1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not sure an analogy even works on this issue. To say that we recognize intelligence in computer code, or in the design of computer hardware, is really not that remarkable, since we know we can build and program them.[b]As a current programmer, re-usable sections of code existed before object oriented programming as functions. You could develop a whole library of commonly used functions and simply call files from the library as needed to support your program.
Yes I know re-usable goes back. Probably the first time I noticed the concept was in the IB ...[text shortened]... ecause it was programmed INTO nature.
I think basically mind recognizes what mind has done.
What we really need is a person who has never seen or heard of a computer before. Then show him one and see if he can figure out that it is designed. Or show him a block of code and see if he can figure out that it is written by a mind.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm not sure an analogy even works on this issue. To say that we recognize intelligence in computer code, or in the design of computer hardware, is really not that remarkable, since we know we can build and program them.
What we really need is a person who has never seen or heard of a computer before. Then show him one and see if he can figure out tha ...[text shortened]... designed. Or show him a block of code and see if he can figure out that it is written by a mind.
I'm not sure an analogy even works on this issue. To say that we recognize intelligence in computer code, or in the design of computer hardware, is really not that remarkable, since we know we can build and program them.
Right. Everyone knows that joe or jill programmer wrote that code.
What we really need is a person who has never seen or heard of a computer before. Then show him one and see if he can figure out that it is designed. Or show him a block of code and see if he can figure out that it is written by a mind.
Okay. But let's show it to more than just one of those guys. Try it on a group for a second and third and so on, opinion.
A point I make is that operations carried out by human intelligence seems often our imitations of nature.
The camera - like a human eye.
The human language - like the language expressed in the four amino acids of the DNA molecule "spelling" out such "instructions."
And the machinery of a factory resembling the incredible machinery found microscopically in a living cell.
Originally posted by sonshipThe problem here is that you are relying entirely on intuition. The problem is that my intuition tells me the exact opposite. Clearly intuition is not reliable.
I think basically mind recognizes what mind has done.
If however we looked at all those things that are known to be created by a mind, and all those things that are not known to be so, computer programs would be in one group and DNA in the other. There is no pattern here that can be used to make a conclusion.
Interestingly you do not make the same sort of intuitive leaps for other things in nature. For example, you see that bricks and concrete blocks are nice and square. If you saw square stones in nature, you wouldn't immediately say 'they have to have been made that way by God.' You would accept quite happily some naturalistic explanation for the regularity of stones.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I saw perfectly squared stones, I would say that is an example of man working on it, not God.
The problem here is that you are relying entirely on intuition. The problem is that my intuition tells me the exact opposite. Clearly intuition is not reliable.
If however we looked at all those things that are known to be created by a mind, and all those things that are not known to be so, computer programs would be in one group and DNA in the other. Th ...[text shortened]... God.' You would accept quite happily some naturalistic explanation for the regularity of stones.
4 edits
Sigh.
Now what else would you expect to be written by some wild eyed evangelical Fundamentalist but this ?
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton ... It may be that one day we will discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would have exploded."
[ A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, 10th Edition, Bantan Books, pg. 129 ]
Originally posted by sonship[/b]I would expect anything imaginable to be written by such people to dismiss the idea of a need for the creator God.
Sigh.
Now what else would you expect to be written by some wild eyed evangelical Fundamentalist but this ?
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton ... It may be that one day we will discover a compl ...[text shortened]... [b]A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking 10th Edition, Bantan Books, pg. 129]
Originally posted by sonship[/b]Hmm. This is a reminder to myself to read this chapter of the book when I get home. I seem to remember there was a larger context to this whole 'seems to be adjusted' thing.
Sigh.
Now what else would you expect to be written by some wild eyed evangelical Fundamentalist but this ?
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton ... It may be that one day we will discover a compl ...[text shortened]... b]A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, 10th Edition, Bantan Books, pg. 129]
I don't think Hawking is a theist; even if he is seriously making the fine tuning argument, it has not persuaded him to become a believer.
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Hmm. This is a reminder to myself to read this chapter of the book when I get home. I seem to remember there was a larger context to this whole 'seems to be adjusted' thing.
I don't think Hawking is a theist; even if he is seriously making the fine tuning argument, it has not persuaded him to become a believer.
I don't think Hawking is a theist; even if he is seriously making the fine tuning argument, it has not persuaded him to become a believer.
For some reason when I quote someone like Stephen Hawking in an honest moment of his, someone is quick to jump in that he is not a theist.
This doesn't matter.
He wrote something about the fine tuning of the cosmos for life.
That's all I have to point out to the crowd, (scared where such evidence may lead,) that say that there is only some illusion or misunderstanding of fine tuning.
I packaged it in sarcasm. But the point was that the coincidence of special calibration to life is noticed by scientists. And to deny that it is a noteworthy incident that all reasonable people should shrug at, is just knee jerk anti-theism preparing to make a preemptive strike.
It doesn't matter that Hawking is the darling of the new athiests with his latest book. Nothing sells these days like a book by a scientist proclaiming that God is unnecessary or does not exist (like they know).
Wolfgang59,
The function of the lenses of eye and camera in capturing light for storing of images are very similar. I don't mean they are exactly alike of course.
Originally posted by sonshipWell, yes. It does not matter whether Hawking is a theist or not. He is working in a field that is not capable of proving anything supernatural.I don't think Hawking is a theist; even if he is seriously making the fine tuning argument, it has not persuaded him to become a believer.
For some reason when I quote someone like Stephen Hawking in an honest moment of his, someone is quick to jump in that he is not a theist.
This doesn't matter.
He wrote something about the fine t ...[text shortened]... ing light for storing of images are very similar. I don't mean they are exactly alike of course.
You might ruminate on that next time you think atheists are actually scared of scientific arguments converting them to theism. 😕
8 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, yes. It does not matter whether Hawking is a theist or not. He is working in a field that is not capable of proving anything supernatural.
I don't think the late Robert Jastrow would have agreed with you there completely. He founded the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies and occupied the chair held by Edward Hubble.
" Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
[My emphasis ]
You might ruminate on that next time you think atheists are actually scared of scientific arguments converting them to theism.
I am not interested in anyone's fear or being scared. I simply want to know the truth about things.
The use of the quotation above is not related to Fine Tuning. It reflects one scientist's belief that if all nature is contained in the universe, then the creation of the universe has to have come about by "supernatural" forces which we could not determine. And he thought that this is now a "scientifically proven fact."
Originally posted by sonshiphttp://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Robert_Jastrow[b]Well, yes. It does not matter whether Hawking is a theist or not. He is working in a field that is not capable of proving anything supernatural.
I don't think the late Robert Jastrow would have agreed with you there completely. He founded the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies and occupied the chair held by Edward Hu ...[text shortened]... es which we could not determine. And he thought that this is now a "scientifically proven fact."[/b]
Robert Jastrow
Astrophysicist/Author
Jastrow, director of the Mount Wilson Observatory, president of the George Marshall Institute and author of God and the Astronomers appeared on an installment of Ben Wattenberg's Think Tank which aired September 9, 1995. The topic was "Does Science Leave Room for Religion and Vice Versa?".
Jastrow was asked about his own beliefs and said: "I'm a committed reductionist. I think that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. But I also know that there is no way within my scientific discipline of finding out whether there is a larger purpose or design in the universe. So I remain an agnostic, and not an atheist. To profess a disbelief in the existence of design or of the deity is essentially, in itself, a theological statement which a scientist cannot make on the structure or on the strength of his own discipline. He can only make it as a personal belief."
This seems to be pretty consistent with what SG said. It certainly agrees with my position, that science and the church do not legitimately overlap in the scope of their conclusions.