Yeah...

 

Finishing up the last two chapters :-).

The conclusion(s)

Finally...

RETURN OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

"on the other hand, God, as conceived by theists, possesses the attribute of transcendence and can be invoked without science-destroying consequences. Therefore, it qualifies as a causally adequate explanation for the origin of the material universe, more so than any explanation expressing a materialistic or pantheistic worldview.

There is another aspect to this. In Chapter 12, I explained how positing the action of a free agent could resolve the otherwise seemingly intractable dilemma for naturalism posed by the beginning of the material universe. The choice of an intelligent free agent made it possible to explain the origin of the universe without invoking either an uncaused material event (in violation of the principles of sufficient reason and causality) or an infinite regress of material causes at odds with observations about the universe having a beginning. By highlighting the ability of agents with free will to generate abrupt changes of state uncompelled by a suite of necessary and sufficient material conditions, Chapter 12 provided an additional justification for affirming the causal adequacy of a transcendent, intelligent, conscious agent with free will-a.k.a. God-as an explanation for the origin of the universe. Moreover, that justification did so without undermining the basis of rationality or contradicting relevant evidence.

Chapters 8 and 16 reinforced that argument. There I explained how the fine tuning of the universe exhibits two properties-extreme improbability and functional specification-that we routinely associate with the activity of intelligent agents. Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we have often observed intelligent agents producing highly improbable systems or events that exemplify a set of functional requirements, such as finely tuned Swiss watches, digital computers, engines, recipes, and coded messages. Consequently, we have empirical evidence of the sufficiency of intelligent agency or design as the cause of finely tuned systems. Moreover, since that fine tuning of the universe originated at the beginning of the universe itself, this class of evidence suggests the need for a transcendent intelligence to most adequately explain it."

"In addition, I argued for the superior causal adequacy of theism over deism as an explanation for the origin of the functional information necessary to produce life, because deism assigns only transcendence, not immanence or involvement in the universe after its creation, to the concept of God. Yet life first arose long after the beginning of the universe.

"In the debate about biological origins, the materialistic evolutionists and mainstream evolutionary biologists alike assume that all living systems necessarily were produced by some materialistic process and that their origin will, thus, ultimately have a completely adequate materialistic explanation. The assumption implicit in, for instance, the question "What chemical processes first produced life?" implies a gap our scientific knowledge when it becomes apparent (as it has; see Chapter 9) that no materialistic chemical process has been discovered that can generate the information necessary to produce the first living cells."

"The origin of the material universe, like the origin of the fine tuning and the origin of novel forms of life, is an indicator of some past causal action. But what kind? What kind of cause best explains the events in question? By rejecting all explanations that posit a transcendent or intelligent agent as fallacious GOTG arguments, scientific materialists and theistic evolutionists effectively require scientists and philosophers to explain all events in the history of the universe materialistically."

"Of course, those concerned about the God-of-the-gaps fallacy have their reasons for limiting acceptable explanations in this way. They assume that some material process or some law of nature will eventually provide an adequate explanation of every event in the history of the universe. But do we have good reason for believing this will necessarily occur?"

"We have already seen that neither the origin of the universe nor the fine tuning of the laws of physics and initial conditions of the universe are the kinds of events that laws of nature or materialistic processes are likely to, or can in principle, explain. Similarly, as noted in Chapters 9 and 14, the origin of complex and specified information present in DNA can not in principal be explained by forces of chemical attraction or underlying laws of physics and chemistry. Such considerations alone might alert us to a problem with the idea that  all events can be explained by natural laws or materialistic processes."

 "...the discovery of the fine tuning and temporal beginning of the universe and the digital code and information-processing systems in living cells, evidence from the world provides confirmation of the theistic hypothesis and positive support for its causal adequacy as an explanation."

"In addition, recall that historical scientists often justify the causal adequacy of a postulated entity by extrapolating from the effects produced by a relevantly similar entity. Darwin, for example, artificial selection could produce modest changes in organisms short period of time, and he extrapolated from those effects to propose that natural selection and random variation operating over a period of time could produce fundamental transformations in the morphology of organisms. In this way, he sought to establish that natural selection qualified as a causally adequate explanation of morphological innovation in the history of life. 

Proponents of a theistic design hypothesis can, in a similar way, extrapolate from the creative power of human agents. Since human agents, uncompelled by a set of necessary and sufficient material conditions, can create new structures by arranging preexisting matter and energy at discrete points in time, we might reasonably postulate an omnipotent divine intelligence as the cause of an abrupt change of state that resulted in the creation of matter and energy at the beginning of time in the first place." Similarly, theists might reasonably extrapolate from the known abilities of intelligent human agents to produce finely tuned or information-rich terrestrial artifacts and systems to posit a "supermind" or "superintellect" as an adequate cause of the fine tuning of the universe or the information necessary to produce the first life."

(But that's not what they want, Scientist (some of them anyway) want to be able to, "justify the causal adequacy of a postulated entity by extrapolating from the effects produced by a relevantly similar entity" but they dont want to afford the theist the same courtesy ? WHY? because they know where it leads would be my argument.)

"Indeed, the concept of God has inherent in it precisely those attributes-transcendence, omnipotence, creative power, free will, and intelligence that confirm its adequacy as a cause of the origin of the universe, its fine tuning, and the information necessary for life. Thus, a theistic God would, if existent, provide a more causally adequate explanation for the origin of life and the universe than any entity affirmed in competing worldviews (such as materialism or pantheism) that deny a transcendent reality and intelligent agent separate from the material universe.

"Remember, the method of inference to the best explanation does not require us to know in advance that a posited entity actually exists. Instead, using this method, scientists and philosophers infer the cause, among a group of possible causes, that would, if true, existent, or actual, best explain the evidence in question."

(Even scientist dont have to have 100% proof. In which direction is most of the evidence pointing out of a group of choices? Choose wisely.)

The Causal Adequacy of the God Hypothesis

Even so, the argument presented here does not leap straight from critiquing materialistic explanations to concluding that a transcendent and intelligent agent must have caused the universe and life to arise. First, as noted, I provided positive evidence of the causal adequacy of intelligent agency as a cause of the kind of specified digital information needed to produce life. In addition, I offered a positive rationale for affirming the unique causal adequacy of a transcendent and intelligent agent as the best explanation for the ensemble of evidence considered in this book. To make this case, I not only argued for the causal adequacy of an intelligent agent as the best explanation for the origin of biological information; I also provided reasons to affirm the unique causal adequacy of a transcendent intelligence as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and its fine tuning of the universe..." Materialists themselves have tacitly conceded the need for a transcendent explanatory entity by positing universes beyond our universe and abstract nonmaterial mathematical entities (such as those in quantum cosmology) as explanations for the origin of the universe and its fundamental attributes.

As previously explained, these either fail as specifically materialistic explanations, or they have science-destroying consequence..."

"I argued that all materialistic theories of the origin of the material universe face a fundamental problem given the evidence we have of a cosmic beginning."

(I got this lil thing I do called...

The universe had a beginning)

"Before matter and energy exist, they cannot cause, or be invoked to explain, the origin of the material universe. Instead, positing a materialistic process to explain the origin of matter and energy assumes the existence of the very entities-matter and energy-the origin of which materialists need to explain. No truly materialistic explanation can close this particular causal discontinuity or gap-the gap between either nothing or a preexisting immaterial mathematical reality, on the one hand, and a material universe, on the other."

"Because there is a law such as gravity, 

the universe can and will create itself from nothing" 

Stephen Hawking

If there wasn't a universe in the first place?

Why would you need gravity?

It's just stupidity for the gullible.)

"Moreover, what we know from our uniform and repeated experience about the cause of specified information (especially when we find it in a digital form) allows us to treat such information as a distinctive hallmark of intelligence. In all cases where we know the origin of specified information, intelligent design played a causal role. Thus, when we encounter such information in the biomacromolecules necessary to life, we may infer or retrodict-based upon our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships-that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the information necessary for life's origin."

A "God-of-the-Gaps" Argument?

"But what about the argument that this book presents not just for an intelligent designer of unspecified identity, but specifically for a theistic designer and creator-a God hypothesis-as the best explanation for biological and cosmological origins? Is it a GOTG argument?

Again, it is not. Though the argument presented here does concern events that confront materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and life with causal discontinuities or explanatory gaps, it does not affirm the existence or activity of God solely on the basis of those gaps. with parsimony and other theoretical virtues¹5 to assess the explanatory Instead, it uses s straightforward considerations of causal adequacy along power of competing metaphysical hypotheses and to present theism as an inference to the best explanation, not an argument from ignorance."

I know...its a mouthful, etc. 

But where did the initial information for the fine tuning of the universe come from? And where did the information in DNA come from? No chemical reaction (to date) causes any "life forming information" to appear.

And the entropy expected in our universe was less than one would think it would be and why did the universe expansion accelerate after 7.7 billion years and why did life show up so "late in the game" so to speak etc? Just on and on and on.

How is 

willingly ignoring 

the scientific evidence 

right in front of these scientist not:

Special pleading?

"an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view."

I'm just going to go ahead and ruin it for you :-). 

I still got a chapter left lol.

But it really all boils down to this:

WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM? 

John 1:1

The Word Became Flesh

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Psalm 33:9

For he spoke, and it came to be;

    he commanded, and it stood firm.

(It being the universe)

Somebody is trying to convey to you a message. 

I suggest you listen. 

Eternity is a long time.

and God bless Stephen C Meyer for writing this book. It's been awesome reading it and trying to make it make sense to so many others who might not have ever even tried to understand such things. 

So thank you so much sir.