part he acknowledges evolution, so far you were with him.

'But at the same time the finely-tuned immune system reflects the intelligibility of the universe we inhabit.' = There I believe you dropped out. Is it "intelligible"? Do you want to pretend we don't understand a thing of what is happening in the universe?

Or is the issue more like that you can't comprehend the sort of "fine-tuning emerging intelligence" when things one way or another "self-organize"?

I had a video I don't remember what it was called I don't find it, so: imagine a box full of marbles just thrown in. Now you shake it and the marbles form one or two layers, depending on how many you have, of perfectly organized, the ideal space using, orderly pattern.

That's I think what he's talking about. That is the principle that is the opposing push/pull to the law of entropy. Entropy always increases but so does the amount of "matter bound in an organized structure". And the intelligible part that which proves none of it is coincidence, is: a) it works basically all the time and always, b) it is so perfect we can describe it all with maths

Sooo...

[papageorge1]

10 hours ago, pellinore said:

Dr Alexander has co-edited a book of essays written by scientists who ultimately came to find Dawkins' critiques of religion lacking, after their own bouts of atheism: Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity.

He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God.  

But two emerging scientific discoveries stood out to him as the most compelling: The Universe's Physical Constants and 'Convergence' in Evolution

Science was meant to disprove religion - so why is it bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real? | Daily Mail Online

Yes, there are intelligent challenges to the assumption in science that this is all the result of non-thinking physical laws acting with no sense of purpose.

But more specific beliefs in something more specific like Christianity still seems a few steps away from thinking there is intelligence in the universe.

[cormac mac airt]

If our immune systems were as finely tuned as presented there would be no such thing as auto-immune diseases or conditions. Yet there are. 
 

cormac

[pellinore]

36 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

If our immune systems were as finely tuned as presented there would be no such thing as auto-immune diseases or conditions. Yet there are. 
 

cormac

No one said God was perfect.

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, pellinore said:

No one said God was perfect.

Try telling that to the Christians and Jews. Good luck. 
 

cormac

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

My suggestion is you don't understand what he's saying:

My suggestion is maybe you haven't read the initial article to see everything that was quoted from him, which doesn't make much sense, or is utterly banal, if all he's trying to say is that the universe is 'intelligible'.

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

'But at the same time the finely-tuned immune system reflects the intelligibility of the universe we inhabit.' = There I believe you dropped out. Is it "intelligible"? Do you want to pretend we don't understand a thing of what is happening in the universe?

Ha, yes, we do understand a thing of what is happening in the universe, but don't you think that our understanding of the immune system is a rather complicated example?  The fact that we understand fire should be sufficient for the intelligibility of the universe if you are correct in what you think he's saying.  You also apparently missed that I was mentioning the 'fine-tuned' part of his statement, not whether the universe is intelligible or not.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that what he means is more like 'intelligence' and that he may have been misquoted or misspoke when he said 'intelligibility', as evidenced by the very next quotes in the article from him:

Quote

'The fact that we have a system that can, in principle, defend ourselves against pretty much any invader that we might encounter during life on this planet,' he said, 'is remarkable.' 

'It looks like a rational universe with a rational Mind behind it.'

He says the functions of the immune system are remarkable here, not the intelligibility/our ability to comprehend it.

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

Or is the issue more like that you can't comprehend the sort of "fine-tuning emerging intelligence" when things one way or another "self-organize"?

Depends on what you mean, you can't comprehend an 'omnipotent creator' either, no one can.  Not sure what you think is a challenge to our comprehension here; a God making enhancements to our immune systems via magic in many ways is simpler to understand than evolution doing it.

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

I had a video I don't remember what it was called I don't find it, so: imagine a box full of marbles just thrown in. Now you shake it and the marbles form one or two layers, depending on how many you have, of perfectly organized, the ideal space using, orderly pattern.

I'm not sure what you think that is an analogy for, if it's for evolution then it is not an accurate one.  The more accurate analogy is you are shaking a box of marbles billions of times over billions of years, and most importantly when one of the marbles ends up in the 'correct' spot (aids the reproduction of the species), it stays where it is and is not included in subsequent re-shakes.  Evolution isn't playing craps where you reroll all the dice every time, it's playing Yahtzee.

Edited September 9 by Liquid Gardens

[MrsGently]

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

My suggestion is maybe you haven't read the initial article to see everything that was quoted from him, which doesn't make much sense, or is utterly banal, if all he's trying to say is that the universe is 'intelligible'.

Ha, yes, we do understand a thing of what is happening in the universe, but don't you think that our understanding of the immune system is a rather complicated example?  The fact that we understand fire should be sufficient for the intelligibility of the universe if you are correct in what you think he's saying.  You also apparently missed that I was mentioning the 'fine-tuned' part of his statement, not whether the universe is intelligible or not.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that what he means is more like 'intelligence' and that he may have been misquoted or misspoke when he said 'intelligibility', as evidenced by the very next quotes in the article from him:

He says the functions of the immune system are remarkable here, not the intelligibility/our ability to comprehend it.

Depends on what you mean, you can't comprehend an 'omnipotent creator' either, no one can.  Not sure what you think is a challenge to our comprehension here; a God making enhancements to our immune systems via magic in many ways is simpler to understand than evolution doing it.

I'm not sure what you think what that is an analogy for, if it's for evolution then it is not an accurate one.  The more accurate analogy is you are shaking a box of marbles billions of times over billions of years, and most importantly when one of the marble ends up in the 'correct' spot (aids the reproduction of the species), it stays where it is and is not included in subsequent rerolls.  Evolution isn't playing craps where you reroll all the dice every time, it's playing Yahtzee.

Oh God. Are you sure the argument you want him to make is that the universe is itself "intelligent"?

Just because you say a lot of words doesn't make what you say less embarrassing.

This is not chance. There is no randomness anywhere. Statistical Laplace is proof that it is actually not chance; the Bell curve is the pattern that always emerges. I didn't read all you said sorry, but what I read was too much for me again. And it has nothing to do with te box of marbles organizing itself I was talking about. Literally totally absolutely NOTHING

Edited September 9 by MrsGently
add

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just now, MrsGently said:

Oh God. Are you sure the argument you want him to make is that the universe is itself "intelligent"?

Just because you say a lot of words doesn't make what you say less embarrassing.

Says the person referring to shaking boxes of marbles.... 

[MrsGently]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Says the person referring to shaking boxes of marbles.... 

Again sorry you're too stupid

Edited September 9 by MrsGently
typo

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

And it has nothing to do with te box of marbles organizing itself I was talking about. Literally totally absolutely NOTHING

Then why did you mention it?  Do you know how fine-tuning arguments in theistic conversations are usually used?  It's usually linked to the idea that an 'intelligence' arranged things, not that things are 'intelligible'.

 

[MrsGently]

For those honestly interested in the subject, you might not be familiar with the big issues we have concerning "randomness"

In a nutshell randomness is always following a pattern you can determine, unless you, at certain intervals, add new impulses.

 

CHANCE IS A LIE!!! lol now you've seen me preach!

Edited September 9 by MrsGently
big not bin

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

For those honestly interested in the subject, you might not be familiar with the big issues we have concerning "randomness"

In a nutshell randomness is always following a pattern you can determine, unless you, at certain intervals, add new impulses.

 

CHANCE IS A LIE!!! lol now you've seen me preach!

Quote

In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of definite pattern or predictability in information.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#:~:text=In common usage%2C randomness is,an intelligible pattern or combination.

cormac

[MrsGently]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#:~:text=In common usage%2C randomness is,an intelligible pattern or combination.

cormac

And? You see what is happening on the example of dice rolling? Always the same pattern emerges. Do you understand that? That is per definition not random.

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

And? You see what is happening on the example of dice rolling? Always the same pattern emerges. Do you understand that? That is per definition not random.

Not much of a pattern when the only way to get 4 is 1+3 or 2+2 but to get 7 takes 1+6, 2+5 or 3+4 so 50% more chances. That’s a no-brainer. Epic fail. 
 

cormac

Edited September 9 by cormac mac airt

[MrsGently]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not much of a pattern when the only way to get 4 is 1+3 or 2+2 but to get 7 takes 1+6, 2+5 or 3+4 so 50% more chances. That’s a no-brainer. Epic fail. 
 

cormac

Ok

There there cormac

[pellinore]

What "scientific" people don't realise is that God (or the Creator, whatever) can never reveal Himself in unambiguous terms. If He did so, there would be no need for Faith (because we would just "know"). And what would religion be without Faith?

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, pellinore said:

What "scientific" people don't realise is that God (or the Creator, whatever) can never reveal Himself in unambiguous terms. If He did so, there would be no need for Faith (because we would just "know"). And what would religion be without Faith?

The thing religious people don’t get is that THEY don’t speak for God, should one exist, so they know nothing meaningful about it. The only thing they know is what they WANT to be true, nothing more. 
 

cormac