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

[Loren Pechtel]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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."

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.

 

[pood]

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."

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.

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.

 

[pood]

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.

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.

View attachment IMG_0527.webp

 

[pood]

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.

 

[Jokodo]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

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?

 

[Elixir]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

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?

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”.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's that word again.
reCREATE

Of course we, as agents, can imitate a process which involves agency.

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?

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.

The existence of artificial pollination proves that plants, or the wind carrying pollen, have agency?

An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.

 

[bilby]

An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.

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:

An artificial - deliberate - process involving agency is not exactly the best way to prove that stuff happens spontaneously without the involvement of an agent.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your solution is simply declarative and non-falsifiable. That's not particularly useful.

 

[Lion IRC]

Your assumption that the effect of banging rocks together will differ, depending in whether this is done intentionally or not...

That's not my assumption.
My assumption is that if you copy the way someone else did something you will get a similar result.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too bad we can't copy how god made whales capable of giving cancer the boot.

 

[EricH]

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

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?

 

[Lion IRC]

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

As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God...

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

I have lost many more patients than I have saved in the long run over my career, so God clearly wins.

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

Wonder why Christians don't brag about God creating cancer?

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

 

[Elixir]

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

So if I say “bless your heart” which kind of stuff is that?

 

[pood]

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

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?

 

[bilby]

Your assumption that the effect of banging rocks together will differ, depending in whether this is done intentionally or not...

That's not my assumption.
My assumption is that if you copy the way someone else did something you will get a similar result.

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?

 

[Lion IRC]

Let me rephrase the question.
Do we have any empirical evidence for any cause(s) of cancer apart from the God being blamed here.

 

[bilby]

Let me rephrase the question.
Do we have any empirical evidence for any cause(s) of cancer apart from the God being blamed here.

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.

 

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.