God and complexity of the non-living world
Offline Hello, I am an open minded agnostic (willing to be persuaded either ways) and i wish to put forward the precursors of all teleological argument for critical scrutiny. I must say its perhaps the strongest reason i find against atheism. I assume that Evolution i.e natural selection working on random mutation is correct (so no debate on that please).
Now my argument goes like this:
1) matter in the universe organises itself into complexity in a relatively harmonious manner (e.g planets are created and run in orbits, mountains are created etc).
2) intentionality is the only way to achieve order and complexity in matter
3) therefore some sort of intentional being exists (a single diety or many - may be imperfect, amoral) which have given complexity and order to matter
Now a common response is to refer to natural selection as proof that premise 2 is false. this is because the alternative to chance is natural selection. but i grant that complexity in living things may arise with mind. rather i wish to argue for the complexity of the non-living world
We see planets are formed. orbits are created. even on our planet we have nigeria falls and even simple rocks. obviously there is no natural selection in the case of waterfalls and rocks and air. Its not like the moutnains are replicating and then they have variations and only those that are fit to surive are "selected" to go on existing while the rest are extint. no it dosent happen in the non-living world.
since there is no natural selection for complexity of non-living things and since natural selection is the only alternative to design therefore does it mean that non-living things are the result of pure chance? Isnt it the case that if we dont invoke a diety then we are left with the idea that greek atheist philosphers proposed that atoms are randomly whirly and by chance they lump up to form the objects they do?. Woudnt that be a very diffcult impossible thing. just take a look at the planet earth. the probability that such a mass of matter occured by sheer random collision of atoms would be astronomically small. Or even look at a rock. (Please note: i am not referring to the common creationist planetery fine tuning argument cos the law of large numbers is more that enuff to answer it)
rather my question is that "
1) How does complexity arises in the non-living world?
2) what is the equivalent of natural selection here?
3) if the cause of the complexity in the world is not a intelligent diety then what is the cause of such objects like rocks, mountains, water , air , fire etc?
PS: many readers may consider this argument to be primitive but no one can deny the fact that teleological explanations are really attractive. When looking at the world as a whole we do get an intuition that such order requires a designer. Ofcourse mere intuitions are not enuff for an argument to carry its conclusion but nevertheless its an interesting fact and the idea of complexity arising via a "crane" method is counter-intuitive.
- Login to post comments
May I recommend introductory chemistry and physics courses at your local community college.
Seriously. <insert one of Kapkao's cats here>
Or, make rock candy.
http://www.sciencebob.com/experiments/rockcandy.php
"When you mixed the water and sugar you made a SUPER SATURATED SOLUTION. This means that the water could only hold the sugar if both were very hot. As the water cools the sugar "comes out" of the solution back into sugar crystals on your skewer. The skewer (and sometines the glass itself) act as a "seed" that the sugar crystals start to grow on. With some luck and patience you will have a tasty scientific treat! Enjoy!"
The crystals are formed in a particular shape because of the underlying shape of the molecule. If you tried to form gypsum crystals - probably not possible at home - you would have differently shaped crystals than sugar.
Rocks are an amalgam of different minerals so their shape is less regular. They are formed when very large blocks of rock are eroded through the actions of wind, rain, pressure from other rocks, and so on. Back to community college for an introductory geology course.
Have fun. See you in a few years after you have gained some knowledge.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
hehe,
I have one word for the OP.... poontang... oh wait no, I mean Gravity.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Signature ? How ?
Try this:
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Signature ? How ?
Define 'complexity' and 'harmonious.'
What is 'harmonious' about planets orbiting stars and mountains being created?
'Order' was not mentioned in premise 1. Is this synonymous with 'harmonious?'
Since you have already mentioned natural selection, it should be taken as a given that premise 2 is false. An intelligence is clearly not the only way to achieve "order" and "complexity" in matter. Ergo, there is obviously no sound deductive argument here. I suppose you could say that, other than evolution, intentionality is the only way to achieve order and complexity in matter, but you have no justification for that either. This becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance, where God is asserted because you don't know how it might have arisen naturally. It could only be a good argument if you know that it couldn't have arisen naturally.
There are various explanations for natural phenomena such as the movement of celestial objects, snowflakes, etc. But, there obviously isn't something equivalent to natural selection. Rocks don't reproduce. Rocks don't die. There isn't much to understand here, except to recognize the fallacy in the way you are thinking about the problem. Clearly, the probability of any individual rock being formed is incredibly improbable; it would require every single atom in that rock to somehow be in its precise location. This is the crux of your argument, correct? Well, consider an analogy.
Suppose that you were at the door on a rainy day, about to walk to the nearest grocery store. You decide to calculate how wet you will get from the rain. You happen to be very able mathematician, so you are able to factor in the area of the sky, the volume density of the rain, the area and angle of your body, etc., and you conclude that the probability of any single raindrop hitting you is exceedingly improbable! You walk out of the house fearlessly, wearing only a t-shirt and jeans, knowing that you won't get wet. Yet, somehow, by the time you get the grocery store, you are completely soaked. How did this happen?
It is true that the probability of any specific rock forming is ludicrously small. There is nothing with that assertion. However, using this to argue that rocks would never form is fallacious. You have to consider the probability of any rock forming. Of course the probability of that specific rock existing is small, but if rocks exist, then surely some specific rocks must exist. Your argument is a simple intuitive error in thinking. Just like the probability of winning the lottery is small, but eventually someone has to win. You wouldn't say that the lottery winner was chosen by God.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
There is nothing particularly 'harmonious" about planets going around in orbits. If they always went around in perfectly circular orbits, all aligned in exactly the same plane, and in some neat progression of orbital diameters, you might have some point, that would be require more explanation. Since none of those apply, that is not an issue. They are approximately circular because if they weren't, there would be a significant chance that they would interfere with each other much more, crossing each others orbits, even colliding occasionally. This is, in fact, what is thought to have happened in the formation of the solar system, when it was far more chaotic than it is now, and what left us with a more orderly system. So no evidence for intervention there.
Mountains are chaotic, not 'ordered' in any way. They are the effect mainly of separate chunks of the earth's crust colliding with each other and crumpling of the edges where they meet. Nothing requiring design of any sort. A particularly bad example of 'order'.
Completely wrong.
As cj said, the formation of orderly patterned crystals from disordered collections of molecules is a good example.
All that requires is a collection of bits of all the same size and shape (the molecules) which will tend to stick together most naturally in a few ways, maybe only one, because of their shape,
Another very basic example is if you have a number of identical balls, eg billiard balls, on a sloping flat surface, rolling up against a raised barrier, and you shake them up, that will naturally form a neat pattern of identical triangular shapes, simply because that is the pattern which allows a set of identical spheres to get as close together as possible.
Therefore, from my examples, all it requires is that matter be formed from a relative few kinds of particles, each type being all the same size. If they are somehow formed by repeated operation of the same process, they will naturally be identical.
So, sorry, really bad argument. There are much better examples of 'order' around, but they are all explicable by the same sort of processes.
A conscious being itself is orderly and complex, so it would require an intentional being to create it, by your argument, and so on back to infinity.
Whereas, since order demonstrably can come from disorder, and complexity from less complexity - we observe this every day, as a seed grow into a tree, a single fertilized cell into a thinking being - the 'godless' explanation is far more plausible and ultimately simple.
Those things are not the result of order, more the result of the actions of random processes.
In the case of the planetary orbits, there is a selection mechanism that I described: very non-circular orbits will result in collisions and mutual disruption of the motion of the planets involved, so the only ones which will survive will be the more circular ones. There are many such simple selection mechanisms in nature.
There have been 'evolutionary' explanations proposed for the relatively orderly nature of our Universe. If Big Bang Universes eventually trigger the formation of new Universes, then the set of Universe which will come to dominate will be those which happen to last long enough to get to the stage where they will start to form new Big Bangs.
There is a whole area of study in science devoted to "self-organizing systems". The simplest example they typically quote is how a steady trickle of dry sand falling onto a flat surface will form a neat conical pile with always the same angle of slope for sand with particular properties of size, weight, roughness, 'stickiness'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think you are forgetting to click on the "Source" button before pasting the video information. When I looked at the "Source" of your post, the video stuff was in there, so you are copying it. I think you just need to remember to "Source" first, then copy.
Also, it won't show up until you click the "Preview" button at the bottom of the page. Hope this helps.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
OK Dathinkingman, the prebiotic world is complicated, I can run with that. Actually, there is a good case that it is far more chaotc than you are thinking, as BobSpence observed above but I will set that much aside for now.
For now, let's just go with the idea that the pre-biotic world is already complicated.
Now, you look at this complicated world and make the grand leap to “god did it”. But you don't have the intermediate reasoning why that must be. Pretty much, from what I see, you have not considered how the situation would have come about. So the idea of god is really just “let's skip as many steps as we can to reach the conclusion that we were hoping to get to anyway”.
Do you not see how that is a problem?
Anyway, the questions that comes to mind is just what the world was like in the past and how did it get that way?
Let me run this down and see where we end up.
At this point, we have a solar system that consists of a few planets and a star. The planet that we ended up being on almost certainly had a reducing atmosphere (it would be the ultimate in hazardous waste sites if that means all that much to you).
So where did that stuff come from?
Well, it came from a cloud of gasses that were the remnants of earlier supernova. That cloud contained what we now call heavy metals such as uranium, radium and lead. The supernova that produced the cloud formed those elements from the lighter metals that they had.
Those stars, which only had lighter metals such as lithium, zinc and carbon (to an astronomer carbon is a metal, don't worry about the technical distinction) came from yet earlier supernova which came from the very first stars, which only had hydrogen and helium.
The hydrogen and helium came from yet earlier matter which was not capable of even forming elements as we now know them.
From here, let's not go further back, rather, let's take the universe as it is at that point and go into the future.
We start with the simplest stuff and allow nature to proceed along perfectly natural lines. Each step involves greater details, leading up to today when we are standing on this planet thinking about this stuff.
Taken that way, the further back one goes in time, the simpler things tend to become. Complexity develops through completely natural and understandable processes. No god required.
=
This should be a bumper sticker. ^^^
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Ok so the reponses that i have gotten so far are really interesting but let me further a thought which was put forward in aquinas 5th way:
"Nothing however that lacks awareness tends to a goal, except under the direction of someone with awareness and with understanding; the arrow, for example, requires an archer"
Now it should be noted that the example that have been given e.g clouds of gases , supernovas and "Forces of nature" are not self aware. they lack understanding and intentions. So the question arises as to how do they "know" what to do. E.G how does the dust and the elements fused and subseqeuntly desipated from the supernovas "know" that they must collapse into a planet and then subseqeuntly arrange themselves in form of different object like mountians and rocks etc.
u are explaining to me the material out of which the stuff is being made for example i can say that the iron beams are placed in a building. Where does the iron beings come from? they come out of iron mills loaded on trucks. Where does the iron mill gets the iron? it arises out of the iron ore. U see all this process is the change in material but it does requires intentions. so the example of earth being created out of gases from supernovas is not an automatic proof that all this can indeed happen without intentional agents.
apologies for the silly mistakes. english is not my first language.
Nothing in the whole process needs in any way to 'know' what to do.
What makes you think there is a 'goal'?
You gather enough fundamental particles of matter together so that they can interact, then the number of possible outcomes is all but infinite. You only need enough time for something capable of forming its own purpose to emerge, to account for something like our existence.
Our knowledge and understanding of everything has advanced enormously since the time of Aquinas, so you are really wasting your time referring to his ideas.
A building has many features that we know cannot form from natural, undirected processes. A planet forming out of cosmic dust requires no more 'direction' than a falling object needs direction as to which way is 'down'.
Until you can grasp that randomness is very pervasive, especially as the base level of existence, and is the ultimate source of creativity, and that the emergence of complexity from simplicity also is something that is occurring all the time, you have no undertanding of the whole process.
Gravity determines that cooling dust and gases will tend to collapse into a planet.
All you need then is the finite 'possibility' that on one of the trillions of planets that have probabiy formed across the Universe, by pure random chance, there is a collection of the simple chemicals needed to form spontaneously some kind of self-replicating molecule, like basic RNA.
From that point, natural selection can start to work, and those variations most suited to survive will survive.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"They" don't "know" anything. "They" "do" what "they" "do" because those are of the laws of our universe. If you drop a ball, the acceleration due to the Earth is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. You can inquire as to how this happens, because of gravity; you can inquire as to how gravity works, perhaps make some new discoveries in particle physics. It is fruitless to ask "why," in the sense of implying intent; then, you're just anthropomorphizing.
"They" don't "know" anything. The clouds don't have to "know" how to make a snowflake. Natural selection does not "know" what phenotypes to prefer. Complexity and order naturally arise out of stochastic natural processes.
Duh. You just roughly described the process of humans refining and processing iron. Of course, then, it is a process that includes intention.
Non sequitur. You just said:
P1 - Humans process iron.
P2 - Iron processing requires intent.
Conclusion - Earth being created out of gases from supernovas is not proof that it can't happen without intentional agents.
----
If a natural process is observed to occur without the intervention of any intelligence, then that is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the process can occur without intelligent agents. Ditto, you just observed that it does occur without any intelligent agents. Then, the postulation of an intelligence would be superfluous, as it lacks any explanatory power.
Even if we do not understand how a process occurs, it would be an argument from ignorance to claim an intelligence. There is no positive evidence for the intelligence; to argue that it wins by default when there is no alternative explanation is fallacious. An intelligence capable of creating the Earth would also fail Occam's Razor.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Actually, I have been looking for some bumper stickers recently. Here is the deal:
As an astronomer, I am always on the lookout for stuff that I can use. Recently, I found a good aluminum briefcase at a local thrift shop for $5. The similar item would have cost around $100 for new.
The thing is that it was originally a sales case for some cosmetics company and I have to block over the logos. I put a couple of tea party stickers on the thing but I need a few more to finish the job.
If I can find a company that will make that sticker, then I can be done with the whole deal.
The general idea is great. However, do you know of a company which would be willing to do a one off job like that?
=
*ring ring, ring ring... Hello?, hi.... hmmm he's not here can I take a message?.... aha... hmm... ok... I'll tell him, thnx.
Hey, Datthinkingman, Plato called, he sounded pissed man, he wants his Cosmological argument back.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_universal_causation
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I like to point to the Mandelbrot Set as an example of how a pattern of literally infinite complexity can be defined by a fairly simple algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
When such a simple set of rules can give rise to such complexity, it is nonsense to deny that complexity can only come from complexity or intention. The resultant patterns were certainly not conceived before the equations were defined - the various equations in this family were literally explored, not designed with any specific pattern in mind.
In the same way, where we perceive patterned complexity in reality, it will often be the working out of the implications of some simple consistent relationships between a large collection of interacting elements, with no 'intentionality' or 'goal' whatever.
You need to grasp this fundamental truth of nature. Conscious design is ultimately limited to things derived from what is already known. Genuinely new ideas require random searching of the possibilities.
Good conscious design also tends to have the characteristics of minimal complexity, of elegance. This is most definitely NOT what we see, in general, in either living things or the Universe as a whole. There are many examples of poor 'design' in nature, due to the limitations of the step-by-step change process of evolution, which is unable to make large changes which would require going thru intermediate forms which may be non-viable. A conscious divine creator would not be subject to such limitations.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It's not fruitless for someone seeking confirmation bias. For them it's essential.
The circular reasoning they are using (which Occam's Razor does not require in order to be a robust theory, and logically sound) always arrives at a 'Prime Mover' being at the beginning of every equation.
Rhetoric is a method of syntax that can be very powerfully suggestive and persuasive.
"Everything happens for a reason" is a powerfully suggestive conclusion and premise, due to the various different meanings of the word 'reason'. The intent of the "for a reason" is putting forth the assertion that there exists a 'reasoning' (conscious decision, or deliberation) for an occurance, rather than a simple explanation (reason).
The assertion is of the existence of divination.
All occurrences in the world are the result of a sequence of events, and it's completely natural for humans to try and 'reverse engineer' any and all of them.
But the INCLUSION of a 'prime mover' is NOT essential in order for one to be able to mentally reconcile something as completely 'logical'.
The scientist can reconcile that lightning striking the ground and causing the bushes to catch on fire needs not have a 'prime mover' at the beginning of the equation of the chain of events in order to reconcile that it is BOTH 'logical', AND 'senseless' (sic).
In simplest terms, at the heart of virtually all things in the physical world, there are forces that are acting to keep things together, and forces acting to breaking things apart. Both result in 'occurences' (chain of events).
It's simply a result of the potentials of the physical world.
Which sets up the debate of which branch of 'determinism' one subscribes to.
If one CANNOT reconcile (make sense of) the physical world WITHOUT the inclusion of a prime mover at the beginning of every equation, then the more important question is why?
Why is it necessary?
Why would the explanation collapse without the inclusion of it (prime mover)?
The onus is on the one making the claim, to substantiate why it's necessarily so. The burden of proof is on them.
'Because', is not an acceptable answer.
That's circular reasoning.
"Because it says so in the bible", "Because it is the will of god", "Because there HAS to be a reason" are all non sequitur, nonsensical, AND intellectually dishonest/self deluding.
Intellectually/Philisophically weak.
Rhetorical.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris