Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 173 (366851)
11-29-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 1:29 PM


Re: No abiogenesis, no evolution then what
Restating your position, with a different conclusion
P1: All designed things have a designer or maker.
Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker.
P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it.
Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 1:29 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 145 of 173 (366862)
11-29-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons
Don't worry yourself - that wasn't my conclusion. My conclusion was 'The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. '. That is to say it is still logically possible, it has not been excluded as a possibility. Therefore God is not the only possible conclusion. As God is not the only possible conclusion, your argument does not supply us with proof.
2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple algorithm (??) Input + process = output. How can process be the input?
We weren't talking about the origin of the process. If we want to go back to that we eventually get to the origin of the universe. In that case the universe itself might be the exception. You have not excluded this as a possibility, nor have you excluded it. Thus your argument is not proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:48 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 148 of 173 (366867)
11-29-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 3:02 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: "Your argument is not proof".
Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard.
You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?
Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree?
No need. I already said that evolutionary processes being the only possibility is not a logical statement to make. Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 150 of 173 (366877)
11-29-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 3:18 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be?
But was yours logical? As a proof of God? All you proved was that there has to be a terminus point. That terminus point might be God, or it might the universe, or it might be the multiverse. No - it was rhetorical but not necessarily logical.
: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that.
It doesn't matter what everybody agrees on. I don't think it is necessarily either the most popular or necessarily the most controversial. However no other explanatory framework has been as practical. You may refute this simply by showing a more practical explanation. Practical as in utilitarian, by the way. It has to have some utility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:18 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 173 (367096)
11-30-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NOT JULIUS
11-30-2006 12:07 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
This just prove my point. That for every rule there is exception. And, I apply it to the Supreme Maker. If all other "makers" are eliminated--He will be the only one standing. He is the exception!
Why He and not it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:07 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 156 of 173 (367101)
11-30-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by NOT JULIUS
11-30-2006 12:25 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
Universe is the OUTPUT. It can't be the exception...By elimination, the "exception rule" would have to apply to the Maker.
Infinite regression! What if the universe was the Maker? What if M-Theory, which posits a sort of hyperuniverse, is the Maker? Why do you have to stop at God? Why not stop one step before God? There is no reason to posit that an intelligent being has to be the Maker.
All we can say, given that everything needs a cause, is that one thing didn't have a cause. We don't know what that is. Whatever it is, we get the same problem, what was 'it' doing before 'it' created the universe. And the problem is we don't know what the word before means outside of the scope of our space/time geometry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:25 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 173 (367113)
11-30-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by NOT JULIUS
11-30-2006 12:55 PM


the maker
You now agree that we have a finite mind?
I was never of the opinion that we had an infinite mind.
You may have the formula but it won't work unless the Maker manipulates it. He is the Great Cause. Why he not it? By common human experience! We have the most creative mind on earth.
Are you assuming that 'manipulation' (by which you mean, 'causing' I assume) requires a He? Common human experience is woefully inadequate to answer these questions. I can't speak for you, though I can guess, but I have not ever experienced a reality coming into existence. I certainly wouldn't call it a common experience.
Besides which - there are plenty of 'its' that create things on earth. In fact - mostly everything on earth (and the solar system, and indeed the universe) can be explained in terms of being created by an 'it'. When we look at it in perspective, we could say that everything we know of has not been created by the Maker, in our experience - therefore 'it' is more likely.
Your answer is very easy to arrive at. I challenge you to think outside of the box, outside your own biases. Perhaps then you might understand where I, and others, are coming from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:55 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 7:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 163 of 173 (367202)
11-30-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by NOT JULIUS
11-30-2006 7:08 PM


Re: the maker
Guess who gathered the flour and manipulated the oven? To me the reality that someone baked the bread is as clear as daylight. I don't know why you will disagree on this.
We know a human created the bread, we know that humans do create bread. We have no knowledge of what creates universes/realities. I am not going to conclude it was an anthropomorphic entity with supreme powers without some reason.
Aha! I see where your problem lies. You are confusing the Process with the Maker (Manipulator).
No, I'm really not. You say that common human experience is that things are created by a maker. I argue that the opposite is true. Most things we can describe we can only see as being the product of some process. The only 'maker' therefore, that we have ever been able to conclude is 'processes'. As for the ultimate cause, the ultimate maker? We have no common experience to conclude anything. Could be God is the unmoved mover, the unmade maker. Or it could be that reality itself is the uncaused causer. Who can say? Your logic unfortunately gets us no further to penetrating this mystery than we began with.
In logic, it is almost a falsity to use the words "ALL", "Everything" , "Nothing". It is always safe to use the words "Some" or "Not all". What is the implication? The Maker (Manipulator)may have used direct creation in some, and allowed evolution in some.
I rarely use absolutes. You may have noticed that I used words such as 'mostly' and 'we could say'. As an amusing irony, I note that you say it is always. Of course some other entity may have been involved in life, but I'm not going to conclude that until there is actual evidence that is the case.
Of course it is easy, it is clearly logical. My box is my finite mind. The process I use is logic and common observation. I come up w/ an ouput. That is my limit. I can't speak for everyone.
I have shown that your logic contains a non sequitur. Your conclusion 'God' does not follow from the premises. The best you have shown is that there must be some first cause. We cannot conclude from either experience or logic what that first cause was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 7:08 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-01-2006 3:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 167 of 173 (367301)
12-01-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by NOT JULIUS
12-01-2006 3:02 PM


Re: the maker
What is your belief re. this ultimate cause? Is he/it intelligent, or non-intelligent?
There is no evidence to make any solid determination at this point. I would say it is more likely to be non-intelligent for all the reasons Dawkins points out in his recent new book. Everything we know about intelligence indicates it is the end product of a process. The first entity is not the end product of a process. As such, the first entity is unlikely to be intelligent.
However, I have no actual 'belief' in the matter. I prefer to say 'I don't know, but here's my thoughts on the topic'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-01-2006 3:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-01-2006 4:44 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024