No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?

As I reread pilate's argument, I decided that I didn't like any of the statements. Here is a summary of the problems with each of the statements.

quote:

---

Premise (P)1: All simple things like cameras, computers, have designer or maker

---

This is demonstrably false. Salt crystals, for example, are exceedingly simple, and we know they do not require a designer to form: we can observe them forming right before our eyes.Further, there is no good definition of "simple" as opposed to "complex". Is a camera really simple? Is a computer?Even if a definition of "simple" were provided that clearly included cameras and computers but excluded salt crystals, it would still be necessary to show that all such examples of "simple" things require a designer.-

quote:

---

P2. If simple things have makers then complex things (like our eyes and brain) has a designer or maker.

---

This, too, is under dispute. There is no reason to assume that items labeled as "complex" would have any of the same properties as items labeled as "simple". And we still have the previous problem of defining what exactly is "simple" versus "complex".-

quote:

---

P3. Every rule there is an exception.

---

This may or may not be true. As far as we know, the rule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed has no exception. In fact, several important scientific discoveries were made when it appeared that this rule were violated.It is possible, of course, that this rule is occasionally violated. We don't really know. But so far it seems inviolate, and so it really is necessary to establish this as a fact.-

quote:

---

Conclusion. If every thing--from the simple to the complex--has a maker or designer, and every rule there is an exception then it follows that the Grand designer /maker is the maker of makers and that he is the exception to the rule.

---

This does not follow. For example, even if we assume the premises, then, since every rule has an exception, it could be that living organisms themselves are an exception to P2.-

quote:

---

That is He has no maker or designer. ( This is by process of elimination. In the Bible he is called God)

---

Again, this does not follow. Even if there is a god that is the designer of the world, then this god may have been created by a designer, and that ur-designer would be the exception to P3. In that case, the demiurge that created this world would not be the god the same god worshipped by the Christians since they assume that there is nothing prior to their god.-

quote:

---

A friendly reminder about logic: A valid argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from these premises.

---

Thanks for the reminder. However, the premises may not be true (and, in fact, one is known to be false, one pretty much seems to be false, and the third is probably false). Further more, the conclusion does not logically follow from these premises.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

You:This is demonstrably false. Salt crystals, for example, are exceedingly simple, and we know they do not require a designer to form: we can observe them forming right before our eyes.Me: I disagree. Here is my practical definition of what a maker/designer is. He is the one who manipulates, starts, acts on this important formula. INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. That maker/ designer is important in order that the formula will work and the output will be. To illustrate. GM buys/manufactures all the materials ( Steel, rubber, engine) of a car. Then the materials goes to a process ( manufacturing ). Presto! You have a car.This being said. salt crystals are not that simple. The inputs probably are NaCl+ impurities + process ( condensation ,evaporation,etc) = salt crystals. But, someone had in the first place put the inputs together and set the process (in automatic mode). Presto! You have salt crystals.You: This may or may not be true. As far as we know, the rule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed has no exception. In fact, several important scientific discoveries were made when it appeared that this rule were violated.Me. Wow! you accidentally hit something biblical. I think in Isaiah it is written: 'look at the stars, due to HIS dynamic ENERGY, not one of them is missing'. Please don't nitpick again that this is false. We know that some stars actually decay. But, the writer his was solely referring to stars visible in his human eyes.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!Let me answer in advance your question. Why not make Evolution the exception? Because evolution is a PROCESS, in the same way that creation is a PROCESS.

oops double post again.Edited by pilate_judas, : Double post again.

Why He and not it?

You: 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.Me: Nope. I believe my argument is logical. Let me define an important term. MAKER is the one who stimulates, initiates, acts on this important formula. INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. To illustrate. GM buys or manufactures car parts (inputs) ; then these things goes through a process (manufacturing. Presto. You have car.If all makers--GM, etc--were eliminated there will be one left standing. He is the Supreme Maker of all. He is the exception.You: (Previously) said. Maybe the universe is the exception. Universe is the OUTPUT. It can't be the exception. Evolution is a PROCESS, just like creation, therefore these could not be exceptions. 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.

You:"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..."Me: Hmmm, interesting observation and questions. You now agree that we have a finite mind? HE and not "it" is the great cause. Review again please my position. A formula. A Maker. 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. So, He--the Great Cause--must have manipulated this formula. The formula was simple according to Genesis. Dust (input)+ life giving breath ( the process) = living human (output). Wanna prove this? Take the life of a man, he returns to dust.
Does that make sense to you?Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

Hello, pilate, and welcome back.\

quote:

---

Here is my practical definition of what a maker/designer is....

---

I'm not sure what your point here is. If you can clarify this, then perhaps we can discuss it.-

quote:

---

This being said. salt crystals are not that simple.

---

This doesn't help your overall argument. Either salt crystals are simple so they violate P1, or they aren't in which case they are a counterexample to P2.-

quote:

---

Wow! you accidentally hit something biblical.

---

This does not appear to be relevant to this discussion, but maybe I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?-

quote:

---

Why not make Evolution the exception?

---

No, that is not my question. Here we are discussing your P3, that every rule has an exception. In P2 you state the rule that complex things need a designer. Why can't living things be the exception to that rule?-At any rate, your premises are still flawed, and the conclusion to your argument does not follow from the premises.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I was never of the opinion that we had an infinite mind. 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.

You: 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.Me: I think I have made myself clear on what is "common human experience". A maker "manipulates", "Acts", "does something" with this formula: Input + process = output. To even make it simpler, take baking of bread. Flour (input)+ Process (baking)= Bread. 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.You: "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.Me: Aha! I see where your problem lies. You are confusing the Process with the Maker (Manipulator). This, IMHO, is the root cause of the great debate ( Creation vs. Evolution). Both sides are confusing the issue of the Maker (Manipulator) with the processes (creation or evolution) he may have done to come up w/ the output ( universe for example).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.You: "Your answer is very easy to arrive at. I challenge you to think outside of the box"Me: 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.

Hi Chiroptera,
I think my message # 155 is clear enough. But, let me see if I could make it clearer by answering some of your questions:You: I'm not sure what your point here is. If you can clarify this, then perhaps we can discuss it.Me: A maker is one who "manipulates" "acts" on this formula.
Inputs + Process = Output. Without this manipulator (Maker) that
formula means nothing.You: This doesn't help your overall argument. Either salt crystals are simple so they violate P1, or they aren't in which case they are a counterexample to P2.Me: salt crystal is an output of this formula: NaCl + Process ( condensation, evaporation, etc pardon if not the exact on) = Salt Crystal (output). They are not simple as you would like it to appear. Where does the maker (manipulator) come in? Easy he set the process in "automatic mode" such as when the inputs and the right process is there you have output. It's like baking a "refrigirator cake". Put the ingredients in the ref w/ the right temperature and mixture. Presto you have a cake!You: Why can't living things be the exception to that rule?Me: Good question. Good answer: Because they are the "OUPUTS". The "exception rule" will not apply to the INPUTS, nor to the "PROCESSES". It has to apply to the Maker (Manipulator). I think you will know the answer by analyzing this.You: At any rate, your premises are still flawed, and the conclusion to your argument does not follow from the premises.Me: No they are perfectly logical. Further, the questions of Moduluo provided me an insight as to why this great debate ( Creation vs. Evolution ) wont stop. IMHO, both sides are confusing the process ( either evolution or creation) w/ the Manipulator (Maker). Please read my answers to Mudolou's questions.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

A maker is one who "manipulates" "acts" on this formula.
Inputs + Process = Output. Without this manipulator (Maker) that
formula means nothing.

---

No, one who manipulates a formula is a mathematician, not a maker. A formula is an abstract string of symbols that represent some real life phenomenon. You are confusing the abstract formula with the real life referent; you are confusing the map with the terrain.-

quote:

---

Where does the maker (manipulator) come in? Easy he set the process in "automatic mode" such as when the inputs and the right process is there you have output.

---

Then you shouldn't have any trouble with the theory of evolution. The species that we see today and know of in the fossil record all evolved from earlier, usually simpler, species. All according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Where would a creator (if there was one) come in? When it set up the laws of nature, when it set the process in "automatic mode".-

quote:

---

The "exception rule" will not apply to the INPUTS, nor to the "PROCESSES".

---

You did not state this in the initial version of your premises. Now you are either changing your premises or adding new ones. Not that there is anything wrong with that; one should amend a flawed argument to make it stronger. But I am just pointing this out in case you think that the points you are trying to make are self-evident. They are not.-

quote:

---

No they [the premises] are perfectly logical.

---

Premises are not logical. They are accepted or they are not accepted. If the premises are accepted, then the logic of the argument can be examined. If they are not accepted, then the argument will be considered unsound.Your premises basically amount to assertians that things must be created by a designer. This is not generally accepted, in fact, this is exactly the point of contention in this debate. Furthermore, you have compounded the confusion by admitting that this designer may create by designing the laws of nature in such a way that things may be created by the forces of nature without the designer's direct intervention. Hence, not only have you not yet proven that living organisms have been designed, but you are admitting that there may be processes in nature that will produce complex organisms without the direct intervention of a creator.-

quote:

---

Because they are the "OUPUTS".

---

"Output" is an artificial category that you have made up to include living organisms and to which you are assigning arbitrary characteristics in order to "prove" your conclusion. Basically, your argument is amounting to a "word salad": a jumble of words thrown together with very little coherent meaning. You are bringing up words into the middle of your argument, and the words that you choose have are imprecise and not very well defined.I have read your responses to Modulous. They also have this same incoherent quality to them. Perhaps he can make sense of them, but I think if you are going to make this a usable argument you are going to have to very carefully rethink and rewrite it. You are going to have to state your definitions, carefully state your premises, and then proceed to explain how your conclusion comes from your premises.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

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. 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. 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. 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.

YOU: No, one who manipulates a formula is a mathematician, not a maker. A formula is an abstract string of symbols that represent some real life phenomenon. You are confusing the abstract formula with the real life referent; you are confusing the map with the terrain.ME: We are not just engaged in symantics. I thought my numerous illustrations of baker-->bread; GM-->cars,etc clearly conveyed the message.YOU: 'Where does the maker (manipulator) come in? Easy he set the process in "automatic mode" such as when the inputs and the right process is there you have output.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble with the theory of evolution. The species that we see today and know of in the fossil record all evolved from earlier, usually simpler, species. All according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Where would a creator (if there was one) come in? When it set up the laws of nature, when it set the process in "automatic mode".ME: I have no problem with this statement: A Maker "processed" SOME through evolution, and "processed" SOME through creation.Where was he? To those whose only standard is physical, would readily conclude that He is non-existing. But, to those who go beyond physical He is real to them in the same way that they accept unseen forces ( gravity, radio waves, etc)as real.According to one: 'the physical man does not perceive the spiritual things for these are foolishness to him. But, the spiritual man examines all physical and spiritual things and these make sense to him.'YOU: The "exception rule" will not apply to the INPUTS, nor to the "PROCESSES".
You did not state this in the initial version of your premises. Now you are either changing your premises or adding new ones. Not that there is anything wrong with that; one should amend a flawed argument to make it stronger. But I am just pointing this out in case you think that the points you are trying to make are self-evident. They are not.[qs/]ME: I believe I did not change the premise. I just elaborated on why the exception should apply to the Maker and not to any component of the "formula".Edited by pilate_judas, : UNCLEAR QUOTES

quote:

---

I thought my numerous illustrations of baker-->bread; GM-->cars,etc clearly conveyed the message.

---

The only message that was conveyed to me is that you have an a priori belief in a creator. You have also conveyed the message that you believe that this is obvious, or that you have clearly shown this to be true. However, you have not yet conveyed any good reason that I should believe that there is a designer or creator.-

quote:

---

To those whose only standard is physical....

---

My main standard is that either a premise can be shown to be reasonable through repeated and reproducible observations, or by logical argumentation.-

quote:

---

I believe I did not change the premise.

---

Actually, you did. Your original premise was that every rule has an exception. Now you seem to be saying that the only exception to some rules can be the creator.-Maybe you could rewrite your argument again, taking into account the criticisms of your original post. Then we can see where we stand.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus