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

[bilby]

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

Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.

 

[Elixir]

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

Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

Ya think?

It’s all or nothing I say! The illusion of conformity to natural laws is but a veneer imposed upon our reality by an omnipotent being that created us special to tell it how cool it is. Nuff said, let’s get back to work.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

 

[bilby]

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

Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Literally nobody is doing that in this thread. Nobody here but you even thinks there are any gods at which a finger might be pointed.

Take your inability to comprehend simple logic and shove it.

 

[pood]

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

Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Are you bloody serious? As Bilby notes, NO ONE here, except you in this thread, believes that God exists. What we are saying is that IF your omni-God existed, then why should he get the credit for good things but take no blame for bad things, as you are inclined to do? We are calling out the intellectual dishonesty of people like you who know about the man-made causes of GOOD THINGS, like curing kids of cancer, which your God NEVER does, while still crediting God for the good things whle absolving him of any blame for the bad things. This is your example of intellectual consistency?

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

 

[Swammerdami]

How did this discussion end up in a thread about the biochemical origin of life?

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

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Is God omnipotent and omniscient?
Or just a working man too exhausted to work on the seventh day, a day he could have used to find a cure for cancer?

Gottfried Leibniz -- one of the very smartest humans who ever lived -- spent much effort pondering how evil could exist in the world God created. He did NOT turn to atheism in despair.

Leibniz on the Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

... Leibniz often points to the more metaphysical standards as the ones God utilizes in assessing the goodness of worlds.... In general, Leibniz holds that God creates the world in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible. In light of the fact that created beings, in virtue of their limitations, can mirror the divine goodness only in limited respects, God creates a variety of things, each of which has an essence that reflects a different facet of divine perfection in its own unique way. Since this is God's purpose in creating the world, it would be reasonable to think that maximizing the mirroring of divine goodness in creation is the goal that God seeks to achieve. And this in fact is one of the standards Leibniz seems to endorse. We might call this the “maximization of essence” standard. Leibniz seems convinced that the actual world meets this standard and that creatures are to be found that mirror the divine perfections in all the sorts of ways that creatures can do this. Thus, there are creatures with bodies and creatures without, creatures with freedom and intelligence and creatures without, creatures with sentience and creatures without, etc.

In some texts, however, Leibniz frames the standard of goodness in what some have taken to be a third distinct way. In these places he argues that the goodness of a world is measured by the ratio between the variety of phenomena that a world contains and the simplicity of the laws that govern that world. Here Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the perfection of a world that maximizes the variety of phenomena it contains is enhanced by the simplicity of its laws since this displays the intelligence of the creator who created it.

My own opinion is irrelevant compared with Leibniz', but for the record I wonder if Max Tegmark is on the right track with his Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse.

 

[pood]

How did this discussion end up in a thread about the biochemical origin of life?

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

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Is God omnipotent and omniscient?
Or just a working man too exhausted to work on the seventh day, a day he could have used to find a cure for cancer?

Gottfried Leibniz -- one of the very smartest humans who ever lived -- spent much effort pondering how evil could exist in the world God created. He did NOT turn to atheism in despair.

Leibniz on the Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

... Leibniz often points to the more metaphysical standards as the ones God utilizes in assessing the goodness of worlds.... In general, Leibniz holds that God creates the world in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible. In light of the fact that created beings, in virtue of their limitations, can mirror the divine goodness only in limited respects, God creates a variety of things, each of which has an essence that reflects a different facet of divine perfection in its own unique way. Since this is God's purpose in creating the world, it would be reasonable to think that maximizing the mirroring of divine goodness in creation is the goal that God seeks to achieve. And this in fact is one of the standards Leibniz seems to endorse. We might call this the “maximization of essence” standard. Leibniz seems convinced that the actual world meets this standard and that creatures are to be found that mirror the divine perfections in all the sorts of ways that creatures can do this. Thus, there are creatures with bodies and creatures without, creatures with freedom and intelligence and creatures without, creatures with sentience and creatures without, etc.

In some texts, however, Leibniz frames the standard of goodness in what some have taken to be a third distinct way. In these places he argues that the goodness of a world is measured by the ratio between the variety of phenomena that a world contains and the simplicity of the laws that govern that world. Here Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the perfection of a world that maximizes the variety of phenomena it contains is enhanced by the simplicity of its laws since this displays the intelligence of the creator who created it.

My own opinion is irrelevant compared with Leibniz', but for the record I wonder if Max Tegmark is on the right track with his Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse.

Leibniz, master of tortured post-hoc rationalization.

This is the best of all possible worlds defense, and this is really the best god can do “in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible”? Really? But what about heaven? God made that too, and supposedly there, there is no pain or suffering or evil at all. So what gives?

As to this world, wouldn’t be better if, while keeping it exactly the way it is, have one fewer child die of cancer? Wouldn’t that be better? But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

 

[Elixir]

But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

All powerful, but basically disinterested.
Can you blame him? Just look how lame and unappreciative his creations are.

 

[pood]

But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

All powerful, but basically disinterested.
Can you blame him? Just look how lame and unappreciative his creations are.

Well, sure, and that’s why the all-loving God drowned nearly all of them in a worldwide flood.

 

[Elixir]

Well, sure, and that’s why the all-loving God drowned nearly all of them in a worldwide flood.

Like every other righteous human being, I’m thinking “that’s what I woulda done!”

 

[Swammerdami]

...
In some texts, however, Leibniz frames the standard of goodness in what some have taken to be a third distinct way. In these places he argues that the goodness of a world is measured by the ratio between the variety of phenomena that a world contains and the simplicity of the laws that govern that world. Here Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the perfection of a world that maximizes the variety of phenomena it contains is enhanced by the simplicity of its laws since this displays the intelligence of the creator who created it.

Leibniz, master of tortured post-hoc rationalization.

This is the best of all possible worlds defense, and this is really the best god can do “in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible”? Really? But what about heaven? God made that too, and supposedly there, there is no pain or suffering or evil at all. So what gives?

As to this world, wouldn’t be better if, while keeping it exactly the way it is, have one fewer child die of cancer? Wouldn’t that be better? But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

Give Leibniz a LITTLE more credit than that. Reread the phrases I've colored red. Intervening one child a time to cure a cancer is hardly SIMPLICITY.

 

[pood]

...
In some texts, however, Leibniz frames the standard of goodness in what some have taken to be a third distinct way. In these places he argues that the goodness of a world is measured by the ratio between the variety of phenomena that a world contains and the simplicity of the laws that govern that world. Here Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the perfection of a world that maximizes the variety of phenomena it contains is enhanced by the simplicity of its laws since this displays the intelligence of the creator who created it.

Leibniz, master of tortured post-hoc rationalization.

This is the best of all possible worlds defense, and this is really the best god can do “in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible”? Really? But what about heaven? God made that too, and supposedly there, there is no pain or suffering or evil at all. So what gives?

As to this world, wouldn’t be better if, while keeping it exactly the way it is, have one fewer child die of cancer? Wouldn’t that be better? But I guess that’s beyond an omnipotent god.

Give Leibniz a LITTLE more credit than that. Reread the phrases I've colored red. Intervening one child a time to cure a cancer is hardly SIMPLICITY.

My point was that he could have intervened to save only ONE child from cancer, meaning the world would be exactly the same as it is, with all the cancer deaths and other calamities, but just LITTLE BIT better for having saved just ONE EXTRA child from cancer. But Leibniz is asking us to believe that this world, the one we have, is the BEST God can do given his need for variety of phenomena, simplicity, blah blah blah. The world would have LESS variety of phenomena, LESS simplicity, if he had aroused his lazy ass to save even ONE EXTRA CHILD from cancer?

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

I wouldn't say re-create so much as implement the same process.

Either way your point is valid: the rock tumbler is proof of the theory of motion-driven erosion over time, as effected by the hardness of the media.

 

[bilby]

How did this discussion end up in a thread about the biochemical origin of life?

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

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Is God omnipotent and omniscient?
Or just a working man too exhausted to work on the seventh day, a day he could have used to find a cure for cancer?

Gottfried Leibniz -- one of the very smartest humans who ever lived -- spent much effort pondering how evil could exist in the world God created. He did NOT turn to atheism in despair.

Leibniz on the Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

... Leibniz often points to the more metaphysical standards as the ones God utilizes in assessing the goodness of worlds.... In general, Leibniz holds that God creates the world in order to share his goodness with created things in the most perfect manner possible. In light of the fact that created beings, in virtue of their limitations, can mirror the divine goodness only in limited respects, God creates a variety of things, each of which has an essence that reflects a different facet of divine perfection in its own unique way. Since this is God's purpose in creating the world, it would be reasonable to think that maximizing the mirroring of divine goodness in creation is the goal that God seeks to achieve. And this in fact is one of the standards Leibniz seems to endorse. We might call this the “maximization of essence” standard. Leibniz seems convinced that the actual world meets this standard and that creatures are to be found that mirror the divine perfections in all the sorts of ways that creatures can do this. Thus, there are creatures with bodies and creatures without, creatures with freedom and intelligence and creatures without, creatures with sentience and creatures without, etc.

In some texts, however, Leibniz frames the standard of goodness in what some have taken to be a third distinct way. In these places he argues that the goodness of a world is measured by the ratio between the variety of phenomena that a world contains and the simplicity of the laws that govern that world. Here Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the perfection of a world that maximizes the variety of phenomena it contains is enhanced by the simplicity of its laws since this displays the intelligence of the creator who created it.

My own opinion is irrelevant compared with Leibniz', but for the record I wonder if Max Tegmark is on the right track with his Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse.

Thank you for this demonstration that even the smartest people can, when they start with a premise that has been drummed into them from infancy as unquestionable, find ways to persuade themselves that that premise must be true.

Litterally nobody in history has ever been right about everything, no matter how smart they are; And so we shouldn't accept anyone as an authority on everything, but should be prepared to recognise and dismiss their gross errors - as we see here with this pathetic attempt at reasoning from a man who is, as you correctly note, "one of the very smartest humans who ever lived".

Liebnitz was incredibly smart. But he still hid from his own reasoning faculties, when God was under consideration - and like all intelligent theists, his arguments suddenly became weak, riddled with fallacies and questionable assumptions that went inchallenged, and convincing only to those (like himself) who wanted desparately to be convinced by them.

Religious indoctrination isn't rational, and rationality is a poor defence against it, not least because it is almost invariably effected before the age at which reasoning first appears. Infants believe what they are told. Even the infant Liebnitz. And shaking that belief once they reach adulthood is very difficult indeed, as the tortured mental gymnastics you posted above show very clearly.

 

[Swammerdami]

My own opinion is irrelevant compared with Leibniz', but for the record I wonder if Max Tegmark is on the right track with his Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse.

I'm too lazy to search. Have we discussed Tegmark's "Level IV" idea here? It may be similar to the Simulation Hypothesis, except that all possible "simulations" are being run "automatically".

 

[pood]

My own opinion is irrelevant compared with Leibniz', but for the record I wonder if Max Tegmark is on the right track with his Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse.

I'm too lazy to search. Have we discussed Tegmark's "Level IV" idea here? It may be similar to the Simulation Hypothesis, except that all possible "simulations" are being run "automatically".

That’s a great article, even if one may be skeptical of some of the claims. I read that years ago, and will reread when I get a chance. I don’t believe he discusses David K. Lewis’s plurality of worlds — the claim that every logically possible way that a world can be, is a way that it actually is. It’s sometimes called Extreme Modal Realism or the Modal Multiverse. So that would be Level V, I guess.

 

[pood]

As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that? As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.

 

[Lion IRC]

How did this discussion end up in a thread about the biochemical origin of life?

Someone took the opportunity to gratuitously assert that God is the origin of a biochemical process called cancer . Not simulated cancer. Not holographic cancer. The real thing.

And if God is the cause of that what's the problem with Him also being the cause of life on Earth?

 

[pood]

How did this discussion end up in a thread about the biochemical origin of life?

Someone took the opportunity to gratuitously assert that God is the origin of a biochemical process called cancer . Not simulated cancer. Not holographic cancer. The real thing.

And if God is the cause of that what's the problem with Him also being the cause of life on Earth?

As we have pointed out, you have got it completely bassackwards. NOBODY in this thread believes God exists. We are saying IF your God exists, THEN it would be terribly inconsistent of you to claim that he should be credited for all the good things but absolved of all the bad things.

So we can turn the question around. If God exists, and he is the origin of life on earth, what’s the problem with him also being to blame for cancer?

 

[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...

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

If the creationists are to be believed, God created life, he created the living cells, and designed them to mutate when subjected to certain conditions. Heck, some people have claimed that God designed rivers and streams to polish pebbles that fall into the water, and the gems that are formed under high pressure and temperature inside the crust. So yes, if the creationist claim is true, then God designed cancer. Like everything else.

It is also disingenuous to imply that only smokers get cancer. That is not true at all. And even with smokers, didn't God invent tobacco so man could smoke it?

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.

It is hypocritical to give God credit for the good stuff (making polished pebbles and beautiful gems) but absolve him of blame for all the bas stuff. But that's what Christians do, because religious apologetics rarely rely on facts and logic, just naked assertions that are often contradicted by reality.

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?

Did God create cancer? Yes or no?