Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
50 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,216 Year: 4,328/6,534 Month: 542/900 Week: 66/182 Day: 0/38 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3711 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 166 of 173 (367300)
12-01-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Modulous
11-30-2006 8:42 PM


Re: the maker
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.
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.

Me: Can you clarify please? You kept mentioning, and from what I understand, is that you accept that there is an Ultimate Cause. Only that you are not prepared to ascribe this Ultimate Cause as God? What is your belief re. this ultimate cause? Is he/it intelligent, or non-intelligent?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 8:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2006 3:06 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
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 taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3711 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 168 of 173 (367311)
12-01-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Chiroptera
12-01-2006 2:50 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
Maybe you could rewrite your argument again, taking into account the criticisms of your original post. Then we can see where we stand.

At your request. Here goes.
P1: A maker is one who gathers/create the inputs, sets in motion, or manipulates the necessary process into motion, so that the desired outputs come into being. By simplicity this is illustrated as follows Maker--> inputs + process = output. (PI defines a maker and how an output would come to be.)

P2. Simple things ( Camera, computers) as well as complex things (human eyes, universe) are “outputs” . As an example, the human eye. Inputs ( cornea, blood vessels, etc) + Process ( assembly of different parts, including complex reflexes) = human eye. (P2 asserts that the things around us are "outputs" that have resulted from inputs + process, initiated by Maker.)

P3. Every rule there is an exception. Further, if we apply the exception rule to the inputs, (that is eliminate or set aside the inputs) there will be no output, if we apply the rule to process—that is eliminate or set aside the process-- there will be no output, if we apply the rule to output it would result to nothing. That only leaves us one thing—the exception rule has to apply to the maker. (P3 asserts that there is an exception to every rule and that by elimination, this rule applies to the maker)

P4. Every maker is actually an output of another maker ( for example a robot is made by man, and that robot could actually make things given the inputs and process). Further, all these makers can be eliminated ( that is set aside) until we reach the Ultimate maker. (P4 asserts that every maker is an output of another maker and that these can all be eliminated--that is set aside-- until only one is left standing.)

Conclusion. Therefore, the Ultimate Maker ( w/c some call God), is the exception to the rule. That is, the Ultimate Maker can not be eliminated or set aside.

Note: in the scheme of things creation or evolution are processes.

Edited by pilate_judas, : for further clarity.

Edited by pilate_judas, : grammar & clarity

Edited by pilate_judas, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Chiroptera, posted 12-01-2006 2:50 PM Chiroptera has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 8:43 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3711 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 169 of 173 (367328)
12-01-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Modulous
12-01-2006 3:06 PM


Re: the maker
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'

Thank you so much. I think I know now the difference in our thinking process. You are --if we could typify humans--from the "from-known-to known" type. I am of the "known-to unknown type". Really, from your point of view a big leap of faith. There are many scientists who are of the same type as you are; and those of my type. (Actually, I like your post re. Newton, etc. That was informative)

I enjoyed so much our exchange of ideas. And, this just support my opinion that both creation and evolution be taught. You know, the "teach the controversy" approach. This type of exchanges forces one to really think deep.

But, could you forgive Gov. Pilate? In Judea, we enjoy controversies. It just so happened that one Guy got to be a victim because another sold him for 30 pcs of silver. Ha ha ha! =)=)

Just one last dig--not at you--but at Dawkins. He said: "Everything we know about intelligence indicates it is the end product of a process." In short intelligence is output. Wow! just to gather the inputs and get right the right process would require intelligence. Just my thought. And, wasn't he the one who coined the word "creationoid" or something.

Edited by pilate_judas, : grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2006 3:06 PM Modulous has taken no action

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4222 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 170 of 173 (367377)
12-01-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by NOT JULIUS
12-01-2006 3:47 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
Hi pilate_judas,

I realize I'm butting into a debate here, but I find your "logic" a bit, well, illogical.

Particularly your premise 3:

pilate_judas writes:

Every rule there is an exception.

Where did this come from? It certainly doesn't follow from premises 1 and 2. I know it is a folk saying, but that doesn't really count much in its favour.

In logical terms, you are saying:

"For every thing that invariably obeys a rule, there is a thing that does not follow the rule"

Well, okay, I might challenge your view of what a rule is! If a rule is necessarily disobeyed, then it is not a rule, in my understanding of the term. A rule must be obeyed, otherwise it is not a rule. It is merely a convention.

Hence:

pilate_judas writes:

all these makers can be eliminated ... until we reach the Ultimate maker.

This requires that your rule ("all made things have a maker") necesssarily is NOT a rule ("there exists a made thing which has no maker").

I can't for the life of me imagine why you would dig yourself into such a hole. You seem to be saying that every truthful thing you say (which follows the rule of being true or being false) is ultimately and necessarily a lie. Because if it were not a lie... it wouldn't be true!

Back to logic class with you!

Mick

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : I corrected a misuse of the subjunctive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-01-2006 3:47 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-03-2006 12:59 PM mick has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3711 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 171 of 173 (367561)
12-03-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mick
12-01-2006 8:43 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
Hi Mick,
Where did this come from? It certainly doesn't follow from premises 1 and 2. I know it is a folk saying, but that doesn't really count much in its favour.

Me: Premises may or may not be dependent of each other. Only that the conlusion has to LOgically follow from the Truthful premises. Back to Logic 101. Even the premises that I gave are related to each other. There are premises nos 1 & 2 and exceptions to these rule is(premise 3)

In logical terms, you are saying:
"For every thing that invariably obeys a rule, there is a thing that does not follow the rule...Well, okay, I might challenge your view of what a rule is! If a rule is necessarily disobeyed, then it is not a rule, in my understanding of the term. A rule must be obeyed, otherwise it is not a rule. It is merely a convention.

You are correct re. 1st part. But on 2nd part, I think you are wrong. Just because a rule has exceptions, doesn't mean it is not a rule. Example. Everyone must stop on red light. That is the rule. Certainly it has EXCEPTIONS. Ambulance, police cars. Got it?

Kind regards,
Gov Pilate of Judea,
twin brother of Judas :=) :=)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 8:43 PM mick has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Max Power, posted 12-07-2006 8:34 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 5243 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 172 of 173 (368311)
12-07-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by NOT JULIUS
12-03-2006 12:59 PM


Exceptions to exceptions
P3. Every rule there is an exception.

I see a couple of potential problems with this premis and would love to hear your input.

1. Would you say that P3 is a rule? And being a rule it has exceptions? This would reduce the rule to...

Every rule there is an exception, except when there isn't

Which reduces to...

Some rules have exceptions some rules don't

2. Every square is a rectangle. Would you say that that is a rule? Can you think of an exception?

3. What is the difference between a rule having an exception and an incomplete rule?

Everyone must stop on red light. That is the rule. Certainly it has EXCEPTIONS. Ambulance, police cars.

What if I changed the rule to the following.

Everyone but ambulances and police cars must stop on red lights

As long as there are a finite number of exceptions, the once incomplete rule with exception/s can be turned into simply a complete rule. This reduces your statement to...

Every rule either has no exceptions, is incomplete, or has an infinite amount of exceptions

I think to really get at the heart of the matter we need to examine what a rule is. I would appreciate a definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-03-2006 12:59 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 173 of 173 (374177)
01-03-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
10-06-2005 11:33 AM


Abiogenetical concepts seem to be rather decent here. However, they do violate the Principle of Biogenesis, and being that its also acausal, its ignorant to think it to be true in itself. However, it is possible that God could have used such a cause for the effect that is Humans in this case.

An exception to the rule is a contradiction as well. Thats a rule, so we'd have to have an exception to the exception, which cancels it out, leaving the rule!

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 11:33 AM Yaro has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022