The Greater Miracle

GDR writes:

quote:

---

If science can explain how abiogenesis happened then great, but it still doesn't explain why it happened.

---

Ooh! We're at one of those questions I always ask and never get an answer to:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

There always has to be a why.

---

Why?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

I want to see the proof that it is just matter and energy that control everything on the planet.

---

Nice try, but that's you're burden of proof. You're the one saying that there is something more. We can see matter and energy and we can see how they interact with each other to result in everything we see on the planet. If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles on top, then you're going to have to show not only that they are there (which you haven't) but also that they are required (which you also haven't).Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

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.

---

Because if there is no need for such a "guiding force," what evidence is there that it even exists?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. The burden of proof is on you since you're the one claiming that something more than materialistic processes are required. We have seen materialistic processes and can demonstrate them for you. If you're going to claim that we also need chocolate sprinkles, you need to show not only the existence of the sprinkles but also demonstrate that they are necessary.Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GBR writes:

quote:

---

So when you say that God had to exist BEFORE creation and something had to exist BEFORE the creator you are making an argument based on time as we perceive it, which is likely a false understanding of what time really is.

---

If god can do it, why can't the universe?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

​

Street lights are set up with a light detector. When it gets dark the street lights come on. Did these light come on on their own or were humans required for it to happen

---

That's not really an answer to the question. You seem to be saying that no, god is required for everything, but then you immediately contradict that by saying that you believe in free will. Let's try again, shall we?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?This is a very simple question. Let's establish where you are first before we get into explanations, please. I need you to make the clear statement:"Yes, there are things that happen on their own."OR"No, god is required for everything."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

If God hadn't created nothing would happen.

---

But it is irrelevant where things come from. When you need a quarter for the vending machine, the machine doesn't care if the quarter was made at the Denver mint using the Denver dies or the Philadelphia mint using the Philadelphia dies. The vending machine only cares that it's a quarter.The question is simply if there is anything that happens on its own or if god is required for everything.

quote:

---

Once creation is functioning then I would agree that things happen on their own. How much? I don't know.

---

Don't you think finding out is an interesting question? And we're back to a previous comment: People used to think god was required for an awful lot of things which we later discovered happened all on their own.You're the one claiming that god is required. Therefore, it is your burden to show not only that god exists but also that god's action is required. We already see amazing things that happen all on their own and thus, we know that it is possible for things to happen on their own.Why do you insist upon the chocolate sprinkles?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

If there is an "intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs" then it can be said that every breath I take is a miracle.

---

That makes the word "miracle" completely useless as it doesn't distinguish anything. If everything is a "miracle," then nothing is. And that takes us right back to the question you seemed to have answered before:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?You seemed to say that no, there are things that happen on their own, but you don't seem to mean it. You seem to be incapable of allowing the mundane to be miraculous.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything

---

​

I've answered by attempting to frame the question in a way that makes sense.

---

No, you avoided it. You gave a bunch of secondary commentary without actually answering the question. It is an extremely simple question and I have asked you nicely to answer it directly. I cannot read your mind and the only way to understand what you really mean is to have you say it directly rather than obliquely."Yes, there are things that happen on their own."OR"No, god is required for everything."You seemed to say the former but then you immediately contradicted it by making a statement that seemed to indicate the latter. Again, I cannot read your mind. Because you did not answer the question directly, I have to guess what it is that you mean and as you can see, I'm not doing a good job.

quote:

---

On its own its like asking about angels on the head of a pin.

---

Incorrect. When a handful of coins lands on the ground, do they land on the ground all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them there? This is a very concrete example of something that either happens on its own or requires god.Which is it?I understand why you're being evasive. You stated it in your post where you tried to play both sides: You don't know just how much playing around your god does. By allowing some things to happen on their own, you leave open the possibility that something you are sure requires god actually doesn't.But the very process of science is to investigate the actions of things that happen on their own. It isn't that science denies god: Science simply excludes god just as it excludes you. You exist (and please let us not wander off into Cartesian Doubt...for the sake of argument, I hope we can assume you exist), but science excludes your actions when it is investigating things. You, being a consciousness, are capricious and arbitrary. You are unpredictable and cannot be controlled for in an experiment. Thus, science seeks to exclude your actions in order to find out what happens despite you, not because of you.And thus, it is very important to establish whether or not there is anything that happens on its own. If there isn't, then we have no basis for anticipating any outcome for any action. The only reason why we're still firmly attached to the planet is because god is personally, deliberately, and consciously keeping us attached rather than it happening on its own due to gravity. As soon as god stops paying attention, we all go flying.But again, I cannot read your mind. I need you to state it directly and simply:"Yes, there are things that happen on their own."OR"No, god is required for everything."

quote:

---

It is unknowable to us whether there was a supernatural cause that might have precipitated what seems to have occured naturally.

---

Then surely you have no qualms about leaping out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without any sort of parachute or similar device. After all, it is "unknowable" if you will plummet to the ground, right?On the flip side, surely you have considered the possibility that these words you are reading were not written by me but by god, right? God has personally, deliberately, and consciously decided to communicate with you on a message board.So we're back to the question:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

I can agree the that things happen on their own.

---

Good. The question now becomes, why is this particular outcome one that requires god as opposed to something happening on its own?In and of itself, it isn't an easy question. Suppose we agree that when we take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, they wind up in their final position on their own due to the interactions of gravity and kinematics.Now, suppose I take an identical handful of coins and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them in the exact same pattern as the coins that landed in those positions all on their own. Do you think you'd be able to tell the difference?Notice what was done, however: A consciousness created a pattern that mimics a spontaneous pattern. Given that the pattern looks like it was spontaneous, why is there a problem with making the tentative claim (as science only makes tentative claims) that it was? If there is more information that needs to be considered that would show a way to differentiate between the two ("Notice how there are fingerprints right next to the coins on the floor and only next to the coins rather than all over the place"), then there would be reason to think that something else is at play.But if it looks like something is capable of happening on its own, why is there a problem with that conclusion? If there is a discrepancy between what we have observed to be the nature of reality and your personal conception of how reality is supposed to be, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility that it is the conception that is at fault and not reality itself?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if it looks like something is capable of happening on its own, why is there a problem with that conclusion?

---

​

There is no problem, although it doesn't neceesarily make the conclusion correct either.

---

I never said it did. Remember, I specifically and directly commented that every claim in science is tentative. Can we accept that?The point is: If it looks like it is capable of happening on its own, under what basis are you insisting that it isn't? If we see the coins that look like they landed that way all on their own, in the absence of any other evidence to indicate the contrary, why would we insist that no, god came down and personally, deliberately, and consciously put them there?Again, this doesn't mean that the conclusion is right. Everything in science is tentative. A personally, deliberately, and consciously created construct that is made to specifically mimic a spontaneous construct will fool people. If enough traces of the creation process are wiped away, it may very well be that we will never know.My personal feeling? Life started a long time ago. From all indications, life started up real soon after the planet came into being. Too, life started off small. Since our planet is geologically active, my expectation is that any signs of how life began will have been wiped away by now. I'm pessimistic. My expectation is that we might find a method by which biological activity that we would call "life" is possible (and we can already create self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve), but to show that it is how it happened here on this planet will be problematic at best.But, if we find that it can be done, by what reason do we claim that it wasn't? The fact that we might not ever be able to definitively say that it was (as far as science can ever definitively say anything) doesn't give us reason to insist that it wasn't. You always have to justify your claim. Otherwise, "It seems like this is what happened" is the only claim we can possibly make.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

We can look at what evidence we do have from our own sense of self, religious texts, science,what others have to say etc.

---

Hold it just a second there.You do realize that "sense of self" and "religious texts" are not evidence, yes? You just contradicted yourself. If we find that it can be done, by what reason do we claim that it wasn't? Because our "sense of self" doesn't like the implications of it being able to happen on its own? That our "religious texts" tell us that it is a sin to say that it did? You're trying to say that your personal distaste is sufficient to deny actual results.

quote:

---

It is a matter of faith

---

No, it isn't and for you to say that it is shows that you don't know what science is or how it works.

quote:

---

but for those of us that do spend time thinking about it and trying to sort out what we believe is truth

---

And this is the problem: "Thinking about it" is nowhere near enough effort to understand the issues. That's why science is done in laboratories and in the field: You have to do actual experiments and make real measurements of real events in order to come up with anything approaching useful. This was the flaw of Aristotle. He was brilliant and his ability to think was very good, but he disdained experimentation and valued mere thought over actual practice.Thinking about things is very good at getting questions asked, but it is lousy at answering them.

quote:

---

It is an informed faith even though some of us will come to opposite conclusions.

---

Um, if I can show you it happening right in front of your eyes, why would you have us deny it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

I just disagree with you on the idea that the only evidence that is to be considered is scientific.

---

Not quite. There are other kinds of evidence, but they are not objective. Science can tell you all sorts of things about a waveform such as its frequency, wavelength, amplitude, how far it will travel in various types of media, etc.What it cannot do is tell you if it is music.You seem to want to elevate your personal feelings about the world with actual observations. How many times do we have to be led down the primrose path before we realize that we don't get to tell the world how to behave? Aristotle was sure that objects came to rest because that was their "natural state." He had an entire philosophy that told him this was so, but the universe cares not one whit about philosophy. So Newton came along and thought that things in motion stayed in motion until acted upon by an outside force, but he still thought there was a thing as "rest" and he, too, had a philosophy about it. It wasn't until Einstein came along and showed that there is no such thing as "rest" in an absolute sense that we found ourselves here.Of course the earth is the center of the universe! God wouldn't put his favored creation anywhere else! People were MURDERED because they contradicted this claim. All because our philosophies were in contradiction to the universe.So again I have to ask: If it can be shown to you right in front of your very eyes, why would you seek to have us deny it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).

---

No, it can't. That's the point. Subjective claims are not science. That isn't to say that gut feelings, intuition, etc. have no place in science. Again, they're great for getting questions asked, but they are lousy for actually answering them. You need to be able to guess and wonder and speculate in science, but all that does is help you to set up an experiment to test what you were guessing and wondering and speculating about. It is the experiment that will let you know if you had any connection to reality, not how pretty your thoughts were.

quote:

---

So what?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? We should ignore the lessons we have learned about not expecting our flights of fancy to be real so that we can continue to have them, demand others conform to them, and make their lives miserable when they don't? People were MURDERED because they insisted that no, the sun does not go around the earth.And you say, "So what?"

quote:

---

We keep learning new things and we change our beliefs in the face of new evidence. Learning and adjusting one's views is usually a good thing.

---

Nice try, but that's my argument to you. That's the way science works: Nothing is set in stone. Every conclusion, no matter how well justified, is only tentative at best and will be discarded the moment new information comes along.But until that new information comes along, it is illogical to insist that what we think we know is wrong. While science can never prove anything right, it is actually quite good at proving things wrong. Thus, in order to make a claim that something is wrong, you need to come up with the evidence. That your personal philosophy is offended by the conclusion is not sufficient.And when you do come up with the evidence, when you overturn the dominant paradigm and show everybody that they were wrong, they give you the Nobel Prize.Where is your evidence?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

If it comes from simply unguided biological mutations then why should we trust our reason.

---

Um...because it works? Because it is independent of the person? Because you can deny gravity all you want but jumping off a building has always lead to a great fall?

quote:

---

It seems to me likely that reason had to exist prior to reason coming into existence on Earth. Can I prove it sientifically?

---

And since you claim to agree with the concept that your personal feelings aren't sufficient to make a rational conclusion about the state of the world, what does this tell you about your "seems to me" statement?

quote:

---

Where do emotions come from?

---

Good question. What makes you think that you can come up with an answer just by thinking about it?

quote:

---

I think it's worth considering as evidence.

---

Huh? Evidence of what? All you've done is ask a question and now you think you have something beyond that? Just how arrogant are you?

quote:

---

You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine.

---

And you are entitled to your conclusion.You are not entitled to your facts, however. When the facts contradict your conclusion, there is no justification for it and the only logical response is to reject it.You're allowed to be illogical. And other's are allowed to call you out on it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.