My point was that if this story did not happen at all, then it would directly challenge the divinity of Christ because of what he said about that event as well as Noah’s flood. The common design model is derived from the Genesis account that Jesus suggested is true.
A testable common design model is essentially providing an indirect way of testing for the divinity of Christ. So we actually can address this scientifically despite what you said. In fact, I can bring up quotes from scientists who have contested what Jesus said, which shows that it is scientific.
Did you though? I only vaguely remember you commenting on this and I think it was pretty brief. Can you elaborate on your objection or at least copy and paste what you said before?
No no no, you are misunderstanding what I said again about having falsifiable predictions versus a falsifiable hypothesis.
When I suggested that your objection was much more profound and devastating if it was not adequately addressed, I was talking about in terms of verifying the hypothesis. If God does not have a human nature in a similar fashion , then we can’t use the human observer as part of the experiment in order to verify or falsify the prediction that a universal common designer guided evolution entirely or provide falsifiable predictions. In other words, there would not be a common design model.
But, we can still disprove this hypothesis altogether and Sean Carrol described that way in the video. Now, if you feel that I misinterpreted him, then please explain how because he is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics, which is what my hypothesis is fundamentally based on NOT information theory.
Right, but my argument is based on it. Instead of accepting this, you associate my argument with ID theorists who base their entire argument on information theory. Again, your objection and expertise in information theory only applies to the part of my theory that argues for a common designer rather than a generic intelligent designer that has an unknown nature about it.
No, Penrose was referring to a contingent human mind in that piece.
I have actually changed the hypothesis recently to try to be more cohesive and thus, falsifiable rather than unfalsifiable like you suggested. Here it is…
“Quantum Consciousness is a vital mechanism that causes life on earth to change over time”
Definition of Quantum consciousness: non-local choice to create and move particles
Definition of life: digital information in the form of math
Same here. I am assuming that Jesus Christ has acted as the fundamental cause for life to change over time on earth since he is the only human we know of that is both divine and human.
And ,remember, this is not based on an assumption upon another assumption. It is an assumption based on an inference that is derived from previous experiments and observations that I argued suggest a Divine consciousness created life.
However, this Divine consciousness would have to be human or a common designer like us in order to make and justify the connection between Jesus and the intelligent designer that created life in the first place.
This is why I am looking forward to your information theory objection where you explain why those studies do not show how DNA and human language are analogous or that this analogy was only meant as a metaphor.
Remember, they don’t have to be the “same” in order for the argument to work. They just have to show strong similarities in a non-metaphorical way.
Why? Are we not allowed to make our own arguments now?
Try writing in complete sentences. It’s somewhat more likely that you would make sense if you did. Try that now, and start over.
So now you have to tell us what you think the Genesis account says. Go ahead. Is the universe 6000 years old? Were plants created a day before the sun was? What is a “kind”? How do we recognize them? And so on. No, your model so far goes into no detail, which is one reason it’s neither testable nor scientific. You have yet to deal with any data.
Well, let’s be careful here. Surely singing “Oh what a beautiful morning” is a good deal more scientific than any hypothesis concerning “common design” which anyone has attempted to advance in this thread.
Your argument is circular. You are using the assumed truth of your beliefs to show your beliefs are true. I don’t mean that is a critical way, it’s just the nature of religious belief.
That’s exactly what science cannot do. There are no exceptions or indirect workarounds. If you maintain that there are, then you should be able to cite undisputed examples.
In fact, I can bring up quotes from scientists who have contested what Jesus said, which shows that it is scientific.
??? Obviously false. If a scientist contests a parking ticket, does that make it scientific? No.
I didn’t wish to get technical, and I won’t. Briefly, Shannon Information is a measure of the average bandwidth needed to carry messages from a source to a receiver. In statistics this is the variance of a population. If you have ever calculated the standard deviation of a sample, you have also estimated the Shannon Information of the data source. Kolmogorov (Algorithmic) Information defines Information differently, in a way the measures the compressibility of information. It has different applications, but this theory runs parallel to that of Shannon Information. There is also Fisher Information, which I’m pretty sure only statisticians care about.
None of these in any way describe the meaning of information in any message. You are using the common or lay-persons understanding of Information, which is not mathematical or quantifiable. So when you write things like …
… it is simply nonsense, with no technical/scientific/mathematic meaning. This is why I keep telling you, there is nothing magical about Information. Likewise for QM, which uses concepts that parallel Information Theory - there is no magic in QM either.
??? Modus Ponens. If you hypothesis is true, then the prediction should also be true. If your hypothesis is false then the prediction may be true or false. What you lack is any way to distinguish between the course of evolution and acts of God (to falsify acts of god). All of ID has this same problem.
Really not sure what you are trying to say here.
You know Carroll’s talk is titled, “God is not a good theory,” right? It’s an interesting video, but I don’t see where Carroll is saying what you claim, or anything like your proof. The closest he gets is at ~42 minutes, but spends the next 10 minutes poking holes in it.
Now, if you feel that I misinterpreted him, then please explain how because he is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics …
That’s an argument from authority, but whatever. The most likely explanation is that you misunderstand him because you are NOT a “theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics.” I know just enough physics to know better than to claim expertise in QM, but I at least understand some of the related math.
Do I also need to explain how ice cream is unrelated to language OR DNA??? If you understood Information Theory you wouldn’t be making this demand.
I actually did not mean to say that the common design model is derived from the Genesis account. What I meant to say is that it is “consistent” with the Genesis account. The only thing I am assuming is that Jesus designed and guided the evolutionary process in a common design manner because this has not been confirmed yet. But, it is a testable assumption and we have scientific evidence for almost everything else regarding the theory and model, which I will showcase in the next topic.
Sure, look into this source for all the examples and here is a snippet of the article:
“The problem with these attempts to divide science neatly into two piles is that, as Sober observes, a given science, and even a given scientist, can switch between approaches in the quest to address a single question. Geologists can plumb the oldest rocks on earth for evidence of the first life, but they can also go to the lab and recreate the conditions of early earth to test predictions of hypothesis about events billions of years ago. And those results from a modern laboratory will send researchers back to the field to test predictions about historical events generated in the laboratory.”
No, I am not actually or at least not anymore. This is what ID theorists advocate where they essentially assume DNA is the same as human language or assume both languages carry “meaning” in order to prove a generic intelligent designer did it.
Instead, I am just arguing that the designer who must have created life on earth is analogous to humans because biochemical information is analogous to human information. But again, they don’t have to be the “same” or both possess “meaning” in order for the argument to work.
If what you mean by “nothing magical about information” is that mathematics are only conceptual ideas that could only be created by mental processes, then you would be wrong. We now know that mathematical equations are an objective part of reality. Moreover, DNA information and human information have analogous mathematical structures, which show a common source.
However, I am NOT inferring a common designer from these observations alone. The experiments I provided before are what solidifies why the common source is an intelligent designer. Thus, it is a combination between observations and experiments that allow us to infer a common designer.
ID theorists don’t do this but instead argue that these observations alone show that an unknown intelligent designer created the first life and then use this as an axiom for further testing. The only way this could have worked ,in my view, is if both languages were truly identical on a fundamental level rather than analogous. But, as you and others have pointed out, this just is not the case.
Sure, here’s how.
If my theory is true…
We should find more examples of non-random mutation rates.
We should find potent changes within one of Lenski’s failed E.coli populations when genetically engineering only additive mutations.
If my theory is false…
Lenski’s 11 other failed populations will eventually produce the same positive result.
The one successful E.coli population will eventually produce one large mutational change causing a single-step speciation and produce an entire genome full of metainformation. See this article for more on this:
Yes, and you do realize that you are arguing that God is not a theory at all, right? A big contrast I might add.
Watch 8:30-13:00 to hear him describe a similar way in which the God hypothesis can be tested.
Then, watch 18:00-19:30 where he concludes that the God hypothesis must be empirically testable and then goes over a list of natural phenomena and material causes, which include “natural selection”, that disprove the theory according to the same reasoning I proposed.
No, it is not because he is an actual expert in those fields or the subject matter we are discussing. If he was not an expert in those fields, then it would have been an argument from authority fallacy.
It’s a legit possibility but not likely because the subject matter involves the God hypothesis, which I am more of an expert on than either one of you given that I am an apologist.
And how do you know it is not the other way around when it comes to Quantum Theory?
For instance, I never pretended to be an expert in the field. Instead, I have just been explaining or proving the Orch-OR theory is essentially my theory that they are advocating based on science that’s been done already. Here is a snippet of one of their peer-reviewed articles showing how this is the case [just ask for reference]:
"(B) Consciousness is a separate quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. Descartes’ ‘dualism’, religious viewpoints, and other spiritual approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the ‘ground of being’, ‘creator’ or component of an omnipresent ‘God’ ……
“…Nonetheless, in the Orch OR scheme, these events are taken to have a rudimentary subjective experience, which is undifferentiated and lacking in cognition, perhaps providing the constitutive ingredients of what philosophers call qualia. We term such un-orchestrated, ubiquitous OR events, lacking information and cognition, ‘proto-conscious’. In this regard, Orch OR has some points in common with the viewpoint (B) of Section 1, which incorporates spiritualist, idealist and panpsychist elements, these being argued to be essential precursors of consciousness that are intrinsic to the universe .”
Furthermore, almost all my definitions and information I am using came from Penrose and Hammeroff research into their Orch-OR Theory. In fact, Penrose is an atheist and neither one of them are Christians . Instead, they are qualified experts in their field who have conducted their theory 25 years ago using the scientific method (NOT the bible) and has survived testing ever since.
For all these reasons, I am not able to take your objection that divine action cannot be tested seriously given your lack of expertise in this area. That’s why I am asking you ,in your next response, to focus your attention on the part of my hypothesis that does rely on your expertise in information theory.
If you already provided the fatal objection showing how DNA and human information have analogous mathematical structures and I just missed it, then just copy and paste it in your next response, please.
Remember, Both languages don’t have to be the “same” or both possess “meaning” in order for the argument to work.
If this is the case, you don’t have any definition for “Information” at all, and your request …
explain why those studies do not show how DNA and human language are analogous or that this analogy was only meant as a metaphor.
… is nonsense. You are using information as a buzz-word to make your theory sound “sciency”.
Whatever could you possibly mean by that?
Expertise in testing hypotheses does not apply only to subjects in which one has expertise. Area expertise helps in translating ideas into testable form.
My emphasis added. No objection to the assumption itself, only to assuming that which you hope to prove.
That is not your only assumption. You are assuming God (Jesus) exists, which is also what you hope to prove. It’s a circular argument.
I will read the next topic closely, at least the opening statement. I repeat my advice to make your statement as short as possible, with definitions as appropriate following the statement.
Geologists (outside of AiG) generally aren’t trying to prove the existence of God. You understand the distinction?
That is not what I mean. Quoting for clarity …
A testable common design model is essentially providing an indirect way of testing for the divinity of Christ. So we actually can address this scientifically despite what you said.
No. You cannot. It’s not science, and to my best understanding it is also bad theology. A friend puts it this way …
That only works if God chooses to reveal himself, or not at all is God interferes. We’ve been over that before.
No, I was arguing that your hypothesis cannot be falsified. I’m not sure where your goalpost is now, but the requirement is “the possibility of evidence against”. The existence of God is beyond science. The divinity of Jesus would require a scientific definition of divinity, which should be be possible.
We agree that you are an apologist, and a lot better than some I have encountered. Like those others you assume that which you hope to prove, and think you can redefine science. You hold that “God will not act against His nature”, which sets you above most. You might be surprised how easy it is to trap armature apologists into making the Omphalos Argument.
I am actually not. This topic was me trying to show that the origin of life experiments and observations show a divine conscioussness created the first life in the form of viruses. What I hope to do in the next and probably last topic I create is show that we can test whether this God is Jesus.
Yes, I made a real effort here this time and crafted the rest of my presentation in a clear and concise manner as well that closely resembles the format of a research article .
Sure, but I am not sure why this negates my argument. I was merely showing how historical science and methods are a valid way to determine causation, which would include my argument for God.
Yes, I agree with his assessment except the part when he concluded that the scientific method would not apply to God. Prayer studies are considered supernatural events that are subjected to the scientific method. So his conclusion would have to be false without further discussion. More importantly, the Orch-OR theory that I am relying on is supposed to be a violation of quantum theory and ,thus, a violation of all physical laws.
You mean it only works if we have any basis to believe that God’s nature is analogous to human nature, which would allow us to provide a testable theory. This leads me to the next thing you said…
Sorry, What I meant to say is if you already provided the fatal objection showing how DNA and human information DON’T have analogous mathematical structures and I just missed it, then just copy and paste it in your next response.
However, it is probably best that you save your response for the next topic in order to make sure your response is accurate and robust. It’s up to you though.
@Meerkat_SK5 I found this an interesting read. You will find many supporting links to physical interpretations of information and QM. You won’t agree with the author, I think, but he gives a good recap of the philosophy of QM. Posted as a new topic.
I mean that saying “DNA and human information have analogous structures” is a meaningless statement. Sure we can represent DNA as information, but we can equally represent anything as information, making it an empty statement. You are implying some meaning to this, and measures of information do not convey meaning.