Refuting Dawkin's Ultimate 747 argument

[Seth]

Indeed, we know for a fact that intelligent design HAS occurred in the history of this planet, and therefore there is no rational evidence upon which to base a claim that intelligent design of living organisms has NEVER BEFORE occurred on this planet.

I agree.

Are you an atheist?

No, I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed, we know for a fact that intelligent design HAS occurred in the history of this planet, and therefore there is no rational evidence upon which to base a claim that intelligent design of living organisms has NEVER BEFORE occurred on this planet.

I agree.

Are you an atheist?

No, I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™.

Do you believe in a god?

[Coito ergo sum]

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

Briefly, and I'll respond in more detail shortly, the point lies in the words "at the moment."

That is the whole point, and science is famous for changing its theories because of new evidence. At the moment X, but if something is answered later, then the science changes. It's a methodology for trying to figure things out. It doesn't presume to have figured it all out, and it doesn't presume that our ability to know doesn't increase later.

[Feck]

'All that remains is to look for and detect such an intelligence, if it exists/existed, which is a perfectly valid scientific line of inquiry.'


and this purports ID to be a valid theory which it is NOT

It depends entirely on which "theory" of intelligent design you happen to be referring to.

If it's the "irreducible complexity" argument in Kitzmiller, I might agree. Otherwise, I don't.

Trying to find somewhere to insert a christian god (because you WILL not give up your faith ) into science on the premise that we cannot prove there is not one is NOT science .

[Seth]

And there's nothing improbable about my hypothesis that isn't equally improbable about any multiple-universe cosmological hypothesis.

True, but both hypotheses fail because both rely on imagined evidence for the foundation of their world view. We need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of, not on wished-for or imaginary evidence.

Why do we "need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of?" By saying this you imply that the universe(s) and their nature are limited to our world view built on evidence that we know of.

Well, in a sense he's correct about that. What's the alternative? Build a world view on the evidence of which we do not know?"

Not at all. We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

This, of course, is preposterous. The universe(s) are what the universes are, irrespective of our understanding of them, are they not?

Perhaps. Perhaps the universe changes to meet our understanding, potentially. This may be the worldview based on evidence that we do not know.

True. After all, you all are just a figment of my imagination...

Of course, I don't have an answer for how did something come from nothing, but we need to build a worldview based on the questions we can answer.

Again, why must we do so. I see this limitation as self-imposed and I describe it as a "poverty of imagination." It's one of the common conceits of science that I am highly critical of. The insistence on limiting our investigation to that which we can see, touch, taste and hear seems to me to limit the possibilities far too much. At least in theoretical physics and cosmology, the hypotheses and theories go beyond what we can directly know, and it is that quest for knowledge beyond a "worldview based on questions that we can answer" that truly advances human knowledge in directions other than inward. Science, it appears to me, largely focuses on the smaller and smaller. It seeks to explain the details of what we already know, rather than exploring the things we do not know.

Science focuses on what we don't know, in that it seeks to find explanations for phenomena.

Except when it comes to God.

We don't know the explanations, so science is a methodology for finding out.

Which is all fine and good until un-science intrudes by rejecting the necessity of "finding out" merely because the potential explanations appear to be too implausible. This is, in fact, the history of science, which has rejected perfectly valid hypotheses for reasons having nothing to do with science or reason.

Imagination is quite important in science, because it is imagination, hunches, trial and error, etc., that give rise to many hypotheses that we can then test. Science is also rife with indirect observations. It doesn't have to be directly known in order for it to be part of science. Black holes, for example.

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

As I said, the fundamental answer is "at present."

Now this is only a general criticism, and I'm fully aware that cosmologists and theoretical physicists do look outward all the time, thus the very theories that support my own hypothesis of extra-universal intelligence.

But the argument against God is always explained away by calling the concept "supernatural," as if this describes anything at all. The cognitive disconnect I object to in most of these sorts of arguments is that because God is claimed to have supernatural powers, or to be supernatural, by theists, that therefore God must and is, by scientific standards, supernatural, and therefore cannot exist because science holds as a foundational concept that all things have a "naturalistic" explanation, and therefore anything supernatural is imaginary and does not exist.

Well, gods must be taken as they come. If someone says, "god is like X, Y and Z" then that hypothesis is tested on that basis. If you say, god exists in an alternative universe and does not involve miracles and supernatural-ness of any kind then that's another sort of god altogether. There's no reason to believe in it, however, until the hypothesis is tested and there is some evidence from which to conclude that it's correct.

Why must gods be "taken as they come?" Why cannot science resolve to investigate god in a rigorously scientific manner?

I may have another hypothesis - that god exists right here on Earth, but is sort of like ultraviolent light in that it is undetectable to our senses, and we simply don't have any devices that can detect it yet. He's not in an alternate universe - he is just at present undetectable to our senses or sciences. Why should that hypothesis be taken seriously? Answer - it shouldn't - it's the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. Sure, it might be there, but we have no reason yet to believe it is. If things change, then our beliefs ought to change with it.

"I have this hypothesis that there are very, very small particles which make up all of the physical elements of the universe."

"I have this hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun."

"I have this hypothesis that energy may be used to communicate over long distances."

Every one of those hypotheses was initially rejected by "science," and was later proven to be true.

The key is the word "yet."

So, where's the "God Squad?" Where's the scientific discipline dedicated to detecting, quantifying and explaining God? Where's the scientific rigor in even thinking about God that exists when thinking about the rest of the physical universe? Where's the rigor in even trying to scientifically DEFINE god? More importantly, where is the simple peer respect for those who DO try to examine the matter of God's existence in a scientific manner, even when they are wrong? Since when does scientific thinking involve trashing reputations and destroying careers for having the temerity to use the term "intelligent design" in a scientific paper?

The conceits of mainstream science when it comes to "intelligent design" are every bit as intolerantly bigoted as anything the Inquisition had to say. And they are just as wrong.

Intelligent design of living organisms on this planet exists. That is scientific fact.

Now it's up to you to prove that it did not or could not have happened in the past, through some agency other than human intellect, in order to legitimately claim that "natural" evolution is the sole mechanism through which life began and evolved on Earth.

I have presented a plausible explanation for at least some of the phenomena or beliefs that exist regarding a "supreme being" or "god" that does not require anything remotely supernatural. But rather than examine the hypothesis for logical and scientific validity, it's simply discarded, as you do, by saying it's outside the "worldview based on questions we can answer," as if that it's even remotely logical and scientific reasoning to reject a hypothesis simply because there is no present method of falsifying it.

You present no way to test it, and I can't see a way to test it. You place your god in a place where it can't be tested. It's therefore unfalsifiable. What do you expect anyone to do with it?

Is there a way to test for the existence of membrane universes, or bubble universes, or multiverses? Is there a way to test to see if microscopic black holes evaporate, as Hawking suggests?

Was there a way to observe atoms when atomic theory was first proposed?

As to what I expect, I expect science to give consideration to the fundamentally scientific question of whether or not God exists, which is something that even Dawkins admits is a matter for science. No, this does not mean turning all of the resources of science towards this inquiry, but it certainly means not simply dismissing the line of inquiry as "unscientific" and not oppressing and silencing those who do choose to investigate that line if inquiry.

But this sort of hand-waving rejection does exactly what you're doing, which is to imply that the universe is somehow limited to our understanding of it, and that we cannot go beyond our present scientific understanding because it's not "scientific" to even speculate about that which we cannot yet detect, quantify and explain. Again, this is a poverty of imagination that's rife at least in these sorts of fora.

It's not necessarily poverty of imagination. I can imagine lots of things. That doesn't mean each one is an equally plausible theory. However, based on your logic, we would have to consider all imaginings to be equivalent.

I've said nothing of the kind. Equivalency is not demanded, consideration is. Simple logic and reason, which are supposed to be core components of scientific rigor, require that the proposition that a vastly superior intelligence capable of manipulating time, space, matter or energy in this universe might exist, be given a place at the table and not be dismissed out of hand, and that those who choose to follow such lines of reasoning be given the respect they are due as scientists.

Science does not limit itself to that which we can now detect, quantify and explain. The Black Hole is a perfect example. It was first calculated on paper through Einstein's theory of relativity. It was understood, however, to be theoretical until indirect observations proved its existence. We still can't "see"one.

Precisely my point.

That's the same thing with the multiverse theories that are out there. They're pretty much paper theories - they are theoretical physics and the math works to one degree or another. That doesn't mean we believe it, yet. We need some evidence, direct or indirect, that reality is consistent with the theoretical physics.

And yet both are "scientific" and are accepted as "scientific" by you, and by the scientific establishment in general. But if I postulate that an intelligent entity theoretically exists in one of these theoretical places that can manipulate things in this universe, and might be involved in the creation of life, or the evolution of life, on this planet, suddenly this is un-scientific and preposterous because it has the whiff of theism about it.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect here? How is my proposition any more incredible than the propositions upon which they are based, nothwithstanding that all of them are unfalsifiable at present?

The most fundamental failure in his reasoning is this: He claims that if this universe, in all its complexity, is "designed" by some intelligent entity, that entity must be at least as complex as the universe it designed. But this is only true if the entity designed and fine-tuned EVERY ASPECT of this universe. However, if only a few of the initial physical constants were "designed," such as gravity and the speed of light, and the rest was left to chance, then all that is required is intelligence great enough to create an empty universe and inject a block of matter with specified, but limited, properties into it. The rest would be watching the billiard-balls ricochet around the table to see where they end up.

Your suggesting that an entity that can itself create some of the initial physical constants of our universe and create an empty universe is not too complex to come about by chance?

In an infinity of universes, with an infinity of possible physical constants and processes, anything is possible, including complex spontaneous intelligence.

See that's what Dawkins is talking about - if we're too complex to come about by chance than whatever created us would be too complex to come about by chance. So where did that creator come about from?

There's the flaw: "IF we're too complex to come about by chance..." This is the "irreducible complexity" argument for ID, but that is NOT the only, or even the best argument for intelligent design. That we could come about by chance (evolution) does not mean that we DID come about by chance. That fact leaves open the possibility of intelligent design.

And given my hypothesis of an adjacent universe containing an intelligence with sufficient knowledge and ability (or as you say, "power, will and knowledge") could exist even under our existing, presumably scientifically-valid cosmological hypotheses, it is not logical to reject the possibility of vastly more complex and powerful intelligence that might be capable of both creating this universe and meddling in its evolution.

Who is "rejecting" that? Minds are open: why should one accept your theory? Can you show the math?

Pretty much everyone of a "scientific" bent I've presented it to. They all evade the issue by making pretty much precisely the same evasive statements you do. Rather than rigorously examining the proposition, they, and you, resort to the "prove it" evasion that demonstrates a poverty of imagination. No, I cannot "show the math," but that doesn't mean that the proposition is unworthy of respect, now does it? Your sort of evasion is precisely what science complains that religion does in saying "Goddidit." Rather than say, "Interesting, I wonder what such an intelligence might look like," or "I wonder how we might go about detecting an intelligence in an adjacent membrane universe," you wave your arms furiously in denial while shouting "PROVE IT!"

But the proof awaits the acceptance of the proposition as a valid line of scientific inquiry and the scientific tools to achieve a result. The same is true of every single theoretical cosmological theory out there, and yet I don't hear you dissing those theorists.

We know that intelligence exists in this universe. That is a scientific fact.

We have no reason to believe at this point that intelligence has any natural limits in this universe, or any other.

We believe that intelligence evolves over time, based on our observations and theories about evolution.

We have no reason to believe that evolution is not ongoing elsewhere in this universe.

Therefore we have no reason to believe that intelligence does not exists elsewhere in our universe.

And if we hypothesize that there are other universes, or even merely other dimensions to our own universe, it is a rational inference to suppose that intelligence can exist there.

And because we know of no limitations on the nature of intelligence, it is also a rational inference to suppose that intelligence greater than our own can exist in this, or another universe/dimension.

Current cosmological theory suggests that the physical constants of other universes may be unlike our own. Moreover, nothing precludes those other universes from having existed for much, much longer than our own.

Therefore, it is a rational inference to postulate that in some other universe that is far older than our own, that intelligence evolved to a stage much, much more advanced than our own, and it is not irrational to suppose that such a vastly superior intelligence might have developed the capacity to move between universes or extend it's power and intellect into this universe, for purposes unknown to us, either now, or in the past.

If such an intelligence did in fact do so, nothing precludes that entity from manipulating the precursors of life to create life and/or to intelligently design living organisms on this planet in the past.

How is this hypothesis in the least bit unscientific, even if it, like all cosmological theories which exist now, is "unfalsifiable?"

In what way does the "math" not work for this hypothesis? What is "supernatural" about any inference I've drawn?

[Seth]

'All that remains is to look for and detect such an intelligence, if it exists/existed, which is a perfectly valid scientific line of inquiry.'


and this purports ID to be a valid theory which it is NOT

It depends entirely on which "theory" of intelligent design you happen to be referring to.

If it's the "irreducible complexity" argument in Kitzmiller, I might agree. Otherwise, I don't.

Trying to find somewhere to insert a christian god (because you WILL not give up your faith ) into science on the premise that we cannot prove there is not one is NOT science .

I agree, but Kitzmiller is a flawed legal decision for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ineptness and incompetence of the defendants. The other major legal flaw was the judge's improper exegesis on the science involved, which is scientifically ignorant, when all he had to do to resolve the case was to look at the intent of the Dover school board in putting forward the ID argument. The proper core of the decision was that the Dover board came to the table with dirty hands. The plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the INTENT of the board was to repackage Creationism under the rubric "Intelligent Design" and inject that inherently religious concept into the schools. He was NOT required (or indeed authorized) by the law to go beyond those necessary facts in finding against Dover.

But he did. And in doing so, he improperly attempted to discredit the underlying scientific argument of "irreducible complexity" by conflating it with Creationism.

The two are entirely different things. However scientifically unsupportable "irreducible complexity" may be, it is NOT an inherently religious belief, it is a scientific theory that was CO-OPTED by theists in an attempt to bolster their unconstitutional intent to inject religious belief into the schools.

Nor is the theory of intelligent design necessarily defined by the irreducible complexity theory alone. There are other theories of intelligent design that do not depend upon, or even reference the irreducible complexity argument.

In other words, the entire field of scientific inquiry that involves propositions that life on earth was intelligently designed or even intelligently manipulated, was deliberately tainted by the judge in an opinion that went far beyond his legal authority and the bounds of reason.

In the Kitzmiller case, it is not "Intelligent Design" that is an impermissible religious belief that must be kept out of the schools, it is the Dover School Board's version of Creationism that was mendaciously repackaged under the title of "Intelligent Design" and falsely bolstered with a discredited (but not provably false) scientific theory that constitutes the violation of the Establishment Clause. The evidence was quite clear that the Dover School Board intended to insert Creationism, which is an inherently religious belief, into the schools, and it is THAT which is unconstitutional, not a debate about evolution versus intelligent design, which is a completely scientific debate.

[Coito ergo sum]

And there's nothing improbable about my hypothesis that isn't equally improbable about any multiple-universe cosmological hypothesis.

True, but both hypotheses fail because both rely on imagined evidence for the foundation of their world view. We need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of, not on wished-for or imaginary evidence.

Why do we "need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of?" By saying this you imply that the universe(s) and their nature are limited to our world view built on evidence that we know of.

Well, in a sense he's correct about that. What's the alternative? Build a world view on the evidence of which we do not know?"

Not at all. We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

Nobody denies that, even the dreaded atheists, materialists and scientists. Look. A basic assumption of science and the scientific method is that everything we know can be wrong (falsifiability) and that it probably is to some extent. It's a process of knowing and learning - it's not a claim that we "know everything."

It was put quite well by the terrific atheist Isaac Asimov. He said something to the effect of "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong - when people thought the earth was round, they were wrong...but if you think that thinking the earth is round is just as wrong as thinking it is flat, then you're wronger than both of them combined." Google "the relativity of wrong - Isaac Asimov."

I'm not an atheist because I think I know everything. I'm an atheist because there is no reason to think there is a god. Might there be? Sure. But there might be a lot of things in which we have no reason to believe. There might be a fifth major fundamental force called pseudomagnetotism or something. However, right now there is just as much reason to believe in pseudomagnetotism as there is to believe in god.

This, of course, is preposterous. The universe(s) are what the universes are, irrespective of our understanding of them, are they not?

Perhaps. Perhaps the universe changes to meet our understanding, potentially. This may be the worldview based on evidence that we do not know.

True. After all, you all are just a figment of my imagination...

Sure - there is just as much reason to believe that as there is to believe in god. In other words, there isn't any reason to believe that, right now.

Of course, I don't have an answer for how did something come from nothing, but we need to build a worldview based on the questions we can answer.

Again, why must we do so. I see this limitation as self-imposed and I describe it as a "poverty of imagination." It's one of the common conceits of science that I am highly critical of. The insistence on limiting our investigation to that which we can see, touch, taste and hear seems to me to limit the possibilities far too much. At least in theoretical physics and cosmology, the hypotheses and theories go beyond what we can directly know, and it is that quest for knowledge beyond a "worldview based on questions that we can answer" that truly advances human knowledge in directions other than inward. Science, it appears to me, largely focuses on the smaller and smaller. It seeks to explain the details of what we already know, rather than exploring the things we do not know.

Science focuses on what we don't know, in that it seeks to find explanations for phenomena.

Except when it comes to God.

Even when it comes to God or gods.

We don't know the explanations, so science is a methodology for finding out.

Which is all fine and good until un-science intrudes by rejecting the necessity of "finding out" merely because the potential explanations appear to be too implausible. This is, in fact, the history of science, which has rejected perfectly valid hypotheses for reasons having nothing to do with science or reason.

Like what?

The hypothesis that there is an invisible dragon in my garage is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

Imagination is quite important in science, because it is imagination, hunches, trial and error, etc., that give rise to many hypotheses that we can then test. Science is also rife with indirect observations. It doesn't have to be directly known in order for it to be part of science. Black holes, for example.

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

As I said, the fundamental answer is "at present."

You seem to have this false impression of science as a methodology that does not allow for knowledge to increase or change. Contrary to your belief, however, science is a mechanism for finding out new stuff. It's all about change.

Now this is only a general criticism, and I'm fully aware that cosmologists and theoretical physicists do look outward all the time, thus the very theories that support my own hypothesis of extra-universal intelligence.

But the argument against God is always explained away by calling the concept "supernatural," as if this describes anything at all. The cognitive disconnect I object to in most of these sorts of arguments is that because God is claimed to have supernatural powers, or to be supernatural, by theists, that therefore God must and is, by scientific standards, supernatural, and therefore cannot exist because science holds as a foundational concept that all things have a "naturalistic" explanation, and therefore anything supernatural is imaginary and does not exist.

Well, gods must be taken as they come. If someone says, "god is like X, Y and Z" then that hypothesis is tested on that basis. If you say, god exists in an alternative universe and does not involve miracles and supernatural-ness of any kind then that's another sort of god altogether. There's no reason to believe in it, however, until the hypothesis is tested and there is some evidence from which to conclude that it's correct.

Why must gods be "taken as they come?" Why cannot science resolve to investigate god in a rigorously scientific manner?

By "taken as they come" I meant that each god hypothesis is each god hypothesis. The Christian god is one god. Odin is another. They are different hypotheses. If you believe in one, then how easily disproved it is depends on which one. If you say your god lives at the top of Mt. Olympus, then we can go up there and see, or we can use a satellite to observe. Right? How to test a god depends on which god you're talking about.

Science can investigate god in a rigorous manner. Many folks are trying. Science isn't some board room though, which approves projects ad hoc. You can set about that rigorous science yourself. Many do. People have written books about it, all trying to prove god methologically, logically, scientifically.

Your god, like most nowadays, is just an entity placed in an unfalsifiable place. If it can't be tested or falsified, it's worthless. It's no different then making anything up. Maybe there are 1,000 gods in 1,000 different dimensions? Maybe god is a panther shaped aardvark living on the third moon of the fifth planet of the star farthest away from us in the Milky Way Galaxy. I don't know. But, I do know this - there is no reason to believe in either of those gods, is there?

I may have another hypothesis - that god exists right here on Earth, but is sort of like ultraviolent light in that it is undetectable to our senses, and we simply don't have any devices that can detect it yet. He's not in an alternate universe - he is just at present undetectable to our senses or sciences. Why should that hypothesis be taken seriously? Answer - it shouldn't - it's the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. Sure, it might be there, but we have no reason yet to believe it is. If things change, then our beliefs ought to change with it.

"I have this hypothesis that there are very, very small particles which make up all of the physical elements of the universe."

Proved. Tested. Subjected to being falsified. Still falsifiable, technically, although highly doubtful.

That makes my point, not yours. Science is a process for finding out new things. If and when science finds some evidence for reason to believe in a god, like it did with atoms, then I'll reassess my view. Right NOW there is no reason to believe in your hypothesis.

"I have this hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun."

Again - that proves my point, not yours.

"I have this hypothesis that energy may be used to communicate over long distances."

Again - that proves my point, not yours.

How does the fact that someone figured out radio waves when before people probably thought was impossible support your view.

Nobody says that things we don't yet know CAN'T be discovered. It's scientists who came up with the theories you are listing, and it's scientists who proved them. Yet you seem to think that it's scientists who don't.

Every one of those hypotheses was initially rejected by "science," and was later proven to be true.

No - it was initially not believed until it was proved. And, of course it would be. There is no "rejection" - what do you think this is? A patent office where beliefs are submitted and then given an "approve" or "reject" stamp? There are fierce battles within science about what theory is true and what is false - just look at the cosmological constant - the steady state vs. expanding universe - M Theory and Brane theory/string theory - etc.

Just because some things were ultimately proven and developed doesn't mean we just believe anything anybody dreams up. The reason science works is because we DON'T "just believe" stuff and go with it. We make people do the work, and prove it.

The key is the word "yet."

So, where's the "God Squad?" Where's the scientific discipline dedicated to detecting, quantifying and explaining God?

People investigate what they want. Plenty of folks are investigating gods. I've seen many books written about the subject. Plenty of people calling themselves scientists - like Behe - the Discovery Institute and all those folks are part of the gods squad.

Must EVERYONE be involved? Are you not happy until Hawking changes focus from his cosmology and physics to gods?

And, you really have to look at the difference in the kinds of hypotheses out there. Saying "I have a theory that there are little particles that make up everything that are invisible" is something could be tested, worked with and investigate - proved or falsified. When you offer the hypothesis that a god lives in an as yet unknown alternate universe (of which we have no evidence) and lives there - how do you propose someone test it? How should they investigate it? In one respect, they already are - theoretical physicists are trying to figure out how to prove different dimensions and whether more than one universe exists or can exist. Before you could find a god in another universe, you'd have to find that universe. So, anyone involved in M-Theory, I guess, is part your gods squad.

Where's the scientific rigor in even thinking about God that exists when thinking about the rest of the physical universe?

That's what causes people not to believe in gods. Scientific rigor.

Where's the rigor in even trying to scientifically DEFINE god?

How would you propose to do this?

More importantly, where is the simple peer respect for those who DO try to examine the matter of God's existence in a scientific manner, even when they are wrong?

Whose not getting their due? Behe?

Since when does scientific thinking involve trashing reputations and destroying careers for having the temerity to use the term "intelligent design" in a scientific paper?

Example? Proved proof this, please.

Plus - what does that have to do with believing in stuff without any reason or evidence?

The conceits of mainstream science when it comes to "intelligent design" are every bit as intolerantly bigoted as anything the Inquisition had to say. And they are just as wrong.

Intelligent design is not science.

Intelligent design of living organisms on this planet exists. That is scientific fact.

Artificial selection, yes. And, perhaps construction of artificial organisms soon.

Now it's up to you to prove that it did not or could not have happened in the past,

That's not how science works in any other area. It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to the proponent of a theory to prove their theory.

through some agency other than human intellect, in order to legitimately claim that "natural" evolution is the sole mechanism through which life began and evolved on Earth.

No - the theory of evolution does not explain how life began. It explains how life changed over time on earth, after it already existed. Theories of abiogenesis are still being worked on. It's not quite known yet how the first life originated on Earth.

I have presented a plausible explanation for at least some of the phenomena or beliefs that exist regarding a "supreme being" or "god" that does not require anything remotely supernatural. But rather than examine the hypothesis for logical and scientific validity, it's simply discarded, as you do, by saying it's outside the "worldview based on questions we can answer," as if that it's even remotely logical and scientific reasoning to reject a hypothesis simply because there is no present method of falsifying it.

You present no way to test it, and I can't see a way to test it. You place your god in a place where it can't be tested. It's therefore unfalsifiable. What do you expect anyone to do with it?

Is there a way to test for the existence of membrane universes, or bubble universes, or multiverses? Is there a way to test to see if microscopic black holes evaporate, as Hawking suggests?

They're trying to figure out ways to test those, and there may be. Until then, those theories are not believed. string theory - m theory, etc., are all basically hypotheses. The one thing they have that your gods theory doesn't have is math. They worked those theories out with physics - equations - numbers.

Was there a way to observe atoms when atomic theory was first proposed?

No and the people of that time were rightly skeptical, as they were about other, incorrect, theories believed in the day. Eventually, some folks proved the atomic theory.

As to what I expect, I expect science to give consideration to the fundamentally scientific question of whether or not God exists, which is something that even Dawkins admits is a matter for science. No, this does not mean turning all of the resources of science towards this inquiry, but it certainly means not simply dismissing the line of inquiry as "unscientific" and not oppressing and silencing those who do choose to investigate that line if inquiry.

People calling themselves scientists are doing the work you want them to do. Their work is unpersuasive and religiously motivated, quite obviously to me, but they're doing it. If your complaint is that NOT EVERY scientist or or that NOT MOST scientists are working hard to prove your gods exist, well, no hypothesis gets that. Rest assured though that more people are working on the god question than any other.

But this sort of hand-waving rejection does exactly what you're doing, which is to imply that the universe is somehow limited to our understanding of it, and that we cannot go beyond our present scientific understanding because it's not "scientific" to even speculate about that which we cannot yet detect, quantify and explain. Again, this is a poverty of imagination that's rife at least in these sorts of fora.

It's not necessarily poverty of imagination. I can imagine lots of things. That doesn't mean each one is an equally plausible theory. However, based on your logic, we would have to consider all imaginings to be equivalent.

I've said nothing of the kind. Equivalency is not demanded, consideration is. Simple logic and reason, which are supposed to be core components of scientific rigor, require that the proposition that a vastly superior intelligence capable of manipulating time, space, matter or energy in this universe might exist, be given a place at the table and not be dismissed out of hand, and that those who choose to follow such lines of reasoning be given the respect they are due as scientists.

And, considering the gods question - there isn't any reason at present to believe in any of them, including your alternate universe god.

The god question is not dismissed "out of hand" - there are many books on the subject by many authors. If your complaint is that Hawking and Dawkins and Feinman don't buy your imagining of a god in an alternate universe, then I can't help you there.

And, the guys like Behe and the folks at the discovery institute are, in my view, given all the respect THAT THEY ARE DUE.

Science does not limit itself to that which we can now detect, quantify and explain. The Black Hole is a perfect example. It was first calculated on paper through Einstein's theory of relativity. It was understood, however, to be theoretical until indirect observations proved its existence. We still can't "see"one.

Precisely my point.

No it isn't. Look - before there was proof of the big bang it was a mathematical calculation that resulted from relativity. So, it had that basis - it followed from things we knew to be true. But people didn't "believe" in it.

WHEN YOU SHOW WHERE THE THEORETICAL PHYSICS IS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD THEN YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING OF A COMPARISON. Until then, you just have a dream.

You see - people didn't just dream up a black holes just out of thin air - there was reason to suspect them based on what we already knew. The math worked. But, nobody "believed"i n them until there was proof. Now it's pretty conclusive that there are black holes around. Before the proof, however, people even suspected something was wrong with relativity.

The god question is not like that at all - nobody has any math about it. Nobody has any reason to suspect it's there. It's just a wild imagining, at present.

That's the same thing with the multiverse theories that are out there. They're pretty much paper theories - they are theoretical physics and the math works to one degree or another. That doesn't mean we believe it, yet. We need some evidence, direct or indirect, that reality is consistent with the theoretical physics.

And yet both are "scientific" and are accepted as "scientific" by you, and by the scientific establishment in general. But if I postulate that an intelligent entity theoretically exists in one of these theoretical places that can manipulate things in this universe, and might be involved in the creation of life, or the evolution of life, on this planet, suddenly this is un-scientific and preposterous because it has the whiff of theism about it.

What do you mean - and yet? Of course they're scienitific. Like I said, they have theoretical physics to back them up - the math works. There is some reason for them to be hypotheses. Of course that makes them science.

Yes - you postulate (imagine) that an entity exists in one of the theoretical places that can manipulate things is NOT scientific - you don't have any reason to suspect that - there is no theoretical physics behind it. So, it's nothing more than me "postulating" that there is a replica of me on a plane in the Andromeda galaxy. Just saying something might exist doesn't make it a scientific theory or a worthwhile hypothesis.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect here? How is my proposition any more incredible than the propositions upon which they are based, nothwithstanding that all of them are unfalsifiable at present?

I see your cognitive disconnect. You seem to equate "M Theory" with dreaming up some being living in an alternate universe. If you can't see the difference, then you've not gone to the library and read a book on M Theory. Trust me. There's a difference. There's a reason that the former is science and the latter is a wild guess.

See that's what Dawkins is talking about - if we're too complex to come about by chance than whatever created us would be too complex to come about by chance. So where did that creator come about from?

There's the flaw: "IF we're too complex to come about by chance..." This is the "irreducible complexity" argument for ID, but that is NOT the only, or even the best argument for intelligent design. That we could come about by chance (evolution) does not mean that we DID come about by chance. That fact leaves open the possibility of intelligent design.

But that's the argument Dawkins was addressing! Criminy! It's the pro-god folks that said and say we're too complex to come about "by chance!" They say we're as likely to be here as a 747 coming out of a hurricane! So, Dawkins demonstrate why THAT is wrong.

Evolution moreover, does not explain how life came about. Evolution doesn't start UNTIL THERE IS ALREADY LIFE. Also, the origin of life on Earth, according to any of the hypotheses about how it formed on the early earth - no such theories of abiogenesis say we came about "by chance."

And, the possibility is always open for intelligent design or dumb design, or whatever - but there isn't any reason to believe it.

And given my hypothesis of an adjacent universe containing an intelligence with sufficient knowledge and ability (or as you say, "power, will and knowledge") could exist even under our existing, presumably scientifically-valid cosmological hypotheses, it is not logical to reject the possibility of vastly more complex and powerful intelligence that might be capable of both creating this universe and meddling in its evolution.

Who is "rejecting" that? Minds are open: why should one accept your theory? Can you show the math?

Pretty much everyone of a "scientific" bent I've presented it to. They all evade the issue by making pretty much precisely the same evasive statements you do.

My arguments have not been evasive. They've been direct and to the point.

Rather than rigorously examining the proposition, they, and you, resort to the "prove it" evasion that demonstrates a poverty of imagination.

How do you rigorously examine the idea that a god exists in another universe? What would you have me do that would constitute "rigor?"

No, I cannot "show the math,"

Because there isn't any. It's not like theoretical physics - ex. M Theory - MTheory has math behind it. It makes sense.

but that doesn't mean that the proposition is unworthy of respect, now does it?

What respect would you have it accorded? Do you want it believed? Why? Why not a 1,000,000 other suppositions? Why not the idea that god is living in Toledo, only you can't tell he's god?

Your sort of evasion is precisely what science complains that religion does in saying "Goddidit." Rather than say, "Interesting, I wonder what such an intelligence might look like," or "I wonder how we might go about detecting an intelligence in an adjacent membrane universe," you wave your arms furiously in denial while shouting "PROVE IT!"

No - I don't. Look - people are out trying to prove if there is an adjacent universe at all. That's the first step. Nobody has done so yet. So, it's impossible to know what's going on in that as yet unproved universe. It may not even be there.

Science isn't about dreaming up idle speculation, like - god's in heaven (which is no more or less scientific than your supposition).

Reading your writing I am very certain that you never studied science. Have you taken any college level physics or chemistry? Biology? Astronomy? Stuff like that? I really don't think you know even how the scientific method works.

Look - I don't believe M Theory either, o.k.? They need to prove it too. The reason it's scientific is because there is theoretical physics behind it. Physicists don't just sit around and close their eyes and meditate on the nature of the universe.

How is this hypothesis in the least bit unscientific, even if it, like all cosmological theories which exist now, is "unfalsifiable?"

In what way does the "math" not work for this hypothesis? What is "supernatural" about any inference I've drawn?

I don't have time to address everything you wrote - but, the math doesn't work because you don't have any math. Theoretical physics - Jesus fucking Christ man - go get a book on theoretic physics - the fucking theory of relativity is MATH, dude. They worked it out. On paper. That's how the formula E=MC2 was arrived at.

You compared your theory to like, M Theory and the like - the reason M Theory deserves respect and yours does not is because at least the M theory has theoretical physics behind it. Criminy, dude.

[Animavore]

Or if you can't be arsed reading it.

[spinoza99]

In the Kitzmiller case, it is not "Intelligent Design" that is an impermissible religious belief that must be kept out of the schools, it is the Dover School Board's version of Creationism that was mendaciously repackaged under the title of "Intelligent Design" and falsely bolstered with a discredited (but not provably false) scientific theory that constitutes the violation of the Establishment Clause. The evidence was quite clear that the Dover School Board intended to insert Creationism, which is an inherently religious belief, into the schools, and it is THAT which is unconstitutional, not a debate about evolution versus intelligent design, which is a completely scientific debate.

Mostly agree. The creationists in Dover didn't know what ID was. They just turned to the scientists to help them out not understanding what Behe, Meyer, Dembski we're all about. That's why Meyer and Dembski dropped out and did not testify and that's why the Discovery Institute refused to work with the creationists.

Creationism is based on the Bible
ID is based on analysis of the genome.

I'll answer Coito's and Hyyer's replies soon but not now.

[Feck]

'ID is based on the genome ' not It's not !

[Hermit]

We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

Just how do you propose we consider things we know not of?

[Seth]

We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

Just how do you propose we consider things we know not of?

Imagination.

[Seth]

Not at all. We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

Nobody denies that, even the dreaded atheists, materialists and scientists. ... However, right now there is just as much reason to believe in pseudomagnetotism as there is to believe in god.

And what about an intelligent entity residing in another universe? I've laid out for you the logical sequence of inferences that support this hypothesis. Does this put it in the same level as pseudomagnetism?

Imagination is quite important in science, because it is imagination, hunches, trial and error, etc., that give rise to many hypotheses that we can then test. Science is also rife with indirect observations. It doesn't have to be directly known in order for it to be part of science. Black holes, for example.

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

As I said, the fundamental answer is "at present."

You seem to have this false impression of science as a methodology that does not allow for knowledge to increase or change. Contrary to your belief, however, science is a mechanism for finding out new stuff. It's all about change.

Not at all. I clearly understand this. Which makes me wonder why you are resisting the notion that there very probably does exist intelligence greater than our own in some other place.

Well, gods must be taken as they come. If someone says, "god is like X, Y and Z" then that hypothesis is tested on that basis. If you say, god exists in an alternative universe and does not involve miracles and supernatural-ness of any kind then that's another sort of god altogether. There's no reason to believe in it, however, until the hypothesis is tested and there is some evidence from which to conclude that it's correct.

Why must gods be "taken as they come?" Why cannot science resolve to investigate god in a rigorously scientific manner?

By "taken as they come" I meant that each god hypothesis is each god hypothesis. The Christian god is one god. Odin is another. They are different hypotheses. If you believe in one, then how easily disproved it is depends on which one. If you say your god lives at the top of Mt. Olympus, then we can go up there and see, or we can use a satellite to observe. Right? How to test a god depends on which god you're talking about.

Again, why? You are merely repeating the Atheist's Fallacy as an excuse for not doing the basic research. As I've said so many times, the theist's claims regarding the nature of an entity that might reasonably be labeled "God" do not define that entity. At best they dimly describe some narrow aspects of such an entity. Science's duty is to cut through all the false and erroneous descriptions and find the core truths, if any, regarding an entity or entities that might meet some objective definition of "God." The fact that we cannot at this time do the testing is in part caused by an unwillingness to even examine the concept in order to figure out how one might go about such investigations precisely because of the ubiquitous resort to the Atheist's Fallacy as an excuse to evade the task.

You don't know how to look for God because nobody has a firm description of what you're looking for or a way to scientifically gather the data because you rely upon the claims of people who don't actually know what God looks like or how to test for God. Do you ask a grocery clerk how to look for subatomic particles? Does an office secretary define the scientific method for anthropological research? No, of course not. Then why would science rely upon the descriptions of God given by theists as a foundation for engaging in scientific research towards answering the scientific question "Does God exist?"

Science can investigate god in a rigorous manner. Many folks are trying. Science isn't some board room though, which approves projects ad hoc. You can set about that rigorous science yourself. Many do. People have written books about it, all trying to prove god methologically, logically, scientifically.

Indeed. I agree. But why is it that anyone who attempts to do so, or who posits, for example, that God (or something like it) may have been involved in designing life of earth is seen as outside the mainstream of science, and in no small number of cases, is vilified and attacked merely for mentioning the words "intelligent design" in a scientific paper?

Your god, like most nowadays, is just an entity placed in an unfalsifiable place. If it can't be tested or falsified, it's worthless.

Is multiverse theory "worthless?" Are membrane universes "falsifiable?"

It's no different then making anything up. Maybe there are 1,000 gods in 1,000 different dimensions? Maybe god is a panther shaped aardvark living on the third moon of the fifth planet of the star farthest away from us in the Milky Way Galaxy. I don't know. But, I do know this - there is no reason to believe in either of those gods, is there?

There's no reason not to believe that such an intelligence exists, or might exist, in this universe or another. I've laid out the series of logical inferences for you. What's not logical about those inferences?

I may have another hypothesis - that god exists right here on Earth, but is sort of like ultraviolent light in that it is undetectable to our senses, and we simply don't have any devices that can detect it yet. He's not in an alternate universe - he is just at present undetectable to our senses or sciences. Why should that hypothesis be taken seriously? Answer - it shouldn't - it's the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. Sure, it might be there, but we have no reason yet to believe it is. If things change, then our beliefs ought to change with it.

"I have this hypothesis that there are very, very small particles which make up all of the physical elements of the universe."

Proved. Tested. Subjected to being falsified. Still falsifiable, technically, although highly doubtful.

That makes my point, not yours. Science is a process for finding out new things. If and when science finds some evidence for reason to believe in a god, like it did with atoms, then I'll reassess my view. Right NOW there is no reason to believe in your hypothesis.

No, right NOW there is no way to test my hypothesis. There is as much reason to believe it as there is to believe in membrane or bubble universes or that black holes evaporate. It's like any scientific speculation that sets forth from known facts and extrapolates and draws logical and rational inferences about what we do not know, based on what we do know.

"I have this hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun."

Again - that proves my point, not yours.

"I have this hypothesis that energy may be used to communicate over long distances."

Again - that proves my point, not yours.

How does the fact that someone figured out radio waves when before people probably thought was impossible support your view.

Because nobody thought it was possible until it was done. And yet the phenomenon existed independent of the incredulity of mankind, did it not? And the phenomenon was investigated by those who had the wealth of imagination not to be turned from the path of reason and logic and careful science by the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Nobody says that things we don't yet know CAN'T be discovered. It's scientists who came up with the theories you are listing, and it's scientists who proved them. Yet you seem to think that it's scientists who don't.

When it comes to God, your resistance to the logical inferences I've drawn regarding the existence of advanced intelligence demonstrates a classic and widespread blind-spot in science connected with the word "God." It's an unwillingness to seriously consider the very ideal, much less attempt to find a way to scientifically investigate the question. I observe this same reluctance to give any credence to any proposition that might lead to the discovery of God in most atheists I debate with. This is not a universal attribute of scientists, however, because there are many, many millions of scientists who do believe in God, and science, at the same time. As you point out, there are those who are attempting to investigate the question of God in a scientific manner, but it's also true that the conceits of mainstream science pretty thoroughly reject such investigations out of hand, and few who engage in such investigations are respected to any degree by their peers. And in some cases, careers are destroyed because such propositions are investigated.

Every one of those hypotheses was initially rejected by "science," and was later proven to be true.

No - it was initially not believed until it was proved. And, of course it would be. There is no "rejection" - what do you think this is?

The history of science is filled with rejection and disbelief.

A patent office where beliefs are submitted and then given an "approve" or "reject" stamp? There are fierce battles within science about what theory is true and what is false - just look at the cosmological constant - the steady state vs. expanding universe - M Theory and Brane theory/string theory - etc.

Just because some things were ultimately proven and developed doesn't mean we just believe anything anybody dreams up. The reason science works is because we DON'T "just believe" stuff and go with it. We make people do the work, and prove it.

Indeed. And sometimes you destroy the people who are trying to prove it because, well, reputations are at stake. Scientists are human, and they can be as venal and selfish as anyone else, and there is plenty of evidence of scientific fraud and suppression in the record to prove that science is not always entirely rational and logical in its progress.

The key is the word "yet."

So, where's the "God Squad?" Where's the scientific discipline dedicated to detecting, quantifying and explaining God?

People investigate what they want. Plenty of folks are investigating gods. I've seen many books written about the subject. Plenty of people calling themselves scientists - like Behe - the Discovery Institute and all those folks are part of the gods squad.

There you go. Behe "calls" himself a scientist. Is he, or isn't he? Does he have advanced degrees in science or doesn't he? Do you impugn him because you want him to "do the work," or do you impugn him because his claims disagree with your preconceptions on the matter?

Must EVERYONE be involved? Are you not happy until Hawking changes focus from his cosmology and physics to gods?

I'm happy when scientists do their jobs and don't bash other scientists just because they don't like the claims being made.

And, you really have to look at the difference in the kinds of hypotheses out there. Saying "I have a theory that there are little particles that make up everything that are invisible" is something could be tested, worked with and investigate - proved or falsified. When you offer the hypothesis that a god lives in an as yet unknown alternate universe (of which we have no evidence) and lives there - how do you propose someone test it? How should they investigate it?

I haven't a fucking clue. That's not my job. We may have to wait a long time before the technology and knowledge of our universe is detailed enough to do the work. But the fact that we cannot now do the work and test the existence of God, or something god-like, somewhere, somewhen, does not render the hypothesis invalid on its face. And you'll note that I don't call it "god," I speculate that it is merely a vastly advanced intelligence that we might rationally refer to as "god." But you let your skeptical, atheist preconceptions about God creep in at every turn, which affects your ability to reason.

In one respect, they already are - theoretical physicists are trying to figure out how to prove different dimensions and whether more than one universe exists or can exist. Before you could find a god in another universe, you'd have to find that universe. So, anyone involved in M-Theory, I guess, is part your gods squad.

Indeed.

Where's the rigor in even trying to scientifically DEFINE god?

How would you propose to do this?

Not my department. I'm just the idea guy.

More importantly, where is the simple peer respect for those who DO try to examine the matter of God's existence in a scientific manner, even when they are wrong?

Whose not getting their due? Behe?

Since when does scientific thinking involve trashing reputations and destroying careers for having the temerity to use the term "intelligent design" in a scientific paper?

Example? Proved proof this, please.

Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University
Robert Crowther September 5, 2007 9:10 AM | Permalink

According to CSC senior fellow and leading ID theorist William Dembski, what follows is:

"[A] big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID. Robert Marks is a world-class expert in the field of evolutionary computing, and yet the Baylor administration, without any consideration of the actual content of Marks's work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, decided to shut it down simply because there were anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design."

The Lynching of Bill Dembski:
Scientists say the jury is out--so let the hanging begin.
By: Fred Heeren
The American Spectator
November 15, 2000


http://www.spectator.org/archives/0011T ... en0011.htm

Mathematician William Dembski stands accused of bringing shame upon a major university. Not only that, say his colleagues, he has managed to disgrace the entire scientific enterprise.

Scientists from distant universities wrote letters to the editors of his university newspaper, and biologists spoke up through the surrounding city papers, telling the public why this man must be stopped. When Dembski organized an academic conference, one incensed professor from another state sent long e-mails to the scheduled speakers, seeking to discredit Dembski and convincing one famed philosopher to cancel.

The faculty senate of his own Baylor University voted 26 to 2 to recommend that his research center be dismantled. Eight members of Baylor’s science departments wrote Congress about the dangers of Dembski’s project, and several briefings on the issues were made before a bipartisan group of congressional members and staff.

Plus - what does that have to do with believing in stuff without any reason or evidence?

What's "unreasonable" about my chain of logical inferences based on existing evidence?

The conceits of mainstream science when it comes to "intelligent design" are every bit as intolerantly bigoted as anything the Inquisition had to say. And they are just as wrong.

Intelligent design is not science.

Which version?

Intelligent design of living organisms on this planet exists. That is scientific fact.

Artificial selection, yes. And, perhaps construction of artificial organisms soon.

IOW, intelligent design.

Now it's up to you to prove that it did not or could not have happened in the past,

That's not how science works in any other area. It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to the proponent of a theory to prove their theory.

The theory of intelligent design is proven. Organisms can be intelligently designed. That's a fact. If it can be done today, it could have been done yesterday by an entity at least as intelligent as human beings. There is no reason to believe such entities have not existed before. You're evading the logical chain of inference by using the "I don't have to do anything, the burden of proof is on you." canard.
You cannot even bring yourself to admit that the chain of logical inferences is correct, because that would impeach the notion that intelligent design is not "science."

through some agency other than human intellect, in order to legitimately claim that "natural" evolution is the sole mechanism through which life began and evolved on Earth.

No - the theory of evolution does not explain how life began.

Exactly.

It explains how life changed over time on earth, after it already existed.

No, it THEORIZES how life MIGHT HAVE CHANGED over time. It explains ONE METHOD of such change called "natural evolution." It doesn't begin to demonstrate that this is the only process involved. We know for a fact that natural evolution is NOT the only means by which organisms change their genetic structure. Therefore, intelligent design is not only a fact, but it may have been a fact clear back at the very beginning of life on earth.

Theories of abiogenesis are still being worked on. It's not quite known yet how the first life originated on Earth.

Um, it will NEVER BE KNOWN with any degree of certainty, absent the existence of a time machine that can take us back to observe the event, how life ACTUALLY originated on Earth. The best science will ever be able to do is produce evidence of how life COULD have originated. And since we have absolute proof that evolution can be intelligently designed, all that demonstrating how to produce a living organism from non-living matter in a laboratory will prove is that life CAN BE created by intelligent design. Science cannot ever prove that "natural processes" actually lead to life emerging on this, or any other planet. It can only provide a rational inference about the possible origin of life based on observations of natural phenomena replicated in the lab. I suppose with an infinite amount of time available, a scientist could throw together a beaker full of chemical precursors to life and sit and watch to see if life emerges, but that seems like a low-probability event. But the possibility of intelligent creation of life on earth will always remain, and cannot ever be successfully refuted or discarded, as a logical function of our own advances in scientific understanding and our ability to manipulate matter and energy.

I have presented a plausible explanation for at least some of the phenomena or beliefs that exist regarding a "supreme being" or "god" that does not require anything remotely supernatural. But rather than examine the hypothesis for logical and scientific validity, it's simply discarded, as you do, by saying it's outside the "worldview based on questions we can answer," as if that it's even remotely logical and scientific reasoning to reject a hypothesis simply because there is no present method of falsifying it.

You present no way to test it, and I can't see a way to test it. You place your god in a place where it can't be tested. It's therefore unfalsifiable. What do you expect anyone to do with it?

Is there a way to test for the existence of membrane universes, or bubble universes, or multiverses? Is there a way to test to see if microscopic black holes evaporate, as Hawking suggests?

They're trying to figure out ways to test those, and there may be.

Right. But you deny that it's worthwhile to try to figure out if intelligence exists in such a hypothetical universe. Why is that? What is so scary to you about the prospect of an advanced intelligence from another universe capable of manipulating time, space, matter and energy in this universe that you reject the hypothesis out of hand, even though it's no less improbable than membrane universe theory?

Until then, those theories are not believed.

But they are being believed, at least to the extent that people are spending their careers working on them, and they are being given substantial credence and respect by their peers for doing so. Why is the notion of an intelligence in one of those universes being so arrogantly dismissed merely because it is not more provable than 'brane theory?

string theory - m theory, etc., are all basically hypotheses.

Yup. Hypotheses provide by science that don't involve having to think about something we might have to call "God." Inject such a notion, which is as plausible as the underlying theory, and it's rejected out of hand because it's not "falsifiable."

The one thing they have that your gods theory doesn't have is math. They worked those theories out with physics - equations - numbers.

How do you know that advanced extra-universal intelligence is not mathematically determinable? Have you even tried to calculate God? Nope, you haven't.

As to what I expect, I expect science to give consideration to the fundamentally scientific question of whether or not God exists, which is something that even Dawkins admits is a matter for science. No, this does not mean turning all of the resources of science towards this inquiry, but it certainly means not simply dismissing the line of inquiry as "unscientific" and not oppressing and silencing those who do choose to investigate that line if inquiry.

People calling themselves scientists are doing the work you want them to do.

And there's the narrow-minded conceit I'm talking about right there. Thanks for laying it out so graphically.

Their work is unpersuasive and religiously motivated, quite obviously to me, but they're doing it.

I bet that's been said before by "scientists" who eventually had to eat their words.

But this sort of hand-waving rejection does exactly what you're doing, which is to imply that the universe is somehow limited to our understanding of it, and that we cannot go beyond our present scientific understanding because it's not "scientific" to even speculate about that which we cannot yet detect, quantify and explain. Again, this is a poverty of imagination that's rife at least in these sorts of fora.

It's not necessarily poverty of imagination. I can imagine lots of things. That doesn't mean each one is an equally plausible theory. However, based on your logic, we would have to consider all imaginings to be equivalent.

I've said nothing of the kind. Equivalency is not demanded, consideration is. Simple logic and reason, which are supposed to be core components of scientific rigor, require that the proposition that a vastly superior intelligence capable of manipulating time, space, matter or energy in this universe might exist, be given a place at the table and not be dismissed out of hand, and that those who choose to follow such lines of reasoning be given the respect they are due as scientists. [/quote]

And, considering the gods question - there isn't any reason at present to believe in any of them, including your alternate universe god.

Is there any reason to believe in 'brane universe theory? Why is this not being rejected as silly, unscientific speculation? As for my "alternate universe god," note how you again reject the notion outright even though there is a perfectly rational and logical chain of inferences that point to the existence of intelligence elsewhere because the discussion somehow relates to "god?"

The god question is not dismissed "out of hand"

You just did it, again, in your preceding sentence.

- there are many books on the subject by many authors. If your complaint is that Hawking and Dawkins and Feinman don't buy your imagining of a god in an alternate universe, then I can't help you there.

Strange, because Dawkins admits that there may be an advanced extra-galactic intelligence, he just doesn't want to face that as a potential reality for the explanation of the origin or advancement of life on earth.

And, the guys like Behe and the folks at the discovery institute are, in my view, given all the respect THAT THEY ARE DUE.

See, there's that conceit I was referring to.

Science does not limit itself to that which we can now detect, quantify and explain. The Black Hole is a perfect example. It was first calculated on paper through Einstein's theory of relativity. It was understood, however, to be theoretical until indirect observations proved its existence. We still can't "see"one.

Precisely my point.

No it isn't. Look - before there was proof of the big bang it was a mathematical calculation that resulted from relativity. So, it had that basis - it followed from things we knew to be true. But people didn't "believe" in it.

WHEN YOU SHOW WHERE THE THEORETICAL PHYSICS IS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD THEN YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING OF A COMPARISON. Until then, you just have a dream.

I have shown the theoretical basis for belief that intelligence exists elsewhere in the universe based on known scientific fact. I extend the logic to other universes based on the theoretical physics of others who have, as you say, found a mathematical basis for believing that other universes exist. What's "dreamlike" about hypothesizing that if intelligence exists in this universe, intelligence is likely to exist in other universes?

You see - people didn't just dream up a black holes just out of thin air - there was reason to suspect them based on what we already knew. The math worked. But, nobody "believed"i n them until there was proof. Now it's pretty conclusive that there are black holes around. Before the proof, however, people even suspected something was wrong with relativity.

The god question is not like that at all - nobody has any math about it. Nobody has any reason to suspect it's there. It's just a wild imagining, at present.

Really? Nobody has any math for the existence of intelligence in this universe? Nobody has any reason to suspect that intelligence does not exist in this universe? Really?

That's the same thing with the multiverse theories that are out there. They're pretty much paper theories - they are theoretical physics and the math works to one degree or another. That doesn't mean we believe it, yet. We need some evidence, direct or indirect, that reality is consistent with the theoretical physics.

And yet both are "scientific" and are accepted as "scientific" by you, and by the scientific establishment in general. But if I postulate that an intelligent entity theoretically exists in one of these theoretical places that can manipulate things in this universe, and might be involved in the creation of life, or the evolution of life, on this planet, suddenly this is un-scientific and preposterous because it has the whiff of theism about it.

What do you mean - and yet? Of course they're scienitific. Like I said, they have theoretical physics to back them up - the math works. There is some reason for them to be hypotheses. Of course that makes them science.

Yes - you postulate (imagine) that an entity exists in one of the theoretical places that can manipulate things is NOT scientific - you don't have any reason to suspect that - there is no theoretical physics behind it. So, it's nothing more than me "postulating" that there is a replica of me on a plane in the Andromeda galaxy. Just saying something might exist doesn't make it a scientific theory or a worthwhile hypothesis.

What's not scientific about making rational inferences based on known facts? Intelligence exists in this universe. The intelligent entities in this universe have the capacity to manipulate matter and energy, though not yet time and space. Is there any rational basis upon which to conclude that intelligence like our own is precluded by the physics of another universe? Is there any rational basis upon which to conclude that our present state of intelligence is naturally limited by the physics of our universe? Is there any rational basis upon which to conclude that the intelligence of an entity in another universe is naturally limited by the physics of that universe? Is there any rational basis upon which to base the conclusion that no intelligence more advanced than our own, which might be more capable of manipulating time, space, matter and energy can possibly exist in any other universe?

I have many reasons to suspect the existence of intelligence, and even advanced intelligence not only elsewhere in THIS universe, but also in any other universe that happens to exist. The primary reason being that I know that intelligence exists here and now in this universe in this galaxy, in this solar system, on this planet. Therefore, there is absolutely NO scientific reason to believe that intelligence does NOT exist elswhere.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect here? How is my proposition any more incredible than the propositions upon which they are based, nothwithstanding that all of them are unfalsifiable at present?

I see your cognitive disconnect. You seem to equate "M Theory" with dreaming up some being living in an alternate universe. If you can't see the difference, then you've not gone to the library and read a book on M Theory. Trust me. There's a difference. There's a reason that the former is science and the latter is a wild guess.

Sooooo. Erm.... The entire SETI project is unscientific nonsensical "dreaming?" I'm sure the project leaders and members will be most distressed to learn that they've been wasting their time because you have determined that their search for extraterrestrial intelligence is delusional nonsense with no foundation in science or fact.

See that's what Dawkins is talking about - if we're too complex to come about by chance than whatever created us would be too complex to come about by chance. So where did that creator come about from?

There's the flaw: "IF we're too complex to come about by chance..." This is the "irreducible complexity" argument for ID, but that is NOT the only, or even the best argument for intelligent design. That we could come about by chance (evolution) does not mean that we DID come about by chance. That fact leaves open the possibility of intelligent design.

But that's the argument Dawkins was addressing! Criminy! It's the pro-god folks that said and say we're too complex to come about "by chance!" They say we're as likely to be here as a 747 coming out of a hurricane! So, Dawkins demonstrate why THAT is wrong.

Yup. Although since science has never actually demonstrated how the bacterial lancet evolved into the bacterial flagellum, there is still the possibility that an intelligence used the basic protein building blocks that existed in the bacterial lancet just as Detroit uses the basic building blocks of technology like nuts and bolts and bearings to create the rotating flagellum. Now, when some scientist can create a rotating flagellum out of the basic building blocks of the lancet, he will have demonstrated....oh wait, he will have demonstrated that intelligence can design a flagellum from the components of a lancet. Oops.

Dawkins has only theorized how life could have evolved and has claimed that this is the most "satisfactory" explanation for the events, but it's only "satisfactory" because it precludes intelligent design, which Dawkins finds to be inherently unsatisfactory because it conflicts with his anti-religious bigotry.

Evolution moreover, does not explain how life came about. Evolution doesn't start UNTIL THERE IS ALREADY LIFE.

Yup. Exactly.

Also, the origin of life on Earth, according to any of the hypotheses about how it formed on the early earth - no such theories of abiogenesis say we came about "by chance."

And, the possibility is always open for intelligent design or dumb design, or whatever - but there isn't any reason to believe it.

Nor is there any reason not to believe it. It's an open question, and that's how rational scientists ought to view it. "Hm, abiogenesis...coulda been natural, coulda been the result of intelligent action. We'll never really know, so I suppose it's worth remaining open-minded about it in case evidence pointing either direction eventually shows up."

And given my hypothesis of an adjacent universe containing an intelligence with sufficient knowledge and ability (or as you say, "power, will and knowledge") could exist even under our existing, presumably scientifically-valid cosmological hypotheses, it is not logical to reject the possibility of vastly more complex and powerful intelligence that might be capable of both creating this universe and meddling in its evolution.

Who is "rejecting" that? Minds are open: why should one accept your theory? Can you show the math?

Pretty much everyone of a "scientific" bent I've presented it to. They all evade the issue by making pretty much precisely the same evasive statements you do.

My arguments have not been evasive. They've been direct and to the point.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

Rather than rigorously examining the proposition, they, and you, resort to the "prove it" evasion that demonstrates a poverty of imagination.

How do you rigorously examine the idea that a god exists in another universe? What would you have me do that would constitute "rigor?"

Dunno. Not my department. I suppose it would begin by figuring out how to detect other universes. Get on that, willya?

Your sort of evasion is precisely what science complains that religion does in saying "Goddidit." Rather than say, "Interesting, I wonder what such an intelligence might look like," or "I wonder how we might go about detecting an intelligence in an adjacent membrane universe," you wave your arms furiously in denial while shouting "PROVE IT!"

No - I don't. Look - people are out trying to prove if there is an adjacent universe at all. That's the first step. Nobody has done so yet. So, it's impossible to know what's going on in that as yet unproved universe. It may not even be there.

Correct. And supposing that such a universe is found, do you suppose that hypothesizing that intelligence may exist in that universe is an unscientific proposition?

Science isn't about dreaming up idle speculation, like - god's in heaven (which is no more or less scientific than your supposition).

See, there you go injecting theism into a scientific debate. Have you ever asked yourself why you do that?

Reading your writing I am very certain that you never studied science. Have you taken any college level physics or chemistry? Biology? Astronomy? Stuff like that? I really don't think you know even how the scientific method works.

Personal attack is a very weak form of argumentation, don't you agree?

Look - I don't believe M Theory either, o.k.? They need to prove it too. The reason it's scientific is because there is theoretical physics behind it. Physicists don't just sit around and close their eyes and meditate on the nature of the universe.

Actually, I'm rather thoroughly convinced that they do so quite regularly. That's a precursor to doing the math, don't you see?

How is this hypothesis in the least bit unscientific, even if it, like all cosmological theories which exist now, is "unfalsifiable?"

In what way does the "math" not work for this hypothesis? What is "supernatural" about any inference I've drawn?

I don't have time to address everything you wrote - but, the math doesn't work because you don't have any math. Theoretical physics - Jesus fucking Christ man - go get a book on theoretic physics - the fucking theory of relativity is MATH, dude. They worked it out. On paper. That's how the formula E=MC2 was arrived at.

What's the math that explains human intelligence? Use that math as a starting point for hypothesizing about extrauniversal intelligence.

You compared your theory to like, M Theory and the like - the reason M Theory deserves respect and yours does not is because at least the M theory has theoretical physics behind it. Criminy, dude.

Interestingly, the existence of intelligence has more than theoretical physics behind it. This appears to have escaped you. Why is that?

[MiM]

Russels Teacup, dammit.
We have positive proof that teacups exist, and we have the technology to send one to Saturn. That does not mean we believe there is one orbiting Saturn right now. Showing that something is possible is not enough to form a theory, or anything to hold a belief on. You need positive evidence for that.

[Seth]

Russels Teacup, dammit.
We have positive proof that teacups exist, and we have the technology to send one to Saturn. That does not mean we believe there is one orbiting Saturn right now. Showing that something is possible is not enough to form a theory, or anything to hold a belief on. You need positive evidence for that.

So, membrane universes and bubble universes are not scientific hypotheses, right? And those who theorize about them are delusional "universists" right?