Origins Symposium

[humphreyclarke]

I think the gravity guy was Lee Strobel. If the megachurch crowd are going to use the fine tuning argument I wish they would bother to get the science right.

Quite honesty, I think Stenger is a joke. After dipping in to 'God the Failed Hypothesis' I'm pretty sure he is crazy.

Tell you what, if you want to hear him get slaughtered by William Lane Craig its worth giving this a listen.

www.bringyou.to/CraigStengerDebate.mp3

[knowingthomas]

I'll take some time to think all this over, but I'd like to thank you all for being so helpful.

[Al Moritz]

You're welcome.

Al

[unkleE]

May 14, 2009 3:07:07 GMT knowingthomas said:

Essentially, I'm afraid that I hold an argument that has been refuted effectively, and over the past couple months, I've had to re-evaluate over and over again.

I don't want to bore you with too many comments, so I have bypassed all the rest of the YouTube videos, but thought I should comment on this.

I feel concerned that you would say "refuted effectively", for I don't think that's the case. Most of the arguments for and against the existence of God have been around for centuries, and in all that time, they have never been either proven or refuted "effectively". Some christians or atheists may say otherwise, but they are all still "live issues". This is illustrated by the fact that there are many debates between christians and atheists, and different sides win on different occasions (WL Craig seems to have a pretty good record in recent times - e.g. check out this website). Philosophers are coming up with new arguments all the time, but the situation is pretty static, sort of like the trench warfare in WW1.

So I don't think any of us need be overly impressed with the arguments or brow-beaten into submission. And certainly not by YouTube videos with as little real substance as the two I viewed.

I think the arguments, in practice, serve a different purpose. As we consider the basic arguments, some things seem more probable to each of us and some things seem less. For example, I think that an eternal physical universe that hasn't "run down" according to the second law of thermodynamics is a contradiction, as is an eternal universe made up of an infinite series of events (you can't count to infinity, even in infinite time), and I think that a universe that started by itself is even more silly. So for me, the idea that a god caused the universe is the only possibility worth considering.

But I know atheists who have no problems with an eternal universe, and just can't even consider the idea of a god. Some of their statements about what's possible seem silly to me, but they are sensible to them. We all have the same facts, but we somehow respond to them differently. I can't help feeling this is how God planned it. We don't so much choose our viewpoint according to the evidence (though that may be partly true), but the evidence exposes our preconceptions and even our hidden desires and willingness to believe.

So I think it is good you are asking questions and seeking alternate views, but I think you need to take all views with a healthy dose of scepticism, including my own. I also think we need to call upon more than just logic. Logic holds everything in place, but a sense of fitness, and asking God for revelation also have their place.

The secular web library is a good place to start for finding better quality papers, because it gives both atheist and theist papers. You could check out these on the Kalam - Secular Web listing starting with WL Craig and then attempted rebuttals, and this argument from another christian. I don't want to overwhelm you, but other good papers are:

Fine-tuning by James (on Secular Web, with attempted rebuttals following)
Moral argument
Reason
Jesus and the reliability of the NT
Former atheist Antony Flew's reasons to leave atheism
Philosopher Richard Swinburne's reasons to believe
A critique of atheism by Gary Habermas.

Best wishes with your ongoing thinking.

[knowingthomas]

Thinking a bit more from last time, more of an overall statement/question:

So we have this universe that appears to have come out of absolute nothing, the same universe is seemingly finely tuned and that even if the speculative multiverse was proven, the fine tuning would still exist , we have a sense of objective morality, we contemplate why is there something rather than nothing and to top it off, we have the extremely historical accuracy of the New Testament and where besides aliens and the loony evil twin Jesus theory (two Jesi?), the only explanation for Christianity is an actual resurrection.

If this is the case, and the fine tuning/cosmological issue is so troubling and overpowering, why is Martin Rees still a non-theist? He wrote an entire book on fine tuning. Or Penrose, "Hawking ...Davies, Suesskind, Linde, Weinberg, Ellis" Or Humphrey (so I've heard) on all the points above?

[unkleE]

May 25, 2009 22:09:42 GMT knowingthomas said:

If this is the case, and the fine tuning/cosmological issue is so troubling and overpowering, why is Martin Rees still a non-theist? He wrote an entire book on fine tuning. Or Penrose, "Hawking ...Davies, Suesskind, Linde, Weinberg, Ellis" Or Humphrey (so I've heard) on all the points above?

I can think of three answers, all at different depths.

1. You'd have to ask them. Any guess I make would be just that. But I'll have a go anyway .....

2. Obviously everyone interprets facts differently. We have no way of knowing if all these gentlemen you mention would agree with your quick summary, so differences in their summary of the facts would surely lead to differences in belief.

Further, your summary doesn't include the negative evidence, for example, the problem of evil. I think this is a big issue, both logically and emotionally, and if I ever stopped believing, I reckon this would be why. But, in the end, before we can have a problem of evil we need a universe, and human beings that feel pain and an objective ethical system which allows us to say that this pain is truly evil. But naturalism/atheism struggles to explain any of those things. So I'm left with the conclusion that theism is a better overall explanation, but it has this big difficulty. So I think the non-believing argument from evil lacks sufficient depth, but I am very sympathetic with anyone who cannot believe because of it.

But I think (like I'm assuming you do also) that this isn't enough of an explanation. So here's a deeper set of guesses .....

3. Firstly, people use different epistemologies - different ways of deciding how we know things. Science uses empirical evidence to test hypotheses, but we use less rigorous epistemology in other parts of life, like politics, ethics, relationships, career choices, aesthetics, etc. The question is, which is appropriate for knowing about God?

The people you mention are all scientists, so they tend to want to apply a scientific epistemology, if only because they are writing books about science. For some, I think this is a device for avoiding arguments for God's existence - e.g. if someone presents the argument from evil as conclusive, then suggests the arguments for God are useless because they are not scientifically based, they are using two different standards, and are not being intellectually honest in my opinion. But for others, their difficulty with the lack of "proof" for God seems very genuine - e.g. Martin Rees seems quite open to the idea of God, and respectful of philosophy, but he seems to feel that God is simply unknowable by us mere mortals.

So the main problem is then not with the evidence, but with the level of "proof" each person requires.

But further, we all have pretty much the same information when it comes to democratic elections, yet typically about 45% vote one way and 45% the other way at every election, and the result is determined by the "swinging" 10%. (That's in Australia where voting is compulsory, getting people out to vote is also a factor in the US.) So why the marked differences? I think the main explanation is that we all come from different perspectives (e.g. rich vs poor) and experiences, which affect who we'll choose to trust.

I feel it is the same with belief in God. We like to think our choice is made in proportion to the evidence, but I don't think that's the whole story. To some degree at least, and maybe to a large degree, we respond to the evidence according to our preconceived belief and our preferences. An example is alleged healing miracles. A non-believer will say their scepticism is based on evidence, but then they may also say (following Hume) that no evidence can be sufficient to believe in the miraculous - so in the end it is metaphysics and not evidence that determines their conclusion.

I think this is how God intends it. If it was purely a matter of evidence, why would God want to reward intelligence and learning as if he was a university examiner? But our attitude and willingness to submit to God are also important.

Then we should recognise that cosmologists and astronomers come in all shapes and varieties - atheists (e.g. Weinberg), sceptical agnostics (e.g. Susskind), open-minded agnostics (e.g. Rees, Davies) and even christians (e.g. Ellis, Allan Sandage). We should learn what we can from their science, but recognise that as metaphysicians, they may not be expert, and they come from all different viewpoints.

So that's how I respond to your question. It would be good if others responded also. And what conclusion do you come to?

[bjorn]

One other issue is, If I could venture boldly forth and guess, what one wants to be true.

Whether what lurks in the shadowns has most to do with Aesthetics, Ethics or the plain old "I just want to live my own life without any God looking over my shoulder", there may be a lot more than rational reasons for accepting (or not) any viewpoint that is not 100 % demonstrable.

(And even then, there are always a flat earther or two around).

[humphreyclarke]

May 25, 2009 22:09:42 GMT knowingthomas said:

If this is the case, and the fine tuning/cosmological issue is so troubling and overpowering, why is Martin Rees still a non-theist? He wrote an entire book on fine tuning. Or Penrose, "Hawking ...Davies, Suesskind, Linde, Weinberg, Ellis" Or Humphrey (so I've heard) on all the points above?

For the record I'm not a non-theist. Anglicanism is not non-theism, although it comes pretty close at times.

On the others:

Martin Rees - Agnostic who attends church

Roger Penrose - Platonist - See his discussion of this in Road To Reality

Stephen Hawking - Doesn't believe in a personal God. I think his beliefs are similar to Einstein's.

Paul Davies - Deist

Leonard Susskind - Not sure, agnostic I think.

Andre Linde - Believes in God, but I think a remote one

Stephen Weinburg - Atheist

George Ellis - Devout Quaker

So the majority view among these guys is a belief in a mysterious and non personal entity which has created the universe. That's not an endorsement of Christian theism and it's certainly not an endorsement of atheism either; in fact Weinburg is at his least insightful when he delves into metaphysics. The reason most of them are not atheists is the rational intelligibility and beauty of the universe and its laws; and the mysterious fine tuning of the constants of nature (although I would say the former is more important). The reasons they are not theists is probably the problem of evil.

[Al Moritz]

A few corrections, Humphrey.

Rees may to to church, but in his book Just Six Numbers he argues for the multiverse as an alternative to the God hypothesis -- he clearly wants to avoid God.

Hawking - clearly wants to avoid the God idea as well; his newest creation (the Flexiverse) is another, strange and rather desperate, it seems, variation of the multiverse

Paul Davies - was deist, but now appears to try to eliminate God by a sort of self-evolution of the physical parameters towards suitability for life (that's what his weird non-teleological teleology currently seems to be, but I haven't read his recent The Cosmic Jackpot myself)

Susskind - Atheist, as far as I know

[humphreyclarke]

Both the Davies and the Hawking models are a sort of top-down cosmology which in some sense render the history of the universe a by-product of our observations. Paul Davies (Who has turned down some of the allusions to God but doesn't appear to have changed his position). describes his particular observer created universe as 'crypto-religious', and I think he is right on that. If you allow the possibility that concious observers can play a part in the creation of the universe, they you also seem to be letting in the possibility that some sort of 'super conciousness' could as well. Having read 'Goldilocks Enigma ('Cosmic Jackpot' in the U.S)' I think Davies is still a deist but is somewhat closeted these days.

I have to sat, all this talk of observer created universes does seem to be a bit at odds with the materialist conception of the mind as a mere epiphenomenon.

[humphreyclarke]

Re Fine Tuning, here is quite a good paper (though a bit old) by Max Tegmark.

space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html



It's quite interesting to see this example of the relationship between the strong coupling constant and the electromagnetic coupling constant. It would be good to see the same done for all the variables involved in fine tuning (including the new ones such as the quantity of dark matter, the value of dark energy etc...). It's helpful to visualise the minute size of the possibility space we actually ended up in.

Another example is the two free parameters (a and B) which determine chemistry. According to Tegmark:

a detailed study of biochemistry reveals that many seemingly vital processes hinge on a large number of “coincidences” , ranging from the fact that water attains its maximum density above its freezing point to various chemical properties that enable high-fidelity DNA reproduction.



As you can see, we are either incredibly lucky or there's something funny going on.

[unkleE]

May 26, 2009 12:13:22 GMT Al Moritz said:

A few corrections, Humphrey.

Rees may to to church, but in his book Just Six Numbers he argues for the multiverse as an alternative to the God hypothesis -- he clearly wants to avoid God.

Susskind - Atheist, as far as I know

Al, I'm not sure there is a lot to be gained by discussing this topic too long, but my reading of these two writers leans more towards Humphrey's interpretations.

Yes, Rees argues for the multiverse instead of God as explanation, but his argument is on scientific grounds (he is after all writing a book on science). And he says: "But Physics can never explain what 'breathes fire' into the equations, and actualises them in a real cosmos. The fundamental question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" remains the province of the philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, that 'whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent'."

That sounds agnostic in the truest sense - not just that he doesn't know, but that we cannot know. And in a BBC interview he said this:

Q The use of the word 'God' sort of hands the argument across to the believers.

A Yes. I think it's unfortunate and regrettable when scientists use God in that, terms. I mean I would say that they often reveal a certain naïveté about theology, and I think it's far better if one doesn't. I mean I believe that there can be a peaceful co-existence between science and theology if not very much in the way of constructive dialogue, and I think it's unfortunate when people use that kind of rhetoric.

Q …and what about in your personal life? Is there … you're on record as saying that you're a churchgoer who doesn't believe in God.

A Well that's right. I would say I don't believe any religious dogma in that if science teaches me anything, it teaches me that even simple things, like a hydrogen atom, are pretty hard to understand. And therefore I become rather sceptical of anyone who claims to have more than a very incomplete, metaphorical understanding of any deep aspects of reality. So I'm sceptical of anyone who claims confidently to believe any dogma. But nonetheless I share with religious people a concept of the mystery and wonder of the universe, and even more of human life and therefore participate in religious services.

And my reading of Susskind suggests he is genuine agnostic (from a Jewish background), for he says: "..... neither does anything in this book diminish the likelihood that an intelligent agent created the universe ...... If there is a God, she has taken great pains to make herself irrelevant."

So my guesses would be Rees: open minded agnostic (we cannot know), Susskind: sceptical agnostic (we don't know, but it doesn't look like God exists). But I think I agree with you that Davies is not deist, but agnostic.

[Al Moritz]

May 26, 2009 7:22:09 GMT unkleE said:

So the main problem is then not with the evidence, but with the level of "proof" each person requires.

But further, we all have pretty much the same information when it comes to democratic elections, yet typically about 45% vote one way and 45% the other way at every election, and the result is determined by the "swinging" 10%. (That's in Australia where voting is compulsory, getting people out to vote is also a factor in the US.) So why the marked differences? I think the main explanation is that we all come from different perspectives (e.g. rich vs poor) and experiences, which affect who we'll choose to trust.

I feel it is the same with belief in God. We like to think our choice is made in proportion to the evidence, but I don't think that's the whole story. To some degree at least, and maybe to a large degree, we respond to the evidence according to our preconceived belief and our preferences. An example is alleged healing miracles. A non-believer will say their scepticism is based on evidence, but then they may also say (following Hume) that no evidence can be sufficient to believe in the miraculous - so in the end it is metaphysics and not evidence that determines their conclusion.

I think this is how God intends it. If it was purely a matter of evidence, why would God want to reward intelligence and learning as if he was a university examiner? But our attitude and willingness to submit to God are also important.

Unklee,

well said.

Regarding intelligence and being informed about matters of creation:

As will be clear from my posts, I am greatly in favor of scientific knowledge about God's creation, (and I reject Intelligent Design as anti-evolution movement). There are three main reasons:

1. It can greatly enhance the awe for God's creation, which can benefit one's personal relationship with God (it certainly did mine).
2. It can greatly help as rational tool to defend one's faith towards oneself and others in today's intellectual climate.
3. It is absolutely necessary for apologetics. Without it, believers make themselves fools, and by saying uninformed things only push non-believers further away from God, instead of enabling a rational dialogue about faith. My heart tears apart when I see all these discussions where atheists devour well-meaning, but naive and uninformed believers on knowledge of scientific explanations of the world and only get invigorated in their stubborn prejudices from that.

Having said that, after all the analysis is done, what is the fine-tuning argument anything other than an incredibly sophisticated and beautiful version of the old "Look around you, doesn't that beautiful and grand world that we see point to an immensely powerful being who must have made all this and whom we call God?" So even if more "simple" believers do not get it right scientifically (and often have not even heard about evolution), on a deeper level they get it more right than all those sophisticated, intelligent and informed people who with all their knowledge still reject God. This is also a reminder that knowledge and wisdom are two different things.

So in the end, in its own way it holds for scientifically informed *) and uninformed people alike what St. Paul say in Romans, 1:19-20:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

*) the fine-tuning of the physical constants clearly disestablishes that physical and biological evolution "can explain everything by itself" -- without it, such evolution would not even be possible, i.e. after all evolution of the universe and of life is God's design.

[knowingthomas]

humphrey:

For the record I'm not a non-theist. Anglicanism is not non-theism, although it comes pretty close at times.

My fault ;D
If you don't mind me asking, what finally convinced you of theism over agnosticism?

unklee, humphrey, bjorn (on why aren't xxx convinced): I guess that puts it into perspective. I just thought it was weird but I think I understand it now thanks!

almoritz:

The argument might be brought up, “life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all”. Yet the idea of life without any chemical complexity (e.g. in stars), leads one into regions of thought that are not seriously debatable anymore and which have no basis in our knowledge from science. Also, I have never seen it discussed in those terms by a scientist. Imaginative thinking is one thing, wild baseless science-fiction another.

I guess this would include things like "matter-less life, energy based life or life forming in a complete mish-mash of different laws that wouldn't make sense at all in our universe but just do in this particular other universe"
How about the idea that there is an undiscovered law that dictates that the fine tuned constants must be in place for a universe/big bang to occur in the first place?

Anyone: I read the article on Antony Flew (very insightful ) and the SecWeb about fine tuning:

The considered position of scientists is that fine tuning in the form of the anthropic coincidences is real but that a creator is by no means the only explanation.

I assume this is in reference to the possibility of multiverses?

Would you say it would be safe to ignore, or at least take statements sourced from Stenger with a pinch of salt? Already I'm getting this impression that he's just the physicist version of Dawkins. The comment on the speed of light constant seems like a distraction to me.
www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=128269

Question theists never tire of asking, although they quickly tire of the answer = "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Simple Answer = Because "nothing" is unstable. There has to be "something". (For a much more detailed reply that reaches essentially the same conclusion, see Victor Stenger's book)

What has been shown is that ‘nothingness’ is impossible:
Even the Bible states: “For with God, nothing shall be impossible…” Luke 1:37 (Is it mere coincidence that it’s 137? [the inverse of Planck’s Constant?]) <for you Westboro groupies, this was a joke>

Physics, like historical criticism is coming into it’s own in the 21st century. New observations from the Hubble Deep Field (Astronomy) and particle acceleration have given new inroads as to how to think about existence.

The old ways, charged with preconception and politic are shifting into a new paradigm of discovery. Indeed, religious apologetics finds itself increasingly in a scramble just to keep up.

The recent discovery of ”Ida” – The newest evolutionary “missing link” discovered in Germany, the recent application of MRI technology being used to read heretofore unreadable ancient manuscripts and the graduating theories of quantum mechanics are but a few examples of the un-holy rain soaking the ground around the tent-stakes that are already over-stretching the canopy over religious apologetics.

On the cutting edge of the world of physics is Victor Stenger, researcher and emeritus professor of physics at the University of Hawaii, and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is also fellow of CSICOP and a research fellow of the Center for Inquiry.

Since 1988 Stenger has authored a collection of books that state in no uncertain terms: “…the supernatural hypothesis of God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science.”

God, The Failed Hypothesis, 2007, Prometheus Books
ISBN 1591024811

1988 - Stenger demolished the premium anthropic and fine-tuning for a cosmic designer then extant – with his work titled, Not by Design.

1995 – Stenger falsified the notion that the indeterminancy of quantum physics provides a “supra-natural substrate” for such metaphysical notions as an immaterial human soul.
- The Unconscious Quantum 1995, Prometheus Books
ISBN-13: 9781573920223

2003 - “By this moment in time science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes … traditionally associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God.”

Has Science Found God?, 2003, Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591020182

None of that is true.

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points exactly to an eternal Omniverse and away from an eternal creator.

I already listed Stenger’s references, but the philosophical quandary is just as compelling.

You postulate: “Something exists.”

But to frame this in the proper context, you will have to say: “Everything exists”.

Which must be true. All of the ingredient [sic] that makes up everything has existed in some form or another – ad infinitum.

So many problems arise when you try to interject GOD into the mix:

1. Where did GOD come from?
2. If GOD exists outside of time, then how could GOD exist before time?
3. Is there somewhere GOD has not been? How does HE know?
4. Is there something GOD does not know – and if GOD thinks ‘not,’ then how does GOD know this?
5. If GOD created something out of nothing, then is GOD magic? If GOD is magic, then does GOD also not know how HE does it? IF GOD does know how HE does it, does that make GOD subject to nature, since everything has an explanation?

The eternal Omniverse answers all of these questions:

1. Infinity
2. Time has always existed (yes there is no consensus yet)
3. There is nowhere the Omniverse has not been because everything that is, is everywhere it is.
4. See comments below on an “impersonal Universe”
5. The problem of magic is nonexistent in an eternal Omniverse

If Christians can imagine that “nothingness” is an impossibility with GOD, then it stands that the very same unknown applies to the impossibility of nothingness period.

Who says the Universe is impersonal? That’s your perspective and it’s out of context.

First of all, you’re assuming that personality, purpose, meaning, morality is not intrinsic to the ingredient of the Universe. You are also presuming that these traits are transcendental.

Evolution explains all of these things:

Personality: Birds, dogs, monkeys and cats have personality

Purpose: Survival

Meaning: Because it’s there

Morality: Survival of the group redounds to the survival of the individual, which further redounds to the general good.

Perhaps you meant to say, what is the cause behind a self-reflective ego?

Atom gives us some profound and curious insights.

*In short, whenever we look for an electron it mysteriously pops into view. In it’s unobserved state, it changes it’s reality to form a strong.

Observed, it appears as a particle or what we refer to as a sub-atomic particle.

The only explanation for this is that it is aware of observation – in short, it seems to be sensitive to our thoughts towards it.

Matter that we view, in turn, seems to ‘form’ itself into solid objects because of our observation. This has an eerie solipsistic tone to it, albeit, classical solipsism is restricted to a solitary individual, whereas the sub-atomic scenario is a collective.

But what is most interesting is that we are made up of these transforming atoms and whenever we look at ourselves, they are forming themselves into solid objects.

Truly, consciousness appears to be intrinsic to the material World.

We also observe communication between atoms. This phenomenon is called Entanglement

The electrons within our atoms come from somewhere else. They are actually wavy lines or strings, vibrating sound frequencies that come from large wavy lines or strings, or what is known as superstrings. Scientists do not yet know where superstrings come from.

When we observe an electron, it settles into a spinning rotation around the atomic nucleus in one direction. The direction appears to be random. Entanglement occurs when a twin atom’s electron instantaneously spins in the opposite direction. Thus, if one spins clockwise, the twin spins counterclockwise. What we must be clear is that one atom does not cause the twin atom to spin in the opposition direction, because that would imply a time delay.

Entanglement happens instantaneously, together in unison outside our known dimension of time.

This phenomenon has been tested in the same laboratory over and over, but what really amazed scientists has been the same result happening when tested over longer and longer distances. This has lead them to conclude that entanglement is only a phenomenon that exists outside our known understanding of time, but it is also independent of distance, which is now referred to as a non-local event.

The conclusion is amazing. Entangled electrons exist anywhere in the universe, even when separated by millions of light years, and yet the entanglement happening is not weakened by distance. It is as if distance does not exist.

*Journaled Reference: Nature 449, 68-71 (6 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06118; Received 17 May 2007; Accepted 14 July 2007

Photon experiments also reveal similarly strange subatomic actions, where photons seem to ignore the space/time continuum:

When we find a distant star in the night sky a million light years away, we are not only looking into the past, a million years, but the advanced waves generated by absorption processes within our eyes have touched the past – a million years ago, fulfilling the mechanism that permitted that star to shine in our direction.

If there is any meaning, morality, personality or self-awareness, it drenches everything that we call real.

Tell me, what mind have you ever witnessed creating another mind?

Mill has shown that in discussing human minds, we are discussing minds known to have come into existence in time. We are thus, bound up in the field of human experience and subject to it’s canons – Mill’s canons of induction. Therefore, “we are…entitled to ask, where is the proof that nothing can have caused a mind except another mind.

The only was human beings can discover what is able to produce what – what causes are adequate to what effects – is through experience.

Millisleading up to his view that mind may have been produced as an “unconscious” product of physical forces.

The quote from Mill in context:
”…That nothing can consciously produce mind but mind, is self-evident, being involved in the meaning of the words; but that there cannot be unconscious production must not be assumed, for it is the very point to be proved. Apart from experience, and arguing on what is called reason, that is on supposed self-evidence, the notion seems to be that no causes can give rise to products of a more precious or elevated kind than themselves. But this is at variance with the known analogies of nature. How vastly nobler and more precious, for instance, are the higher vegetables and animals than the soil and manure out of which, and by the properties of which they are raised up! One may object of course, that manure and soil do not “cause” or create vegetables, but are merely the conditions of their growth. The tendency of all recent speculation is towards the opinion that the development of inferior orders of existence into superior, the substitution of greater elaboration and higher organization for lower, is the general rule of Nature. Whether it is so or not, there are at least in Nature a multitude of facts bearing that character, and this is sufficient for the argument…”

There remains no question that Mill believed that biological evolution – despite this quote taken out of context – may have produced human consciousness.

Mill concludes that the argument for a first cause “is itself of no value for the establishment of Theism… The World does not, by its mere existence, bear witness to a GOD”

He referenced Hamer and Freud earlier on too?!

[humphreyclarke]

Ah, nice to get some entertainment this early in the morning

Physics, like historical criticism is coming into it’s own in the 21st century. New observations from the Hubble Deep Field (Astronomy) and particle acceleration have given new inroads as to how to think about existence.

The old ways, charged with preconception and politic are shifting into a new paradigm of discovery. Indeed, religious apologetics finds itself increasingly in a scramble just to keep up.

This is the usual 'march of progress stuff, to paraphrase Susan Blackmore, the great combine harvester of scientific progress eradicating the mice of faith and sending them scurrying into the hedgerows. Of course this ignores the serious problems that discoveries surrounding the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics and the laws of physics have caused for materialism.

The recent discovery of ”Ida” – The newest evolutionary “missing link” discovered in Germany, the recent application of MRI technology being used to read heretofore unreadable ancient manuscripts and the graduating theories of quantum mechanics are but a few examples of the un-holy rain soaking the ground around the tent-stakes that are already over-stretching the canopy over religious apologetics.

Well, it wasn't a combine harvester this time; it was a somewhat 'overstretched' tent analogy.

On the cutting edge of the world of physics is Victor Stenger, researcher and emeritus professor of physics at the University of Hawaii, and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is also fellow of CSICOP and a research fellow of the Center for Inquiry.

Cutting edge!. Try the lunatic fringe!

To be fair, he did some marginally useful scientific work in particle physics back in the 80s and 90s. Since then he has dedicated his retirement to preaching atheism.

Since 1988 Stenger has authored a collection of books that state in no uncertain terms: “…the supernatural hypothesis of God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science.”

Indeed he has:

Lets see what George Ellis makes of it:

physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/27736

It was with great anticipation that I opened this book, searching for details of the scientific experiment that proved that God does not exist. What was the experimental procedure? What did the distribution of data points look like? What were the error bars? Was it a 2-sigma or 3-sigma proof? Disappointment soon followed: there was no description of any such experiment.

So what justifies the book's bold subtitle? What the book in fact contains is a melange of homespun philosophy, amateur biblical interpretation and a smattering of scientific data served up under the pretence of being a proof.

God, The Failed Hypothesis, 2007, Prometheus Books
ISBN 1591024811

1988 - Stenger demolished the premium anthropic and fine-tuning for a cosmic designer then extant – with his work titled, Not by Design.

I'm afraid this is pure fantasy. Fine tuning is regarded as a serious problem, not least because of the discovery of the value of the cosmological constant. If the anthropic argument had really been demolished then we wouldn't have all this talk of multiverses

1995 – Stenger falsified the notion that the indeterminancy of quantum physics provides a “supra-natural substrate” for such metaphysical notions as an immaterial human soul.
- The Unconscious Quantum 1995, Prometheus Books
ISBN-13: 9781573920223

Not sure what this is referring to. Quantum processes may play a role in brain functioning but we simply don't know enough about the brain to be able to determine either way. Arguments have been raised but it is all just conjecture at the moment. The hard problem of conciousness remains as intractable as ever.

2003 - “By this moment in time science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes … traditionally associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God.”

In conclusion of his review George Ellis notes that:

All these points constitute acceptable philosophical argument for the non-existence of God, but none of them amount to a genuine scientific proof. Overstating what science can do is bad for science, as it undermines both its integrity and its believability. It is also a mistake to present the public with a false dichotomy between science and religion, because this will unnecessarily tend to fuel an antiscientific backlash in wider society.

Stenger is claiming the authority of science for his (extremely poor) philosophical arguments.