[yequalsx]

We both agree the process exists. The overwhelming evidence is that species evolve over time. We can conclude that this is the process that won out evolutionarily or that God did it.

I suggest God did it requires the most faith and incidentally more likely leads to a stifling of curiosity. God did it might possibly be true but it is the refuge of the incurious. It can be used at every turn. It can be used to answer all 'why?' questions. And thus it is singularly the most incorrect answer in history. That's why God did it requires the most faith. It has been wrong so often that I wonder why it hasn't been discarded for the intellectual crutch that it is.

[ricksharp]

(I apologize for the long post. I hope it is thought provoking nonetheless.)

I think it is useful to consider the difference between "Who made this?" and "How was this made?"

As a coder, when I see a program that achieves something I didn't know was possible, it makes me very interested in how it was accomplished. I say, "Great job, that is awesome. How did you do that? Where is the source code?"

In the same way, I see the complexity of life: the required components and all the intricate processes (Search for ""Inner Life of a Cell" on Youtube, it's really amazing).

I try to comprehend the level of complexity and I quickly realize that even Scientific Notation cannot express it appropriately.

So, when I appreciate the Creator and say, "Well done, that is insanely awesome!" I also say, "How did you do that?" "How was that made?" "How does this work?" "What can I do with it?" "Can I hack it to do something else?"

---

As far as complexity of faith, the difference is a matter of simple set theory:

Define 2 Sets:

- All things that are made (the Universe) (U)

- All things that are not made (the Eternal) (E)

You have stated that it requires more faith to believe that there are 2 sets (U,E). However, it could be argued that absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of one set (E) requires a stronger choice of faith.

Also, the 2 sets (U,E) makes sense to me, but I see a contradiction in the single set (U only).

It's simple logic:

If (U only) is the set of all things that are made, then the question begs to be answered: "Where did it come from?"

If (U,E), then the answer is obvious: The set of all things that was made (U), came from the set of things that were never made (E).

I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U.

Also, beyond basic logic, if we consider the theory of the big bang which fits with out measurements of an infinitely accelerating expanding universe: The big bang itself points to a specific point in time where the Universe began (or at least was transformed from a singleton to an accelerating expansion).

So if you limit the choice to only (U), again you are faced with a question, "What prompted the initial bang?"

One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal.

In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed (something like the Bang-Bang Theory). However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe.

Everything we can measure indicates the universe had a beginning and that it will continue to accelerate it's expansion infinitely.

So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God).

And that makes me even more curious: I want to explore all the beauty inside the box because now I have someone to direct my appreciation to say, "Well done! That's amazing!".

[gnaritas]

> I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U.

Your logic boils down to the fallacy of special pleading and thus fails. You can't define God into existence by calling him eternal and avoiding the question of where he came from.

> One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal.

That is the only logical choice.

> In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed

No we would not, that an eternal cycle might exist does not imply it can be observed or detected.

> However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe.

Untrue, if it expands out to nothingness, nothingness itself is prime to create a big bang as nothing is not a quantum stable state. The real answer is we don't know.

> So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God).

There's nothing remotely logical about that, you've just invoked special pleading and presumed creation by something is necessary when we in fact know it is not. The universe just is, that's the only logical conclusion we can make from the available evidence. You've dressed up a logical fallacy in set math to perhaps try and make it seem reasonable, but it isn't, it's just bad logic.

[ricksharp]

A good example of special pleading would be saying:

- Nothing can exist that wasn't made - Except the universe: it wasn't made

---

If one says "the universe just is" one cannot claim logical superiority to the statement "(E) just is".

[gnaritas]

Yes, but no one but you is saying nothing can exist that wasn't made; that's a statement of faith, not one based on evidence. We already know it's factually wrong, quantum mechanics has already shown particles spring into and out of existence randomly.

Beyond that, you can't claim special pleading on my part and still argue it's OK for God to exist without being made, that's special pleading. All special pleading is fallacious. None of my statements are special pleading, I haven't claimed nothing can exist without being made. That's one of your premises, not one from the science argument.

> If one says "the universe just is" one cannot claim logical superiority to the statement "(E) just is".

Yes one can for one simple reason, the universe's existence is not in question, therefore stating that it just is is logically superior to stating that E just is as E, i.e. God, is not known to exist and thus that statement is begging the question.

More simply put, you can't prove God exists with math, math doesn't always map to reality. Existence requires evidence in science, math never serves as proof of physics absent physical evidence, it can only serve as a guide in looking for corroborating evidence.

Ultimately however, the main point I'm making is that your logical analysis is fallacious, it boils down to nothing more than special pleading and the baseless presumption that things require a creator.

[joesb]

First, you have to define "made". Does fire make ash? What was the fire thinking when it was making ash?

Also, why define the "eternal one" as God. That eternal one may be so simple, and dumb, like that DNA replicating machine.

Usually "God" implies conscience. Are you okay with brainless God? And if you are okay with brainless God, then the word God has become meaningless, because now God can't even think, it surely then isn't God of any religion.

[yequalsx]

Thank you for your response. I do not deny that god could possibly exist. I don't currently believe that god does exist but I recognize that it is possible. I do deny the logic given in the post I responded to. If someone believes that god exists and said god is vastly more complex and intelligent than we are then they can not logically argue that god exists because we are sufficiently complicated and therefore must have been created whilst believing that god is not created.

i think that all reasonable people believe something has to have existed that wasn't created. It is a bad argument to say we have to have been created because of our complexity.

It appears you choose or have been led to conclude that god exists and it the uncreated thing. I have been led to conclude that matter/energy is the uncreated thing. I do not wish to persuade someone that god doesn't exist. I wish to persuade someone from making a very bad logical argument.

[ricksharp]

Ah, yeah I see what you mean.

If one argues that the level of observed complexity cannot come from randomness alone and therefore must have been created by an external actor, then how does the external actor have sufficient complexity to create the complex universe.

So going back to my notation of (U - things made) and (E - things not made).

If (E) made (U) then where did (E) get enough complexity?

The only conclusion is the complexity in (E) is eternal also.

In plain words, that would imply that if God exists, then He would be eternally complex of complexity >= universal complexity.

Thank you for pointing that out, that's cool to think about.

[yequalsx]

You believe that god exists or has existed. You believe god is complex. You believe that god did not have a creator and did not come from something. Therefore you believe it is possible for complicated things to exist without being created. We are in agreement on this. Namely, complexity does not imply creation.

In the same my statement, "god's existence begs the question, who made him?" is not valid to you your question who made matter is not valid to me. The question implies creation and both of us believes that something wasn't created. We just differ on what thing is.

[ricksharp]

Yes, I agree.

Both systems are logically consistent so there would need to be other reasons to choose one or the other.

If there is an (E) the only possible way we would have of knowing - would be if (E) communicated somehow and provided evidence.

Even if one considered complexity as evidence it would not be sufficient or specific about (E).

In my case, the evidence that leads me to conclude that (E) does exist has little to do with the complexity of life.

Anyway, thanks for your time and thoughts. I especially appreciate your insight about the requirement of eternal complexity in my point of view. That will give me something to think about for quite a while to ponder it's implications.

[crusso]

What are elements in this Eternal set? I would posit that the Eternal set is composed of things we don't yet understand or are unnecessary entities.

If you're wanting to look at this as a set problem, let's take the set U as the Universe of everything that we see evidence for and the Occam's razor understanding of things required to precede U.

Now take G as the set that is God - capable of not only creating U, but loving us each individually through some telephathic means, and creating an everlasting existence for each believer in some sort of eternal afterlife.

Belief in U + G requires much more accommodation than just belief in U.

[ricksharp]

Well, I didn't say anything about the quality of set (E), only that it makes sense to consider the possibility of it, especially when there is an apparent contradiction in the (U only) set.

I agree that specific beliefs about the Eternal=God would require much faith since (E) is by definition outside the box (U), and therefore beyond our reach of scientific experimentation.

There might be avenues where (E) could communicate with members of (U), but that is a different discussion. I would recommend as much evidence as possible should be pursued in verifying any specific claims about (E).

---

Going back to your first point, I understand that you are saying that there could exist a set (U+O) = all things that are made and all things that preceded it (Occam's Razor).

So that would make it equivalent to the (U=E) set which I mentioned.

Another words, if something exists in the set of things that are made, it was also made, which was made, recursively.

However, when we consider the Big Bang, then something spontaneously prompted the singleton to transform into an infinite expansion.

From this observation, the only possibilities I see are that either the universe was affected by an external actor (E) or the universe itself is eternal and cyclical and the singleton was a temporary state (Bang-Bang theory).

Logically, I don't see a contradiction in either possibility.

However, I do see an extreme difference in quality:

If (E):

Things in (U) have the possibility of eternal significance and stuff actually matters:

- Love - Relationships - Death - Work - Exploration - Joy - Suffering - Eternal Life is a Possibility

If no (E):

On the other hand, if we are simply existing in a cyclically eternal universe, then absolutely nothing matters. We are simply a dot on an infinite timeline. Our atoms will be scattered across empty dark space in an infinitely expanding universe. All is entropy and darkness. Meaning is an illusion.

If the second is true, we don't act like it and we lock away the people who do.

[crusso]

On the other hand, if we are simply existing in a cyclically eternal universe, then absolutely nothing matters

So the only way that anything matters is if you personally live forever?

[ricksharp]

No, I meant that something I do only matters if it has permanent consequence.

If, no matter what I do, every atom I have ever encountered is doomed to be scattered across empty space, then any effort of my part is without long-term effect.

For example after the sun goes supernova and burns out as the universe accelerates its expansion to nothingness. In that picture, we are nothing but a dot on a quickly passing timeline. (In this case, all meaning is an illusion and purely subjective. Objective meaning doesn't exist.)

On the other hand, if what I do does affect eternity, then my actions matter whether I live forever or not.

(Of course, if living forever is an option, that's even better.)

[crusso]

It really depends on how you define "meaning". Is there meaning to treating a dog with love and respect even though it has no eternal future? How about the kindnesses we do for others - even though they may not notice and they certainly won't recognize us for doing them?

I think we make our own meaning in our every actions - regardless of whether or not those effects last for an eternity... which even with belief in a creator of the universe, there's no reason to believe that physics doesn't rule the universe and that it's not headed for heat death.

One way that I like to think of my permanence in the universe is that there's no reason to believe that every thing we do isn't recorded in time. Sure, our consciousness seems to exist only in the present - but perhaps the existence of our lives isn't totally lost in some form. Perhaps this moment of my typing these thoughts will exist as long as our universe does. Could they be accessed at least in read-only form one day by a future civilization? Maybe.

[jtbayly]

Actually, this was a "how" question.

[ethbro]

How does "natural selection of sufficiently reliable reproductive methods" not describe the most likely pathway?

[jcims]

I think this is more around the mechanisms of abiogenesis rather than how a single celled organism became Brock Lesnar.

The process detailed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE) no doubt has been refined through evolutionary pressures, but even the earliest of organisms must have had something similar take place in order for the traits encoded into DNA to be passed from generation to generation. This mechanism is something we can barely observe with the most advanced technology available to us, let alone reproduce or synthesize on our own. I think this is what the original question was about, where did that first process come from?

[ethbro]

I was under the impression that RNA replication was simpler and therefore likely to be the predecessor of DNA-copying organisms.

As for how: chance.

Given a bubbling stew of organic compounds with chemical energy gradients available, eventually a random reaction created something with the ability to self-replication.

Almost irrelevant of how simple / ineffective / unreliable that method was, it represented a huge advantage (in the numerical offspring sense) over sheer random reactions. This life therefore dominated and exploited the available energy to reproduce.

Then mutation begat mutation, as selection picked favorable traits and more and more complex systems of encoding and reproducing traits developed.

I'm not saying it's been proven (to my knowledge), but it seems reasonable given what we know. And moreover I don't see any "the beginning must have been fundamentally different than business as usual" requirement for whatever happened. As Ian Malcolm says, "Life finds a way."

[ricksharp]

What do you think of the point made in this video about the mathematical improbability of making a single protein by chance?

https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

I've always heard people just assume it would happen given enough time, but I haven't seen anybody actually calculate the probabilities and deal with the real numbers.

Also, beyond the video, the simplest bacteria we have been able to discover/modify requires around 200 different types of proteins to function (numbering in the 100,000s all together in their specific arrangement inside a cell membrane.)

This is the minimal viable life form we know, yet just to randomly construct a single protein from amino acids would take a practically infinite amount of time given all the resources of the known universe.

Then 100,000s of those proteins have to randomly find themselves inside a cell membrane...

People are quick to dismiss complexity philosophically, but it just avoids the reality of it.

The numbers are so far beyond astronomical they make astronomical numbers look like basic arithmetic.

Anyway, I was hoping you could provide some feedback on whether you think the math is accurate and why it should or should not be considered.

[yequalsx]

Flip a coin 100,000 times. Make a list of the results. Now go to someone and say, "what's the probability of me ever flipping this sequence?" It's quite close to zero. But you did flip it. Calculating probabilities for things that have happened by asking what's the probability of it ever occurring again can be misleading.

[yellowapple]

That doesn't describe the pathway; it describes the result.