What does it mean for something to be possible, plausible, or probable?

[TBDude65]

I am a fan of clarity, preferably in a concise manner but I suspect that this write-up won’t be particularly so. These three common terms (Possible, Plausible, and Probable) are sometimes used interchangeably, and in the context of religious discussions they are used with intention of arguing for or against a god. This makes it imperative that these terms be used appropriately and clearly, as well as their antonyms (Impossible, Implausible, and Improbable).


I’ll use as an example, William Lane Craig’s premise that “The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.” (I took this quote from this essay here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...od-exist). What is meant by possible in this context? He goes on to say “In order to understand this argument, you need to understand what philosophers mean by ‘possible worlds’. A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It is a description of a possible reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it is a world-description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that are not in fact true but which might have been true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some consistent description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world means that no matter which description is true, that entity will be included in the description. For example, unicorns do not in fact exist, but there are some possible worlds in which unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world.”


But is that what the word “possible” really means? Well, yes and no. Possible is a word that is intended to mean that something may or may not exist (or may or may not have occurred) based on our understanding of how things work. The critical part of this is that there must be some sort of evidence to point to in order to say that something/someone/some event, is possible. WLC even gets close to this in his unicorn example. We know, based on the study of evolution and biology, that Unicorns are not possible beings in our universe because no evidence exists to show their possible existence and evidence does exist to show how the lineage of horses includes no characteristics that would produce the anatomical features of a unicorn. So WLC correctly asserts that unicorns are not possible in this universe, but is it true that they are possible in other universes? No, it isn’t. For a couple of reasons: 1) we don’t have any evidence to show that other universes exist and 2) even if other universes do exist, we don’t know anything about them, we can only hypothesize what they could be like. In short, we don’t know anything about their actual possibilities or the actual possibilities of things existing/occurring within them. I realize that the math associated with quantum mechanics and the multiverse hypothesis assert some interesting things that might be true, but these are not evidence that these things that might be true are realistic or possible. For instance, they may be telling us more about human imagination than external realities.


Okay, so the take home point for the word “possible” is that in order to assert that something is possible to exist or have occurred, you need some piece of evidence that it exists in order to point to it and say it is a possible explanation. An example would be bolide impact killing off the dinosaurs. Is that possible? We find craters on Earth showing that we have been hit by large bolides before, making it entirely possible that a large one could strike the Earth. Secondly, we know what the effects of an impact would be and what the consequences of large amounts of particulate matter are. We can look at the craters and calculate how large the objects were and how much ejecta they produced and calculate the atmospheric effects using observations of similar events (like large volcanic eruptions). So, is it possible that a large bolide impact could have resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs? Yes, because the Earth can and has been hit before and the consequences of a large enough impact would result in widespread “nuclear” winter-like conditions that would generate the ecosystem stress to drive extinctions.


Let’s use an alternative explanation; is it possible that sentient aliens intentionally killed off the dinosaurs? We have no evidence that advanced alien civilizations exist or have visited Earth. So no, it is not possible that aliens killed the dinosaurs.


Why go through all of this? It’s because of the other two words I highlight: Plausible and Probable. Plausibility is intended to say whether or not a possible thing or scenario is or isn’t likely to have existed or occurred. It isn’t a calculation of the odds, it is a qualitative evaluation of what the possible thing/event’s effects would be and whether or not the evidence substantiates it as a likely candidate. So, let’s ask another question of the dinosaur extinction: is it plausible that competition from mammals drove them to extinction? This is a possibility given that 1) mammals were around at the time, 2) competition can drive extinction, and 3) the mammals radiated after the dinosaurs were gone. So we know that this is possible, but does the evidence logically conclude this? No, because this explanation does not sufficiently explain the extinction of marine organisms at the same time, it also does not provide an explanation for the evidence of the bolide impact. Therefore the plausibility of this scenario is considered very low or effectively implausible.


The last term is probability, which is now a calculation of the odds associated with plausible things (events or existence of things). Probability means you actually have a method for calculating the odds of something happening or something having existed. But this can get tricky.


For instance, what is the probability of winning the lottery? Those odds can be calculated based on the frequency at which winners are drawn, how many people play, and how many numbers you have to select in order to win. But once you play, you either win (probability of 1, or 100%, means you win) or you lose (0 or 0%). So calculating the probabilities before hand does not predict what will actually happen, it can’t tell me the truth because it can only tell me what the odds are of a plausible scenario are. So, could we calculate the probability of a unicorn existing? No, because we can’t conclude that one is plausible because we can’t conclude that they are possible.



And this is the big take home point. You can’t accurately or reliably assess the probability of something that can’t be shown to be plausible and you can’t assess the plausibility or probability of something if you can’t demonstrate it is first possible. And in order to show something is possible, you need evidence to corroborate its existence in some way. You need to show that it occurs in nature. You need to show that it is present in some way in the universe.





So, when people assert the probability of a god existing, they are starting off with the assumption that a god is possible, but that is not a corroborated claim. That makes any attempt at calculating the odds or the plausibility, pointless and useless.


This is also why Intelligent Design/Creationism are not taken seriously outside of religion. It is because the possibility of an intelligent designer has never been shown. That makes all of the “evidence” of intelligent design moot because it cannot be shown to logically connect to the intelligent designer because no evidence of an intelligent designer exists. This results in circular arguments where the “evidence” of intelligent design is then used as evidence of the designer, but that can’t be logically concluded because you can’t conclude it is evidence of intelligent design without showing that the intelligent designer is real.

 

[archer75]

I can only offer that if you're trying to follow an argument by Craig, I expect that you're going to have this happen over and over again. Craig's arguments are, in my opinion, so vacuous I can't tell whether it seems 'likely' that it's a conscious scam on his part.

Some people will have a very different opinion of Craig, and I respect that, but my opinion is that Craig is a Christian straw man if there ever was one, and I'm sure people on this board could recommend better writers for you to learn from or argue against if you want to.

 

[TBDude65]

I can only offer that if you're trying to follow an argument by Craig, I expect that you're going to have this happen over and over again. Craig's arguments are, in my opinion, so vacuous I can't tell whether it seems 'likely' that it's a conscious scam on his part.

Some people will have a very different opinion of Craig, and I respect that, but my opinion is that Craig is a Christian straw man if there ever was one, and I'm sure people on this board could recommend better writers for you to learn from or argue against if you want to.

I picked Craig because I knew he's misused these terms before and because he's well known among Christian apologists.

 

[archer75]

I picked Craig because I knew he's misused these terms before and because he's well known among Christian apologists.

Okay, cool. If you're looking those traits, I guess Craig is your man. Good luck!

 

[John Hyperspace]

I may be misunderstanding, but does the logic of the original post argue for a designer? What I mean is: in the "material world" we have objects. We also have evidence of objects which are "designed" (whether by man, bird, beaver, bee, etc.); but we have no evidence of objects which are "not designed": therefore, wouldn't we hold up a rock and say "Designed" since it is not possible for a material object to be classified as "possibly not designed" since there is no evidence of such an object?

 

[quatona]

I’ll use as an example, William Lane Craig’s premise that “The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.”

Willy Craig? Ah, come on.

 

[Michael]

And this is the big take home point. You can’t accurately or reliably assess the probability of something that can’t be shown to be plausible and you can’t assess the plausibility or probability of something if you can’t demonstrate it is first possible. And in order to show something is possible, you need evidence to corroborate its existence in some way. You need to show that it occurs in nature. You need to show that it is present in some way in the universe.

I'm pretty sure that if you apply that same logic and argument to the claim that photon redshift is "caused" by "space expansion", you'll run directly into the same circular argument. How then does one compute the "odds" of "space expansion"?

This is also why Intelligent Design/Creationism are not taken seriously outside of religion. It is because the possibility of an intelligent designer has never been shown. That makes all of the “evidence” of intelligent design moot because it cannot be shown to logically connect to the intelligent designer because no evidence of an intelligent designer exists. This results in circular arguments where the “evidence” of intelligent design is then used as evidence of the designer, but that can’t be logically concluded because you can’t conclude it is evidence of intelligent design without showing that the intelligent designer is real.

That's not necessarily true by the way.

First of all there's a distinct difference between YEC and simply the basic concept of "creationism". While Catholics do not embrace a "young Earth" belief, they do embrace the overall concept of "creationism", as is likely the case with theistic scientists in general.

Secondly, there could be circumstances where we can "assume" something like "intelligent design" without knowing the actual "designers". For instance, if two hundred years ago, you and I were handed a 21st century smart phone, we might conclude it's "intelligently designed" even if we had no clue who designed it, or how they did it. The design itself could hold clues.

A quote from The Road Ahead

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

 

[Chriliman]

I may be misunderstanding, but does the logic of the original post argue for a designer? What I mean is: in the "material world" we have objects. We also have evidence of objects which are "designed" (whether by man, bird, beaver, bee, etc.); but we have no evidence of objects which are "not designed": therefore, wouldn't we hold up a rock and say "Designed" since it is not possible for a material object to be classified as "possibly not designed" since there is no evidence of such an object?

Good point!

 

[TBDude65]

I may be misunderstanding, but does the logic of the original post argue for a designer? What I mean is: in the "material world" we have objects. We also have evidence of objects which are "designed" (whether by man, bird, beaver, bee, etc.); but we have no evidence of objects which are "not designed": therefore, wouldn't we hold up a rock and say "Designed" since it is not possible for a material object to be classified as "possibly not designed" since there is no evidence of such an object?

You're right, you do misunderstand.

We do indeed have evidence of things that are designed because we have the actual designer (the bird, the beaver, the human) to directly tie the "design" to. We can logically show how the designer designs it and how it builds it. We have the evidence, the observations, and the logical connections between them.

What we don't have is an intelligent designer of the universe. No evidence one is possible let alone any evidence of anything it supposedly designed. Instead, we can show how things like animals are a product of evolution and descent with modification.

We know rocks aren't designed because, once again, we can directly observe the process by which rocks form. It's really quite simple.

 

[TBDude65]

I'm pretty sure that if you apply that same logic and argument to the claim that photon redshift is "caused" by "space expansion", you'll run directly into the same circular argument. How then does one compute the "odds" of "space expansion"?



That's not necessarily true by the way.

First of all there's a distinct difference between YEC and simply the basic concept of "creationism". While Catholics do not embrace a "young Earth" belief, they do embrace the overall concept of "creationism", as is likely the case with theistic scientists in general.

Secondly, there could be circumstances where we can "assume" something like "intelligent design" without knowing the actual "designers". For instance, if two hundred years ago, you and I were handed a 21st century smart phone, we might conclude it's "intelligently designed" even if we had no clue who designed it, or how they did it. The design itself could hold clues.

A quote from The Road Ahead

"I'm pretty sure that if you apply that same logic and argument to the claim that photon redshift is "caused" by "space expansion", you'll run directly into the same circular argument. How then does one compute the "odds" of "space expansion"?"

We don't calculate "odds" of expansion for the universe. The red shift and the expansion of the universe are direct observations indicating that all matter and energy is expanding away from a central point in space and time.

"First of all there's a distinct difference between YEC and simply the basic concept of "creationism". While Catholics do not embrace a "young Earth" belief, they do embrace the overall concept of "creationism", as is likely the case with theistic scientists in general."

Two things: 1) Yes, there are old and young Earth creationists. I am aware. 2) Old Earth creationism is just as scientifically valid a conclusion as young Earth creationism is. Neither have met their burden of proof with respect to their proposed creator. This is why neither is considered science and both are religious ideas.

"Secondly, there could be circumstances where we can "assume" something like "intelligent design" without knowing the actual "designers". For instance, if two hundred years ago, you and I were handed a 21st century smart phone, we might conclude it's "intelligently designed" even if we had no clue who designed it, or how they did it. The design itself could hold clues."

1) You can't travel back in time to take something you already know is designed into the past. This thought experiment wouldn't work.
2) There are clearly pieces of human invention associated with the smartphone that would allow humans to determine humans made it (like writing on the circuitry for instance). Ergo, we have direct evidence showing that something associated with the product is directly linked to human designers. No such evidence exists to directly link anything in the universe to an intelligent designer. Both because there is no evidence that could only come from a designer (can't be explained via evolution for instance) and no evidence of a designer.

 

[John Hyperspace]

You're right, you do misunderstand.

Bear in mind, my words are operating by the definition of "possible" given in the first post. Is that definition saying that something without evidence is "not possible"? If so, I believe the conclusion follows, and we would then have evidence of an "immaterial"(by extension) designer since an object which isn't designed is "not possible"

We do indeed have evidence of things that are designed because we have the actual designer (the bird, the beaver, the human) to directly tie the "design" to. We can logically show how the designer designs it and how it builds it. We have the evidence, the observations, and the logical connections between them.

True, and so we have the evidence of "designed" objects. Thus "designed by humans, bees, spiders" all fall into a generally existant category "designed" which category would include "cars, honeycombs, webs": but what we do not have, is evidence of an object which is not designed. Usually we could hold up a rock and say "Unknown" because there are two potential categories "designed" and "not designed": but based on the above definition of possible, the "not designed" category is now "not possible" thus the rock is designed. The question would now be "By what?" but that it was "designed" should be a default position since "not designed" is no longer a possiblilty, having no evidence of such. Though we would say it is "designed by intelligence" since that is part and parcel to the category of "designed"

What we don't have is an intelligent designer of the universe. No evidence one is possible let alone any evidence of anything it supposedly designed.

We now have the evidence of the logical deduction by way of the above definition of "possible"

Instead, we can show how things like animals are a product of evolution and descent with modification.

We know rocks aren't designed because, once again, we can directly observe the process by which rocks form. It's really quite simple.

You would now mean to say "We can directly observe the process by which designed rocks are formed" since any other form of object is logically, "not possible" given the above definition of "possible"

 

[TBDude65]

Bear in mind, my words are operating by the definition of "possible" given in the first post. Is that definition saying that something without evidence is "not possible"? If so, I believe the conclusion follows, and we would then have evidence of an "immaterial"(by extension) designer since an object which isn't designed is "not possible"



True, and so we have the evidence of "designed" objects. Thus "designed by humans, bees, spiders" all fall into a generally existant category "designed" which category would include "cars, honeycombs, webs": but what we do not have, is evidence of an object which is not designed. Usually we could hold up a rock and say "Unknown" because there are two potential categories "designed" and "not designed": but based on the above definition of possible, the "not designed" category is now "not possible" thus the rock is designed. The question would now be "By what?" but that it was "designed" should be a default position since "not designed" is no longer a possiblilty, having no evidence of such. Though we would say it is "designed by intelligence" since that is part and parcel to the category of "designed"



We now have the evidence of the logical deduction by way of the above definition of "possible"



You would now mean to say "We can directly observe the process by which designed rocks are formed" since any other form of object is logically, "not possible" given the above definition of "possible"

"If so, I believe the conclusion follows, and we would then have evidence of an "immaterial"(by extension) designer since an object which isn't designed is "not possible""

Incorrect because objects that exist without design are littered about you even now from the water you drink to the rocks you walk across. We can literally watch things like rocks form and observe them forming via unintelligent and non-designed processes. You aren't following my definition, you are ignoring evidence.

"True, and so we have the evidence of "designed" objects. Thus "designed by humans, bees, spiders" all fall into a generally existant category "designed" which category would include "cars, honeycombs, webs": but what we do not have, is evidence of an object which is not designed."

Once again. We know honeycombs are designed and built by bees because we can observe and directly link them. And, once again, we have a plethora of objects that are not designed. Therefore the category of "not designed" is a reality. Rocks are not designed nor is water nor is water vapor, etc, etc

"We now have the evidence of the logical deduction by way of the above definition of "possible""

No, you have ignored evidence of non-designed materials to presume that everything is designed. No evidence of a designer means you can't link anything you claim to be "designed" to an actual designer. You are using a preconceived conclusion to reinterpret what you see fit to call evidence of "design." This is a circular argument.

"You would now mean to say "We can directly observe the process by which designed rocks are formed" since any other form of object is logically, "not possible" given the above definition of "possible""

No, you clearly don't understand.

What does it mean for something to be "designed" in your mind since rocks are now "designed?"

 

[John Hyperspace]

"If so, I believe the conclusion follows, and we would then have evidence of an "immaterial"(by extension) designer since an object which isn't designed is "not possible""

Incorrect because objects that exist without design are littered about you even now from the water you drink to the rocks you walk across. We can literally watch things like rocks form and observe them forming via unintelligent and non-designed processes. You aren't following my definition, you are ignoring evidence.

Are you defining "not possible" as something being "without evidence of"? This is crucial to define. If so, then your entire statement "objects that exist without design are littered about you" is not possible. The rest of your reply contains the unstated premise that "not designed" is possible without evidence of something evidenced as "not designed"

What does it mean for something to be "designed" in your mind since rocks are now "designed?"

It would mean some intelligence is responsible for rocks. This is the point of the proposition: if "possible" is defined as "evidenced" and something without evidence is "not possible"; then intelligent design is now the only "possible" category of material object, since "not designed" doesn't exist as a "possible" characteristic of object. The defining of the word "possible" is what makes intelligent design the default of all material objects, being that "not designed" is no longer an option.

 

[TBDude65]

Are you defining "not possible" as something being "without evidence of"? This is crucial to define. If so, then your entire statement "objects that exist without design are littered about you" is not possible. The rest of your reply contains the unstated premise that "not designed" is possible without evidence of something evidenced as "not designed"



It would mean some intelligence is responsible for rocks. This is the point of the proposition: if "possible" is defined as "evidenced" and something without evidence is "not possible"; then intelligent design is now the only "possible" category of material object, since "not designed" doesn't exist as a "possible" characteristic of object. The defining of the word "possible" is what makes intelligent design the default of all material objects, being that "not designed" is no longer an option.

"Are you defining "not possible" as something being "without evidence of"?"

The opposite of possible. Something which is incapable of existing and/or occurring. This possibility of something existing/occurring is based upon the evidence that logically connects the thing that exists/occurs and the evidence.

"If so, then your entire statement "objects that exist without design are littered about you" is not possible. "

Once again, no. Not at all. First off, you've assumed a definition of possible I have not presented. What I have presented is how the words possible, probable, and plausible should be used based upon their definitions instead of how they are commonly misused in religious discussions.

"It would mean some intelligence is responsible for rocks. This is the point of the proposition: if "possible" is defined as "evidenced" and something without evidence is "not possible"; then intelligent design is now the only "possible" category of material object, since "not designed" doesn't exist as a "possible" characteristic of object. The defining of the word "possible" is what makes intelligent design the default of all material objects, being that "not designed" is no longer an option."

Even assuming your incorrect definition of possible, this would still NOT mean that rocks must be the result of design. That is an assumption you are making by misusing these terms. Your "evidence" of design does not logically connect to a designer. For two reasons, 1) you lack a mechanism and 2) you lack a designer.

If I were to show you the chemistry and physics of how and where rocks form, I am showing you the observation, the evidence, and the mechanism of a rock forming without design (naturally forming).

 

[Michael]

We don't calculate "odds" of expansion for the universe. The red shift and the expansion of the universe are direct observations indicating that all matter and energy is expanding away from a central point in space and time.

That my friend is purely a "statement of faith" on your part. The only thing we "observe" directly is "photon redshift". Photon redshift *routinely* occurs in plasma in the lab as photons lose some of their momentum to the medium due to various types of inelastic scattering. Furthermore, *moving objects* are also a demonstrated "cause" of photon redshift. All of those cause/effect relationships are known and demonstrated.

On the other hand, "space expansion" (the claim made in LCDM) has *never* been demonstrated in the lab in controlled experimentation, so how could you or anyone possibly calculate the the odds that 'space expansion' had anything at all to do with "photon redshift"? Even if the universe is 'expanding" due to moving objects, it wouldn't be the same claim as 'space expansion did it" which is what LCDM claims.

You have provided *zero* laboratory cause/effect evidence that "space expansion" happens at all, or that it has some tangible effect on a photon. The whole "space expansion causes photon redshift" claim is an affirming the consequent fallacy run amuck. How do you *know* there's any physical empirical relationship between photon redshift and 'space expansion'?

Two things: 1) Yes, there are old and young Earth creationists. I am aware. 2) Old Earth creationism is just as scientifically valid a conclusion as young Earth creationism is.

Not really. YEC can be scientifically *falsified* by various means, including the distance between objects in space, and the amount of time it takes light to travel that far. We can also look at isotopes in rocks and see that they are around 4.6 billion years old.

Generic (ancient) creationism can't necessarily be falsified, even if you think it cannot be "verified" at the moment.

Neither have met their burden of proof with respect to their proposed creator. This is why neither is considered science and both are religious ideas.

Lots of things considered to be "science" lack empirical justification in controlled experimentation. That alone isn't sufficient to rule out a concept. I'm not sure why you think anyone has a 'special' burden of proof by assuming anything about the origin of DNA.

1) You can't travel back in time to take something you already know is designed into the past. This thought experiment wouldn't work.

It works if you allow for time travel. My point is that we might find a piece of technology on another planet, and determine it was 'intelligently designed' even without knowing for sure who the designer might be. There could be scenarios where the knowledge of the designer is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not a specific thing was 'intelligently designed'.

2) There are clearly pieces of human invention associated with the smartphone that would allow humans to determine humans made it (like writing on the circuitry for instance). Ergo, we have direct evidence showing that something associated with the product is directly linked to human designers.

So imagine a device created by an alien race. It may not have any technology of human origin, yet still give us the impression that it was 'intelligently designed'.

No such evidence exists to directly link anything in the universe to an intelligent designer.

Until I hear you explain how slime molds act 'intelligently', I'll have to assume that's a judgment call on your part.

Both because there is no evidence that could only come from a designer (can't be explained via evolution for instance) and no evidence of a designer.

I think we kinda skipped my key point. We might indeed find evidence of alien technology some day and determine that it's 'intelligently designed' equipment. We need not know anything about the designer himself/herself to know that a particular item contains evidence of intelligent design.

Admittedly it gets harder to apply such concepts to the origin of DNA and atomic structures, but the main point is still valid. Knowledge of the designer, and 'evidence' of a "designer" might be found within a specific object without first having prior evidence of a "designer".

 

[TBDude65]

That my friend is purely a "statement of faith" on your part. The only thing we "observe" directly is "photon redshift". Photon redshift *routinely* occurs in plasma in the lab as photons lose some of their momentum to the medium due to various types of inelastic scattering. Furthermore, *moving objects* are also a demonstrated "cause" of photon redshift. All of those cause/effect relationships are known and demonstrated.

On the other hand, "space expansion" (the claim made in LCDM) has *never* been demonstrated in the lab in controlled experimentation, so how could you or anyone possibly calculate the the odds that 'space expansion' had anything at all to do with "photon redshift"? Even if the universe is 'expanding" due to moving objects, it wouldn't be the same claim as 'space expansion did it" which is what LCDM claims.

You have provided *zero* laboratory cause/effect evidence that "space expansion" happens at all, or that it has some tangible effect on a photon. The whole "space expansion causes photon redshift" claim is an affirming the consequent fallacy run amuck. How do you *know* there's any physical empirical relationship between photon redshift and 'space expansion'?



Not really. YEC can be scientifically *falsified* by various means, including the distance between objects in space, and the amount of time it takes light to travel that far. We can also look at isotopes in rocks and see that they are around 4.6 billion years old.

Generic (ancient) creationism can't necessarily be falsified, even if you think it cannot be "verified" at the moment.



Lots of things considered to be "science" lack empirical justification in controlled experimentation. That alone isn't sufficient to rule out a concept. I'm not sure why you think anyone has a 'special' burden of proof by assuming anything about the origin of DNA.



It works if you allow for time travel. My point is that we might find a piece of technology on another planet, and determine it was 'intelligently designed' even without knowing for sure who the designer might be. There could be scenarios where the knowledge of the designer is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not a specific thing was 'intelligently designed'.



So imagine a device created by an alien race. It may not have any technology of human origin, yet still give us the impression that it was 'intelligently designed'.



Until I hear you explain how slime molds act 'intelligently', I'll have to assume that's a judgment call on your part.



I think we kinda skipped my key point. We might indeed find evidence of alien technology some day and determine that it's 'intelligently designed' equipment. We need not know anything about the designer himself/herself to know that a particular item contains evidence of intelligent design.

Admittedly it gets harder to apply such concepts to the origin of DNA and atomic structures, but the main point is still valid. Knowledge of the designer, and 'evidence' of a "designer" might be found within a specific object without first having prior evidence of a "designer".

"That my friend is purely a "statement of faith" on your part."

It looks like a few things need to be clarified for me here. Is a "statement of faith" considered by you to indicate a weak argument? Because it appears that you are now using the word "faith" as a way of saying that something like the Big Bang Theory isn't evidentially supported and is a guess where people hope it's true. (meaning that you seem to be undermining what the word "faith" means by indicating that it is used to label weak beliefs).

"The only thing we "observe" directly is "photon redshift". Photon redshift *routinely* occurs in plasma in the lab as photons lose some of their momentum to the medium due to various types of inelastic scattering. Furthermore, *moving objects* are also a demonstrated "cause" of photon redshift. All of those cause/effect relationships are known and demonstrated."

We directly observe the redshift as well as cosmic background radiation. In addition to this, we have experiments to directly observe conditions that existed during the early portions of the universe (particle colliders). Meaning that there is less truth in the above statement than you appear to be aware of.

"On the other hand, "space expansion" (the claim made in LCDM) has *never* been demonstrated in the lab in controlled experimentation, so how could you or anyone possibly calculate the the odds that 'space expansion' had anything at all to do with "photon redshift"? Even if the universe is 'expanding" due to moving objects, it wouldn't be the same claim as 'space expansion did it" which is what LCDM claims."

Why would an observation about reality need to be replicated in a lab? Do I need to create literally every single thing that exists in nature in a lab in order to be able to call the tests "science?" Because you seem to have a narrow and pointless definition of science.

Example: Do I need to create a volcano in my lab in order to be able to make statements of fact about volcanos on earth? Or is it sufficient to make the observations and perform tests while collecting data in the field on active and/or dormant volcanos?

"You have provided *zero* laboratory cause/effect evidence that "space expansion" happens at all, or that it has some tangible effect on a photon. The whole "space expansion causes photon redshift" claim is an affirming the consequent fallacy run amuck. How do you *know* there's any physical empirical relationship between photon redshift and 'space expansion'?"

Once again, the experiments performed in the labs (particle colliders) are used to test early universe conditions, not expansion. Universal expansion doesn't need to be tested in a lab, it is observed in nature.

How do I know that the redshift indicates the expansion of the universe? Because that is how the Doppler Effect works. That is how we understand the redshift and it is the same Doppler Effect that allows for you to watch the weather channel and observe the direction storms are moving. There is literally no difference. Do I need to recreate storms in the lab in order to use the Doppler Effect to track them?

"Not really. YEC can be scientifically *falsified* by various means, including the distance between objects in space, and the amount of time it takes light to travel that far. We can also look at isotopes in rocks and see that they are around 4.6 billion years old."

Yes, it might very well be easier and quicker to show evidence arguing against YEC, but OEC isn't more scientifically valid by default. It is religion, not science, because it has yet to meet its burden of proof with respect to its central claim (the existence of the "Creator").

"Generic (ancient) creationism can't necessarily be falsified, even if you think it cannot be "verified" at the moment."

Yes, it can. We can explicitly test for predictions that OEC would make. Which would include the existence of the creator. In the absence of any evidence of a creator (evidence expected to exist), we can reasonably conclude that OEC fails to meet its burden of proof and is more likely false than not. Assuming that it is possible because it "cannot be 'verified at the moment" is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance. If we can't "know" the answer to a specific question, a default answer doesn't become possible as a consequence of not having a definitive answer (or an answer that you consider sufficient).

"Lots of things considered to be "science" lack empirical justification in controlled experimentation. That alone isn't sufficient to rule out a concept. I'm not sure why you think anyone has a 'special' burden of proof by assuming anything about the origin of DNA."

Once again, you've such a narrow definition of what science is that "science" to you isn't even a fraction of the science being done every single day by scientists.

Also, I am not claiming anyone has a "special" burden of proof. Anyone who makes a claim is expected to provide the proof/evidence of that claim if they are promoting it as being true with respect to nature. So if someone claims that life originates from intelligent creation (or that the universe in general does), the burden of proof is on the claimant to show evidence of the creator AND the mechanism connecting creator to creation.

"It works if you allow for time travel. My point is that we might find a piece of technology on another planet, and determine it was 'intelligently designed' even without knowing for sure who the designer might be. There could be scenarios where the knowledge of the designer is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not a specific thing was 'intelligently designed'."

We can only travel in one direction through time. So it is pointless to construct absurd "what if" scenarios like the one you did.

The alien technology one is no better. Once again, we don't have any evidence of alien life, let alone intelligent alien life necessary to create technology. There is probably life elsewhere in the galaxy (just playing the odds) but it is unlikely to be similar to life on Earth and I don't know of any way to assess the possibility of it being intelligent enough to create any piece of technology.

But let's assume that somehow, somewhere we came across a piece of alien technology. Let's say a spaceship. We can directly compare and contrast this piece of technology with pieces of similar technology humans have made while simultaneously looking for evidence of similar objects in nature that we know are not the product of design. What we would find is that the alien spaceship share more in common with our own aircraft and spacecraft than any natural product, allowing us to hypothesize either 1) the existence of sentient alien life or 2) a human on Earth has built an awesome spaceship and kept it secret from everyone and it's so awesome people thinks it is alien. In order to reach one conclusion or the other, we still need direct evidence linking the product to the designer/creator. Maybe they left a video or audio file on it.

Even more important than this, is to note that there is NOTHING in nature that can't be explained via natural processes. Meaning that nothing (not life, not DNA, etc) requires supernature to exist. In fact, when we compare life and DNA to hardware and software, people are making the comparison BACKWARDS. DNA doesn't emulate software or code, software/code emulates DNA. Life doesn't simulate machines, machines (made by humans) simulate life. This is why we copy the mechanisms that have evolved into machines so that the machines can perform tasks for us. People who ascribe "intelligence" to living systems/products are making a categorical error where they think the blueprints of the machines we've built predate their natural counterparts. We create machines to try and replicate life, not the other way around.

"Until I hear you explain how slime molds act 'intelligently', I'll have to assume that's a judgment call on your part."

Slime molds don't act intelligently. Slime molds live in masses and communicate cell to cell chemically which results in the entire mass reacting to the same stimuli in similar ways.

Here is an a great example, sea slugs that eat algae on coral reefs. In the Pacific (and elsewhere I am sure but the example I know of specifically involves a Pacific species) there is a species of sea slug that only eats a specific species of algae from a specific species of coral. So in order to survive, the larvae must settle on the coral in order to be near enough to a food source to eat. The larvae hatch and are carried into the water column and their flagella immediately start beating and they swim. They will keep swimming until they encounter a chemical tracer in the water column emitted by the algae they eat, if the concentration of the chemical is high enough, they stop swimming and begin to sink and hopefully land on the reef. But they don't consciously stop swimming, this isn't an intelligent decision. The reason the flagella stop beating is because when the chemical receptors are activated by the chemical given off by the algae, they shut off the flagella and the larvae has no choice but to settle. Some might look at this and INCORRECTLY assume that it is a conscious and intelligent decision, but that is a gross oversimplification that is wrong.

"I think we kinda skipped my key point. We might indeed find evidence of alien technology some day and determine that it's 'intelligently designed' equipment. We need not know anything about the designer himself/herself to know that a particular item contains evidence of intelligent design."

We need to know that what we found can't possibly occur in nature without an intelligence to create it in order to hypothesize that an intelligence did create it.

"Admittedly it gets harder to apply such concepts to the origin of DNA and atomic structures, but the main point is still valid. Knowledge of the designer, and 'evidence' of a "designer" might be found within a specific object without first having prior evidence of a "designer"."

Once again, no. You need to know that what you have found (your "evidence") can't possibly exist in nature otherwise and in order to conclude it was designed, you need to show the implied designer is possible.

We know alien life existing in the universe is possible and we know it is also possible for it to be intelligent. Why? Because life and intelligent life already exist in the universe. Us. Here. On Earth. <- that is all the evidence we need to conclude that aliens and alien technology are possible.

There is literally NO evidence that supernature or supernatural processes or gods are possible. We have no analogs, we have no examples.

I'll paraphrase Tim Minchin's poem "Storm" here: "Throughout history every mystery has turned out to be, not magic."

 

[Loudmouth]

I am a fan of clarity, preferably in a concise manner but I suspect that this write-up won’t be particularly so. These three common terms (Possible, Plausible, and Probable) are sometimes used interchangeably, and in the context of religious discussions they are used with intention of arguing for or against a god. This makes it imperative that these terms be used appropriately and clearly, as well as their antonyms (Impossible, Implausible, and Improbable).

Utlimately, those words are used to indicate an assumption of agreement. If I say that something is probable and no one challenges it, then it is a tacit agreement that we think something could have happened.

What you don't get to do is proclaim that something is probable, and by the very act of calling it probable you have somehow proven that it is probable. In a logical argument we have axioms that lead to a conclusion. Those axioms are defined as truths, but they must be "agreed upon" truths for the purposes of the argument. The same is true for probable, possible, and plausible.

 

[TBDude65]

Utlimately, those words are used to indicate an assumption of agreement. If I say that something is probable and no one challenges it, then it is a tacit agreement that we think something could have happened.

What you don't get to do is proclaim that something is probable, and by the very act of calling it probable you have somehow proven that it is probable. In a logical argument we have axioms that lead to a conclusion. Those axioms are defined as truths, but they must be "agreed upon" truths for the purposes of the argument. The same is true for probable, possible, and plausible.

fair enough. Yes, some philosophical arguments are based upon initial assumptions, but initial assumptions aren't actually true by default even if they are assumed to be for the sake of a specific argument.

Which is ultimately what I am challenging, the way the word "possible" is used with respect to god where it is assumed that a god is possible without providing any evidential reason why that must be a true assumption.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am a fan of clarity, preferably in a concise manner but I suspect that this write-up won’t be particularly so. These three common terms (Possible, Plausible, and Probable) are sometimes used interchangeably, and in the context of religious discussions they are used with intention of arguing for or against a god. This makes it imperative that these terms be used appropriately and clearly, as well as their antonyms (Impossible, Implausible, and Improbable).

Perhaps it's best to qualify the first usage of such terms in an argument or discussion, because I don't hold with the same usages as you describe.

 

[Michael]

"That my friend is purely a "statement of faith" on your part."

It looks like a few things need to be clarified for me here. Is a "statement of faith" considered by you to indicate a weak argument?

I simply note where you took an "observation" (redshift) and subjectively claimed (apparently on faith) that the "cause" was something unrelated to anything that has ever seen in labs on Earth. It's a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

Whether it's "good" (correct) faith, or "bad" (incorrect) belief, remains to be seen.

I'm simply noting where your beliefs are rooted in processes and ideas that you can demonstrate in a lab, and where they deviate from empirical laboratory knowledge.

Because it appears that you are now using the word "faith" as a way of saying that something like the Big Bang Theory isn't evidentially supported and is a guess where people hope it's true.

I personally would indeed say that LCDM theory is a form of "bad faith", meaning it's invalid. Faith in the unseen is neither good nor bad by itself IMO, but one's faith can conflict with the empirical evidence, which it does in this case. There's ample evidence of perfectly "natural" explanations for photon redshift.

(meaning that you seem to be undermining what the word "faith" means by indicating that it is used to label weak beliefs).

In this case, I probably did use it in that context, but I'm not suggesting that all forms of "faith" are "weak" or "bad".

We directly observe the redshift

But you haven't even technically demonstrated that it's empirically "possible", let alone the most "probable cause" of photon redshift. How did you go from "photon redshift happens", to "space expansion did it"?

as well as cosmic background radiation.

We also observe an x-ray background too, and the sources are the same, namely all the stars in the sky. Eddington predicted the background temperature of the universe to within a half of a degree on his first attempt based on nothing but the scattering of starlight on "dust" in space. So what if there's all kinds of wavelengths from sun in space? What does that have to do with demonstrating that it's even physically "possible" for "space" to do magical expansion tricks? How are you physically defining "space", and how does it 'expand'? What "lab experiment" verifies that your explanation is a "possible" cause of photon redshift?

In addition to this, we have experiments to directly observe conditions that existed during the early portions of the universe (particle colliders).

Unfortunately all those collider experiments at LHC blew SUSY theory and WIMP theory out of water, as did LUX, PandaX, etc. Sorry to burst your bubble, but LHC hasn't been kind to LCDM theory, not even a little.

Meaning that there is less truth in the above statement than you appear to be aware of.

I suspect that you simply haven't studied these topics as much as I have.

Why would an observation about reality need to be replicated in a lab?

How would we get from "possible" to "probable"? It's technically "possible" that space genies are responsible for "photon redshift" too, but how "probable" is that "possibility"?

I can cite several *demonstrated* lab processes that *cause* photon redshift. That might allow us to claim some or all of them are "probable" causes of photon redshift, and empirically preferable to "space genies".

Do I need to create literally every single thing that exists in nature in a lab in order to be able to call the tests "science?" Because you seem to have a narrow and pointless definition of science.

No, I'm simply trying to decide how you determined that "space genies" wasn't a "likely" explanation, whereas "space expansion" seems to work for you.

Example: Do I need to create a volcano in my lab in order to be able to make statements of fact about volcanos on earth?

What good is the claim "space expansion did it" as it relates to the *cause* of volcanoes? I'm not about to require you to recreate each process that you put forth as a "cause" in the lab, but before you introduce *supernatural* constructs, I'd at least expect you to rule out the more likely causes. There are *many demonstrated* actual "causes" of photon redshift, and none of them involve "expanding space".

Or is it sufficient to make the observations and perform tests while collecting data in the field on active and/or dormant volcanos?

That probably depends on what you're trying to claim is the "cause". If you expect me to believe "God did it", I'd expect to see some evidence of that assertion. Wouldn't you?

Once again, the experiments performed in the labs (particle colliders) are used to test early universe conditions, not expansion.

Then you can't logically cite collider experiments as being helpful to your claims related to photon redshift.

Universal expansion doesn't need to be tested in a lab, it is observed in nature.

Huh? No. Moving objects are "observed in nature" and they cause photon redshift. Ditto for various types of inelastic scattering. These are *empirical verified possible* causes of photon redshift. You haven't even demonstrate that space expansion is a 'possible' cause of photon redshift because you haven't demonstrated the space expansion has any effect on a photon.

How do I know that the redshift indicates the expansion of the universe? Because that is how the Doppler Effect works.

No, it's not how Doppler shift works. Doppler shift works by *moving objects*, not "space expansion". Notice the difference?

That is how we understand the redshift and it is the same Doppler Effect that allows for you to watch the weather channel and observe the direction storms are moving. There is literally no difference.

Oh, but there is a difference. Everything you just talked about is related to *moving objects*, not "space expansion". You're essentially (well astronomers probably mislead you) using an equivocation fallacy in your argument. It basically goes something like "object movement causes photon redshift" and "space expansion" is the "same as" Doppler shift. It's not the same.

Do I need to recreate storms in the lab in order to use the Doppler Effect to track them?

No, I'm convinced that Doppler shift will be related to moving objects and moving objects will cause photon redshift (and blueshift). I'm not convinced that "Space expansion" is even a "possible" cause of photon redshift.

Yes, it might very well be easier and quicker to show evidence arguing against YEC, but OEC isn't more scientifically valid by default.

True, but one concept can be falsified if not the other.

It is religion, not science, because it has yet to meet its burden of proof with respect to its central claim (the existence of the "Creator").

When did you demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" again?

Yes, it can. We can explicitly test for predictions that OEC would make. Which would include the existence of the creator. In the absence of any evidence of a creator (evidence expected to exist), we can reasonably conclude that OEC fails to meet its burden of proof and is more likely false than not.

Yet you failed to demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" or that it has any effect on a single photon before pointing at the sky and claiming "space expansion did it"? How does that double standard work?

Assuming that it is possible because it "cannot be 'verified at the moment" is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance.

Care to explain how your "space expansion" claim isn't an argument from ignorance by your own standards?

If we can't "know" the answer to a specific question, a default answer doesn't become possible as a consequence of not having a definitive answer (or an answer that you consider sufficient).

I get the feeling you misunderstood my point because I didn't make that claim, but you're essentially (maybe not to your knowledge) making that claim with respect to "space expansion" and what effect you *claim* it has on a photon.

Once again, you've such a narrow definition of what science is that "science" to you isn't even a fraction of the science being done every single day by scientists.

I think you're completely missing my point. I'm not suggesting that science is limited to demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms. I'm simply trying to understand how you decided that "space expansion" was possible explanation for photon redshift, let alone "probable".

In terms of DNA, I was not trying to suggest there is any "default" position.

Also, I am not claiming anyone has a "special" burden of proof. Anyone who makes a claim is expected to provide the proof/evidence of that claim if they are promoting it as being true with respect to nature. So if someone claims that life originates from intelligent creation (or that the universe in general does), the burden of proof is on the claimant to show evidence of the creator AND the mechanism connecting creator to creation.

Yet you never demonstrate the existence of space expansion or that it has any effect on photon before you pointed at the sky and claimed "space expansion did it". You didn't meet your own burden of proof to even claim space expansion is "possible", let alone "probable".

The alien technology one is no better. Once again, we don't have any evidence of alien life, let alone intelligent alien life necessary to create technology. There is probably life elsewhere in the galaxy (just playing the odds) but it is unlikely to be similar to life on Earth and I don't know of any way to assess the possibility of it being intelligent enough to create any piece of technology.

So if you and I stumbled across a piece of technology that was far more advanced than anything humans have ever built, would you more apt to believe it's intelligently designed, or it just randomly appeared where we found it?

But let's assume that somehow, somewhere we came across a piece of alien technology. Let's say a spaceship. We can directly compare and contrast this piece of technology with pieces of similar technology humans have made while simultaneously looking for evidence of similar objects in nature that we know are not the product of design. What we would find is that the alien spaceship share more in common with our own aircraft and spacecraft than any natural product, allowing us to hypothesize either 1) the existence of sentient alien life or 2) a human on Earth has built an awesome spaceship and kept it secret from everyone and it's so awesome people thinks it is alien. In order to reach one conclusion or the other, we still need direct evidence linking the product to the designer/creator. Maybe they left a video or audio file on it.

I think you just demonstrated my point however. We'd both assume that the technology in question was "intelligently designed". We wouldn't *automatically* assume it's "alien" technology, but we'd both be more apt to accept an "alien" explanation over "God did it". Correct?

"Aliens did it" is a "possible" explanation because we know that intelligence is capable of creating technology, and life exists on Earth in many forms. It "could" exist elsewhere in space. Whether is the most "probable" explanation remains to be seen, but we can't rule it out automatically just because we haven't seen any alien lifeforms.

... People who ascribe "intelligence" to living systems/products are making a categorical error where they think the blueprints of the machines we've built predate their natural counterparts. We create machines to try and replicate life, not the other way around.

I didn't make such a comparison and we're getting way off track from my original point. I was simply pointing out the some observations may allow us to know that something was a product of 'intelligent design" simply by looking at it and examining it carefully. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Slime molds don't act intelligently. Slime molds live in masses and communicate cell to cell chemically which results in the entire mass reacting to the same stimuli in similar ways.

There have been *many* published papers attributing slime molds with "intelligence". I didn't make it up.

Looking for true intelligence, study shows that slime molds can learn - ExtremeTech

I'm going to skip the redundant arguments.

There is literally NO evidence that supernature or supernatural processes or gods are possible. We have no analogs, we have no examples.

Your "space expansion" claim is ultimately a "supernatural" process that has never been documented on Earth. You're clearly playing by two different standards of "evidence" as it relates to photon redshift, and the topic of God. Since there are many *natural* causes of photon redshift, why do we even need a *supernatural* option in the first place?

I'll paraphrase Tim Minchin's poem "Storm" here: "Throughout history every mystery has turned out to be, not magic."

There's a great irony in that statement as it relates to your *assumed* cause of photon redshift.