The Law of Parsimony Favors Intelligent Design - B

Introduction: I am sorry if I forgot to quote something – though I'm not sure what you are referring to. A lot of what was said was copy and pasted from one of my previous debates. 1. Probability of Life We can quibble about probability and the equations used – but in the final analysis, when all is said and done, the emergence of life from nonliving material is, quite frankly, highly improbable. It is improbable for simple life forms to evolve into intelligent creatures. It is improbable that life itself would emerge from nonliving matter by completely unguided processes. But this really does not matter, because we are talking about parsimony. Each unobserved process counts as an assumption (or something made up). Intelligence IS observed and IS a natural phenomenon. Intelligence eliminates the need for unobserved processes (it eliminates the numerous assumptions). Intelligent design is therefore more parsimonious. The Log Cabin Analogy My opponent assumes that the only reason we should assume an intelligent designer is because we have seen beings capable of creating such things. But this is a red herring. The analogy serves to represent how many unobserved processes would have to be posited in order to explain the fully assembled log cabin if we refused to permit the idea of an intelligent designer. Of course the log cabin COULD have fallen together by unguided processes – but this is highly improbable and not at all parsimonious. The intricate nature of our laws and the fine tuning our universe exudes is parsimoniously explained by posting intelligence. 2. Multiverse theory My opponent thinks that I need to substantiate the idea that each assumption should count as an assumption – it seems straight forward to me. Before we can even begin to consider Max Tegmark's ideas, they must, at the very least, be considered a theory. Indeed, Max Tegmark's ideas and the multiverse proposition in general, cannot be reasonably classified as scientific theories because they are not empirically testable and do not make testable scientific propositions. Let me give an example, "there are 900 billion alternative universes that are made out of varying types of cheeses, the most common of which is probably chedder." This is not empirically testable and offers no scientific propositions – and can therefore be disregarded. As Christopher Hitchens is noted for saying, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be disregarded without evidence." As it seems then, parsimony is a moot point in regards to the multiverse theory and Max Tegmark's grand idea (1). On Actual Infinites The universe MUST have had a beginning because an actual infinite is impossible. Therefore the universe could not have existed infinitely in the past because that would be an actual infinite. Everything that begins to exist has a cause – therefore, the universe had a cause. It seems my opponent has some qualms with the idea that actual infinites cannot exist – a man of his mathematical proclivities should be quick to realize the difference between potential and actual infinites. Moreover, actual infinites can exist as mathematical concepts, but not in actual reality because it would lead to absurdity. William Lane Craig says it best, "Perhaps the best way to bring home the truth of (2.11) is by means of an illustration. Let me use one of my favorites, Hilbert's Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician, David Hilbert. Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before?(2)" But Craig goes on to explain how it can get even stranger. Imagine that an infinite number of guests came to check in. The proprietor informs them that they can make room and begins to shift all of the guests from the odd rooms into the even rooms (1 to 2 and 2 to 4 and so on) – infinitely – and so that all the odd rooms are now vacant and can accommodate the infinite amount of new guests. But the rooms were full before they got there? And, of course, given the nature infinities, the same amount people are in the hotel as there were before. Craig goes on to explain that if we had all the guests from rooms 4, 5, 6, and infinitely up, check out, we would still have the exact same amount of people in the hotel as we had before – such is the nature of infinites. Now, if my opponent is a person who believes that such a hotel could truly exist in reality, than I applaud him for having such an amazing ability to conceive the impossible. As is stands however, actual infinites are impossible. This alone renders the idea of actual infinites existing in reality – and therefore the multiverse theory – as a silly idea. 3. The complexity of God Seeing as how this is a moot point anyways since we are not talking about God but about intelligence, I will spend little time on this. Intelligent Design does not seek to explain the nature of the designer, no more than the Big bang seeks to explain infinite nature of the initial singularity. But the idea that complex things need to be created by ever more complex things is contra-observation. Indeed, if my opponent wishes to believe this notion he must admit that everything that exists now is the product of an even more complex mechanism – but what about the Darwinian notion of simple to complex? Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent for a stimulating debate. Questions that he ought to answer: 1. The probability of the origins of life notwithstanding – explain how posting numerous unobserved processes is more parsimonious than positing intelligence? 2. Explain how actual infinites can exist in reality. 3. What are the scientific propositions of the multiverse theory and how can it be empirically tested? Inquire Truth Sources: 1. http://arxiv.org... 2. http://www.leaderu.com... http://cs.unc.edu... http://ourworld.compuserve.com... http://www.trueorigin.org...