:-)

Hi again Charlie,
I read your comments again about my statement4 regarding laws and rules. Let me keep this post within this topic because like I said it’s my favorite one. This does not involve cause-effect and logic chains and whether we can apply our physics before BB …etc although I will come back to that topic later. I will reply to your later posts when I get time.

If we talk about something different as for example pieces of sand in the So Charlie, I gave many examples because I believe examples are very good tool of communicating ideas. Although I gave many, I think it was still not well-communicated what I wanted to relay to you. So let’s try to be a little patient with each other. We both have assumptions that we have to challenge as I indicated before.

I gave the example of a computer and you gave the example of sand and dunes in a desert. Let’s look at both examples a little more closely and see why I think they’re different. If we look at a computer along with all of the rules/laws it follows (computer rules/laws), you automatically logically deduce that there has to be someone who “created” or “designed” this computer. Let’s differentiate between the computer causes for how it works and our inference of the need of a designer/creator. Ever since we were born, we’ve seen sand and other things in life, and we did observe that wind can put sand into dunes. Does that mean there is a cause for the sand to form dunes: yes, and that cause is wind. We observed these laws and they became natural for us to observe. Does looking at the dunes make you think that there needs to be a designer and creator of the hills? Probably no. So what’s the difference between computers and dunes? Forming dunes is a simple phenomenon. There is not enough complexity involved that would make us ask: how did these dunes come together. But now if I ask you if you see in the desert sand in forms of letters and words and you read them to find a Shakespearean poem. You will not say: ok wind did it and nothing else. You will say: some intelligence was involved to write a poem because sand by itself including all of its basic physical properties along with wind can NEVER write such a poem no matter how much time you give it. So the difference between the two examples is in complexity. Complexity requires design. When new rules (ex. Computer rules) emerge, we deduce that these rules work perfectly and must have a designer/creator.

I think it takes thinking a little bit outside the box. “If” you argue and say: we see human beings that are very complex, you would not have gotten the point, because the very existence of human beings is what we’re discussing about. Attempt to answer the following question(s) and I think this will force your mind to look at it from our angel if you will:

Question intro: Before life even started, there were just atoms; and planets were cooling and forming…etc. There were no biological rules/laws. Then somehow life emerged on earth and somehow biological laws/rules were introduced. These rules are very interesting because they always tend to increase in complexity. These very biological rules eventually depend on sub-level rules of physics (forget about where these physics rules/laws came from, we’ll assume they were just there). Here is the problem now: according to physics law: matter tends to go from higher complexity/order to lower complexity/order randomly (entropy) unless external power is involved. If you look out our world you would notice that we see an overall trend of increase in complexity!

Question(s): How did these biological rules emerge to form such an enormous undeniable complexity in our world? How is it that these biological rules violate the essence of physics rules that they depend on? Were they developed in a completely random fasion that violates mathematical and physical laws of randomness?

We refuse to see a computer (with complex computer rules that emerged) and not deduce there must be a designer just like we refuse to look at the world and living things and not deduce there must have been a designer. And knowing a lot of how this computer works by opening it up and observing patterns in it to discover why we see the picture on the screen does not mean there is not enough complexity and design for the computer designer to exist. Just like knowing all the things we know about life from natural science does not mean that there is no one behind the rules by which the universe operates. We simply refuse the idea of total randomness that generates such amazing rules with such complex beings as a result, with no design and intelligence involved; again not because we want to believe, but because this leads us to believe.


Closely related to this is the talk about the first cell and viruses. I’m aware of the viruses you talked about. You said they act live and dead. This will really boil down to the definition of what “live” means! Biologist likes to call it dead since it doesn’t have mtabolic activities that we see in other living creatures. But keep this in mind: they have what we call the “secret of life”; DNA. Their DNA has instructions on attaching to hosts and replicating as a parasite on that host. For the sake of this discussion I would really consider viruses live because they have that very interesting “programmed” DNA along with biological rules/laws associated with its existence. It can act like “dead” since everything depends on pure physics at atoms eventually, but still has the DNA “code” in it while in that “dead” state. The question remains: how did these biological rules (that allowed viruses to develop in such a unique way, and allowed organisms to develop in such a unique way) emerge after they were not there?

Awaiting your answers,

Best wishes,
Stranger

I wanted to comment on the above quote to make sure I address all of you comments.
It might not sound like a great plan to you true; but do you know if life would exist as it does now if these planets and other galaxies did not exist? This is like asking: why god created water for us to drink, can't we just live with no water? You realize that planets stabilize earth in it's orbit and without them life would not have existed on earth. Also the same can be said about stabilizing the galaxy's orbit around other galaxies.
We actually believe God made it so huge like this too for us to ponder and reflect on his greatness. In one challenge in the Quran, he states that we will never be able to permeate through all the heavens he created, which we have not yet. This is our perception of the universe that we're actually convniced of. Makes sense to me. .
best wishes,
Stranger

Charlie,
Quick clarification on some comments I made. I used the words: complexity/design/intelligence quite interchangebly. The example of the computer.vs sand dunes is different because of the design shown in computers. Design involves more than just complexity. Design involves complexity plus order and an aspect of integration and functionality.
With that said: It would be more accurate for me to say: complexity plus order plus functionality and integration all require design and not just complexity requires design.
Just a point of clarification.
best regards,
Stranger