Patrickatheism

If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.

Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.

This is the world of Patrickatheism.

762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism

  1. keiths,

    You’re implying that if the universe didn’t have a creator, then the number of “building blocks” would be different and they wouldn’t behave predictably.

    How did you reach that conclusion?

    You are trying to create a straw man argument. I am inferring design from the flexibility of the components that make up the universe. Semiconductors are an example of components that appear designed because of their ability to make so many different things based on a limited set of gates and transistor architecture.

  2. Patrick,

    Based on past experience with theists, the usual argument is along the lines of “There’s no way to explain that without (my) god!” A standard argument from incredulity.

    I got it.
    I am inferring design and defining God as the creator of the universe. I think your criticism of limited definition is valid but it is interesting that if we limit definitions then the creation argument appears to be a reasonable alternative a to purely natural explanation based on what we can observe.

  3. colewd: I am inferring design and defining God as the creator of the universe.

    Your inference and your definition add no information. Things exist. It’s a mystery. Inferring a creator doesn’t add to our knowledge or clear up any mysteries.

  4. colewd: I am inferring design and defining God as the creator of the universe.

    What is the universe designed to do? Do humans have anything to do with that? If so, what’s with all the empty space?

  5. OMagain,

    What is the universe designed to do? Do humans have anything to do with that? If so, what’s with all the empty space?

    Good questions 🙂

  6. petrushka,

    Your inference and your definition add no information. Things exist. It’s a mystery. Inferring a creator doesn’t add to our knowledge or clear up any mysteries.

    This is a valid criticism. The possible exception is that the inference of design can make scientific inquiry more directed as Einstein Newton and others use this as a working assumption.

  7. colewd:
    petrushka,

    This is a valid criticism.The possible exception is that the inference of design can make scientific inquiry more directed as Einstein Newton and others use this as a working assumption.

    To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. – Albert Einstein, responding to an Iowa student who asked, “What is God?” July 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

    Glen Davidson

  8. colewd: The possible exception is that the inference of design can make scientific inquiry more directed as Einstein Newton and others use this as a working assumption.

    I believe you are possibly in error there. Or perhaps I am. In order to determine which of us is in fact in error, could you show me where Einstein said something that supports that? Newton you can have for free.

    And do you have a specific example of a scientific inquiry that became more directed once the inference of design was established, with before and after comparisons of the amount of “more” directed as opposed to the original amount of direction pre-inference of design?

  9. colewd: others use this as a working assumption.

    Who are those others? And what religion do they happen to be? Are those peoples direction or quality of work measurably affected by this working assumption?

    If so, can you speculate why as scientists are generally results driven people, that many of them do not hold such a working assumption, when it is your claim that simply by holding it their research would somehow be more directed?

    In short, can you scientifically support your claim that the inference of design can make scientific inquiry more directed?

  10. GlenDavidson,

    Interesting. Do you remember his statement to Neils Bohrs ” God does not play dice with the universe” Bohrs replied ” don’t tell God what to do”.

    In addition James Klerk Maxwell (built first model for electromagnetism) attributed the predictability of electro magnetism to God.

  11. keiths;

    You’re implying that if the universe didn’t have a creator, then the number of “building blocks” would be different and they wouldn’t behave predictably.

    How did you reach that conclusion?

    colewd:

    You are trying to create a straw man argument.

    No, I’m trying to figure out why you think this is evidence for a creator:

    Evidence; 1. The structure of matter is made up of components of atoms and molecules that behave predictably and with about 100 basic building blocks everything in the universe can be built.

    Hence my question:

    You’re implying that if the universe didn’t have a creator, then the number of “building blocks” would be different and they wouldn’t behave predictably.

    How did you reach that conclusion?

    colewd:

    I am inferring design from the flexibility of the components that make up the universe. Semiconductors are an example of components that appear designed because of their ability to make so many different things based on a limited set of gates and transistor architecture.

    How did you determine that “flexible components” are not expected in a universe lacking a creator?

  12. colewd: In addition James Klerk Maxwell (built first model for electromagnetism) attributed the predictability of electro magnetism to God.

    Perhaps you can differentiate between the assumption of regularity in nature from the assumption that the regularity caused by a sentient and possibly capricious being.

    For example, how would the predictability of electromagnetism fare during the execution of a miracle?

  13. OMagain,

    In short, can you scientifically support your claim that the inference of design can make scientific inquiry more directed?

    I have done research tying low levels of vitamin d to cancer risk. The professor/researcher I supported had many epidemical studies showing the correlation. His theory was around loss of cell adhesion and natural selection being the mechanism. The newest evidence showed that vitamin d was down regulating the cell division cycle.

    The next research was to support his evidence that higher blood levels of vitamin d reduced metastasis. By using the design inference I assumed that the mechanism that controlled cell division would be the same as the one that controlled cellular vascular construction ( the mechanism of cancer metastasis) as a result of hypoxia (low cellular oxygen levels). The mechanisms were the same, resulting in much more efficient research.

  14. keiths,

    How did you determine that “flexible components” are not expected in a universe lacking a creator?

    Flexible components that can be purposefully arranged are evidence of design.

  15. colewd,

    You didn’t answer my question:

    How did you determine that “flexible components” are not expected in a universe lacking a creator?

  16. keiths,

    You’re implying that if the universe didn’t have a creator, then the number of “building blocks” would be different and they wouldn’t behave predictably.

    I am inferring that predictability is evidence of design. The case is built of lines of evidence.

  17. I’m still waiting for the design inference to adequately explain juvenile platypus teeth, the coccyx, the need for the descent of the testes (while birds retain testes in the body cavity at high temps), and just the general lack of portability of “design” across genetically separated organisms.

    That someone thought “design” when making a successful hypothesis is hardly convincing, against its endless failures. But then, negatives never get serious consideration in ID.

    Glen Davidson

  18. colewd: By using the design inference I assumed that the mechanism that controlled cell division would be the same as the one that controlled cellular vascular construction ( the mechanism of cancer metastasis) as a result of hypoxia (low cellular oxygen levels).

    Why?

  19. colewd: Flexible components that can be purposefully arranged are evidence of design.

    Name some components, name the purpose they have been arranged for. What is the design?

  20. colewd: By using the design inference

    Presumably, there was more to it then that is my point. Was there? How did you ‘use’ it? What were the steps? Was the ‘Explanatory Filter’ involved?

    I ‘use the design inference Luke’ and decided this road was the fastest way to my destination.

  21. keiths,

    How did you determine that “flexible components” are not expected in a universe lacking a creator?

    I am not sure you can determine this but it is not my argument. Flexible components are evidence of design because they are the result of human design.

  22. OMagain,

    Presumably, there was more to it then that is my point. Was there? How did you ‘use’ it? What were the steps? Was the ‘Explanatory Filter’ involved?

    The cell cycle control protein beta catenin is regulated by a destruction mechanism of 5 proteins that break it down into amino acids when the destruction mechanism in enabled. The inference was that if I search for this same mechanism for controlling hypoxia I will understand how the cell controls this process. Hypoxia was also controlled by a destruction mechanism.

  23. So it’s god of the gaps after all, and not anything new.

    Watchmaker, updated.

  24. colewd:
    OMagain,

    The cell cycle control protein beta catenin is regulated by a destruction mechanism of 5 proteins that break it down into amino acids when the destruction mechanism in enabled.The inference was that if I search for this same mechanism for controlling hypoxia I will understand how the cell controls this process.Hypoxia was also controlled by a destruction mechanism.

    What fact precedes the inference that a designer would necessarily use a similar process control mechanism in this case and not in other cases? In other words, what limitations/constraints are in place wherein the similarity between the two control mechanisms must have been the result of design and are you then noting the specific limitations of your designer in such situations?

    Seems to me the only way to consider anything about a “designer” in the above scenario is simply begging the question. There’s no reason to assume that a designer (particularly one with potentially unconstrained capability and unlimited resources) would use the same mechanism in two similar situations, particularly if one turns around and considers a “designer” in similar situations where completely different mechanisms are used. Thus, “designer” does not offer an help in directing useful research concepts at all.

  25. Robin,

    What fact precedes the inference that a designer would necessarily use a similar process control mechanism in this case and not in other cases? In other words, what limitations/constraints are in place wherein the similarity between the two control mechanisms must have been the result of design and are you then noting the specific limitations of your designer in such situations?

    The implication is that the destruction mechanism is a common design concept. The transcription mechanism is another common design concept also the translation mechanism, the alternative splicing mechanism, the DNA repair mechanism etc. What we see in the human design world is designs repeated like the internal combustion engine.

  26. petrushka,

    So it’s god of the gaps after all, and not anything new.

    Watchmaker, updated.

    Yes, with a single piece of evidence like the watch. With multiple pieces of evidence you are building a case for God of the whole show.

  27. colewd: With multiple pieces of evidence you are building a case for God of the whole show.

    I think you are kind of stuck with the Dembski problem. How do you rule out natural causes?

    Dembski never solved it. Are you smarter than Dembski?

  28. colewd:
    Robin,

    The implication is that the destruction mechanism is a common design concept.

    What makes it a “common design concept”? There are millions of biological mechanisms, some that are never repeated. The “destruction mechanism” (as you call it) shows up rarely compared to other mechanisms. So again, it appears all you are doing is question begging here; there’s nothing specific pointing to a need for a similarity between these systems; that they are does no logically say anything about design.

    The transcription mechanism is another common design concept also the translation mechanism, the alternative splicing mechanism, the DNA repair mechanism etc.What we see in the human design world is designs repeated like the internal combustion engine.

    …and here you even prove my point. Given all these mechanisms, nothing – other than question begging – can associate them in any sort of logical pattern with design. It’s simply a case of concluding that which you feel must be there.

  29. petrushka: Are you smarter than Dembski?

    How do you measure smartness? He seems to have withdrawn from the fray, these days. Who’s left that might be considered a heavyweight on ID?

  30. colewd: What we see in the human design world is designs repeated like the internal combustion engine.

    Echolocation seems handy. Why is it not included in many more species?

  31. OMagain,

    Name some components, name the purpose they have been arranged for. What is the design?

    Semiconductors arranged on a printed circuit board with wiring and a disk drive, key board and screen. The design is a PC.

  32. OMagain,

    Echolocation seems handy. Why is it not included in many more species?

    Good question 🙂
    Perhaps design trade off. Takes lots of energy for this feature.

  33. petrushka,

    I think you are kind of stuck with the Dembski problem. How do you rule out natural causes?

    I am not ruling out natural causes, I am simply showing there is evidence for design and a reasonable argument based on inference.

  34. Robin,

    …and here you even prove my point. Given all these mechanisms, nothing – other than question begging – can associate them in any sort of logical pattern with design. It’s simply a case of concluding that which you feel must be there.

    These mechanisms are evidence that life uses mechanisms in multiple applications. This infers design. Human design uses mechanisms in multiple applications. Wheels and engines are examples. This is not question begging because I am not arguing I am using the design inference to help find how a biochemical process works.

  35. Alan Fox,

    How do you measure smartness? He seems to have withdrawn from the fray, these days. Who’s left that might be considered a heavyweight on ID?

    I think Behe has the most solid grasp of the design inference. The other key players are
    Meyer
    Axe
    Sternberg
    Denton
    Benchley
    Guiger
    Gpuccio

  36. colewd: I think Behe has the most solid grasp of the design inference.

    I sort of agree. Behe at least accepts common descent and (being a Catholic) doesn’t dispute the overwhelming evidence (heh) for the age of the Earth, the antiquity of life on Earth and so on. He just can’t wrap his head round the idea that small cumulative steps can add up to significant change.

    Meyer
    Axe
    Sternberg
    Denton
    Benchley
    Guiger
    Gpuccio

    I’d dispute that Denton is an ID proponent. I think he is on the same economic trajectory as David Berlinsky. Axe, well, I have a soft spot for him but regards the approach, it’s still “god of the gaps”. Sternberg, nope. Not heard of Benchley or Guiger. What have they done? Gpuccio, nice guy, in Behe’s mold but he’s merely expressing his personal incredulity on a blog.

    ETA Oops, overlooked Stephen Meyer! A couple of popular (in the sense of non-academic) books does not make a heavyweight.

  37. Alan Fox,

    Not heard of Benchley or Guiger

    Benchley is a German paleontologist. A recent add to the group. He was persuaded by Behe’s argument that there is not enough time to have an adaption based on multiple mutations.

    Gauger works w Doug Axe. She has made an argument on the evolution of the placenta that has been difficult to counter.

    I agree Denton’s argument of forms is slightly different than the ID argument.

  38. colewd: Geiger works w Doug Axe

    So it’s not a typo, it’s just that Billy can’t even spell her surname despite of her being one of the ID icons. LMAO

  39. dazz,

    Ah, OK.

    There’s something in the back of my mind where Ann Gauger did some work that seemed to support evolutionary theory but my Google skills have failed me.

  40. dazz: Seriously Alan? ugh!

    It’s a while ago and the ARN forum has disappeared so I can’t link to it. Joe Gallien was touting Doug Axe as having used the “Explanatory Filter”. I emailed him and he unequivocally rejected Joe’s claim. I give him points for playing a straight bat, then.

  41. Alan Fox:
    dazz,

    Ah, OK.

    There’s something in the back of my mind where Ann Gauger did some work that seemed to support evolutionary theory but my Google skills have failed me.

    Yeah, I think she found a beneficial mutation in one of her experiments or something like that

  42. Alan Fox: It’s a while ago and the ARN forum has disappeared so I can’t link to it. Joe Gallien was touting Doug Axe as having used the “Explanatory Filter”. I emailed him and he unequivocally rejected Joe’s claim. I give him points for playing a straight bat, then.

    Fair enough.
    It’s just that after watching this presentation of his latest book…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9Hx3WpsCk

    …I couldn’t help but think there’s no intellectual honesty in there. Did he ever own up for his 50 orders of magnitude blunder? I don’t think so

  43. dazz,

    …I couldn’t help but think there’s no intellectual honesty in there. Did he ever own up for his 50 orders of magnitude blunder? I don’t think so

    What blunder is this?

  44. dazz,

    Thanks for the clue!

    She [Ann Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

    link

  45. colewd: Benchley is a German paleontologist. A recent add to the group. He was persuaded by Behe’s argument that there is not enough time to have an adaption based on multiple mutations.

    OK. Does he bring any evidence from palaeontology to support that idea?

  46. Alan Fox,

    OK. Does he bring any evidence from palaeontology to support that idea?

    Not sure what you are asking here. The problem is not in the fossil records but in the time and population requirements to make the genetic changes that are observed in the fossil records.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.