The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

I don't hold any beliefs concerning abiogenesis.

I'd have to admit that I'm biased in favor of abiogenesis, or some combo of abiogenesis and panspermia. I do hold "beliefs" about both idea, both with respect to my understanding of those theories, and my beliefs about those theories. I'm not convinced it's possible to be completely neutral, or to not hold beliefs on various subjects. We might not hold *strong* beliefs, but we tend to have opinions related to most ideas we've been exposed to.

I have no problem acknowledging that the origins of life are unknown at this point.

So it's not scientifically possible to rule out intelligent design.

In the field of abiogenesis, scientists are looking for natural processes, yes. Because that is all science can do.

That may be all it needs to 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.

I agree, which is also why I think an empirical definition of God is so appealing.

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

I'm more interested in why you *assume* that God must be "supernatural".

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.

Ya, well, I agree, but that same criticisms applies as often in "science' as it does in religion.

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.

Well, I think atheists here serve a useful and noble function here in that regard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm still waiting for you two to acknowledge that the two ideas (formed naturally and intelligent design) are not mutually exclusive.

Why would I acknowledge something I don't agree with?

Every single time that I've encountered the "intelligent design" argument, it was about taking stabs to evolution and a natural origin for life.

Life may have indeed formed "naturally" by design.

If life has a natural origin and if evolution is a natural process, then it seems to me to be completely meaningless to call it "designed".

A self-contradicting proposition.
A married bachelor.
An artificial natural object

It makes no sense to me.
Something is either designed or it is not. When it is not, it is a non-designed, ie: natural, thing.

And if you go through the "intelligent design" literature... then you'll see that that is exactly what 'cdesign proponentsists' mean by it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Here's a question...

What WOULD rule out "intelligent design"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it's not scientifically possible to rule out intelligent design.

It's equally scientifically impossible to "rule out" life bearing pixies, interdimensional unicorns laying life bearing eggs, ....

What can't be ruled out isn't interesting.
What CAN be ruled IN is what matters.

I'm more interested in why you *assume* that God must be "supernatural".

Because otherwise, this god is part of its own creation.
Because just about every religion defines god as such.

I don't know what religion you're following, eventhough you call yourself a christian.
I've never encountered a christian who says that jawhe is a natural entity.
Jawhe is supposed to be creator of the natural, so by definition, Jawhe needs to exist "beyond" the natural. ie, supernatural.

In any case, let's not play that silly semantics game. Define god as you please.
Point remains the same. I have no reason to expect the origins of life to be anything other then a natural, physical, chemical origin.

I know chemical processes exist and I know carbon chemistry is insanely rich in what it can do. But I have no knowledge of any "outside" intervention, nore any reason to assume such intervention. Supernatural or otherwise.

Ya, well, I agree, but that same criticisms applies as often in "science' as it does in religion.

You're going to start yapping about the frontier of knowledge of astro-physics/cosmology/etc again, aren't you?

Save it. I've already made it extremely clear what I think about that and I don't have the energy or motivation to go through that exercise in futility once more.

 

[dad]

What CAN be ruled IN is what matters.

.

Therein lies the problem for you, you cannot rule in the first lifeform, early evolution, or even the basic nature that existed. Evolution of man is merely slanderous conjecture with elaborate smoke and mirrors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Therein lies the problem for you

Ow yes.... how "irrational" of me and how "problematic" that I'm not willing to entertain or consider unfalsifiable things, ha?

Evolution of man is merely slanderous conjecture with elaborate smoke and mirrors.

"slanderous" to your beliefs, perhaps.

But most of us don't live in a bubble of make-belief and actually consider the evidence of reality to actually reflect reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know what religion you're following, eventhough you call yourself a christian.
I've never encountered a christian who says that jawhe is a natural entity.
Jawhe is supposed to be creator of the natural, so by definition, Jawhe needs to exist "beyond" the natural. ie, supernatural.

In any case, let's not play that silly semantics game. Define god as you please.

He told me he was a Panentheist (although he had his own unique spelling).

 

[dad]

Ow yes.... how "irrational" of me and how "problematic" that I'm not willing to entertain or consider unfalsifiable things, ha?

The state of the past is unknown, and the claim it was the same as today is unfalsifiable. Since that happens to be the mother of all foundations for ALL science claims about the far past, and origins issues, it is indeed problematic in the extreme for you.

"slanderous" to your beliefs, perhaps.

No, to the truth. To reason. To the dignity of man. To God. To Scripture. To all that is good and holy!

Remember, you HAVE NO evidence. You have belief.

 

[Freodin]

And this, my friends, is the real "stumbling block" for atheists.

You can find a nice Christian, who discusses with you why you are wrong and he is right, and causes and evidence and reasons and blah.

And as soon as you might have reached the smallest point of common ground with this nice Christian, to agree or disagree upon... another nice Christian chimes in and tells you that everything that the first Christian has told you is complete nonsense, and now he tells you why you are wrong and he is right, for different causes and evidence and reasons and blah.

 

[Michael]

Why would I acknowledge something I don't agree with?

Well, I guess we have something to discuss then. In what way (according to you) does abiogenesis rule out 'intelligent design' and apparently rule out both Pantheism and Panentheism?

Every single time that I've encountered the "intelligent design" argument, it was about taking stabs to evolution and a natural origin for life.

I don't have any need to do either of those things. Now what?

If life has a natural origin and if evolution is a natural process, then it seems to me to be completely meaningless to call it "designed".

Um, not really. If an intelligent universe had to make everything 'just right' in terms of location, location, location, and it assembled everything into just the right place to get the party started, it's not exactly a "random" event. That's particularly true if it's an all pervasive field of consciousness that sustains our sense of "awareness" in these forms. I have no logical way to rule out "intelligent" design, and neither do you. You can "hold belief" that you can do so, but that would simply be part of your personal "belief system". Only in your mind is it a self-contradiction. It's simply a logical "prediction"/extension of Panentheism and even Pantheism for that matter. They would both presume that life formed "naturally".

It makes no sense to me.

From my perspective it makes perfect sense, and you've not shown any actual "contradiction".

Something is either designed or it is not. When it is not, it is a non-designed, ie: natural, thing.

The fact that DNA is built with "natural" things, doesn't automatically exclude it from being "intelligently designed" anymore than my jar analogy.

And if you go through the "intelligent design" literature... then you'll see that that is exactly what 'cdesign proponentsists' mean by it.

In my experience, intelligent design means many things to many individuals, just as "Christian" beliefs vary from individual to individual. I understand your appreciation for evolutionary theory, and a preference for 'natural' solutions to problems. In fact that preference for natural solutions to problems is why Panentheism is intriguing to me personally. I'd pretty much written off the idea in the past until I discovered that we lived inside of an electric universe and I started to see the mass layout and circuity layouts of the physical universe. I really don't even need to deviate from pure empirical physics to embrace Panentheism, and everything in "nature" is simply part of "God" from my perspective.

 

[Michael]

It's equally scientifically impossible to "rule out" life bearing pixies, interdimensional unicorns laying life bearing eggs, ....

Quite a flippant a comment for a guy that needs four supernatural entities just to describe the physical universe.

What can't be ruled out isn't interesting.

It's been an interesting question since the dawn of time.

What CAN be ruled IN is what matters.

I can empirically "rule in" Panentheism better than you can empirically "rule in" your so called "scientific" description of the universe.

Because otherwise, this god is part of its own creation.

So?

Because just about every religion defines god as such.

"About" or "all"?

I don't know what religion you're following, eventhough you call yourself a christian.

I can love and honor and respect the teaching of Christ and acknowledge him as my Lord and savior. In no way does that love of Christ conflict with 'science', or "Panentheism", at least not from my perspective. I don't really see any conflict frankly.

I've never encountered a christian who says that jawhe is a natural entity.

Well, you've met one today.

Jawhe is supposed to be creator of the natural, so by definition, Jawhe needs to exist "beyond" the natural. ie, supernatural.

I'd say that my own "awareness" exceeds the sum total the parts of my atoms. I can lose and arm or a leg, and/or various other parts and still be 'aware'. Is awareness "supernatural"?

Ya know....

I'd be just fine if this physical universe turns out to be nothing more than a temporary little "sandbox in space" for us to learn to place nice with each other. I just don't see any need to "assume" that my "natural' definition of God must necessarily be true. I wouldn't even be disappointed if I happened to be wrong on that issue. It really has no influence on my love for God, and my experiences of God. I just don't personally feel the need to deviate from the natural world to describe "God". Other Christian's mileage may vary of course.

In any case, let's not play that silly semantics game. Define god as you please.

I have. I've even started whole threads on that topic.

Point remains the same. I have no reason to expect the origins of life to be anything other then a natural, physical, chemical origin.

And neither do I. I expect that life formed "naturally" in fact.

I know chemical processes exist and I know carbon chemistry is insanely rich in what it can do. But I have no knowledge of any "outside" intervention, nore any reason to assume such intervention. Supernatural or otherwise.

Nor do I.

You're going to start yapping about the frontier of knowledge of astro-physics/cosmology/etc again, aren't you?

Well, if you're going to discuss my concept of God, you'll have to discuss astrophysics eventually.

Save it. I've already made it extremely clear what I think about that and I don't have the energy or motivation to go through that exercise in futility once more.

Suit yourself. Suffice to say that the universe that you believe in is *far* more "supernatural" in design and composition than the universe that I live in.

 

[dad]

In what way (according to you) does abiogenesis rule out 'intelligent design'

In the way that Jesus never molded a Bacteria from the ground that was a man?

 

[Kylie]

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.

But response can come about with things that you would NOT say are alive.

Ok, I buy that definition.

That's a start.

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

And yet you throw "response" in there as well.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Okay, so you claim that things that indicate design are:

"self replication and the ability to adapt to almost any planetary environment that contains water"

Care to tell me on what basis you claim these things indicate design? Sounds like you are just trying to stack the deck in your favour!

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.

Wow, you really can't let that go, can you? I'm getting sick of you constantly bringing up your cosmological views. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't want to hear about it before you you finally get the message?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Remember, you HAVE NO evidence. You have belief.

One of the most extreme cases of projection I've ever seen.

 

[Dave RP]

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.

Just to mention, I went yesterday to the Natural History Museum in London, particularly to look at the Evolution of Humankind exhibition where they had bones and skulls from numerous Hominids, including Human species who lived in the past (Homo Neanderthal, Erectus, Floridian etc.) and they all looked as if they were brilliantly suited to the environment in which they lived. I guess some would argue on here they evolved that way, some would argue they were "intelligently designed" that way. Unfortunately all Human species, except Homo Sapiens are now extinct, however well designed they were.

 

[Michael]

But response can come about with things that you would NOT say are alive.

True. That was the reason for the criteria of awareness.

And yet you throw "response" in there as well.

Ya, I guess so. The response is more for our benefit as observers, and it's benefit in terms of survival.

Wouldn't you say that it's "awareness" that differentiates living things from inanimate objects?

 

[Michael]

Okay, so you claim that things that indicate design are:

"self replication and the ability to adapt to almost any planetary environment that contains water"

Care to tell me on what basis you claim these things indicate design? Sounds like you are just trying to stack the deck in your favour!

Let's try this a different way then. Assuming that the goal is long term biodiversity, and widespread life throughout the universe, how would you go about "intelligently" designing such an agent?

Wow, you really can't let that go, can you? I'm getting sick of you constantly bringing up your cosmological views. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't want to hear about it before you you finally get the message?

You missed the point *entirely*. Many observations will not favor a *single* theory. Your personal requirement that I demonstrate such a thing is preposterous. That's not even a "scientific" requirement in the first place!

 

[dad]

I'd have to admit that I'm biased in favor of abiogenesis,.

Adam not created but born of some creature then?

 

[dad]

Let's try this a different way then. Assuming that the goal is long term biodiversity, and widespread life throughout the universe,

The universe would need to be like a giant Nazi gas chamber if the goal was to get widespread life in it, cause it is going to disappear one day. Roll up like a scroll and be no more. Doesn't make sense to me God wanted to roll up and disappear trillions of sextillions of folks.