[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Define real.[/quote]
The stuff that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If he didn’t “do it” by directly intervening, but pre-ordained it, that means that God tuned the universe and the various physical laws and constants so that life would eventually begin somewhere? Is that what you mean?
Because that’s a pretty accurate description of what abiogenesis is all about. That given the right conditions and enough time, simple replicators can and will form and slowly evolve in complexity.
Note that this doesn’t mean that life springs out from randomness by coincidence; the physical laws apply throughout the universe, so it’s not order appearing from total chaos.
This is where the confusion lies, because in the initial post I was answering, you said:
“I believe … that the origin of life did not occur through abiogenesis, etc.”
Discounting abiogenesis would mean that science would never be able to show how life began from base elements; that it would require divine intervention, a supernatural act, which cannot be replicated in a laboratory.
[/quote]
Yes there is some confusion. I am not necessarily saying that I believe in the hypothetical abiogenesis but I am saying that if there is a natural explanation for life on Earth it is because it was pre-ordained. I have an open mind to either alternative. When I insinuated that the universe was pre-ordained I was not saying that there was no “divine” intervention. Many people have different ideas about how God’s work is done and I just happen to be of the opinion that God (mostly) works “miracles” through natural means, through the conscience of people, etc.
I have tried to keep my religious views out of the discussion and base my arguments on philosophy and logic. If I resorted to religious arguments earlier you’d probably call me a loony.
As such when I am discounting abiogenesis I am simply saying that I do not believe in random action being responsible for life which is basically what the concept purports. Which makes me rather confused because now you’re saying that life was sprung up coincidentally whereas earlier you wanted to lecture me on the subject.
Concerning the physical laws that apply throughout the universe, the odds that the universe and any form of life would exist if there was even the slightest, excruciatingly minute deviation in the cosmological constant is extremely low… by the zillionths. That’s why scientists are suggesting the existence of multiple universes or that the universe is operating on a wave function model both theories which are unsubstantiated, coincidence just doesn’t cut it.
If the primordial soup and panspermia are essentially failed paradigms and completely unfounded why do atheists keep supporting them. Abiogenesis is just a theory and it’s basic tenents are unproven. Please refer back to the earlier quote concerning the championing
of an unproven cause by numerous ideological scientists. Sounds like the tooth fairy to me…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Define real.
The stuff that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
[/quote]
Excellent definition!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Love doesn’t exist in the sense that a chair I sit in exists. If it’s not made out of atoms and energy, then it’s something we imagine, just like “feeling the spirit” in church, or feeling excited while watching a football game (GO FSU!!). But the fact that something isn’t necessarily “real” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an effect on our minds, or shouldn’t be important to us.
[/quote]
The way in which you draw a line between real and imagined is the same way it is done in natural sciences. That what can be mesured with an instrument is real. It’s a good distinction and necessary for science, but there is no pressure, logical or other, for an individual to adhere to this in his personal thinking.
Taking the distinction out of it’s scientific context brings many kind of problems with it. Like the claim, that love isn’t real. I don’t know about you, but I find it to be abdurd, even if it was logically correct in the context of natural sciences.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
I have tried to keep my religious views out of the discussion and base my arguments on philosophy and logic. If I resorted to religious arguments earlier you’d probably call me a loony.[/quote]
Why not just be honest about your views and discuss what you truly believe? Why do you feel that your religious arguments can’t stand on their own and that you must disguise them as scientific and logical?
And since the prof is tagging along, taking the occasional potshot, I’ll point out that “loony”, to describe a believer was, again, mentioned by the believer himself.
I didn’t intend to lecture you on the subject; I was simply pointing out that your description of abiogenesis showed little actual knowledge of what the “real” study of abiogenesis is all about.
As for life “springing up” by itself; that has to happen in some manner once all the prerequisite conditions are present. It is not pure coincidence in the sense that the elements present are behaving in accordance with physical law.
The cosmological constant has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. If some of the other physical constants (ie, Planck’s constant, the speed of light or the fine structure contants) were different, by even slight amounts, the universe would be much different from the one we know.
What we don’t know is if the constant are actually “tuned” values, or simply appear that way because we don’t have the right theory. We also don’t know if another universe, with different constants, could also support life.
You’re just throwing out random scientific terms that you don’t understand to discount science.
Apparently, you’re allowed to misuse science in any way you want to support your idea of God; but scientist trying to answer difficult questions through natural means are wrong even before they’ve even tried.
E pur si muove
Panspermia hadn’t been mentioned at all until now. It is a generally discounted idea and, furthermore, has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Panspermia is the idea, first introduced by Fred Hoyle, that life on Earth was brought from somewhere by comets or similar. It does nothing to answer the question on how life first began.
You keep making stuff up, reaching wrong conclusions with it; and then attributing it to atheists.
Then you ask “who’s really being dishonest here?” You tell me.
Abiogenesis is not a theory, it is the name for the study of how life begins from non living elements. It’s the name given to that branch of study.
Is biology a theory? Is astronomy a theory? Is physics a theory? Get the idea?
Sounds like science to me. Science is open to criticism and falsification. That’s how it works. That ideas and theories and challenged, changed and replaced is the whole mecanisms of science. That one theory of abiogenesis is contested doesn’t invalidate the whole branch of study.
It’s as if, when people thought that diseases where caused by miasma (bad air), they’d discounted the whole of biology because that theory was shown to be wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think people who close their minds to possibilities simply because they need to see them all are the most intellectually stunted people on the planet. Maybe they are just “self delusional”.[/quote]
But what is the test one can apply to possibilities? How does one discount or accept possibilities? There has to be some mean of differencing what is from fantasy.
Are you open to the possibility of magic? Can healing crystals work? Can some people really leave their body and travel the astral plane? Is it possible for someone to read the thoughts of another? Do ghosts exist? Is spontaneous combustion fact or fiction?
How do you go about separating the wheat from the chaff? Should we simply accept any suggested idea as “possible” simply to have an open mind? If you devise means to test a claim, and the claim fails test after test, is it acceptable at one point to declare the claim to be false?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Are you open to the possibility of magic? Can healing crystals work? Can some people really leave their body and travel the astral plane? Is it possible for someone to read the thoughts of another? Do ghosts exist? Is spontaneous combustion fact or fiction?[/quote]
Some choose not to believe that hypnosis works. That doesn’t change the fact that many who do believe it works seem to be susceptible to it. There are people who respond to placebo effects which means what we think may be exactly what is if it is believed deeply enough.
I’m sorry, are you saying God has been tested and fails the test?
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
Proving it would require a clear concept of it. More, it would require a much better understanding of human thought and emotions than what we currently have.
That implies there is much more knowledge than we currently have to even be able to full discuss these concepts in terms of “science”. Why, in a world where so much goes unexplained and is currently unexplanable, would someone choose to think, “there absolutely without a doubt is no God and those who believe in one are self delusional”? Who is truly the one under delusion?
who chooses to think this?[/quote]
I truly wish you would quit responding to my posts. The responses aren’t interesting or even well thought out. Many atheists choose to believe that. Now, please find someone else to respond to.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Some choose not to believe that hypnosis works. That doesn’t change the fact that many who do believe it works seem to be susceptible to it.[/quote]
I think one difficulty with hypnosis is the various definitions of it by it’s proponents and critics.
The discounted view is generally the one presented in stage shows where the hypnotist can control the subject like a puppetmaster.
In it’s more serious applications, I think no one can reject it’s validity. My own dentist offers hypnosis as a replacement for chemical anaesthetics. I don’t think anyone could fake ignoring the pain of having a teeth drilled, so for those who opt for that avenue, hypnosis obviously works.
Which would seem to indicate that the mind and body are connected in ways that we still don’t understand.
No, I’m asking you how you evaluate the validity of a proposed concept versus the reality of that concept. You stated that we should be open to possibilities; I’m asking how, at one point, you disregard a possibility as being actually possible.
Once and for all I’m staring to tire. You have gone from making some sound arguments to simply lashing out your hatred towards religion in a subtle way while launching semi-personal attacks on those who disagree with you.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Where have I belittled you?
[/quote]
The term God of the Gaps is inherently condescending because it assumes that religious people lack reason. Your comparison of God and the tooth fairy. Calling me a blind man painting the rainbow.You have said that my arguments are simply based on gut feeling. I’m sorry to say it but your really coming across as a pompous prick.
You keep reiterating that “I can’t have it both ways” while from the beginning I stated my arguments to be philosophical and not scientific.
Philosophy is not bound to pondering about the natural realm. If you actually read up on some philosophy you would clearly have realized this. Science and religion/philsophy inherently seek to answer different questions. Whereas science simply try to figure out how nature is configured religion and philosophy attemps tackle questions such as the purpose and meaning of nature and its numerous components. Therefore, philosophically there is no contradiction in attributing a natural phenomenon to something supernatural.
OK, way too nitpick. Many theories are accepted even though they lack much of a foundation and are unfalsifiable. You are saying that it is a virtue of science that it is open to revision and change. The flip side to that is that it is often used as a way to endorse “bad” science where in wait of a better alternative a bogus theory is supported and adhered to.
I can also nitpick, abiogenesis is not field of study it’s simply collection of theories concerning the origins of biological life. The word itself means “non biological origins”. As of now it is just a number of unsubstantiated theories.
You have seem pissed from the first time you replied to my post. This includes your deflated argument that science cannot prove love, your insisting on putting words in my mouth and distorting the perspective from which I am arguing
I never said I did not know much about it. I don’t know all the details, again your nitpicking in place of providing a solid argument. Look at it this way, if you read the Da Vinci Code and I watch at the cinema i would still be able understand the story as I would have reading the book only with considerably less detail.I could outright reject the idea of abiogenesis but then you’d see me as a loony who believes in the tooth fairy.
Again, why are you taking something that I’ve said and distorting it. When I referred to abiogenesis being flawed or was really arguing against the spontaneous origin of life, as I’ve said many times in this thread. So the idea of abiogenesis does not threatens in so far as that it concerns the biological origin of life.
Unlike you I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I was merely presenting my philosophy or as you would say gut feeling. You can discover a lot through philosophy or maybe you prefer to wait 5000 years until science proves it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
In it’s more serious applications, I think no one can reject it’s validity. My own dentist offers hypnosis as a replacement for chemical anaesthetics. I don’t think anyone could fake ignoring the pain of having a teeth drilled, so for those who opt for that avenue, hypnosis obviously works.[/quote]
It also depends on the patient’s original state of mind. An overly excited patient won’t succomb to hypnosis. A patient too resistant to it or defiant won’t either. The mental component is the primary issue.
[quote]
Which would seem to indicate that the mind and body are connected in ways that we still don’t understand.[/quote]
No argument there. So why would anyone act as if the belief in a higher power is a delusion? Perhaps your concept of God is very superficial. Maybe you are thinking of some glowing figure in a white robe and a long beard. I would think that concept is even more elementary than we could ever imagine.
Did you know that Jane Goodall believes that “bigfoot” is real? Yes, I try to keep my mind open to possibilities because to close your mind to everything that you can’t touch is to destroy your imagination. You will never be the inventor or the poet. Life will be a flat concept for you with no deeper reflection. Does this mean that I fall for everything? Hardly. My feet are on the ground. I enjoy science and discovery, however, if upon exploring the deepest regions of our own oceans we run into an organism believed to be extinct or previously imaginary, I won’t be surprised or shocked. I believe that folklore is based in some microscopic truth. I am in love with the act of finding out just how much. Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you become a fool. It means you stop throwing up concrete walls at any concept that makes your superior place in the world a little more shaky.
How do I evaluate it? That would depend on the circumstances. I am sure a Bic lighter would appear to be magic to a man from a few thousand years ago. That doesn’t mean it should never have been invented or currently exist.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
Proving it would require a clear concept of it. More, it would require a much better understanding of human thought and emotions than what we currently have.
That implies there is much more knowledge than we currently have to even be able to full discuss these concepts in terms of “science”. Why, in a world where so much goes unexplained and is currently unexplanable, would someone choose to think, “there absolutely without a doubt is no God and those who believe in one are self delusional”? Who is truly the one under delusion?
who chooses to think this?
I truly wish you would quit responding to my posts. The responses aren’t interesting or even well thought out. Many atheists choose to believe that. Now, please find someone else to respond to.[/quote]
If you invent stupid shit they hardly can be well thought out.
You are too inteligent or intellectually honest to argue like Hanzo, which is why
you are either deeply offended by imaginary atheists or sticking your fingers in your ear singing the lala song when it comes to religion.
Both does not look good on a man of your intellectual and physical stature.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
The term God of the Gaps is inherently condescending because it assumes that religious people lack reason.[/quote]
It simply points out that you “find God” in every area where science hasn’t definitive answers.
I haven’t made that comparison.
Yes, in reference to your explanation of scientific concepts, not of your beliefs.
That’s not belittling your beliefs, it’s simply pointing out that you don’t understand much of the science you denigrate when it can’t be subverted to support your beliefs.
Why? Because I point out your dishonesty and lack of knowledge? You might have an easier time discussing your beliefs if you were able to present them in an honest, straightforward manner. Instead, you prefer to hide them behind pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and then get offended when people who have an actual interest in the real science point it out to you.
You said “I am using logical deduction which is in part based on science to illustrate the existence of a God.”
So, which is it? You seem to be having a lot of trouble in presenting your views.
Ah, back to the meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Which theories would those “many” be? Can you be a bit more specific?
What you consider “bogus” is often simply the best currently available theory. Unfortunately, many of us weren’t born with all the right answers “built-in”, so we might appear to be fumbling around in the dark until we finally come upon the right answer.
Yes, that’s saying the same thing. The question remains: Which theories are those?
You’re right that the theories are currently unsubstantiated; that does not, however, mean that abiogenesis is not a valid branch of study or unscientific.
I think you might be projecting your own pissedoffedness into the debate. I’d probably get frustrated too if I kept spouting nonsense, contradicting myself at every turn and someone kept pointing it out to me.
I don’t need to put words in your mouth, I can simply quote your very words from previous replies to show that you’re making it up as you go along.
You said “I am not in tune with abiogenesis to the degree that I could write my thesis on it. I don’t know all the ins and outs”… so which is it? From what you write about it, I gather that you’ve read very little about it. You seem to know the term “primordial soup” and to have found a quote critical of it. That you try and lump panspermia in it does help your case.
There’s nothing to argue about; you’re misrepresenting abiogenesis, what is there to argue about except to point out to you what actual abiogenesis is.
Yes, but if you then mentioned that you knew all along that Darth Vader was Luke’s father, some might question whether you’ve actually seen the movie at all.
If you invested the same energy in presenting your actual views as you do in role-playing my responses, we could have an interesting discussion.
All the derogative terms and mannerisms applied to believers have been from you. If anyone has a low opinion of believers, it appears to be you.
You apparently know enough to be able to outright reject paths of inquiry before any conclusions have been reached.
Your philosophy appears to be of similar shoddiness as your science. Whatever works for you, I guess…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No argument there. So why would anyone act as if the belief in a higher power is a delusion?[/quote]
I don’t know, you should ask them the next time you come across someone who acts that way.
What I’m trying to understand is why people try to justify their beliefs by invoking various scientific and philosophical concepts that have actually very little bearing on the question.
They posit a God that’s outside matter and time, that transcends the universe, and then in the next sentence try to show that this or some other aspect of science (especially the unanswered questions) are somehow proof of God. That’s where the delusion comes in.
I’ve often asked believers why they can’t conceive of a God who could design a universe where life eventually begins “naturally” simply by creating the universe with the right laws and constants. If anything, I feel that my concept of God is generally less prosaic, less anthropomorphic, than the concept advanced by many other believers. Like Love, the concept of God can mean different things to different people. Some of them, like the all-loving God who likes to burn souls for eternity, I find amusing; but my personal opinion takes nothing away from the believer.
You’ve mentioned on some other thread that you didn’t want to be lumped in with some of the more loony Christians that frequent this site. I feel that request to be entirely justified. I would also appreciate it if you didn’t lump me along with any other atheist that’s giving his personal views on matters.
And Paul Chek really believes in colonics. The things I learn here…
First, it’s not things that we can’t touch or see; we’re not five years old here. I do approach most claims with skepticism, and eventually reject them when they fail test after test.
So it’s not “thing you can’t touch” as much as “things you can’t test” that I reject.
Truly a sad fate awaits me.
I don’t really know what to make of that argument because I agree with most of it, until the concrete wall part. I guess that’s your perception of me and other atheist, but, at least for myself, feel that it is entirely wrong.
But you could explain to that man the why and how of the Bic. Given some time, you could acquaint him with the concept smoking and cigarettes and then show that the Bic is simply a gas container with a quick method of igniting the gas while controlling the it’s release. In other words, while it might at first appear to be magic, there is nothing supernatural about a Bic.
[quote]pookie wrote:
In other words, while it might at first appear to be magic, there is nothing supernatural about a Bic.
[/quote]
And what is “supernatural” other than a word to describe something we don’t have a scientific basis for understanding? We don’t understand the complete concept of a black hole or what truly goes on IN one as our laws of science break down. I don’t understand those who can think of one yet can’t entertain the thought of an entitity that could live outside of our reality. That is where faith comes in and I don’t need a scientific explanation for everything I believe in. Science isn’t exactly faultless or perfect in application.
Without an understanding of “gas”, “ignition” or the ability to understand a controllable flame, that Bic would very much be supernatural. The only reason it isn’t to us is because we NOW have that scientific basis to understand it.
“Supernatural” is not the same as “we don`t know yet”.
Explaing something with supernatural concepts/causes forever removes the possibilty of a scientific explanation. “we don`t know yet” demands further inquiries.
Maybe there are things we never will know because there are supernatural causes, but then it would be out of bounds for scientific research anyway.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
And what is “supernatural” other than a word to describe something we don’t have a scientific basis for understanding?[/quote]
So anything we don’t currently understand is supernatural? That’s not the generally accepted definition of the term.
Which indicate that our laws are incorrect or incomplete. It does not imply that black holes are supernatural.
We can entertain the thought with no problem. It’s when people contend that entertaining the thought of that entity is more or equally rational to not entertaining that thought that problems arise.
That’s perfectly fine and I have no problem accepting that. What irks me is the need that many people have to somehow justify their faith using science, or worse, to try and prevent some lines of scientific inquiry (ID vs. evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, etc). because they feel that such research somehow threatens their beliefs.
As far as I’m concerned, God, if he exists, is forever removed from the perview of science and can neither be proved nor disproved by the scientific method.
As any other human endeavour.
Until you explain gas and ignition. A Bic can be understood and explained adequately by a 7th grader.
If we were to come across a piece of extra-terrestrial technology, say a piece of metal who “floats” a few inches above the ground; we wouldn’t conclude that it did so by supernatural means. We’d deduce that whatever civilization produced that part had a better understanding of gravity than we do; and we’d study it to understand how it works. We’d assume that it is possible to understand, and eventually replicate it, simply through “natural” means.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
We don’t understand the complete concept of a black hole or what truly goes on IN one as our laws of science break down.
Which indicate that our laws are incorrect or incomplete. It does not imply that black holes are supernatural.
I don’t understand those who can think of one yet can’t entertain the thought of an entitity that could live outside of our reality.
We can entertain the thought with no problem. It’s when people contend that entertaining the thought of that entity is more or equally rational to not entertaining that thought that problems arise.
[/quote]
As you self pointed out earlier; acknowledging, that ‘I don’t know’, is the only logically defendable position. All other suppositions are equal.
[quote]karva wrote:
pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
We don’t understand the complete concept of a black hole or what truly goes on IN one as our laws of science break down.
Which indicate that our laws are incorrect or incomplete. It does not imply that black holes are supernatural.
I don’t understand those who can think of one yet can’t entertain the thought of an entitity that could live outside of our reality.
We can entertain the thought with no problem. It’s when people contend that entertaining the thought of that entity is more or equally rational to not entertaining that thought that problems arise.
As you self pointed out earlier; acknowledging, that ‘I don’t know’, is the only logically defendable position. All other suppositions are equal.[/quote]
I think that your argument is technically right and practically at least questionable.
The people that claim ID is science, make absurd claims abut ET or think that God has a lot to say about human sexuality or politcs usually have an agenda.
So, in real life the line is not drawn between
“there is no God vs there may be a supernatural being”
, but rather between
" there may or may not be a God vs I KNOW there is a God and He has told me in no uncertain terms how you, and yes I mean YOU, are supposed to life".
The questions if there is a God and if there is a God that even gives a shit, let alone writes a book, talks to people, sacrifices himself/son are really not the same, so if I deny a specific Gods existence my chances are better than 50/50.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
“The probability of forming the 2,000 or so enzymes needed by a cell lies in the realm of 1 in 10^40,000. This makes the conceptual leap from even the most complex ‘soup’ to the simplest cell in the time available (that is about 500 million years) so dramatic that it requires some suspension of rationality in order to accept it.”[/quote]
Speaking of bad math and creationism, there is an interesting article on ABC news by John Allen Paulos (who’s book “Innumeracy” I recommended in my initial reply.) He explains the various flaws in Creationist math: What's Wrong With Creationist Probability? - ABC News
As for coincidences, what are the chance that an author I mention would, the very next day, author an article about the very topic we were addressing? Calculating actual probabilities is left as an exercise for the reader.