The stumbling block for atheists.

[Loudmouth]

'Parsimony rules OK'.

Parsimony is what it really comes down to. In all other facets of life we use parsimony to distinguish between explanations. We don't add on endless numbers of unfalsifiable and unevidenced entities to explanations when the explanation works just fine without them. We explain lightning as the result of natural processes. We don't use the explanation of natural processes and Thor, where Thor makes no detectable or discernible difference in the process. When the explanation without Thor is indistinguishable from the explanation that includes Thor, what is the point?

One could argue that we could never prove that Thor is not a part of the process that makes lightning, but the opposite question still looms large. Why think that Thor is a part of the process to begin with?

 

[stevenfrancis]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

I see what you're saying in one sense, but in the way that I primarily understand theism and atheism, I don't find the behavior of adherents to either philosophy/theology to be relevant to the existence or non-existense of God. I've been blessed with an intuition and natural bent towards God my whole life, even with secular parents, no pressure, and having been involved with some 20 religious philosophies over my life, including falling under the influence of a friend's Ayn Randism. I ended up a Christian, and orthodox at that. But at no time did my evaluation of God's existence, and the divinity of Christ depend on human behaviors. There are moral people in every group I ever studied or worshiped with, and vice versa there have been immoral people involved in all those groups as well. The theology and philosophy I find to be right after 60 years on this rock is classic Catholicism, minus consideration of the behaviors of individual Catholics, which have at times been just awful, including some of the popes and bishops themselves. It doesn't enhance the truth of Catholicism when Catholics are good, nor does it detract from Catholicism when Catholics are bad. The Catholicism AS TAUGHT is the same either way.

 

[Michael]

Parsimony is what it really comes down to. In all other facets of life we use parsimony to distinguish between explanations. We don't add on endless numbers of unfalsifiable and unevidenced entities to explanations when the explanation works just fine without them.

In that case you'd *instantly* lose the cosmology debate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, it's not personal. I can't demonstrate abiogenesis either, and neither can you.

Meh. Red herring & tu quoque fallacies. Disappointing.

You'd lose the "parsimony" argument in a heartbeat in terms of cosmology theory, so I don't think so.

Red herring, tu quoque, & straw man fallacies. Very disappointing.

Unable or unwilling to defend ID against redundancy...? meh

[explanation of why they are fallacies available on request.]

 

[Michael]

Meh. Red herring & tu quoque fallacies. Disappointing.

What exactly did you expect? Neither of us can be *absolutely certain* that abiogenesis theory is correct (though I personally assume that it is), it still would *not* rule out the possibility of 'intelligent design', which seems to the one thing you keep avoiding.

Red herring, tu quoque, & straw man fallacies. Very disappointing.

Ya, somehow I'm obligated to not only support abiogenesis theory, but also Panentheism, but of course you need 4 *supernatural* entities to explain the universe, so you avoid that topic like the *plague*! Sure.....it's all up to me.

Unable or unwilling to defend ID against redundancy...? meh

Let's see your four supernatural cosmological constructs pass an Occum's razor redundancy test, and then you can lecture me about redundancy. We'll start with your dark matter construct first.

 

[Michael]

One small point: It's entirely possible IMO that some 'combo' of abiogenesis (trillions of years ago) and/or panspermia theory (billions of years ago) may apply in terms of how life got to Earth, and it *still* would not rule out the possibility of intelligent design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

One small point: It's entirely possible IMO that some 'combo' of abiogenesis (trillions of years ago) and/or panspermia theory (billions of years ago) may apply in terms of how life got to Earth, and it *still* would not rule out the possibility of intelligent design.

-_- the universe is only about 14 billion years old; there was no "trillions of years ago" for our universe.

 

[Michael]

-_- the universe is only about 14 billion years old; there was no "trillions of years ago" for our universe.

The concept of an 'age' of the universe relates to one's personal subjective 'choice' to 'interpret' photon redshift over distance as being related to expansion (of mystical space), or interpret it to be related to ordinary inelastic scattering processes in plasma as we observe in the lab.

If you choose to interpret the phenomenon as being related to inelastic scattering (tired light), we could easily be living in a static universe that has existed eternally.

In short, you can only pick an "age" of the universe out of thin air (plasma), if ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma does *not* occur in space as it occurs in labs on Earth.

 

[Michael]

By the way, we could also conceivably get a different 'age' of the universe by proposing that *some* photon redshift is caused by ordinary inelastic scattering, and *some* of the redshift is caused by expansion. In that case it might be hundreds of billions of years old, or trillions of years old.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The concept of an 'age' of the universe relates to one's personal subjective 'choice' to 'interpret' photon redshift over distance as being related to expansion (of mystical space), or interpret it to be related to ordinary inelastic scattering processes in plasma as we observe in the lab.

There are reasons why the age of the universe being about 14 billion years is widely accepted, and the idea that it is even a trillion, let alone multiple trillions, is not.

If you choose to interpret the phenomenon as being related to inelastic scattering (tired light), we could easily be living in a static universe that has existed eternally.

A static universe would defy entropy, which is easily observable in lab.

In short, you can only pick an "age" of the universe out of thin air (plasma), if ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma does *not* occur in space as it occurs in labs on Earth.

You act like no one has ever conducted an experiment in space directly, when the instruments most pertinent to the study of space are travelling through it right now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Neither of us can be *absolutely certain* that abiogenesis theory is correct (though I personally assume that it is), it still would *not* rule out the possibility of 'intelligent design', which seems to the one thing you keep avoiding.

Ya, somehow I'm obligated to not only support abiogenesis theory, but also Panentheism, but of course you need 4 *supernatural* entities to explain the universe, so you avoid that topic like the *plague*! Sure.....it's all up to me.

Let's see your four supernatural cosmological constructs pass an Occum's razor redundancy test, and then you can lecture me about redundancy. We'll start with your dark matter construct first.

Straw man, red herring, and tu quoque remain fallacies no matter how often you repeat them.

You could try arguing your corner instead...

 

[Michael]

There are reasons why the age of the universe being about 14 billion years is widely accepted,

Is that an appeal to popularity or an appeal to authority fallacy or both? Inelastic scattering happens in the lab. Why wouldn't it happen in space?

and the idea that it is even a trillion, let alone multiple trillions, is not.

Why not? Even if only *some* of the redshift is caused by inelastic scattering, it starts to increase the potential age of the universe. You could conceivably pick any number you wanted by changing the ratios to suit yourself.

A static universe would defy entropy, which is easily observable in lab.

Not really, particularly in an infinite and static universe. Even neutrinos and photons would eventually hit something and turn their momentum back into local kinetic energy.

You act like no one has ever conducted an experiment in space directly, when the instruments most pertinent to the study of space are travelling through it right now.

We don't have a "control" mechanism to identify the actual physical "cause" of photon redshift. We do see that it happens "naturally' in the lab due to inelastic scattering and by moving objects. There's therefore no need to introduce any 'supernatural' constructs like "space expansion" to explain ordinary photon redshift in space.

 

[MissRowy]

The concept of an 'age' of the universe relates to one's personal subjective 'choice' to 'interpret' photon redshift over distance as being related to expansion (of mystical space), or interpret it to be related to ordinary inelastic scattering processes in plasma as we observe in the lab.

If you choose to interpret the phenomenon as being related to inelastic scattering (tired light), we could easily be living in a static universe that has existed eternally.

In short, you can only pick an "age" of the universe out of thin air (plasma), if ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma does *not* occur in space as it occurs in labs on Earth.

I think you should study Chemistry and Physics again because you will find that plasma is actually ionised gas and not solid matter. You can also look it up on Google.

 

[Michael]

I think you should study Chemistry and Physics again because you will find that plasma is actually ionised gas and not solid matter. You can also look it up on Google.

At first I didn't understand your criticism until I realized that my attempt at humor (plasma) simply backfired and caused the confusion. I simply meant that space was composed of thin plasma, not that air molecules were a form of plasma.

FYI, even most plasmas are 'dusty' and contain a lot of non ionized materials. Charged solids and liquids can also act a lot like plasma in terms of their response to EM field changes.

Nitpick noted.

 

[dad]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator..

Maybe someone should tell them all men are sinners.

 

[Kylie]

I already listed a number of desirable "features" which might be included in an "intelligent" design of living organisms. Furthermore, even if abiogenesis is involved in the process, and life did indeed form "naturally", it still would not exclude the possibility of "intelligent design" anymore than the jar is excluded from being an example of 'intelligent design'. I'm not sure what more I could do.

How about you list them again, because I can't find anywhere in this thread where you gave a concise list of things that are diagnostic of ONLY intelligently designed things, and yet would not be found in non-ID things.

 

[Kylie]

No, I'm suggesting that "awareness" in some rudimentary form is an indication of "life". The response is a function of awareness.

So that's a yes.

Yes, if something responds, it must be aware.

If something is aware, then it must be alive.

You can't say no just because there's more than one step involved.

 

[Michael]

So that's a yes.

Yes, if something responds, it must be aware.

That is not what *I* said, that's what you're hearing apparently. I said that it must be capable of "awareness", and that what you're calling a "response" is simply a function of awareness.

If something is aware, then it must be alive.

Ok, I buy that definition.

You can't say no just because there's more than one step involved.

The only "step" that I'm requiring is awareness.

 

[Michael]

How about you list them again, because I can't find anywhere in this thread where you gave a concise list of things that are diagnostic of ONLY intelligently designed things, and yet would not be found in non-ID things.

The stumbling block for atheists.

That's where I started to make a list of things that I'd want to incorporate were I to start to "intelligently design" something that could adapt to a wide variety of planetary conditions.

Your personal requirement that my "predictions/postdictions" must necessarily *only* support one possible theory is absolutely "unscientific". There might be *many* possible interpretations of photon redshift, or gravitational lensing patterns. There are even different definitions and interpretations of gravity with some definitions describing it as a force, and other definitions describing it as a geometric curvature of spacetime. One or two observations or predictions might fit *several* interpretations and several different theories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So why do you get a free pass with respect to abiogenesis or any belief that you *think* excludes the possibility of "intelligent design"?

I don't hold any beliefs concerning abiogenesis.

I have no problem acknowledging that the origins of life are unknown at this point.
In the field of abiogenesis, scientists are looking for natural processes, yes. Because that is all science can do.

I, personally, expect it to have a natural cause, sure.
The only reason I expect it to have a natural cause, is because it seems to me to be the only available option.

If someone can demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists, I might alter my expectations. Until then, why would I?


As for "intelligent design" - that is not a model that is contrasted to abiogenesis only, but to evolution theory as well.
And it's unfalsifiable nonsense that requires rejection of well established and very solid scientific theories.

My rejection of "intelligent design" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my opinions concerning abiogenesis, and everything with its obvious dishonest and pseudo-scientific foundation.

cdesign proponentsists are exposed liars.