Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 16 of 199 (506920)
04-30-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
04-30-2009 1:13 AM


Hi GDR,
We see natural forces at work around us but do we ever observe a natural force that is capable of creating the first cell?
The problem is in the use of the word "create'. It would be safe to say, using your word "create", that we don't see anything "created" from nothing, at all, not now, not ever. "Create" gives the implication that there was nothing and now there is something, but this is not the case for cells, since what they are composed of is just a collection of chemicals that are found common throughout our planet. The origin of the elements that compose living organisms is also fully known to science.
The "natural forces" that structured the cell are known to science, they are natural chemical reactions.
To believe that the first cell came into existence by some chemical accident requires in my view a great deal more faith than the idea that there is a creative intelligence behind its existence
So you think that natural chemical reactions are a far greater leap of faith than an intelligent, highly complex, non-visible entity that requires no explanation for it's existance? - This is logically flawed.
At the very least, what cells are composed of are basic elements, natural chemical reactions are observed, natural selection selects beneficial functions, and so on. This, IMO, seems like a simple process when compared to an itelligent, highly complex, invisible entity that just is, without any explanation as to how it exists in the first place.
Once one comes to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind this world, and this universe's existence, then we have already accepted the fact that there was at least one so-called miracle.
This is not a matter of acceptance, this is a matter of blind faith in one particular designer story.
To say that you have to accept an a priori belief in a creator before you can understand nature is logically flawed as well.
First you need objective evidence for the creator in question, then you can proceed to invoke him/her in the process of "creation". Until then, you are just pissing in the wind with a faith based belief that lacks verifiable proof.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 1:13 AM GDR has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 17 of 199 (506924)
04-30-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
04-30-2009 9:55 AM


Not at all. Let's say that science can come up with an explanation for the existence of the first cell. Let's say that science can even reproduce by experiment the creation of a cell. That still does not explain "why" it happened.
The process is the why. You seem to think that life is the goal, that there is something out there that wanted life. That's begging the question...why do you think there is a why? It happened because the process was possible, and given enough time, anything that's possible will probably happen somewhere.
For that matter; why is there something instead of nothing?
This is a matter of debate and study. If we live in a brane-type multiverse, then it seems unlikely that a universe like ours would never be created at some point. Try turning it around, why would you think there should be nothing instead of something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:55 AM GDR has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 18 of 199 (506932)
04-30-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
04-30-2009 9:55 AM


GDR writes:
That still does not explain "why" it happened.
Why does there have to be a "why"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:55 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 04-30-2009 1:50 PM Michamus has not replied
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 7:11 PM Michamus has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 199 (506954)
04-30-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Michamus
04-30-2009 11:58 AM


In my opinion it does not matter whether there is a "why" or not.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Michamus, posted 04-30-2009 11:58 AM Michamus has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 199 (506992)
04-30-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Michamus
04-30-2009 11:58 AM


Michamus writes:
Why does there have to be a "why"?
There always has to be a why. Let's go back to abiogenesis then. The first cell had to come about for some reason. The naturalist explanation denotes the reason as being, (as near as I understand it), that it happened by chance. (This is still true even if they can come up with a scientific explanation of "how" chemicals came together to form the first cell.) That is an answer as to "why" it happened, but as it can't be tested scientifically it is a philosophical or theological conclusion, just as is the conclusion that it happened because of a creative intelligence.
It is my contention that the latter makes more sense of this world than the former. You hold the opposite view. Both are a matter of faith as neither of us can prove that we are right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Michamus, posted 04-30-2009 11:58 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-30-2009 8:58 PM GDR has replied
 Message 27 by Michamus, posted 05-01-2009 4:18 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2009 4:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 199 (506999)
04-30-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
04-30-2009 7:11 PM


GDR writes:
There always has to be a why.
Interesting assertion, but not relevant. Whatever reasons you think there might be for things that happen, it's just matter and energy obeying laws that control everything that happens. This is true of everything on the planet today, and it was true billions of years ago. Whatever role chance plays today in what happens today, it was no different then.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 7:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:29 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 22 of 199 (507005)
04-30-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
04-30-2009 8:58 PM


Percy writes:
Interesting assertion, but not relevant. Whatever reasons you think there might be for things that happen, it's just matter and energy obeying laws that control everything that happens. This is true of everything on the planet today, and it was true billions of years ago. Whatever role chance plays today in what happens today, it was no different then.
That is your assertion, and it is relevant. How is that statement scientific? Show me the proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-30-2009 8:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2009 11:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 7:24 AM GDR has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 23 of 199 (507013)
04-30-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
04-30-2009 9:29 PM


Spectra
The evidence is in spectra from galaxies ten billion light years away. Though red shifted, they are identical to spectra seen in the lab. That is most parsimoniously explained if the physics, and, therefore, chemistry then is the same as it is now. Electrons captured and released photons then as they do now. Water formed then as it does now. Amino acids formed then as they do now.
As you assert, it is unreasonable to assume life emerged of a piece. But the reasoned assumption then turns to life having begun simply; not life having been created by the most complex being possible.
Proto-life would likely have been a humble affair: no marching bands or horns triumphant. Just a common bit of chemistry. Some bit of chemistry that effected its environment it a way that increased the likelihood that it would happen again before being rent. Whole cells were a few hundred million baby steps down the road.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 11:48 PM lyx2no has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 24 of 199 (507015)
04-30-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by lyx2no
04-30-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Spectra
To break it out Percy makes this statement.
quote:
it's just matter and energy obeying laws that control everything that happens. This is true of everything on the planet today, and it was true billions of years ago.
I want to see the proof that it is just matter and energy that control everything on the planet.
You say:
quote:
The evidence is in spectra from galaxies ten billion light years away. Though red shifted, they are identical to spectra seen in the lab. That is most parsimoniously explained if the physics, and, therefore, chemistry then is the same as it is now. Electrons captured and released photons then as they do now. Water formed then as it does now. Amino acids formed then as they do now.
There is nothing there to disagree with, but how does that prove that there is no initiating or guiding force behind all of those processes. You simply take on faith that there is nothing else.
quote:
As you assert, it is unreasonable to assume life emerged of a piece. But the reasoned assumption then turns to life having begun simply; not life having been created by the most complex being possible.
Proto-life would likely have been a humble affair: no marching bands or horns triumphant. Just a common bit of chemistry. Some bit of chemistry that effected its environment it a way that increased the likelihood that it would happen again before being rent. Whole cells were a few hundred million baby steps down the road.
I agree that life may have begun simply, but I don't accept that it a more reasoned assumption is that life happened only by chance and without creative intelligence. In either case both of us are making assumptions and both of us have faith in our strictly non-scientific conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2009 11:18 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2009 12:44 AM GDR has replied
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2009 5:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 25 of 199 (507018)
05-01-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
04-30-2009 11:48 PM


Re: Spectra
but how does that prove that there is no initiating or guiding force behind all of those processes.
Quite simply, it proves no such thing nor makes the futile attempt. It is not possible to prove a guiding force isn't responsible for the whole kit and caboodle.
It is not, however, faith that causes me to discount that possibility. I don't believe it because there is no demonstrably valid reason for me to believe it. And if I cannot reject a hypothesis on those grounds what grounds are there that would allow rejection of any other non evidentially contradicted hypothesis? Is there a tea pot at L5?
Even if the reasoning behind the rejection is erroneous, a la RAZD, that there is a reason places the rejection beyond the bounds of faith.
In either case both of us are making assumptions
Not all assumptions are equally valid. Isaac Asimov wrote of a man he passed on a street corner one morning. The man stood with hands in pockets, smoking a cigarette, next to a bucket of masonry tools and a lift of brick. Several hours later he again passed the man still with hands in pocket, smoking a cigarette, next to a bucket of masonry tools, but there was now a wall rather then the lift.
Resist if you can that the story is the one you tell of an intelligent agent, and tell me; are the two assumptions, that the wall was built by the man; or, the wall self-assembled, equally valid? If you agree that they are not then it behooves you to toss out the "we both make assumptions" argument and begin to establish why your assumption are the more valid. For the reason expressed in the first half of this post I would contend that your assumption is not only the less valid but altogether invalid.
You may be right, but you're short on evidence.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar and typos.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 11:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:42 AM lyx2no has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 199 (507022)
05-01-2009 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by lyx2no
05-01-2009 12:44 AM


Re: Spectra
lyx2no writes:
It is not, however, faith that causes me to discount that possibility. I don't believe it because there is no demonstrably valid reason for me to believe it. And if I cannot reject a hypothesis on those grounds what grounds are there that would allow rejection of any other non evidentially contradicted hypothesis? Is there a tea pot at L5?
Even if the reasoning behind the rejection is erroneous, a la RAZD, that there is a reason places the rejection beyond the bounds of faith.
You believe that all of creation came about strictly through a materialistic process. You agree that you can't prove it so you have to take it on faith that you are correct.
lyx2no writes:
Not all assumptions are equally valid. Isaac Asimov wrote of a man he passed on a street corner one morning. The man stood with hands in pockets, smoking a cigarette, next to a bucket of masonry tools and a lift of brick. Several hours later he again passed the man still with hands in pocket, smoking a cigarette, next to a bucket of masonry tools, but there was now a wall rather then the lift.
Resist if you can that the story is the one you tell of an intelligent agent, and tell me; are the two assumptions, that the wall was built by the man; or, the wall self-assembled, equally valid? If you agree that they are not then it behooves you to toss out the "we both make assumptions" argument and begin to establish why your assumption are the more valid. For the reason expressed in the first half of this post I would contend that your assumption is not only the less valid but altogether invalid.
You may be right, but you're short on evidence.
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life of all kinds, the fact that we have emotions, the fact that we can be altruistic etc. but you've heard it all before and you reject that as sufficient evidence. That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism. I kinda imagine you're going to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2009 12:44 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 8:15 AM GDR has replied
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 10:18 AM GDR has replied
 Message 36 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2009 3:29 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2009 5:07 PM GDR has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 27 of 199 (507024)
05-01-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
04-30-2009 7:11 PM


GDR writes:
There always has to be a why.
I charge you with the task of providing a logically constructed argument for why there must be a why, and you simply reiterate the same assertion? Would you care to try again? This time I would suggest you move beyond Premise A.
GDR writes:
It is my contention that the latter makes more sense of this world than the former.
Your argument from personal incredulity is meaningless. To much of the world's population 3,000 years ago, a flat earth model made more sense.
GDR writes:
Show me the proof.
I want to see the proof...
how does that prove...
...you can't prove it...
The very fact that you are using the words "prove" and "proof" displays your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not utilized to proof anything, as it has no means to accomplish such a thing.
When utilizing the scientific method, you are establishing the best explanation for natural phenomena you can, while utilizing all the relevant facts in an unbiased manner. For instance, Newtonian Gravity was later improved upon by Einstein, through his more accurate description of "Gravitation". Does this mean that Gravity somehow changed? No. More the amount of data we had increased, and we needed to update the explanation to suit the facts.
In Chemistry, we see fundamental parts (atoms or even molecules) self assemble through natural laws. For instance the joining of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen into water. It is not hard to deduce that our DNA --which is made of components no different than those found in nature-- occurred through a natural chemical reaction that occurred when the correct mixture of elements was present.
GDR writes:
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe,
What fine tuning are you referring to? The fact that it takes a thousand billion billion useless stars to have a single solar system with a single planet of the 8 available (You'll be missed Pluto) in order for life to exist? I see just as much fine tuning in the universe for the existence of life, as to how fine tuned a puddle's shape is for the hole it occupies.
GDR writes:
the complexity of life of all kinds
How much more complex is our simple chemical reactions than those that occur within our own sun?
GDR writes:
the fact that we have emotions
As does any Primate, Dog, our house-cat... unless you don't consider fear or affection emotions...
GDR writes:
the fact that we can be altruistic
As can any Primate, Dog, Cat... unless you consider a wild tiger caring for an orphaned orangutan, after it killed it's mother not to be altruistic.
GDR writes:
That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism
The overarching theme of this "evidence" you have provided is that it is purely subjective. Notice in every response I had to preface it with "Unless you consider". This is necessary as they are all completely subjective. I could consider a human caring for another human child altruistic, but arbitrarily reject the tiger/orangutan example, for no more reason than it disagrees with my pre-conceptions.
This is the exact reason that a discussion with a fundamentalist typically leads nowhere, as they typically utilize subjective terms as if they are objective. They do this without understanding the fundamental flaw in their argument, and why it can arbitrarily be discarded as easily as it was posited in the first place.
Edited by Michamus, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 199 (507036)
05-01-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
04-30-2009 9:29 PM


GDR writes:
That is your assertion, and it is relevant. How is that statement scientific? Show me the proof.
You've had a number of replies to your last two messages (this one I'm replying to and your next one), and they pretty much say what I'm going to tell you. Science isn't in the business of proving things. Science can no more show you proof that matter and energy is all there is than that the sun will rise in the morning. Science makes explanatory generalizations about the world (called theories) from the available evidence. All science can tell you about your speculation that there are unseen and unknown forces at work is that there is no evidence for them.
That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does put them in the same realm as green dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, immaterial pink unicorns, and the celestial teapot. Not everything we can imagine is something that exists.
Bringing this back to the topic, we understand that when you apply the Hume Maxim about accepting the lesser miracle to the question of the origin of life that you choose the miracle for which there is no evidence, but could I ask you to play Hume with a different question: Is just one of the world's religions right, or are they all wrong?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 10:03 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 29 of 199 (507042)
05-01-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
05-01-2009 2:42 AM


Miracularity ensues
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life of all kinds, the fact that we have emotions, the fact that we can be altruistic etc. but you've heard it all before and you reject that as sufficient evidence. That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism. I kinda imagine you're going to disagree.
What is more miraculous?
That through a slow and well understood process with significant evidentiary support, a crude and very limited intelligence emerged in the universe and that intelligence crudely imagined and then believed that it was created by a greater intelligence than itself.
Or
That a Great Intelligence simply exists, without any cause, explanation or process that brings into existence - and with all that Great Intelligence the Intelligence creates a mostly barren universe, creates life in a tiny subset of that universe and ushers it into an intelligent species that will last something like 0.0000...002% of the time the universe created to house them does and exists in only and 0.00000000000000000000...0000001% of the space created to house it. Oh and when that intelligent species looks at the evidence rigorously it concludes that it most likely happened naturally. A more casual/naive examination of the evidence ends up with the conclusion that the Great Intelligence Did It. And the casual/naive/easy methodology just happens to produce the correct results.
Don't know about you, but the argument that an Intelligent Creative agency exists that explains all those things we haven't explained yet - seems much more miraculous than positing that chemical reactions happened, and that we aren't sure of what all of them were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 10:20 AM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 199 (507066)
05-01-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
05-01-2009 7:24 AM


Percy writes:
You've had a number of replies to your last two messages (this one I'm replying to and your next one), and they pretty much say what I'm going to tell you. Science isn't in the business of proving things. Science can no more show you proof that matter and energy is all there is than that the sun will rise in the morning. Science makes explanatory generalizations about the world (called theories) from the available evidence. All science can tell you about your speculation that there are unseen and unknown forces at work is that there is no evidence for them.
That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does put them in the same realm as green dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, immaterial pink unicorns, and the celestial teapot. Not everything we can imagine is something that exists.
Bringing this back to the topic, we understand that when you apply the Hume Maxim about accepting the lesser miracle to the question of the origin of life that you choose the miracle for which there is no evidence, but could I ask you to play Hume with a different question: Is just one of the world's religions right, or are they all wrong?
I accept your point about proof, but I wonder how many times that I've read on this forum that there is so much evidence for evolution that it is no longer a theory.
As for there being no evidence for the seen and unseen forces I disagree. The fact that we, this world, and this universe exists is evidence. We come to different conclusions about the evidence but it is still evidence. If an alien were to examine a car, (without being able to observe us), he would be able to discern something about us through our creation, (if he concluded that it wasn't likely to exist by strictly materialistic forces).
Is the evidence for a creative intelligence conclusive? No. Is the evidence for a completely materialistic creation conclusive? No. We just come to our own conclusions about "what is truth".
I'm Christian but that doesn't mean that other religions are all wrong. I remember reading the first third of the "Book of Buddha" and being struck by how closely the first Buddha's teachings were to that of Christ. Sure there are differences but the major difference centers on the person of Jesus, and who He was. Let's just say that I believe that Christianity is more right than the others, realizing that what I believe Christianity to be is quite different from what many other Christians believe. Fundamentalist Christians would call me liberal and followers of the "Jesus Seminar" group would consider me conservative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 7:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 6:10 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024