Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

Don't worry about it. Life happens. It was kinda off-topic in that thread anyway. Much more on-topic here. This is what I'm talking about.In the analogy, you use "duct tape"... an objective, verifiable, testable piece of evidence. If we were in your analogy, you could point to the duct tape and show me how the pool balls are blocked from naturally flowing into the pockets.In reality, you say you think we live in an analogous universe.
You say you believe that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
But... you do not show any objective, verifiable, testable piece of evidence to support such a conclusion.What does the duct tape actually represent in reality?
In the anaolgy, the duct tape is objectively, physically, testably blocking the natural flow of the balls into the pockets.
In reality, what is objectively, physically, testably blocking the natural flow of abiogenesis from non-life to life?I understand your analogy, but in reality you do not seem to have any duct tape to point to. We're both standing beside the pool table, with no duct tape visible at all, all the balls are in the pockets and you're telling me "I think that I believe there was an invisible force-field blocking the balls from naturally flowing into the pockets". And I'm just sort of starring at you with a quizzical look on my face.That's the cognitive dissonance.Your analogy is discussing hard-core, physical, objective evidence.
However, your reality includes nothing of the sort. Only subjective ideas very similar in evidence to ideas made of pure imagination.The fact that you think an objective, verifiable analogy somehow supports a subjective, unverifiable situation is the cognitive dissonance.

quote:

---

we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

---

You don't agree that when a word has more than one meaning, the usage within the sentence tells us which meaning is to be used? If yes, that explains a lot.

quote:

---

hebrew grammar is nothing like english grammar and the rules in hebrew are completely different. We've been down this track before and im not going down it again.

---

The rules may be different, but there are rules and whatever rules are in place in Hebrew to determine which meaning is to be used when there is more than one meaning available is what we have to follow. You haven't even shown the pointers within the Hebrew rules.

quote:

---

lets just agree to disagree,hey.

---

We can, but unfortunately this is your SOP. This is your form of rationalization and it's going to keep popping up. The only explanation you have is that the word has more than one meaning. I suggest you figure out before the next encounter how the reader was/is supposed to determine which meaning is to be used within the sentence. Until you figure that out, you're just creating a scenario that fits your needs.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Just as an atheist finds sufficient proof of God's inexistence in the fact that they see no evidence of his existence, my belief that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible is based on the fact that there is no evidence that it can happen (And in fact chemistry seems to go against it)Now, just as an atheists position could change in the future dependant on new evidence, so is mine of course. I didn't mean it to seem as though I'm 100% sure. But let's say I'm just as sure of it as Dawkins is sure that God doesn't exist.An atheist will say ''I'm 99,9% sure God doesn't exist, and that is sufficient for me to declare 'god doesn't exist' until further notice''. Because science hasn't made it any easier for naturalistic abiogenesis. It was much more reasonable to believe that it could happen in Darwin's time then it is now.In other words, our increase of knowledge in chemistry, biology etc. has only ever decreased of naturalistic abiogenesis even being possible. My belief therefore is based on what we do know as of today, instead of some hope that we will know how it can be done in the future. I let the door open that new evidence in the future will change my perspective, but I base my current position on the actual things we do know.

The error is this, you imply that my belief of reality is based on my analogy. But of course it is not. My belief is based on reality, and the analogy was brought up by Dr.A at the time but it was ever only that: an analogy.Of course, it isn't a 100% perfect picture of reality, an analogy never is. But you can't focus on the differences of the analogy (the fact that the duct tape is a real physical entity in the analogy and that the laws of chemistry are intangible in our reality) to declare that therefore the analogy has no value. especially on a somewhat minor detail.The basis was this: if something happens, which is naturally impossible to happen, then it must have a supernatural cause. An analogy where the duct tape was replaced by a 'force field' would have done the same. But of course, just as natural laws are testable in our universe, so would the force field be testable in the analogy.So if I continue your story, I would then proceed to show you the force field existed. I would put some new balls on the table and start the process, and we would in fact observe the force field. You would then say:''well maybe if we change the color of the balls, or maybe the density of the balls, or maybe the material of the balls, etc" and each time it would not work. There would come a point where I would be the one starring at you with a quizzical look on my face.Same happens with the search for naturalistic abiogenesis. They always having new ideas of possibilities, but in the end these new ideas always run into the same laws of chemistry and thermodynamics. No matter how novel the idea.And in the analogy as in real life, it doesn't mean a way won't be found in the future (see previous post for more on this)I hope this explains a bit more with clarity.

But considering you have evidence of naturalistic things happening (even unrelated to abiogenesis) and absolutely no evidence of supernatural things happening (related or not to abiogenesis), I don't see how you can prefer supernatural over natural.At the very least I would think you should consider them equally likely and the question unsolved. I would tend to slant toward the category I actually knew existed, but that is just me. I don't think such a statement is supported by the evidence, but it is a tangent not suited to this thread.

Well, I'm no Positivist. And I realize I could be wrong. But all I have is what I experience. I suppose that I'm not committed to science as the sole evidential basis. Maybe I'm trusting myself too much... but it is what it is. Not definitively, and I'm not buying it. Showing how I could easily have been mistaken is not saying I was. I don't think I've been entirely uncritical. Its as if your assuming I just jump to the conclusion willy-nilly from miniscule reasons. I know that it could easily have been mistaken, and I've thought about it and reconsidered. I've concluded that this physical realm in not all there is. I don't totally disagree with you, and your characterization seems fairly accurate for a lot of it, but I don't think it necessarily means that I should be doubting myself here. And it kinda opens a slippery slope... Where do I draw the line? Is the sky really blue? Assuming you're right, then I'm probably merely mostly committed to science. If I accepted that I was failing, then I probaly would have CD from having to deny something that I thought was true. But in that sense, I'd be putting my faith in science... And still, the faith wouldn't be resulting from the CD, but the other way around. You did say: and we agree on that.

Then perhaps you can point at that specific chemical or physical reaction in life that is impossible; the "duct tape" that has been requested.I suspect you don't actually have an objection against a specific process or reaction, rather a simple incredulity of the entire occurrence. If every reaction in life is naturally possible then it would be reasonable to conclude that life is naturally possible to arise; we can argue about improbability, but unless you can demonstrate that "duct tape" blockage you are making an argument from ignorance.

I'm about to walk out the door so I don't have time for a proper reply. At all? I dunno. How do I know if an isolated experience was objective or not? I don't think so. You didn't answer my questions:

quote:

---

What do you mean by an "evidential basis"? I don't know what kind of answers there are for that...

​

What evidential basis are you committed to? What are the alternatives?

---

I don't agree with that.Sorry, I gotta go....

But of course, we then need to take it into the larger picture. I believe in the christian worldview, I think the historical evidence supports the Bible whenever it is possible. In other words, I think there is evidence for supernatural things happening (and at the centre of it all, the ressurection of Jesus Christ)But besides all that, even if I did have all that, it makes no difference because the argument is a Modus Ponens.Abiogenesis happened
If naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, then supernatural abiogenesis happened.
naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible,
therefore supernatural abiogenesis happened.In which the first premise is empirically verifiable, the second premise is true via the law of excluded middle and Disjunctive Syllogism.And the third premise is proved via induction, im much the same way ''all man are mortal'' is proven. (without ever obtaining 100% certainty) Thanks for not going down that road, I wanted to specify that it would be off-topic for this thread and this section (faith and belief) in my post but I forgot.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

The problem is this tiny bit: This is assuming that the same reactions that occur in a living cell are the same reactions required to create life, and furthermore that these reactions can occur outside of the environment provided by the cell itself.

We know that those reactions are what we call "life".
We know that those reactions can occur outside cells, in similar environments.Nothing about those reactions are impossible. You are asserting that the *path* to those reactions is impossible in the natural world, but you cannot point at any particular part of that path that is insurmountable.In turn science has not yet shown a clear path either, only a series of dots that might be connected. The issue is that you are drawing a dichotomy without making that dichotomy exhaustive; you don't know the path *at all*, and yet you are blithely declaring it to be impossible.Differing opinions on facts and the validity of evidence notwithstanding, your reasoning is faulty in and of itself.

Life is more than the reactions that compose it. It is the ordered succession of these reactions, it is with the order and directions given to these reactions by biological molecules, which are themselves produced by directed reactions.This is quite easy to see. Take all the biological molecules that compose a living cell, and drop them all in a drop of water. All the reactions that happen inside a living cell will also happen there, yet you won't have life because it will all be random, and also because there will be just as much unwanted reactions. This is where you go wrong, there are specific points along the path that are by themselves unsurmontable. The problem of chirality, for example, is one of them. No, I'm saying that if we cannot see any path, and that after years of searching there are still no path, even worse the problem has only gotten bigger, then I only suggest that perhaps there is no path.

Right, it is an emergent property. But the point is the same; the reactions are all possible. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids too.Wouldn't supernatural creation be more likely to result in 50-50 distribution of chirality rather than mostly all the same as though *gasp* they developed from a common ancestor? Besides, it isn't like there is no explanation; the weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin. Chemicals exposed to these electrons are more likely to form left-handed crystals, and so... left-handed amino acids. I couldn't ask for a better summation of an argument from ignorance.

Great - then consider the error margins when dealing with your measuring equipment (ie a human brain). I'm not saying you were mistaken. I'm just saying that the entire point of science is to avoid making mistakes that humans are prone to making and taking an impression at its face value is one of those mistakes.If I created a motion machine that I was convinced was perpetual, but then broke the machine by mistake. Then I was unable to create another machine that I perceived as being perpetual. Or indeed any scientific idea, such as cold fusion. What is more likely - that I made an assessment error the first time around and didn't have resources/time to spot it or that I really did hit the golden goose?If I went to the media and got on the front pages - what would you rate my chances of successfully replicating my results? I'm assuming you had a religious experience. Whether you think I'm implying they are miniscule reasons is something else. I certainly think concluding that the supernatural exists from that is somewhat willy-nilly. Sure, you've reasoned about it no doubt, but I would wager you did so in a way that would be destroyed in any academic paper.It seems to me that your reasoning is essentially:
I experienced a set of things which I associated with the supernatural.
Therefore I now think there is 'another, non-physical, world'.Though I'm sure you dressed it up prettier than that when your rationalizing what you had experienced. No - the reason you should doubt yourself is because science has shown how terrible an individual's perception of things can be.Here's an example.You have the full reasoning capacities as you have now. You are sat there reading this sentence. And as you begin this sentence you hear a voice. It says "I bet, with a bit of research we could track Modulous down. Kill him and you'll be rewarded with Beer/heaven/whatever appeals."The question is: Do you reason that you are experiencing a disturbing aural hallucination. Or do you reason that there is a being from beyond that is trying to bribe you into murdering me? I'm not asking about the possibilities, but how you'd actually handle the situation. Would you be more concerned about mental illness ("Am I going crazy here?") or about malign otherworldly entites ("Am I being haunted?").I'm just saying that you should worry about your mental health and if the voice continues, consider speaking to a doctor.And if you have a pleasant experience that could be explained by benign otherworldly entities, you should enjoy the ride but you should be more concerned again about your mental condition (and happy with the pleasant life experience) than pleased that something nice paid attention to you (if you were going to have any long term psychological response to it).

... And so the reactions being possible does not mean naturalistic abiogenesis is possible.This procedure of yours looks like fallacy of composition to me.Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids too. You'll have to explain more of this, if all of life had 50-50 distribution of chirality, does it not have the same effect then all left-handed (in regards to common ancestry) link to published paper ? I think me suggesting there are no paths is a far cry from affirming it to be true As in needed for it to be an argument from ignorance). This is logically consistent because I make an inductive usage to suggest this, not deductively proving it. From wiki: