Junk DNA: goodbye!: Review article (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 16, 2015, 21:22 (3322 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What does size have to do with anything? You have a strange approach to the discussion. The issue is why are there human beings on Earth? -As frequently happens on this forum, the discussion between Tony and myself has changed the subject. Both of you constantly explain why you reject chance and therefore believe in a designer, but in the post you are referring to, I have spelled out the unimaginable scale and unfathomable nature of the power you expect us to believe in although you have no direct, observable, provable evidence that such a power exists. It is nothing more than a theory to explain why we exist, and it has no more substance than the multiverse, string theory or any other hypothesis offered to solve the great mystery. Your answer is that “one has to take Pascal's leap”. No, one doesn't.-Tony has come up with another admirable list of designer arguments, which he summarizes: “It isn't just that the universe is fine tuned for life, it is fine tuned for the universe as we know it to even exist.” This is none other than the nebulous anthropic principle, with which both theists and atheists try to justify their beliefs: if the universe (and life) was not as it is, it would either not exist or it would not be as it is. The atheist says it has to be like this because it IS, and the theist says it has to be like this, God made it this way, and God IS. Since we have absolutely nothing with which to compare our universe (or our life), the argument is a dead end.
 
DAVID: The only trivial point the atheists make is to refuse to accept a first cause. [...] Tony and I are not trivial. We are making pointed criticisms of the atheists argument. [...] Reasoning to a reasonable positive solution makes the most sense, but I admit at that point one has to take Pascal's leap. -I have accepted first cause. I do not accept (or reject) first cause consciousness. Reasonableness and the most sense are totally subjective concepts, and while I accept your criticisms of atheistic faith in chance, I do not accept the reasonableness of faith in the nebulous being described in my earlier post. Tony says the only thing Creationists trivialize is “How God Exists”. That is the equivalent of saying the only thing atheists trivialize is “How We Exist”, but I'll accept your summary if you'll accept mine. However, belief in God is not the default position. If there is no evidence for something, why should we believe in it? As David says of the infinite universe and the multiverse: "Two unprovable conjectures are just that, nothings." I'm afraid the same applies to the God conjecture.
 
I still respect and admire you both for your Pascalian athleticism, but I'd respect and admire you even more if you would acknowledge just what a mighty leap is required!