• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

To denote the thread has been moved
Lion IRC said:
There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.
Click to expand...
Yesterday I created a pile of dirt.

Therefore should I conclude that it's impossible for a pile of dirt to arise without the actions of a conscious entity?

I also created a hole in the ground.

Should I likewise conclude that holes in the ground require the actions of a conscious entity? The lunar craters are all from a deity playing spitball?
 
Lion IRC said:
It's a weird objection when atheists whine about God of the gaps.

What they are saying is God shouldn't be used as a placeholder explanation for stuff that can't otherwise be explained by the scientific method.

But these are the same atheists who say the only thing that would convince them God exists, is if...WAIT FOR IT....they experienced...

"something which couldnt be explained by the scientific method."
Click to expand...
Can not yet be explained by the scientific method. The fundamental problem is that points can never fill a line. You focus on a gap between two points and proclaim that must be the actions of god. A scientist comes along and puts a point in that space--but rather than admit that it was filled you now proclaim that the two smaller gaps that resulted must be the actions of a god.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Lion IRC said:
It's a weird objection when atheists whine about God of the gaps.

What they are saying is God shouldn't be used as a placeholder explanation for stuff that can't otherwise be explained by the scientific method.

But these are the same atheists who say the only thing that would convince them God exists, is if...WAIT FOR IT....they experienced...

"something which couldnt be explained by the scientific method."
Click to expand...
Can not yet be explained by the scientific method. The fundamental problem is that points can never fill a line. You focus on a gap between two points and proclaim that must be the actions of god. A scientist comes along and puts a point in that space--but rather than admit that it was filled you now proclaim that the two smaller gaps that resulted must be the actions of a god.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s exactly how creationists treat gaps in the fossil record. When a gap is filled, there are still other gaps, and they say see? God is in that gap! The problem is because the fossil record is inherently spotty, all the gaps in it can never be filled, so there is always a God of the gaps. OTOH, some gaps HAVE been pretty much completely filled, like the transition from land mammal to whale. It’s pretty funny god that hides in gaps that over time are filled, and when they are, he quickly retreats to another gap.
 
bilby said:
rousseau said:
We don't know life's origins in the same way that we don't know the whole fossil record. We know, through inference, what happened, it's just hard to define the process in scientific terms. Personally, I'll take Dawkins' explanation in The Selfish Gene and call it a day.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we don't know which horse will win the next Kentucky Derby, but we do know with fair certainty that the winning jockey won't be riding a duck.

There are a handful of contenders for exactly how life first started; None are the creationist duck.
Click to expand...

View attachment IMG_0527.webp :unsure:
 
Funny, the image doesn’t show in thread for me. You have to click on it. Don’t click, if you would prefer not to see an AI-generated image of Donald Trump riding on a duck. :)
 
Lion IRC said:
There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.
Click to expand...
The existence of rock tumblers which re*create* the process by which pebbles are smoothed and rounded in a river proves that a river that smashes stones against each other have agency? The existence of artificial pollination proves that plants, or the wind carrying pollen, have agency?
 
Jokodo said:
Lion IRC said:
There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.
Click to expand...
The existence of rock tumblers which re*create* the process by which pebbles are smoothed and rounded in a river proves that a river that smashes stones against each other have agency? The existence of artificial pollination proves that plants, or the wind carrying pollen, have agency?
Click to expand...
It’s easy to see how that can be considered the case. In fact anything that influences anything else has agency. A rock has agency.
Of course religions like to convolute language to pervert common meanings, and so end up with contradictory concepts of things like ”agency”.
 
Jokodo said:
Lion IRC said:
There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.
Click to expand...
The existence of rock tumblers which re*create* the process by which pebbles are smoothed and rounded in a river proves that a river that smashes stones against each other have agency?
Click to expand...

Rock tumblers deliberately re-create the process. So yes, agency.

Personally I think God did it better but some of those gem stones are pretty amazing.

Jokodo said:
The existence of artificial pollination proves that plants, or the wind carrying pollen, have agency?
Click to expand...

An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.
 
Lion IRC said:
An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.
Click to expand...
Sure it is.

Why are riverine pebbles so smooth and shiny? Well, if we artificially tumble them against each other, we can replicate that smoothness and shininess. If we couldn't reproduce the effect artificially, then the hypothesis that the natural effect is due to natural tumbling in the flow of the water would be very shaky.

Similarly, if it were not possible to create RNA in the lab that can self-catalyse its own replication, the hypothesis that this process occured naturally would be very dubious.

Testing hypotheses is how science works. Navel gazing pontifications such as:
Lion IRC said:
An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.
Click to expand...
is how religion doesn't work.

Your assumption that the effect of randomly banging rocks together will differ, depending in whether this is done by an intelligent agent or not, is an hypothesis that is easy to test - and it's demonstrably false.

Agency isn't a useful consideration; We can see identical results with or without it.
 
Your solution is simply declarative and non-falsifiable. That's not particularly useful.
 
bilby said:
Your assumption that the effect of banging rocks together will differ, depending in whether this is done intentionally or not...
Click to expand...

That's not my assumption.
My assumption is that if you copy the way someone else did something you will get a similar result.
 
Too bad we can't copy how god made whales capable of giving cancer the boot.
 
Lion IRC said:
Personally I think God did it better but some of those gem stones are pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it amongst the unsuspecting public. I have lost many more patients than I have saved in the long run over my career, so God clearly wins. Wonder why Christians don't brag about God creating cancer?
 
EricH said:
Lion IRC said:
Personally I think God did it better but some of those gem stones are pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God...
Click to expand...

Well, you have me at a disadvantage because I've only got Wikipedia and those scary PSA pictures they put on cigarette packs.

tobacco-medium-australia-oral-02-b-en-medium.jpg


EricH said:
I have lost many more patients than I have saved in the long run over my career, so God clearly wins.
Click to expand...

Its not uncommon for people, (who never give credit to God for the good stuff,) to blame God for the bad stuff.

EricH said:
Wonder why Christians don't brag about God creating cancer?
Click to expand...

As a (former) medical professional do you really think we lack any evidence for the cause(s) of cancer other than God?
 
Lion IRC said:
Its not uncommon for people, (who never give credit to God for the good stuff,) to blame God for the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
So if I say “bless your heart” which kind of stuff is that?
:hysterical:
 
Lion IRC said:

As a (former) medical professional do you really think we lack any evidence for the cause(s) of cancer other than God?
Click to expand...

So, when something good happens, God caused it, but bad stuff, like cancer, is not caused by God?

If he didn’t cause the bad stuff, why should we think he caused the good stuff?

Or, assuming he doesn’t cause cancer, why doesn’t he stop it? Even lots of children get cancer and die of it. I live a few doors away from a place that caters to such kids.

There’s no goalpost you can’t move for God, is there?
 
Lion IRC said:
bilby said:
Your assumption that the effect of banging rocks together will differ, depending in whether this is done intentionally or not...
Click to expand...

That's not my assumption.
My assumption is that if you copy the way someone else did something you will get a similar result.
Click to expand...
OK, so what or who were these people copying? How did they know what to do? Does their source include step-by-step methodology for the laboratory synthesis of RNA? If not, how was it copying?
 
Let me rephrase the question.
Do we have any empirical evidence for any cause(s) of cancer apart from the God being blamed here.
 
Lion IRC said:
Let me rephrase the question.
Do we have any empirical evidence for any cause(s) of cancer apart from the God being blamed here.
Click to expand...
Nobody's blaming any Gods. They are pointing out that IF, hypothetically, a God were to be worthy of credit for the good things that happen, THEN it would be unreasonable to not blame It for the bad ones.
 
Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom