Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Harris]

People struggle to gain control over the natural world in order to satisfy their needs and desires. The explanation of every natural event is possible because of the repetition of a given pattern or law and this Repetition originally provides a conceptual control over the natural world by revealing an intelligible order and eventually, through the technological application of modern science, for actual control over the natural world. The order and harmony make nature predictable and this predictability helps science to explore even indiscernible phenomenon. In short, all science is founded on the assumption that the physical universe is ordered and rational.

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]

“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.”

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?

[Steve3007]

Harris:

The questions arise that if universe is the outcome of Chance, Accident, and Nothingness then:...

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.

“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”

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.

[Harris]

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?

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.

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 --

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.

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.

“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.

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.

I have given the quote from the book written by Nobel Prize Laureate

[Albert Tatlock]

Dr Werner obtained his degree in engineering from

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?

If Dr Werner’s argument is refutable then why I have not yet seen any refutation.

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.

[Steve3007]

Me:

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.

Harris:

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.

Quote 1:

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.

I commented on the inappropriateness of the use of the concept of randomness/chance. The above quote does not mention randomness/chance.

Quote 2:

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.

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?

I have given the quote from the book written by Nobel Prize Laureate

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?

[Present awareness]

If the universe was created by intelligent design, where did this intelligence come from? If prior to the birth of the universe, there was nothing, how could intelligence spring out of nothing? If it’s possible that intelligence was always there, why is it not possible that the universe was always there?

[Steve3007]

I guess, if this particular author really did say those words, then his Nobel prize wasn't for high school biology. Or spelling of the singular form of the word "bacteria".

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:

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.


Dr. Werner Gritt (as quoted by our Harris):

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.

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.

All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily [is] exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a 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.)

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."

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 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:

"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]

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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.

-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:34 am to add the following --

If the universe was created by intelligent design, where did this intelligence come from?

From God.

If prior to the birth of the universe, there was nothing, how could intelligence spring out of nothing?

Nothingness cannot create anything and nothingness in its true nature is an impossibility therefore it never existed.

If it’s possible that intelligence was always there, why is it not possible that the universe was always there?

Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.

-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:38 am to add the following --

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?

Krauss and Dawkins are impeccable promoters of randomness, chance, and nothingness and both quotes highlight this blatant fact.

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 --

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.

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.

Dr. Werner Gritt (as quoted by our Harris):

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.

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.

All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily [is] exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a 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.)

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."

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 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:

"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..."

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”

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.

[Steve3007]

Harris to Present awareness:

Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.

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?

Harris to me:

Krauss and Dawkins are impeccable promoters of randomness, chance, and nothingness and both quotes highlight this blatant fact.

No they don't.

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?

Obviously I don't know for sure, and am not even sure if those questions have meaning.

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.

Secondly, you have not supported your assertion ‘universe is one’ with proper inferential cases to make it conceivable.

The universe is, by definition, everything that there is.

I agree! A person is afraid of losing when he has something to lose.

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.

So we can both speak freely.

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”

Gibberish = unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing.

How do you know the essence of it if it is gibberish?

[Albert Tatlock]

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.

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.

[Chili]

Scientists find (or *should* find, I mean they're only human) that the very idea of conscious intelligent design - of galaxies or complex devices - will be quite problematic.

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]

Harris, it is true that no one knows how a code like the genetic code could come into existence by natural processes. In the quote you provided from Dr. Gritt he essentially states this fact and asserts that codes must be intelligently designed, but does not provide any logic why this must be so.

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]

Updated October 20th, 2017, 6:34 am to add the following --

If the universe was created by intelligent design, where did this intelligence come from?

From God.

If prior to the birth of the universe, there was nothing, how could intelligence spring out of nothing?

Nothingness cannot create anything and nothingness in its true nature is an impossibility therefore it never existed.

If it’s possible that intelligence was always there, why is it not possible that the universe was always there?

Because intelligence has the power to decide what to be and what not. Universe has no such ability.



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.

[Chili]

We're not in a position to say that DNA was not an alien invention. Perhaps some much kludgier lifeform, which had a much simpler type of genetics, decided to create a planet ( or universe ! ) with an elegant and complex DNA.