• 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:
Loren Pechtel 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...
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?
Click to expand...

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.

Loren Pechtel said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. There's no necessary logical inference to conclude that.
Click to expand...
Then why do you say that other things we can do must be the act of an intelligent entity and can't happen naturally? "Created" can be natural or by the act of an intelligent entity.
 
Worldtraveller said:
My baby brother died from throat cancer. Yes, he smoked. Also Fuck you very much.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the topic of cancer. (It's not really on topic but folks seem keen to argue about theodicies wherever I go.)

Now, there's lots of places in this forum where people say some pretty brutal stuff that can be triggering depending on your previous or current life experience in the real world outside this forum.

If the topic of cancer is extremely upsetting to you because of your baby brother, you have to put yourself first and stop reading when you see the topic is being discussed. (It's been popping up in this thread very frequently.)

I don't want to discuss your baby brother. And I'm not sure why you have chosen to bring his death into the discussion.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Then why do you say that other things we can do must be the act of an intelligent entity and can't happen naturally? "Created" can be natural or by the act of an intelligent entity.
Click to expand...

You're gonna have to show me where I said that. Use the quote function.

I can show you plenty of places where I said the opposite. (Want me to quote me?)

Humans are natural. They can copy/mimic the act of deliberate creation/causation.
 
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
So you defer to science when it finds no evidence of God?
Click to expand...

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.
Click to expand...
Maybe finds plenty that you consider evidence for God.
That's a huge part of the reason that community consensus is such an important part of the scientific method. You might find evidence for your God image, but without broad consensus it's not science. That's why publishing results is so crucial.
Tom
 
Lion IRC said:
Humans are natural.
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes they are. No supernatural "creators" required.
Lion IRC said:
They can copy/mimic the act of deliberate creation/causation.
Click to expand...
Copy or mimic what? To what non-human act(s) of deliberate causation is a human referring as his template or guide when he causes something?

When did any human create anything? Creation ex nihilo is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics; It has never been observed, much less copied or mimicked.

Using a less strict definition of "create" here is equivocation; When religionists say that the universe was created by their gods, they are attempting to explain why there is something, and not nothing. If by "create" they were to mean "made using existing raw materials", they would have failed to address the question at all; While if they do (as seems more likely in this context) in fact mean "caused to exist ex nihilo", they are describing an event no human has ever observed, much less copied or mimicked.
 
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
So you defer to science when it finds no evidence of God?
Click to expand...

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.
Click to expand...

Oh, it does? But it doesn’t find evidence that God is responsible for bad stuff, is that it? And what about good stuff? Does science find evidence that God is responsible for good stuff, but not for bad stuff?

Please list this evidence, which exists entirely in your own mind. Your fantasies should be fascinating.
 
Lion IRC said:
Worldtraveller said:
My baby brother died from throat cancer. Yes, he smoked. Also Fuck you very much.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the topic of cancer. (It's not really on topic but folks seem keen to argue about theodicies wherever I go.)

Now, there's lots of places in this forum where people say some pretty brutal stuff that can be triggering depending on your previous or current life experience in the real world outside this forum.

If the topic of cancer is extremely upsetting to you because of your baby brother, you have to put yourself first and stop reading when you see the topic is being discussed. (It's been popping up in this thread very frequently.)

I don't want to discuss your baby brother. And I'm not sure why you have chosen to bring his death into the discussion.
Click to expand...

Stop bullshitting and just tell us please whether God is responsible for brain cancer in children, and if not, why not.
 
The argument from design, that certain features of our Universe must have had a designer that is not any of us human beings, is an old one, but it has problems.

How does one distinguish a designed feature from a designless feature? Order sometimes seems like evidence of design, but there are oodles of examples of order emerging without a designer being very apparent.

There is also the problem of what one may plausibly infer about the designer(s) of these features. For human designers, one regularly infers that they are multiple, finite in capability, and fallible. Identifying multiple designers is routinely done with handwriting, art styles and writing styles. That is not infallible, because it is always possible to use some other style, but it is usually reliable.

So if one was to infer design of some natural feature, out of analogy with human designers, one ought to conclude that the designers are multiple, finite, and fallible, also in analogy with human designers, and far from single and omnimax.

Furthermore, design can be a mechanism of evolution: genetic engineering, and one that can coexist with natural selection.
 
lpetrich said:
if one was to infer design of some natural feature, out of analogy with human designers, one ought to conclude that the designers are multiple, finite, and fallible, also in analogy with human designers, and far from single and omnimax.
Click to expand...
This is I think the most important part here... That there's the disconnect from the realization "humans could have done this" and that jump to "therefore Omnimax".
 
If RNA can be created in a lab, it can also occur naturally
 
Lion IRC said:
Creating it in the lab is natural.
Click to expand...
You fundamentally fail to understand what we mean by "creation". "Creation" in the usage you prefer does not apply here.

You are discussing "creation through the provision of an evolving system with a designed single degree of freedom, such that there is a single, known and knowable outcome."

This "creation" in a lab is "creation through the provision of an evolving system with a WIDE degree of freedoms such that there is no single, known, knowable outcome for the purposes of determining a the range of outcomes for that initial state."

One is turning a dice face up and saying "the number is 5" and ascertaining from this distribution that a 20 sided dice always == 5, and the other is actually throwing it in the box, turning the box in a way controlled by the nuclear decay of some radioactive shit, and seeing that the result is an unpredictable value between 1 and 20.

It's just an observation of "what happens when this stuff is configured this way". It's not creation in terms of wanting a result, just acceptance of whatever result is observed.

In short, lion, you are conflating two different definitions of the word "create".

There have been scientists who have done "special creation" in a lab vis a vis designing a whole cell and it's DNA and letting the chemical system progress through metabolic cycles, but this is more a validation of the statement that there is nothing magical, no soul that humans cannot create or force into existence. It was done to answer a different question than this.

The experiment of the OP was to see if the chaos and environment of the earth supported abiogenesis.

technically, we didn't create the outcome, we created the initial condition, a condition which was apparently invented by chaos, not by planning. It was that condition that was then observed "creating" the outcome, with our hands fully away from the tiller of that ship.
 
FWIW, I find most of this discussion, out of context, to be fruitless. Is it the Christian God whose existence is being disputed? Or just an arbitrary Creator?

Without specific properties, a Creator God is a meaningless abstraction. Or just a grammatical convenience, much like "It" in the English sentence "It is raining."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom