Discussion on the how it all started

[Larniavc]

Actually only bloggers consider abiogenesis a separate event from the evolution of the cosmos.

Yeah, that’s incorrect- which you would know if you read your links.

They don’t conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Unless I’ve missed it in which case you will no doubt be able to quote the bit I have missed.

 

[Larniavc]

Can you produce simpler ones?

Easy. The universe is self created. That is part of the nature of the universe.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.

That's not a scientific answer, and so, special pleading.

 

[SkyWriting]

Easy. The universe is self created. That is part of the nature of the universe.

I covered that one.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not a scientific answer, and so special pleading.

You’ll have to elaborate on that. It reads like a non sequitur.

 

[Larniavc]

I covered that one.

No you did not. All of yours required some agency. In my example the universe has no agency.

 

[disciple Clint]

Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.

Not at all so... there must be a first cause.

 

[SkyWriting]

None of the papers you've listed conflate abiogenesis and biological evolution into one event. They all describe aspects of abiogenesis.
The reference to evolution, in the 6th paper listed, uses the word in its every day sense of 'change'. It is not a reference to biological evolution.

Scientists are very careful to separate abiogenesis from evolution since they are two separate processes. It is, for instance, possible to accept biological evolution without accepting the concept of abiogenesis. You should already understand this from time spent on this forum.

OB

The first three explain the interconnections that they are studying.
I stopped at #4.

 

[SkyWriting]

No you did not. All of yours required some agency. In my example the universe has no agency.

Nope. I covered that.

-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".

 

[Larniavc]

Not at all so... there must be a first cause.

Why? If God does not need an external cause that means it possibly to exist without an external cause.

If you say ‘apart from God’ that is the very definition of ‘special pleading’- a logical fallacy.

 

[Larniavc]

Nope.

-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".

Can you point to the example that does not include ‘agency’?

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you point to the example that does not include ‘agency’?

One of the four. And we know that science requires "cause and effect" so avoiding that is Special Pleading.

-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, that’s incorrect- which you would know if you read your links.

They don’t conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Unless I’ve missed it in which case you will no doubt be able to quote the bit I have missed.

The first four are papers specifically linking factors together. That is the purpose of the papers. Only bloggers pull them apart trying to plead superior information.

 

[SkyWriting]

The bizarre physics of the early universe; the hypothetical chemistry of abiogenesis; and the process of biological evolution all operate on quite different principals... at extremely different times and in different environments.

And yet all pulled together by research on them.
The purpose of the papers.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.

That's not a scientific answer, and so special pleading.

 

[Occams Barber]

Other than being the 4 simplest explanations, why would you resist that logic?
Can you produce simpler ones?

Your simple explanation requires at least three 'beliefs'
1. An entity capable of creating the universe actually exists
2. That entity takes the form of your God (as opposed to any other god type entity)
3. That God created the universe

On the other hand I am simply reflecting the history of scientific investigation where there have been times where we reached a point of not knowing the answer. Given time and effort answers have usually been found. If science accepted your method it would simply attribute any roadblock to some variation of "God Did It" and the search for understanding would gradually grind to a halt.

At what point do we simply cease looking for explanations for natural phenomena and resign ourselves to God Did It?
OB

 

[Godistruth1]

The problem we would all have with talking to you about this is that you obviously lack a basic understanding of what it's all about from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not trying to insult you, but it's very obvious from what you've written that you are not aware of the difference between the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang) and the development of life through evolution.

I am pretty much sure of the difference between the two. So please carry on your argument

The problem lies in the difference in how creationists deal with 'Origins'. Creationists combine the beginning of the Universe and the creation of life into a single event as described in Genesis.

Not a problem until it can be scientifically proven by facts not theories

A scientific explanation separates the beginning of the universe and the creation of life into three discrete events - the Big Bang ( setting up the Universe), followed billions of years later by abiogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) and then evolution (life evolving into a variety of forms).

Well again the science you assume to be science is from atheistic perspective. The classification again can be wrong and there may be altogether different reason how everything started and how everything operates.

This is further confused by the totally inaccurate perception that scientific explanations for 'origins' are an atheist construct. Many Christians accept Big Bang and evolution, the means by which God built the Universe and life, as reasonable constructs. There are many Christian scientists who are comfortable with evolution. There are many Christian denominations which accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life.

This statement is very illogical and very unscientific. This is no different than one religion claiming to be right because it has something similar to the other religion.

Basically @Godistruth1 you have a lot to learn before we can sensibly talk to you about all this stuff.

That depends on how much logic or how much atheism u show as a proof here

 

[Larniavc]

One of the four. And we know that science requires "cause and effect" so avoiding that is Special Pleading.

-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".

All of your examples require agency. Can you confirm the definition of agency you are using (in your own words, please).

Full disclosure: I suspect you do not know what agency means in this context.

 

[Larniavc]

The first four are papers specifically linking factors together.

Can you quote the bits about abiogenesis being part of ToE?

Have you read them (all the way through)?

 

[Godistruth1]

There is no single atheist position on this question.

Atheism is a position of non belief to the claim that some God or Gods exist.

As for the "organised" universe, I tend to go with the concept that a multi verse is possible and that universes that can support life exist within a narrow set of circumstances which we label as 'ordered'.

If an Atheist claims theory of evolution seems more logical to atheists thats fine. People who believe in God can see creationism as more logical. What is more logical is no doubt subjective