RE: [asa] Easter Island WAS Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

What I indicated is that when scientists, say, physicists, develop
theories describing the physical aspect of Nature, not questions
regarding the origin of the physical aspect of Nature, then we
practicing scientists do set to zero the prior probability of God
entering into our theories.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:08 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Easter Island WAS Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

I think the last two posters are missing the point here.

Moorad talks about assigning a zero prior probability to the existence
of God, but I never said anything of the sort.

What I said was that it was impossible to specify a prior probability
for the existence of God, or indeed of shape-shifting staffs. The value
you pick is entirely dependent on your own belief. At a questionnaire
in the theoretical physics department at my work once, people were asked
to assign probabilities to various events, such as England winning the
World Cup Football (that's "soccer" to our USA friends). To the "God
exists" question, one person put down zero and another put down 10^-100.
The 10^-100 person says to the zero person "now that's what I call
faith"! Did I put down 1? Well, not exactly, I put down 0.9 recurring,
but it brought home to me how silly the exercise really was. If I'd put
down 1, I wouldn't exactly be making a scientific statement, would I?
If I'd put down signficantly less than 1, I'd be indicating doubts that
I didn't have. It was the sheer impossibility of making an objective
and truthful statement that led me to put down the joke answer of 0.9
recurrring.

My view is that there is no way to assign a prior to the existence of
God in a scientific fashion, so one can't make scientifically valid
deductions from evidences of design. The design "argument for God" only
works if your prior probability differs signficantly from zero. But if
it's already your belief that God exists, then you don't need to make
the design argument. By contrast, an atheist is not likely to be
persuaded by such an argument.

John, you contend that the analogy is close enough. I beg to differ.
There is a whole world of difference between a prior of close to zero
and a prior of close to unity. It comes down to your own faith
position. You accuse me of failing to describe supernatural events.
But supernatural events are by their very nature unpredictable, and
therefore outside the realm of scientific exploration. If such events
were predictable (for example if such things happened as in the world of
Harry Potter by saying the right spell or by waving a wand in the right
manner), then they would be natural and not supernatural). But miracles
occur by God's grace, not by scientific cause and effect.

Iain

On Dec 10, 2007 5:25 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

Agreed the analogy is imperfect but again I contend close enough. ID's
position may be to prove God but I have never said that and it doesn't
negate the general design inference, even if it doesn't prove it. It
makes it a rational and logical deduction though which is more than you
can say for multiverses.

Your analysis fails to correctly describe the other supernatural events
of our faith as well. When Moses threw down his staff and it became a
serpent, there were no known a priori probabilities of staff
shape-shifting until Pharaoh's magicians duplicated it and even then
Moses trumped them by his serpents eating theirs. By your analysis
Bayesian theory today would not affirm this event and it would deny it
but to witness such an event today even by a person trained in Bayesian
theory, the response would likely not be an appeal to not having any a
priori probabilities for that event.

Accepting the supernatural and that it is a hallmark of the God of the
Bible is a prerequisite of the faith, and once accepted, the design of
the universe is patently obvious. It is only deniable by not accepting
the premise that God works through the supernatural.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:45 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Easter Island WAS Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

On Dec 9, 2007 1:46 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com > wrote:

Pim,

Granted there may be some technical distinctions between Easter Island
and
the cosmological constants because one can be described through known
natural designers while the other can't, but I contend this a
distinction
without a difference.

I'm afraid that from my own background in Bayesian probability theory,
I can't really agree with you there.

The whole point is that your a priori probability of the existence of
known natural designers is 1. But you can't place an a priori
probability on the existence of God. Hence it is entirely reasonable to
make a design inference when you see a watch on the heath because you
already know watchmakers exist. The design inference is thereby not a
proof of the existence of watchmakers, because you already have
independent evidence of the existence of watchmakers. But I think the ID
position is that this design inference ( e.g. in nature, or in
cosmological constants) wants to be some proof of the existence of God.

What if you didn't have any clue if watchmakers exist? In Star Trek,
when confronted by an amorphous pulsating blob, Dr. McCoy would exclaim
with reverence "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!". Suppose that
such alien life forms came to the earth, and saw a watch mechanism in
the middle of the desert, and that this mechanism was as alien to them
as they are to us. Would such an alien then be justified in making a
design inference, as opposed to thinking it might have come about by
natural processes. Might not such an alien say "It's life, Jim, but not
as we know it?".

So I believe there is a clear difference in the analogy - the difference
being you have independent evidence of the existence of the "natural
designers" - you are not using the inference to prove the existence of
those natural designers.

Iain

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
----------- 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.