Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 4:37 AM
332 online now:
NoNukes, Tangle (2 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,202 Year: 23,808/21,208 Month: 1,773/2,468 Week: 282/822 Day: 8/67 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 46 of 97 (743749)
12-04-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 1:20 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
AZPaul3 writes:

No they are not. Just because someone has not walked you through each step back does not mean the conditions are assumed or the explanation is missing. This is a number of years of college courses and a whole lot of outside reading to understand in the level of detail you seem to want.

I'm not asking for details as I completely agree that I wouldn't understand them anyway. You talk about each step back. Each step involves another process. There is no evidence whether any or all of these steps were mindless or not. You can simply theorize as to what transpired. These steps or processes exist, (maybe), but just because you can point to a natural cause does not tell us anything about whether that natural cause has an intelligent root or not.

Just take the final step of evolution. Humans have the ability to understand the genetics and even the randomness of the process but we still cannot know whether or not it has an intelligent root. We can't even know that there isn't intelligent intervention in the process.

As I said, arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.

We just form our own subjective conclusions based on what we do know and what we have experienced and those conclusions form our beliefs.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:20 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:19 AM GDR has responded
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 9:36 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 47 of 97 (743750)
12-04-2014 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 1:31 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

Again, since no one can prove a negative the evidence does not "prove" your brand of initial poof-maker does not exist, it just very strongly indicates that one is superfluous to what we know has taken place.

Using patronizing terms such as poof-maker doesn't really strengthen your argument. It's usually only necessary when your position is weak to start with.

I can't prove a negative either. Presumably your belief is that there is no prime mover(s). I can't disprove your belief that we are nothing but the results of mindless natural processes. The fact that there are any number of complicated processes required for the formation of simple cellular life, let alone sentient moral life, strongly indicates that our existence is the result of a prime mover.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:31 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 48 of 97 (743751)
12-04-2014 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
12-04-2014 12:50 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
All belief requires ignorance whether it be religion or atheism ...

I thought you were beyond this. This is the classic theist's mistake about atheism.

I are not atheist because I "believe" there is no god. I are atheist because I do not believe in your god, or her god, or this god here or that god there or any god anywhere. I are atheist because I do not believe.

I understand this is difficult for a theist to wrap their mind around since their whole world is wrapped up in belief and they cannot conceive of something as simple as "non-belief". The theist will then insist that I "believe" in no god even though the logic of this is inane. The theist must insist that the atheist has some kind of belief, even if it is a negative (thus illogical) one, so they can put the atheist in a position where the theist can negate this belief. It's difficult at best to negate something that isn't there.

The only way to turn an atheist is to make him believe. The problem, of course, is that the very things a theist would use to make the atheist believe are the very things that lead to non-belief to begin with.

Now, I will be the first one to admit that I am hopelessly ignorant about much more stuff than I do know. But one thing I do know is what I believe and what I do not believe. Being steeped in Western Empiricism I really do not "believe" in much of anything. I require at least some logic to even form a speculation. But as far as gods go, whether for or against, up or down, plus, minus or sideways, "belief" doesn't enter the thought process in any way.

So, no. While I agree belief requires ignorance, non-belief is somewhat oblivious since there is nothing there. Neither ignorance nor complete knowledge. Non-belief is no belief at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 12:50 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 10:17 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 49 of 97 (743761)
12-04-2014 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by GDR
12-04-2014 2:19 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.

First, and I don't want to be too cutting here because I really like the lady, the cited evidence for inerrancy are forced interpretations with badly stretched comparisons mixed with a large dose of illogical self-serving conclusions.

Second, ID can have no scientific arguments in its favor since it bears no resemblance to anything scientific and its proponents cannot seem to follow the methods of science in their analyses.

On the other hand, the breadth and depth of the scientific knowledge we do have, while certainly not even close to what's left out there yet to learn, I think is considerably wider and deeper than you care to admit. While the greater body of humanity may lack deep intellect most of the scientific practitioners are not that dumb. What we know we know very well indeed. Yet in all this knowledge of how stars, galaxies and universes work, how energy cycles, message cascades and protein formation work, of the thousands of processes we have studied in space, in the cell, in nature, in extraordinary detail, none require any majik or poofery. This is real hard scientific knowledge about the reality of our world, not the superficial scrambling for half-truths in bible study or ID.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is evidence, not conclusive by any means but evidence none the less, that we most probably will not find any majik or poofery in the processes we are studying or have yet to study.

Why should we expect anything different? Because some religious zealots, some charismatic David Koresh / Jim Jones types, scratched some stories onto papyrus 3000 years ago?

Yes, we know a great deal of the complexity of the cell and how some slime grew up to contemplate its own existence while developing a sense of altruism along the way and none of it, not even the merest hint, indicates any prime poof-maker involved. Quite the contrary. Such a thing is quite superfluous to the process as well as to the results.

You want to say we can not know for sure? I agree with you. But we can look to the evidence we already have and we can sure take a hint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 2:19 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 10:26 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 50 of 97 (743762)
12-04-2014 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
12-03-2014 10:43 PM


Re: News to Chiral about
But if there was a Prime Mover and humans were a desired outcome the prime mover must be really stupid or incompetent.

It is very hard to avoid that conclusion based on the fact it took the Prime Mover at least 4 billion years with an almost 100% failure rate to get to the desired outcome.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-03-2014 10:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 10:31 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 51 of 97 (743768)
12-04-2014 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 3:18 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

So, no. While I agree belief requires ignorance, non-belief is somewhat oblivious since there is nothing there. Neither ignorance nor complete knowledge. Non-belief is no belief at all.

I'm a theist. Do you believe I'm wrong?

AbE Actually I should have used prime mover as opposed to theist as a prime mover could be deistic.

I'd also add that I have seen atheists, (I assume including yourself), argue for the position that natural causes are responsible for altruism. I's suggest that is based on the belief that there is nothing beyond natural causes for all that we perceive.

Edited by GDR, : Thought about it a bit more.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 3:18 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:53 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 52 of 97 (743769)
12-04-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 7:19 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
AZPaul3 writes:

You want to say we can not know for sure? I agree with you. But we can look to the evidence we already have and we can sure take a hint.

What you have is evidence that processes such as evolution appear to be self sustaining without outside intervention. There is no evidence that natural processes themselves are the result of a prime mover or not.

It would be like looking at an assembly line that endlessly produces widgets and say it is simply the result of natural processes.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:19 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 8:14 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 53 of 97 (743771)
12-04-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
12-04-2014 7:52 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
jar writes:

But if there was a Prime Mover and humans were a desired outcome the prime mover must be really stupid or incompetent.
It is very hard to avoid that conclusion based on the fact it took the Prime Mover at least 4 billion years with an almost 100% failure rate to get to the desired outcome.

Who knows what the desired outcome is? Who knows what is to come? Who says that what happened before were failures? Certainly life forms have ceased to exist but a life is a life and other life forms have evolved to take their place.

There are certainly enough scientists that believe that the universe is infinite. If that is the case our human sense of 4 billion years is meaningless anyway.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 12-04-2014 7:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 54 of 97 (743799)
12-04-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
12-04-2014 12:42 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up, take too
Hi GDR, you seem to misunderstand me.

He says things like, ...

That's me you are quoting in my conclusion to the first building blocks thread (bbt1). It attacks\addresses the issue\question of when life formed from the beginning of the universe. This thread (bbt2) attacks\addresses the issue\question of when life formed from the other side, by working back from life to how life is formed.

Chirality is one of the "building blocks" that is\was between bbt1 and bbt2.

Your argument for the non-existence of a prime mover(s) ...

Curiously that is not and has never been my argument. As a Deist I am interested in the scientific explanation of how the universe, earth and life were created and how the various processes were set up to cause an end result (not that we are close to that yet).

But I don't pretend that this is evidence that god/s exist nor that they don't exist.

If one believes in a omnipotent omniscient all-powerful god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that the universe was created at the very beginning to become what we see, and what we understand of how the universe works is what we understand of how that creation was designed to work. All the natural laws and natural processes are part of the design.

If one does not believe in a omnipotent omniscient god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that what we understand of how the universe works is just how it happened to work.

The evidence does not persuade one either way, imho, so people see in it what they want to see.

Enjoy.

(btw -- I used to live in Victoria ... cheers)

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 12:42 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 12-05-2014 11:03 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 55 of 97 (743811)
12-04-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
12-04-2014 10:17 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
I'm a theist. Do you believe I'm wrong?

No. But the available evidence indicates you are probably in error so I have a strong level of confidence that you are wrong.

I's suggest that is based on the belief that there is nothing beyond natural causes for all that we perceive.

Again, wrong. The view is based on the fact that there is a logical connection, as we have seen in lesser but still noticeable ways in other species, between the incremental evolution of altruism and group cohesiveness/protection/survival of various social species. There is also the fact that there is no evidence and no logical reasoning that would justify entertaining your other mechanism as a cause.

If your other mechanism wants to play with the big boys then it needs to pony up and show itself worthy of consideration. There isn't any evidence or logical reasoning that would allow us to even assume your other mechanism exists let alone affect such a system. On what basis should we entertain this whim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 10:17 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 56 of 97 (743812)
12-04-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
12-04-2014 10:26 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
What you have is evidence that processes such as evolution appear to be self sustaining without outside intervention. There is no evidence that natural processes themselves are the result of a prime mover or not.

Excellent. You see where we are. Now take the next step.

Why should we entertain something different? Why should we throw any kind of prime anything into a mix that works just fine without it? Don't you have an Occam'sTM Razor? You really should have one handy. Why should we include something that has no evidence, without any logical reasoning, lacking any credence whatsoever? Why should we factor in a religious whim?

No, I'm not just talking evolution and other processes. I'm talking about the entire universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 10:26 AM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2014 8:37 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 57 of 97 (743836)
12-05-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 8:14 PM


Re: News to Chiral you up -- back to the topic
Don't you have an Occam'sTM Razor?

All it tells you is that if you have two (or more) systems to study and one is simpler than the other(s) that you might benefit from trying the simpler one first. It does not guarantee that the simpler one is better or more complete than the other(s) -- you don't know that until they are tested.

If you are presuming to use it to choose between two untestable concepts, then you are just using it as confirmation of your bias(es), because you can't test that your choice actually is the better one. That isn't scientific.

It seems to me that choosing either system is a "leap of faith" and that it is much more logical, imh(ysa)o, to just say that there is insufficient evidence and information to make an informed guess at this time.

So now you've made your standard atheist argument for the absence of god/s based on your perceived absence of evidence -- can we get back to the topic?

Does the mechanism for developing chirality form a link between Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)?

Or are there still some blocks missing?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 8:14 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2014 1:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 58 of 97 (743838)
12-05-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by GDR
12-04-2014 2:19 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
Humans have the ability to understand the genetics and even the randomness of the process but we still cannot know whether or not it has an intelligent root. We can't even know that there isn't intelligent intervention in the process.

As I said, arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.

You're not wrong, but I don't think you are looking at it the right way. And this is coming from a theist.

What we have is an explanation for a phenomenon that works without having a need for a god.

While this doesn't prove that there is no god there, its still a pretty meaningful situation.

Think about it the other way: What if we could not come up with an explanation that works that didn't require a god?

Wouldn't you take that as a indication that a god may be necessary?

If so, then why can you not go the other way and see that having an explanation that works without a god indicates that a god may not be necessary?

Of course "not being necessary" is not the same as "not being there at all", but science works by keeping only what is necessary.

It may be wrong to discount a god, but if the explanation works without it then nobody really cares.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 12-04-2014 2:19 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 12-05-2014 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2014 1:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 59 of 97 (743852)
12-05-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
12-04-2014 1:30 PM


Re: News to Chiral you up, take too
RAZD writes:

Curiously that is not and has never been my argument. As a Deist I am interested in the scientific explanation of how the universe, earth and life were created and how the various processes were set up to cause an end result (not that we are close to that yet).

But I don't pretend that this is evidence that god/s exist nor that they don't exist.

If one believes in a omnipotent omniscient all-powerful god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that the universe was created at the very beginning to become what we see, and what we understand of how the universe works is what we understand of how that creation was designed to work. All the natural laws and natural processes are part of the design.

If one does not believe in a omnipotent omniscient god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that what we understand of how the universe works is just how it happened to work.

The evidence does not persuade one either way, imho, so people see in it what they want to see.

Sorry that I misrepresented your position. I should have known as you have always said you were a deist. I completely agree with all of that. I am theistic on other grounds. The only thing I would add is that the order and mathematical precision of the universe IMHO suggests an underlying intelligence.

RAZD writes:

(btw -- I used to live in Victoria ... cheers)

...and you are sorely missed. Life is easy out here after growing up in Alberta and living through 15 Montreal winters. (Still, I'll take the Alberta cold to the Montreal snow any day.)


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2014 1:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 60 of 97 (743860)
12-05-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2014 9:36 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
Cat Sci writes:

You're not wrong, but I don't think you are looking at it the right way. And this is coming from a theist.

What we have is an explanation for a phenomenon that works without having a need for a god.

While this doesn't prove that there is no god there, its still a pretty meaningful situation.

I don't think so. What we have is a process that appears to be self sustaining. The question is why does the process exist. I don't mean the purpose of the process, (although that is something to think about), I mean the question that remains open which is whether or not the process itself has an intelligent root cause or not.

Cat Sci writes:

Think about it the other way: What if we could not come up with an explanation that works that didn't require a god?

Wouldn't you take that as a indication that a god may be necessary?

In one sense we have that now when we ask why it is that we perceive anything or that anything exists. However, in answer to that we can still conclude that we just haven't figured it out yet.

Cat Sci writes:

If so, then why can you not go the other way and see that having an explanation that works without a god indicates that a god may not be necessary?

Of course "not being necessary" is not the same as "not being there at all", but science works by keeping only what is necessary.

Things do seem to hum along without any apparent need for intervention much like a robotic assembly line but that is our fundamental perception of things. Science is essentially agnostic and is about natural causes and the question of a deity is not part of any scientific equation. That doesn't mean however that we can't look at science to help inform our subjective beliefs about a deity.

Cat Sci writes:

It may be wrong to discount a god, but if the explanation works without it then nobody really cares.

From a scientific POV I completely agree. However if a god does exist then we should all care as presumably there would be a point to our existence and IMHO it would be helpful to know just what that point was.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 9:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 12:19 PM GDR has responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017