a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
You mentioned intelligent design.
One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species
interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological
change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.
There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented
in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because
science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).
I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - -
Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered
themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original
'accidental' instances of order).
Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of
incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually
generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to
incredible observed variety.
Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that
But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness),
then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.
... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.
If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on
there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?
edit on 25/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)