Scientific Proof of God?
Because we have no compelling evidence of the multiverse theory (at least not yet) we are not going to make claims of absolute certainty because that would be preposterous ... and that is precisely what you seem to be doing.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alex is a very accomplished video blogger (especially at his age). I like his style; it is entertaining and cuts to the chase. His knowledge and articulate, biting rebuttals hint as to why he now has over 200,000 subscribers.
This analysis (one of many) deals with some of the most common arguments for those who try to prove God exists.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
This video provides both sides of the argument. The argument is posed from a religious perspective and rebutted from a skeptic's perspective.
Good stuff. It's always great to see young people with brains.
The young man is frighteningly bright and his position quite difficult to refute. Thank you for passing it along.
He has made quite a few videos on various topics. It is good to see a young person so effectively countering the nonsense of his elders.
Okay, I'm bored so let's play in this sandbox. I think I'll address the different topics in Alex O'Connor's video in separate comments so its easier to discuss.
Alex O'Connor ignores the elephant in the room and, in fact, dances with the elephant occasionally. Science does not prove; science postulates. Observation and knowledge through a process of deductive logic produces a plausible postulate to answer a question. Evidence is gathered to either support or contradict the postulate; either increasing or decreasing the probability of the postulate being plausible.
Theology does generate proof through a process of inductive and deductive logic that can be explained by the simple reasoning "eliminate the possibilities and what remains, however improbable, must be truth." Theology accepts and assumes first cause (God) as the explanation for the improbable; there isn't an 'I don't know' answer to a theological question. Scientific refutation of possibilities provides confirmation for the improbable being caused by God. A scientific answer of 'I don't know' also provides confirmation of first cause.
Theological proof of God is demonstrated by implausible and improbable observations and events that cannot be plausibly explained by science. When Alex O'Connor states that science doesn't know how the Big Bang occurred or what was before the Big Bang then O'Connor has provided confirming evidence for the theological argument. O'Connor has theologically proved first cause (God).
Scientific arguments tend to provide confirming evidence for theological arguments. O'Connor mentions arguing in the gaps. Yes, that's where the theological proof of God can be found; the gaps in scientific knowledge is theological proof of God.
I have no idea what you refer to as the elephant in the room. Clarity?
Correct. Are you suggesting Alex thinks science proves? Again, I do not know where this is coming from.
Theology does not eliminate all the possibilities. Theology does not prove anything; it simply asserts truth.
Correct, see above: ⇑
How do you come to such an odd conclusion?
A lack of knowledge is not proof of God.
Hardly; see prior answer: ⇑
Where do you get this stuff?
This is the expected god of the gaps argument, but that gap is getting increasingly smaller with no sign of god to be found, for the past 2000 years.
Obviously, the fact that we exist and that there are some areas that are not currently amenable to scientific research is in no way proof or even a suggestion that any god exists.
That is dancing with the elephant in the room; science does not produce proof (and, by extension, science does not require proof). Science generates postulates that are considered true (the postulate is first cause) and then tests the truth of the postulate. Confirming evidence does not make the truth of the postulate more true. Contradictory evidence will make the truth of the postulate less true.
In theology accepting God as first cause is not a postulate; God as first cause is a given truth that does not need to be tested. (BTW, this works the same for Aton, Zeus, Jupiter, Shiva, or the Abrahamic God.) A theological postulate is whether or not a specific observation, experience, or event can be attributed to God (the first cause). Any unexplained observation, experience, or event is always attributed to God; confirming evidence does not make God a greater cause while contradicting evidence simply removes God as cause. Religious tenets (including scripture) are considered evidence in theology; if an observation, experience, or event is not consistent with scripture then God cannot be the cause.
Where is the positive testable evidence of a supernatural religious creator? A religious belief isn't proof and neither is a book of religious beliefs that was written by man.
Religious believers are making a logical positive claim of a god existing so where is their proof to support that claim. God doesn't exist because they claim or believe that it does. You need positive proof of god and there is exactly none at this moment.
Just because something is unexplained doesn't mean that it is the work of god. The fact that science might not be technically advanced enough to prove it doesn't mean that the action is the work of god by default.
No, religious believers are stating that God as first cause doesn't need to be tested. That really isn't any different than scientists stating that the universe as first cause doesn't need to be tested.
In theology everything is of God. In science everything is of the universe. Both utilize the same sort of circular reasoning based upon an assumed first cause to arrive at conclusions.
It is profoundly different. The two major differences:
Science assumes the 'something' before the Big Bang obeys the same laws of nature observed in the universe that exists. Since the universe obviously exists then the 'something' before the Big Bang must have existed. The understanding of of existence is being extrapolated onto pre-existence which treats the Big Bang as a symmetrical asymptotic event. That's still assuming the universe as first cause that doesn't need to be tested.
No it does not! Science assumes (predicts even) the opposite. But ultimately, the scientific position on the nature of existence prior to the Big Bang is that this remains to be discovered.
I agree.
There is no 'pre'-existence. You are trying to redefine existence to limit it to the known universe.
I do not assume the known universe is the first cause. Quintessential existence is assumed, by me, to be the 'first cause'.
Natural selection does not explain evolution. Natural selection explains changes in population size and diversity of populations in an environment. Natural selection does not explain how the diversity of populations originated. During Charles Darwin's lifetime there were a large variety of livestock breeds that did not arise from natural selection. Darwin ignored the evidence for how diversity originates.
IMO the reason Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection received so much attention was because Darwin presented natural selection as a 'crisis of faith'. Natural selection explains the presence or absence of species within an environment ergo natural selection is a process for origin of species (a logically flawed induction). Since natural selection provides a process for origin of species then God couldn't be responsible for the origin of species. That's a crisis of faith. But that crisis of faith arose from ignorance of genetic variation caused by breeding and a flawed inductive conclusion that natural selection was a creative process.
Charles Darwin simply got it wrong.
Correct, you need to include mutation (random errors) during genetic copying.
Substantiate this claim.
Not sure where to even start given you do not seem to understand biochemical evolution. Much to my surprise.
Next comment(s) to address the separate subject of mutation.
BTW, it should be possible to test natural selection by placing a population of simple life forms in a controlled environment and gradually altering the environment to replicate primordial conditions.
Not only is this possible (gradually altering the environment), it has been done countless times.
Why would we need primordial conditions when natural selection continues to this day and is influenced by human behavior such as the chemicals that we put in the environment, as well as the changing environment itself.
Do you understand that we develop new flu vaccines every year because of how the virus is evolving? The same idea applies to drug-resistant bacteria.
Hi epistte, long time no type. Hope all is well.
First, I must be honest and admit I am largely commenting because primordial is one of my favorite words. No idea why it is.
I know what I am posting is not the point the discussion above regarding primordial goo above, but for anyone interested my analogy of the help from primordial goo at the very beginning of earthly life, of course is vehicular one one. Which, of course, leans on some Newtonian thoughts.
I think of the primordial goo as the extra "energy" needed to accelerate from a standstill in the evolution of earthly life. Once in motion, things tend to stay in motion, that is a car needs very little throttle to cruise. Start from nothing, aka standstill, the primordial goo helps with conditions to get that initial push. Once in motion, life tends to stay in motion...in one form or another.
I know that doesn't apply to the specific discussion, but thought it out there anyhow.
The emergence of the coywolf is the result of changes in population rather than environment. Coywolves are genetically distinct from coyotes and wolves; however, are considered hybrids rather than a separate species or subspecies because they can breed with either coyotes or wolves. Differences taxonomic morphology does not necessarily a make a species.
Influenza is an RNA virus. RNA viruses are prone to much higher rates of mutation because they lack the self correcting mechanism of double base pair strands found in DNA. DNA viruses mutate at a much slower rate, if they mutate at all.
Some antibiotics work by interfering with mechanisms to replicate DNA in bacteria (interrupting mitosis); the antibiotic can directly cause mutations in bacterial DNA. Single cell organisms do not possess corrective capabilities as do more complex organisms, so mutations can replicate more easily within a bacterial population.
Diseases (and vaccination) induce B cells to assemble specific genes (alter their own DNA) to produce specific antibodies.
I think you need to state the point you are trying to make. If this is somehow your attempt to show that Darwin was wrong then I would call this a non sequitur argument. Thus you must be arguing some other point so let's be clear. What, precisely, is your point?
The point is that the examples provided in your link are about changes in size and diversity of populations but doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of the diversity. The implication from the linked examples is that environmental changes are direct cause of changes in genetic distinctions within and between species.
My example of the coywolf suggests that genetic distinctions are more likely to originate from breeding and sexual reproduction. Breeding and sexual reproduction are necessary to establish distinctions before natural selection can change population size or diversity. Natural selection is not first cause for origin of species.
They are examples of variation based on environmental conditions.
Yes. That was the point of the link.
More likely?? You offer an entirely different example of variations based on population and use that to counter the examples I provided based on environment. Where does the 'more likely' assessment come from?
Where did you get the impression that I stated otherwise? Note how this started (good grief this gets old):
Reproduction reifies (phenotype) the mutations. Progeny with mutations that are beneficial for survival are passed on to their progeny and so forth. There are many other factors (e.g. genetic drift) but clearly natural selection is the selector for the next generation.
Um. Genetic distinctions need to occur and accumulate in separate populations before they can crossbreed to make a hybrid of the two. You need mutations for that.
Didn't we just talk about this a few days ago?
That mutation is still evidence of the process of evolution. The fact that DNA mutates at a much slower rate is irrelevant. It still mutates and those genetic mutations cause changes in the organism.
Thanks for asking and yes, all is well.
Were they created by human breeding for a superior animal for either meat or milk production?
The variety of livestock arose because a creator interfered with random breeding and guided the breeding process to achieve a desired result. Nature did not select and the breeding animals did not choose.
Who is that creator?
In the case of livestock breeds, humans were the creator. We know we are the creator because we know we did it. Do the animals in those livestock breeds understand we are their creator?
We are not the creator but rather the selector. Basically this is artificial selection rather than natural selection and we are the 'artificial' selector.
It is irrelevant if they know or not. How is this red herring relevant in your argument for a religious creator and opposing evolution?
As TiG said we are the selector because we choose what characteristics to breed for.
Alex O'Connor raises the issue of mutation at both the DNA and cellular level. Cellular mutation first ...
Cellular mutation is a prerequisite for reproduction of complex life forms. Conception and gestation begins with a single cell that replicates itself (by mitosis) to form a cluster of identical cells. As gestation progresses the cells begin mutating into the various tissues and organs of the body. Those cellular mutations are not caused by coding errors in DNA.
Every offspring resulting from sexual reproduction depends upon a complex process of cellular mutation during gestation that is not caused by alterations of DNA. Congenital birth defects have not been traced to coding errors occurring during mitosis of the first cell to form a cluster of identical cells. Birth defects arise at a later stage of development during gestation and may be caused by a number of factors including (in rare cases) DNA coding errors occurring during mitosis.
As Alex O'Connor points out, cellular mutations caused by DNA error coding may be observed in single celled organisms. However, in complex life forms those types of coding errors could only affect parts of the body resulting in a birth defect.
The diversity of uniquely individual traits within a species are the result of combining genetic material from two separate individuals during sexual reproduction. That known process suggests that the original of new species is more likely the result of combining genetic material from two individuals rather than malformations caused by DNA coding errors.
Citation?
You're just making stuff up now. There's no such thing as cellular mutation. Everything you're trying to describe is controlled by DNA.
Every cell in your body contains a complete copy of your genome (mitochondrial and nuclear), but only 1.5% of the 3.3 billion base pairs in your DNA represents protein coding information (the blueprints for your tissues, organs, bones, etc.), and only a little bit of that 1.5% is needed by any given cell to make it be whatever it's supposed to be (a bone cell, a liver cell, a skin cell, etc.). This is controlled by a set of regulatory instructions (such as hox genes) elsewhere in your DNA, separate from the protein coding information.
Think of your DNA as a hard drive with a bunch of different programs stored in it. Think of the regulatory DNA as the master control program that accesses other programs on the hard drive (gene sequences) and uses them to make all of the different cells in your body, and at just the right times during fetal development.
Incidentally, the regulatory part is only about another 3% of your genome, so combined with the protein coding stuff we're only talking about somewhere around 5% of your DNA. That leaves lots of extra room for storage of ancient deactivated genes and other stuff (referred to as junk DNA) for mutations to play around with and produce changes that may or may not be expressed in the future.
Why doesn't this seem to be sinking in? You need mutations before you can have diversity to combine during sexual reproduction. You need mutations that produce slightly different versions of the same genes across different individuals, called alleles. That's what diversity means: different people with the same basic genes, but with slightly different versions of those genes (different alleles). You get those through mutations. That's why there are different eye colors, for example. Everybody has the same genes for eyes, but there are slightly different alleles for the specific sequences that cause eye color. Different combinations of those alleles produce different eye color in different individuals. But they're all the same genes, human eye genes, and mutations are what created the different alleles of those same genes.
In humans DNA is actually stored on 46 hard drives and each human only passes 23 hard drives to offspring. And the human does not pass the same 23 hard drives to each offspring. To use your analogy, the hard drives are paired in 23 separate computers that run the programs stored on their hard drives. The process is more akin to a network of computers running their programs simultaneously.
Just as with computing, to use your analogy, the genes perform different functions at different times during the development and life cycle. During gestation an embryo progresses through various archaic stages of development; essentially moving through evolutionary history in brief period of time. As examples, the human embryo gestation progresses through stages that include development of gill slits and tails.
DNA mutations in organisms that replicate through mitosis are obvious. There isn't an admixture of genetic material; a single individual is the source of genetic material. But replicating organisms do not have a high level of safeguards to correct DNA mutations; there isn't as much genetic material and there isn't an immune system.
Consider that sexual reproduction arose to prevent DNA mutations. The process of meiosis (division of chromosome pairs into reproductive cells) and combination of genetic material from two individuals replaces the need for DNA mutations to introduce diversity into a population.
So, mutations are like missing sectors?
Following the analogy (which has now been carried too far) I would consider a mutation to be a sector that has mangled bits during copy. The information is not missing, per se, it is corrupted.
( I need to come back to this later; no time right now. )
Why should that hypothesis be considered in this discussion?
The process of meiosis is where the mutations occur. And what is this 'replaces the need for' stuff? That presumes evolution is a guided process; best we can tell it is not. There is no need or desired end.
Strange that you chose to expand on the simplifications I made for the sake of expediency rather than speaking to the points therein.
Huh? To prevent mutations? One of the biggest advantages of sexual reproduction is the creation of lots of unique individuals, slightly different from either parent (not to mention everyone else), through the combination of genetic variation that only exists because of mutations.
How does it replace the need for DNA mutations? Mutations are where the diversity comes from in the first place. That's the whole point. I'm more than a little flabbergasted that you don't seem to be getting that.
You keep trying to claim that the combination of genetic differences from two individuals during sex negates the need for mutations, all the while ignoring the source of the differences: mutations, which either occurred in themselves or were inherited from their ancestors.
Deletions are indeed a possible kind of mutation, but I agree with TiG that corrupted files are probably the better analogy. Corruptions that occasionally result in something beneficial, too. Not very often, but sometimes.
Yes, prevent mutations.
Research affirms sexual reproduction avoids harmful mutations - Phys.org
Sexual reproduction is the source of diversity. As an example, an estimated 40 pct of the Neanderthal genome is present in the human population.
At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans - Live Science
So, interbreeding between species passed a significant portion of the archaic genome into the human population. That suggests that the population of each species would contain a significant portion of the genome of previous archaic genomes through interbreeding. And the example of the coywolf (presented earlier) suggests that two archaic species interbreeding can result in a population with an admixture of the two archaic genomes.
Did you read this from Dig a while back?:
Um, hello? That's not the same thing as preventing mutations. Here's some more on that:
Again, being more efficient at removing deleterious mutations is not the same thing as preventing mutations, and that was your claim.
And where do you think the Neanderthal genome came from? They shared a close common ancestry with us, after all, which is why we were able to breed with them. What exactly are you supposing happened to them that made them different from both modern humans and the common ancestral population we shared? Where do you think the diversity that led to both them and us came from?
I'll give you a hint.... Genetic isolation + mutations + natural selection and/or unselected drift + time.
Alex O'Connor introduces the possibility that species arise from DNA coding errors as observed in single celled organisms. However, randomly occurring DNA coding errors should also increase the difficulty of using DNA to trace the origins of homo sapiens to the African continent. Genetic tracing of specie migrations and origin depends upon stability of DNA markers across many generations.
The science of DNA testing has also shown segments of DNA shared across species (apparently from a distant common ancestor). These results suggest that DNA is highly stable across generations and argues against random DNA error coding being the root cause of new species emerging.
DNA is very stable. It takes very few critical changes, at times, to effect substantial differences in species. We are 96% in common (DNA wise) with chimpanzees.