Science Implies God's Existance

The Origin of Life My opponent has claimed that the probability I claimed for abiogenesis is incorrect, because it is based on one specific form of protein, and does not account for all the possible forms. This is false. The calculations do indeed account for all the possible forms. Douglas Axe calculated all of the possible sequences, and also, all of the functional sequences. He discovered that the ratio of functional sequences to possible sequences is 1 to 10ˆ74. This is forms part of the calculation I posted. I used in the calculation. My opponent also claimed that it is not known how simple the earliest aminoacid was. Actually, we have a very good idea. The first self-replicating life would necessarily be independent. It could not live inside of another cell, because they did not exist yet. The organism with the smallest genome is the Mycoplasma genitalium. It has one of the smallest genomes of any organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. It is worth noting that this organism is not independent, but lives inside another cell, that is why its genome is so small, it doesn’t have the functions necessary to live alone. Since we are calculating the probability of an independent organism to arise by chance, it wouldn’t be a fair comparison. But we will use it anyway, to avoid conflicts. My opponent may say that while this is the currently known simplest organism, there might have been a simpler one before. This reasoning is valid, but my opponent doesn’t have to worry about that because scientists have theorized the model for the simplest possible life form that could have existed. The general consensus is that is needs well over 400 genes. Some say 350 (which many disagree with), so for the sake of the argument I’ll take 350 genes, each consisting of polymers, which each consist of aminoacids. Life aminoacids cannot bond through a non-peptide bond. If 2 aminoacids bond, there is a 50-50 chance that it would be vía a peptide bond or non-peptide bond. So for an aminoacid chain 150 aminoacids long, you get the probability of ½ x 150. Next is the fact that for life, the aminoacids needs to be “left-handed” isomers. These come in a 1 to 2 ratio, so again, we apply the probability of ½ x 150. But we could successfully form a 150 long chain, with only peptide bonds and only left handed isomers, and it might not even be functional. So we need combine those 2 calculations with the probability of the chain being functional, which we calculated is 1 in 10ˆ74 But that only accounts for one polymer, remember the organism needs 350. Combined this probability greatly surpasses the universal probability bound, and therefore is logically impossible. Indeed simultaneous trials would be necessary, using sequential trials would not make much of a difference, since the life span of aminoacids is almost nothing. “the origin of life isn’t governed by chance but by the laws of chemistry and biochemistry.” Are you suggesting biochemical predestination? That was proven wrong by the very person who initially proposed it. Biochemistry and chemistry are both subject to the laws of mathematics. Fine Tuning: My opponent claims that many of my examples for fine tuning cannot be fine tuned since they are not dimensionless constants, and therefore arbitrary. This is based on flawed reasoning. Stenger defends the ambitious claim that the laws of nature could not have been different because they can be derived from the requirement that they be Point-of-View Invariant (hereafter, PoVI)… We can formulate Stenger’s argument for this conclusion as follows: LN1. If our formulation of the laws of nature is to be objective, it must be PoVI. LN2. Invariance implies conserved quantities (Noether’s theorem). LN3. Thus, “when our models do not depend on a particular point or direction in space or a particular moment in time, then those models must necessarily contain the quantities linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, all of which are conserved. Physicists have no choice in the matter, or else their models will be subjective, that is, will give uselessly different results for every different point of view. And so the conservation principles are not laws built into the universe or handed down by deity to govern the behavior of matter. They are principles governing the behavior of physicists.” [FOFT p. 82, emphasis original] This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation – the term “invariant” has changed its meaning between LN1 and LN2. (pp. 7-8) Conclusion: We can now see the flaw in Stenger’s argument. Premise LN1 should read: If our formulation of the laws of nature is to be objective, then it must be covariant. Premise LN2 should read: symmetries imply conserved quantities. Since ‘covariant’ and ‘symmetric’ are not synonymous, it follows that the conclusion of the argument is unproven, and we would argue that it is false. The conservation principles of this universe are not merely principles governing our formulation of the laws of nature. Even if the symmetries of the laws of nature were inevitable, it would still be an open question as to precisely which symmetries were broken in our universe and which were unbroken. (p. 18) The fine tuning of the universe is not defined exactly by what parameters need to be set for life to exist. Rather, they refer to the value of the parameters for the conditions to be optimal for life. In the above graph, Con has tried to argue against fine tuning by showing that other values could still permit life. However, Con has failed to realize that the parameter is finely tuned. In the graph, the value is exactly in the middle. Exactly in the optimal point for the universe to exist perfectly. It may still persist if that value is changed, but it would not be optimal. It is finely tuned, it is in the optimal setting, the optimal value. The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The fact that the entropy of the universe is not at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy cannot decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very special, low entropy state. (p. 23) Let’s return to Stenger’s proposed solution… Stenger takes it for granted that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. We can see this also in his use of the Friedmann equation, which assumes that space-time is homogeneous and isotropic. Not surprisingly, once homogeneity and isotropy have been assumed, Stenger finds that the solution to the entropy problem is remarkably easy. We conclude that Stenger has not only failed to solve the entropy problem; he has failed to comprehend it. He has presented the problem itself as its solution. Homogeneous, isotropic expansion cannot solve the entropy problem – it is the entropy problem. Stenger’s assertion that “the universe starts out with maximum entropy or complete disorder” is false. A homogeneous, isotropic spacetime is an incredibly low entropy state. Penrose (1989) warned of precisely this brand of failed solution two decades ago... (p. 26) Inflation is potentially a solution to a particularly impressive fine-tuning problem. Suppose that inflation did solve the fine-tuning of the density of the universe. Is it reasonable to hope that all fine-tuning cases could be solved in a similar way? We contend not, because inflation has a target Inflation thus represents a very special case. Waiting inside the life-permitting range (L) is another physical parameter (p). Aim for p and you will get L thrown in for free. This is not true of the vast majority of fine-tuning cases. There is no known physical scale waiting in the life-permitting range of the quark masses, fundamental force strengths or the dimensionality of space-time. There can be no inflation-like dynamical solution to these fine-tuning problems because dynamical processes are blind to the requirements of intelligent life. Most scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczekrecognize that the universe is fine tuned.What my opponent has done is try to discredit a few specific fine tuning arguments, erroneously, and conclude that the universe is not fine tuned. But based on the soul arguments of Victor Stenger, which have been exposed as fallacious by Dr Barnes, Con tries to argue that the universe is not fine-tuned. Con’s radical position must be backed up by conclusive evidence. I think it was clear that this debate would be separate from philosophy. This is that my opponent said: The existence of God falls under philosophy. Science only makes claims about the natural world and not the supernatural. Nonetheless, I believe I see what you're saying. You want to argue science implies God's existence. My arguments in this particular debate will deal heavily with philosophy. But if you want I can challenge you to a different debate called something like "Science Implies God's Nonexistence". So we did a separate debate, which was supposed to be about the natural world. My arguments are science. My opponent’s arguments are mixed in with philosophy. Things like the expansion rate of the universe are not philosophical, because they can be observed by looking at the stars. Same goes for other fine-tuning arguments such as decay rates, these can be observed and tested. Eternalism on the other hand, is indeed philosophical. It cannot be observed in any way. And inserting such an argument into this debate renders it seriously off topic, as it would then be a debate of philosophy vs philosophy. Clearly, statisfical logic shows that the universe was indeed designed, a multiverse explanation require bizarre inprobabilities. A designer is the most logical implication of the natural world. Barnes, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life (December 21, 2011)