On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 3:17:02 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:to make proteins you need more information. So you got stuck somehow. So you needed something to overcome this. And the other is the fact that once you do translation you have to test your translation products, your phenotypes, but you have to store your
On 12/6/23 2:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:01:58 PM UTC+11, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:10 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:31:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:55 AM, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:21:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote: >>>>>> On 12/1/2023 10:50 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a new LSS video primer on DNA repair and the error threshold problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQm8vmtM8CI (12:22)
In relation to recent discussion of "junk DNA", this is another cost to maintaining junk DNA -- the energy and recourses needed for constant repair, though not sure how much this amounts to in practice.
Incidentally, Wikipedia makes this statement about Eigen's paradox: "Eigen's paradox is one of the most intractable puzzles in the study of the origins of life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)#Eigen's_paradox
Manfred Eigen himself proposes hypercyles to overcome the error threshold problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOtzjdR_A0 (1:47)
TRANSCRIPT:
QUESTION: What was the necessity of your theory for hypercycles? There were experiments or facts which made it necessary that you make a theory which has got the name hypercycles?
RESPONSE: As I said genotype/phenotype dichotomy. I said first of all a theory without this translation, and that would get stuck with the error threshold. In order to overcome the error threshold you have to make good proteins. But in order
explanation, you not only must assume it, you will also resist challenges to it.RNA polymers are probably pretty unlikely to occur on their own, butRNA replication likely evolved after there were simple self replicators,You're begging the question with the assertion that "RNA gene replication was already something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems". The paradox disallows such assumptions:My take is that this isn't an issue. RNA gene replication was already
something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems. >>>>>
"Without error correction enzymes, the maximum size of a replicating molecule is about 100 base pairs. For a replicating molecule to encode error correction enzymes, it must be substantially larger than 100 bases."
and we have no pretty much no idea of what they were made of. Just look
at the literature, they are proposing that the first macromolecules were
using mineral surfaces to catalyze the reactions needed to put the >>>> subunits together.
What "simple replicators"?
"RNA replication likely evolved after these". So you're saying that some unspecified non-RNA replicators were somehow replaced by RNA replicators?
they do not have to have occurred on their own. The initial speculation >> is that simple self replicators evolved. They may have required a
mineral surface or the speculation is a clay matrix to catalyze their >> synthesis.
No one has figured out what these first self replicators were. We do
not know what they could have been made from, but their replication was >> likely not perfect, and as they made more copies of themselves those
self replicators would have been able to evolve. They probably were
some type of macromolecule of some kind. Proteins have been the obvious >> choice, but glycosylation of proteins (adding sugars to the peptides) is
something that still occurs today, so my guess is that they were some >> type of mix, so such a self replicator would have a peptidase to form >> peptide bonds and glycosylation activity to tack on carbohydrates. If >> it initially relied on a mineral surface for the initial enzymatic
activity the initial products could have just made further reactions
more frequent. They could have just stabilized the catalytic activity >> of the mineral surface. In catalyzing imperfect copies of themselves
replacing the mineral surface would be selected for.
No one has figured it out, yet, but RNA polymers would not need to come >> first. We know that they eventually came because we have the vestiges >> of the RNA world that still exists in lifeforms today.
This is a key issue I think. An unspecified "replicating molecule" is just assumed. Case in point - that's what you've done. It's assumed because naturalism requires it. And if you have decided a priori that naturalism is the only allowable
The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):False. Naturalism is not presented as the only allowable explanation,How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental question? A common position here is functionally ontological/metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may become, non-natural explanations will not be considered. From "
but the only pragmatically useful one. Supernaturalism has two problem. First, it has an perfect record of failure in the past. Second, it is worse than useless, since it does not point to anything else to look
more closely at; it instead tells you to stop looking and hide your head in the sand.
Objection: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time.
Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life.
However, physics and chemistry present an awkward reality. A replicating molecule requires:See my .sig.
- a substantial amount of information
- replicate that with sufficiently high fidelity
- over many replications have a sustainable supply of sufficiently pure and concentrated substrate
- have energy and mechanical/thermal agitation maintained by its environment
- be resilient to interfering reactions
- preserve thermal chemical physical stability
- etc
Show me a demonstration of such a localised, entropy-reversing, sustained, information-increasing prebiotically plausible process.
Until then, it is hand waving and story telling. It is the scam.A scam is pointing at one thing and calling it something else.
Scientific researchers on abiogenesis don't say they have the answer;
they say (and show) that they have *possible* explanations for *part* of the answer.
Intelligent design proponents, on the other hand, say, first, that the scientists have nothing, and second, that magic is a likely (some say certain) alternative. Sure looks to me like the ID proponents are the scammers.
And that's before you get into the theological issues, which ID proponents, for good (selfish) reasons, work studiously to avoid.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 3:17:02 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:to make proteins you need more information. So you got stuck somehow. So you needed something to overcome this. And the other is the fact that once you do translation you have to test your translation products, your phenotypes, but you have to store your
On 12/6/23 2:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:01:58 PM UTC+11, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:10 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:31:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:55 AM, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:21:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote: >>>>>> On 12/1/2023 10:50 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a new LSS video primer on DNA repair and the error threshold problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQm8vmtM8CI (12:22)
In relation to recent discussion of "junk DNA", this is another cost to maintaining junk DNA -- the energy and recourses needed for constant repair, though not sure how much this amounts to in practice.
Incidentally, Wikipedia makes this statement about Eigen's paradox: "Eigen's paradox is one of the most intractable puzzles in the study of the origins of life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)#Eigen's_paradox
Manfred Eigen himself proposes hypercyles to overcome the error threshold problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOtzjdR_A0 (1:47)
TRANSCRIPT:
QUESTION: What was the necessity of your theory for hypercycles? There were experiments or facts which made it necessary that you make a theory which has got the name hypercycles?
RESPONSE: As I said genotype/phenotype dichotomy. I said first of all a theory without this translation, and that would get stuck with the error threshold. In order to overcome the error threshold you have to make good proteins. But in order
explanation, you not only must assume it, you will also resist challenges to it.RNA polymers are probably pretty unlikely to occur on their own, butRNA replication likely evolved after there were simple self replicators,You're begging the question with the assertion that "RNA gene replication was already something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems". The paradox disallows such assumptions:My take is that this isn't an issue. RNA gene replication was already
something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems. >>>>>
"Without error correction enzymes, the maximum size of a replicating molecule is about 100 base pairs. For a replicating molecule to encode error correction enzymes, it must be substantially larger than 100 bases."
and we have no pretty much no idea of what they were made of. Just look
at the literature, they are proposing that the first macromolecules were
using mineral surfaces to catalyze the reactions needed to put the >>>> subunits together.
What "simple replicators"?
"RNA replication likely evolved after these". So you're saying that some unspecified non-RNA replicators were somehow replaced by RNA replicators?
they do not have to have occurred on their own. The initial speculation >> is that simple self replicators evolved. They may have required a
mineral surface or the speculation is a clay matrix to catalyze their >> synthesis.
No one has figured out what these first self replicators were. We do
not know what they could have been made from, but their replication was >> likely not perfect, and as they made more copies of themselves those
self replicators would have been able to evolve. They probably were
some type of macromolecule of some kind. Proteins have been the obvious >> choice, but glycosylation of proteins (adding sugars to the peptides) is
something that still occurs today, so my guess is that they were some >> type of mix, so such a self replicator would have a peptidase to form >> peptide bonds and glycosylation activity to tack on carbohydrates. If >> it initially relied on a mineral surface for the initial enzymatic
activity the initial products could have just made further reactions
more frequent. They could have just stabilized the catalytic activity >> of the mineral surface. In catalyzing imperfect copies of themselves
replacing the mineral surface would be selected for.
No one has figured it out, yet, but RNA polymers would not need to come >> first. We know that they eventually came because we have the vestiges >> of the RNA world that still exists in lifeforms today.
This is a key issue I think. An unspecified "replicating molecule" is just assumed. Case in point - that's what you've done. It's assumed because naturalism requires it. And if you have decided a priori that naturalism is the only allowable
The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):False. Naturalism is not presented as the only allowable explanation,How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental question? A common position here is functionally ontological/metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may become, non-natural explanations will not be considered. From "
but the only pragmatically useful one. Supernaturalism has two problem. First, it has an perfect record of failure in the past. Second, it is worse than useless, since it does not point to anything else to look
more closely at; it instead tells you to stop looking and hide your head in the sand.
Objection: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.”
The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells andas efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail.
As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation ofa minimal cell that can reproduce autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that 91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further,
Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway to Life is a “materialism-of-the-gaps” approach—i.e., “we don’t know how life began, but we know thatonly natural processes were involved.”
However, physics and chemistry present an awkward reality. A replicating molecule requires:See my .sig.
- a substantial amount of information
- replicate that with sufficiently high fidelity
- over many replications have a sustainable supply of sufficiently pure and concentrated substrate
- have energy and mechanical/thermal agitation maintained by its environment
- be resilient to interfering reactions
- preserve thermal chemical physical stability
- etc
Show me a demonstration of such a localised, entropy-reversing, sustained, information-increasing prebiotically plausible process.
Until then, it is hand waving and story telling. It is the scam.A scam is pointing at one thing and calling it something else.
Scientific researchers on abiogenesis don't say they have the answer;
they say (and show) that they have *possible* explanations for *part* of the answer.
Intelligent design proponents, on the other hand, say, first, that the scientists have nothing, and second, that magic is a likely (some say certain) alternative. Sure looks to me like the ID proponents are the scammers.
And that's before you get into the theological issues, which ID proponents, for good (selfish) reasons, work studiously to avoid.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:32:03 AM UTC+11, Burkhard wrote:order to make proteins you need more information. So you got stuck somehow. So you needed something to overcome this. And the other is the fact that once you do translation you have to test your translation products, your phenotypes, but you have to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 11:37:02 PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 3:17:02 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/6/23 2:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:01:58 PM UTC+11, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:10 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 1:31:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote: >>>> On 12/3/2023 6:55 AM, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 4:21:58 AM UTC+11, RonO wrote: >>>>>> On 12/1/2023 10:50 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a new LSS video primer on DNA repair and the error threshold problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQm8vmtM8CI (12:22)
In relation to recent discussion of "junk DNA", this is another cost to maintaining junk DNA -- the energy and recourses needed for constant repair, though not sure how much this amounts to in practice.
Incidentally, Wikipedia makes this statement about Eigen's paradox: "Eigen's paradox is one of the most intractable puzzles in the study of the origins of life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)#Eigen's_paradox
Manfred Eigen himself proposes hypercyles to overcome the error threshold problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOtzjdR_A0 (1:47)
TRANSCRIPT:
QUESTION: What was the necessity of your theory for hypercycles? There were experiments or facts which made it necessary that you make a theory which has got the name hypercycles?
RESPONSE: As I said genotype/phenotype dichotomy. I said first of all a theory without this translation, and that would get stuck with the error threshold. In order to overcome the error threshold you have to make good proteins. But in
explanation, you not only must assume it, you will also resist challenges to it.RNA polymers are probably pretty unlikely to occur on their own, butRNA replication likely evolved after there were simple self replicators,My take is that this isn't an issue. RNA gene replication was already
something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems.
You're begging the question with the assertion that "RNA gene replication was already something that was consistently happening in the first RNA systems". The paradox disallows such assumptions:
"Without error correction enzymes, the maximum size of a replicating molecule is about 100 base pairs. For a replicating molecule to encode error correction enzymes, it must be substantially larger than 100 bases."
and we have no pretty much no idea of what they were made of. Just look
at the literature, they are proposing that the first macromolecules were
using mineral surfaces to catalyze the reactions needed to put the
subunits together.
What "simple replicators"?
"RNA replication likely evolved after these". So you're saying that some unspecified non-RNA replicators were somehow replaced by RNA replicators?
they do not have to have occurred on their own. The initial speculation
is that simple self replicators evolved. They may have required a >> mineral surface or the speculation is a clay matrix to catalyze their
synthesis.
No one has figured out what these first self replicators were. We do
not know what they could have been made from, but their replication was
likely not perfect, and as they made more copies of themselves those
self replicators would have been able to evolve. They probably were >> some type of macromolecule of some kind. Proteins have been the obvious
choice, but glycosylation of proteins (adding sugars to the peptides) is
something that still occurs today, so my guess is that they were some
type of mix, so such a self replicator would have a peptidase to form
peptide bonds and glycosylation activity to tack on carbohydrates. If
it initially relied on a mineral surface for the initial enzymatic >> activity the initial products could have just made further reactions
more frequent. They could have just stabilized the catalytic activity
of the mineral surface. In catalyzing imperfect copies of themselves
replacing the mineral surface would be selected for.
No one has figured it out, yet, but RNA polymers would not need to come
first. We know that they eventually came because we have the vestiges
of the RNA world that still exists in lifeforms today.
This is a key issue I think. An unspecified "replicating molecule" is just assumed. Case in point - that's what you've done. It's assumed because naturalism requires it. And if you have decided a priori that naturalism is the only allowable
From "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):False. Naturalism is not presented as the only allowable explanation, but the only pragmatically useful one. Supernaturalism has two problem.How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental question? A common position here is functionally ontological/metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may become, non-natural explanations will not be considered.
First, it has an perfect record of failure in the past. Second, it is worse than useless, since it does not point to anything else to look more closely at; it instead tells you to stop looking and hide your head
in the sand.
Objection: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
What material evidence, if any, would cause you to consider supernatural agency in the origin of life?Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.”Or, with other words, it makes no attempt at actually filling the gap - so it remains, by
it's own words, a mere "of the gaps" argument, and therefore sterile and uninteresting
when understood as a scientific theory, borderline blasphemous when read as a
theological position.
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
Well, no. Quantum mechanics continues to follow very predictable rules
even though it may be supernatural.
As for miracles of the sort attributed to Christ, Mohammed, Krishna,
Buddha, Coyote, Santa Claus, and innumerable other religious figures, I
refer you to Hume's essay "On Miracles". You need to deal with his
criticism before the supernatural can even have any relevance to the issue.
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of an agent who transcends spacetime.
A common understanding is this: if science discovers adequate naturalistic explanations of origins, one might provisionally conclude, "I have no need of the God hypothesis"; if science does not discover adequate naturalistic explanations of origins,one might provisionally conclude, "I have need of the God hypothesis".
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of
an agent who transcends spacetime.
Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins
occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all
the way down.)
A common understanding is this: if science discovers adequate
naturalistic explanations of origins, one might provisionally
conclude, "I have no need of the God hypothesis"; if science does not
discover adequate naturalistic explanations of origins, one might
provisionally conclude, "I have need of the God hypothesis".
The need for the God hypothesis, however, is purely a psychological
need. People without weak faith are comfortable saying, "I don't know."
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/14/23 2:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 4:32:08 AM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> On 14/12/2023 15:45, Mark Isaak wrote:You neglected to say what that other option is.
Antecedentless events do violence to my intuition. (I write
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of >>>>>> an agent who transcends spacetime.
Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without >>>>> the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an >>>>> origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins
occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all >>>>> the way down.)
antecedentless rather than uncaused as I don't have a problem with
uncaused quantum events such as radioactive decay.)
Infinite regress does violence to my intuition.
Cyclical causation does violence to my intuition. (Though if you convert >>>> that to a block universe, you're back to the first source of violence.) >>>>
In choosing between these unintuitive options, it seems to me that the >>>> reasonable thing to do is apply Occam's Razor, and accept the existence >>>> of the universe as a brute fact.
Happily, there is another option which resolves the conundrum.
An uncaused first cause.
In 1990, the Russian physicist Andrei Linde assured me that our entire cosmos—as well as an infinite number of other universes—might have sprung from a primordial "quantum fluctuation."You probably intended to say "the former option...".In choosing between the universe was uncaused, and the universe wasA common understanding is this: if science discovers adequate
naturalistic explanations of origins, one might provisionally
conclude, "I have no need of the God hypothesis"; if science does not >>>>>> discover adequate naturalistic explanations of origins, one might
provisionally conclude, "I have need of the God hypothesis".
The need for the God hypothesis, however, is purely a psychological
need. People without weak faith are comfortable saying, "I don't know." >>>>>
caused by a universogen, unless the latter actually explains anything
about the universe, rather than explaining away things, Occam's Razor
prefers the former. Unless the God hypothesis has testable predictions, >>>> it is without epistemological merit.
"...and God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic"?
The science smart money is on the universe having a beginning. For its causes, you get to choose between a quantum fluctuation and God. Wait...Lawrence Krauss is wrong, the latter option is off the table:
I did, thanks. A quantum fluctuation is off the table.
Decades ago, physicists such as the legendary John Wheeler proposed that, according to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence.
the theologian, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?,' shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages," Dawkins writes in an afterword to Krauss's book. "If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may
I took this notion—and I think Linde presented it—as a bit of mind-titillating whimsy. But Krauss asks us to take the quantum theory of creation seriously, and so does evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. "Even the last remaining trump card of
derivative book than it does about the judgment-impairing intensity of Dawkins's hatred of religion.
Whaaaa…??!! Dawkins is comparing the most enduringly profound scientific treatise in history to a pop-science book that recycles a bunch of stale ideas from physics and cosmology. This absurd hyperbole says less about the merits of Krauss's
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09 PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Accepting that answer is like accepting the explanation that morphine makes you sleepy because of its dormitive properties. It adds nothing to your understanding.
I'll say again....I am not arguing that God does not exist, only that the "uncaused cause" or God of the Gaps argument is a worthless argument for His existence.We're talking about different categories of explanation:
- I'm talking about a "primary" explanation of who/what caused the universe and life.
- You're talking about a "secondary" explanation of how nature caused the universe and life.
My approach:
1. It appears the universe had a beginning
2. This is best explained by transcendent agency
3. Use theology/other to investigate that agent
4. Continue to vigorously do science (be slow to fill gaps with God; allow God in gaps that can't be filled)
On 12/14/23 3:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 12/14/23 2:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 4:32:08 AM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>> On 14/12/2023 15:45, Mark Isaak wrote:You neglected to say what that other option is.
Antecedentless events do violence to my intuition. (I write
The universe and life originated either with or without the
action of
an agent who transcends spacetime.
Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or
without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must
be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins
occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles >>>>>> all
the way down.)
antecedentless rather than uncaused as I don't have a problem with
uncaused quantum events such as radioactive decay.)
Infinite regress does violence to my intuition.
Cyclical causation does violence to my intuition. (Though if you
convert
that to a block universe, you're back to the first source of
violence.)
In choosing between these unintuitive options, it seems to me that the >>>>> reasonable thing to do is apply Occam's Razor, and accept the
existence
of the universe as a brute fact.
Happily, there is another option which resolves the conundrum.
An uncaused first cause.
How is that better than an uncaused universe?
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09 PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:surprised, therefore, that you call the book "The God Delusion" because created gods are by definition a delusion.
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:47:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:02:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:47:08 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
John Lennox responding to Richard Dawkins "who created God?":On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
Have you read Hume's "On Miracles"?Well, no. Quantum mechanics continues to follow very predictable rules
even though it may be supernatural.
As for miracles of the sort attributed to Christ, Mohammed, Krishna, >>>>>>>>>> Buddha, Coyote, Santa Claus, and innumerable other religious figures, I
refer you to Hume's essay "On Miracles". You need to deal with his >>>>>>>>>> criticism before the supernatural can even have any relevance to the issue.
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of an agent who transcends spacetime.Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all >>>>>>>> the way down.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_sUy9RW-E [1:32 of 3:43]
Transcript (timestamps removed and punctuation added by ChatGPT): >>>>>>>
I want to address the "who designed" the designer question because it's the old schoolboy question, "Who created God?" I am actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God has created, and I'm not
After all, you are arguing that God is a delusion, and in order to weigh your argument, I said that it is you who's arguing that God is a delusion. I'm sorry, and in order to weigh that argument, I need to know what you mean by God. And if you say, "If
Now, I know I've a lot to explain that Richard doesn't like people who say to him that they don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in. But I think that this is possibly touching a sore spot because you leave yourself wide open to the charge.
makes at the beginning of his gospel. "In the beginning was the word. The word already was; all things came to be by him. God is uncreated; the universe was created by him."
The God who created the universe, ladies and gentlemen, was not created; he is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist; he did not. And this is precisely the point the Christian Apostle John
does believe in something eternal. So perhaps the difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person.
Now, I don't know whether Richard has difficulty with the concept of the uncreated. I don't know, and I'd love to know whether he believes as a materialist that matter and energy of the laws of nature were always there because if they were, he
eternal does not fend off the question "What is the explanation for why God is here?" You are saying - the universe is explained by God, and God needs no explanation. Why not just say - "the universe need no explanation"? You really do not seem to beI do not think the main issue is whether God or the universe is eternal or not. The universe is here. If you ask for an explanation of why the universe is here and say "God is the explanation for the universe," then God's being hypothetically
arguments that you have been putting forward. I am saying that the God you propose in those arguments, a God which effectively explains nothing and has no characteristics of a personal, moral God is not particularly attractive or interesting. The.......
You are saying there's no difference between God existing or not existing. How wrong that is: if God does exist, then that may or may not have eternal personal ramifications. That is a question for theology.Where did you get that from what I said? I am not arguing against God's existence, certainly not against His importance if he were to exist. I am arguing against the "God of the Gaps," or "God of the growing Gaps," or "uncaused First Cause"
of 'how' are interesting but secondary. Demanding that the God explanation provide details of 'how' is a category error.An inferred "uncaused First Cause" does not "effectively explain nothing". It explains that all things were brought into existence by transcendent agency, which is a radically different explanation to the materialist hypothesis. Detailed explanations
say "Whatever the cause is, let's call it God." It is completely content-free. >>>What does it explain? There are no details. An explanation helps you understand how something works, and often helps you predict how it will work in the future. Simply saying that "God is the cause" tells you nothing whatsoever. You might just as well
I'm asking the question of how did this all happen, by God or not? You're asking the narrower question of, how did not-God make all this happen?But the God you are talking about lacks any characteristics except being the unknown cause of whatever it is (life, the universe).
Accepting that answer is like accepting the explanation that morphine makes you sleepy because of its dormitive properties. It adds nothing to your understanding.
Allowing only that narrower question/epistemology is akin to searching for your lost keys only under the street lamp.
I'll say again....I am not arguing that God does not exist, only that the "uncaused cause" or God of the Gaps argument is a worthless argument for His existence.
We're talking about different categories of explanation:
- I'm talking about a "primary" explanation of who/what caused the universe and life.
- You're talking about a "secondary" explanation of how nature caused the universe and life.
My approach:
1. It appears the universe had a beginning
2. This is best explained by transcendent agency
3. Use theology/other to investigate that agent
4. Continue to vigorously do science (be slow to fill gaps with God; allow God in gaps that can't be filled)
On 12/14/23 7:56 PM, MarkE wrote:not surprised, therefore, that you call the book "The God Delusion" because created gods are by definition a delusion.
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09?PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:47:09?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:02:09?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:47:08?AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
John Lennox responding to Richard Dawkins "who created God?":On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05?AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...]Have you read Hume's "On Miracles"?
Well, no. Quantum mechanics continues to follow very predictable rules
even though it may be supernatural.
As for miracles of the sort attributed to Christ, Mohammed, Krishna,
Buddha, Coyote, Santa Claus, and innumerable other religious figures, I
refer you to Hume's essay "On Miracles". You need to deal with his >>>>>>>>>>> criticism before the supernatural can even have any relevance to the issue.
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of an agent who transcends spacetime.Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >>>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all
the way down.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_sUy9RW-E [1:32 of 3:43]
Transcript (timestamps removed and punctuation added by ChatGPT): >>>>>>>>
I want to address the "who designed" the designer question because it's the old schoolboy question, "Who created God?" I am actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God has created, and I'm
After all, you are arguing that God is a delusion, and in order to weigh your argument, I said that it is you who's arguing that God is a delusion. I'm sorry, and in order to weigh that argument, I need to know what you mean by God. And if you say, "If
Now, I know I've a lot to explain that Richard doesn't like people who say to him that they don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in. But I think that this is possibly touching a sore spot because you leave yourself wide open to the charge.
makes at the beginning of his gospel. "In the beginning was the word. The word already was; all things came to be by him. God is uncreated; the universe was created by him."
The God who created the universe, ladies and gentlemen, was not created; he is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist; he did not. And this is precisely the point the Christian Apostle John
does believe in something eternal. So perhaps the difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person.
Now, I don't know whether Richard has difficulty with the concept of the uncreated. I don't know, and I'd love to know whether he believes as a materialist that matter and energy of the laws of nature were always there because if they were, he
eternal does not fend off the question "What is the explanation for why God is here?" You are saying - the universe is explained by God, and God needs no explanation. Why not just say - "the universe need no explanation"? You really do not seem to beI do not think the main issue is whether God or the universe is eternal or not. The universe is here. If you ask for an explanation of why the universe is here and say "God is the explanation for the universe," then God's being hypothetically
arguments that you have been putting forward. I am saying that the God you propose in those arguments, a God which effectively explains nothing and has no characteristics of a personal, moral God is not particularly attractive or interesting. The.......
You are saying there's no difference between God existing or not existing. How wrong that is: if God does exist, then that may or may not have eternal personal ramifications. That is a question for theology.Where did you get that from what I said? I am not arguing against God's existence, certainly not against His importance if he were to exist. I am arguing against the "God of the Gaps," or "God of the growing Gaps," or "uncaused First Cause"
explanations of 'how' are interesting but secondary. Demanding that the God explanation provide details of 'how' is a category error.An inferred "uncaused First Cause" does not "effectively explain nothing". It explains that all things were brought into existence by transcendent agency, which is a radically different explanation to the materialist hypothesis. Detailed
well say "Whatever the cause is, let's call it God." It is completely content-free.What does it explain? There are no details. An explanation helps you understand how something works, and often helps you predict how it will work in the future. Simply saying that "God is the cause" tells you nothing whatsoever. You might just as
But the God you are talking about lacks any characteristics except being the unknown cause of whatever it is (life, the universe).
I'm asking the question of how did this all happen, by God or not? You're asking the narrower question of, how did not-God make all this happen?
Accepting that answer is like accepting the explanation that morphine makes you sleepy because of its dormitive properties. It adds nothing to your understanding.
Allowing only that narrower question/epistemology is akin to searching for your lost keys only under the street lamp.
I'll say again....I am not arguing that God does not exist, only that the "uncaused cause" or God of the Gaps argument is a worthless argument for His existence.
We're talking about different categories of explanation:
- I'm talking about a "primary" explanation of who/what caused the universe and life.
- You're talking about a "secondary" explanation of how nature caused the universe and life.
My approach:
1. It appears the universe had a beginning
2. This is best explained by transcendent agency
3. Use theology/other to investigate that agent
In regards to step 3, how many Vedic texts have you studied? I assume
you are fully conversant with the Enuma Elish and Egyptian Book of the
Dead, but how about the Popol Vuh and Kalevala? You would also need
working knowledge of shamanism from at least every inhabited continent.
I'm curious just how far along you are in your use of theology.
4. Continue to vigorously do science (be slow to fill gaps with God; allow God in gaps that can't be filled)
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:07:10 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/14/23 4:41 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/14/23 3:05 PM, MarkE wrote:How is it *different* from an uncaused universe?
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 12/14/23 2:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 4:32:08 AM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/12/2023 15:45, Mark Isaak wrote:You neglected to say what that other option is.
Antecedentless events do violence to my intuition. (I write
The universe and life originated either with or without the
action of
an agent who transcends spacetime.
Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or >>>>>>>> without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must >>>>>>>> be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles >>>>>>>> all
the way down.)
antecedentless rather than uncaused as I don't have a problem with >>>>>>> uncaused quantum events such as radioactive decay.)
Infinite regress does violence to my intuition.
Cyclical causation does violence to my intuition. (Though if you >>>>>>> convert
that to a block universe, you're back to the first source of
violence.)
In choosing between these unintuitive options, it seems to me that the >>>>>>> reasonable thing to do is apply Occam's Razor, and accept the
existence
of the universe as a brute fact.
Happily, there is another option which resolves the conundrum.
An uncaused first cause.
How is that better than an uncaused universe?
The universe had a beginning, therefore by definition an uncaused universe is not an option.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
We all must make a choice. Atheism and agnosticism are still choices. Deciding "we don't know" is a choice.
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 9:27:10?AM UTC+11, Bob Casanova wrote:not surprised, therefore, that you call the book "The God Delusion" because created gods are by definition a delusion.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:24:31 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 12/14/23 7:56 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09?PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:47:09?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:02:09?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:47:08?AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:John Lennox responding to Richard Dawkins "who created God?":
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05?AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
Have you read Hume's "On Miracles"?Well, no. Quantum mechanics continues to follow very predictable rules
even though it may be supernatural.
As for miracles of the sort attributed to Christ, Mohammed, Krishna,
Buddha, Coyote, Santa Claus, and innumerable other religious figures, I
refer you to Hume's essay "On Miracles". You need to deal with his
criticism before the supernatural can even have any relevance to the issue.
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of an agent who transcends spacetime.Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >> >>>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all
the way down.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_sUy9RW-E [1:32 of 3:43]
Transcript (timestamps removed and punctuation added by ChatGPT): >> >>>>>>>>
I want to address the "who designed" the designer question because it's the old schoolboy question, "Who created God?" I am actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God has created, and I'm
charge. After all, you are arguing that God is a delusion, and in order to weigh your argument, I said that it is you who's arguing that God is a delusion. I'm sorry, and in order to weigh that argument, I need to know what you mean by God. And if you
Now, I know I've a lot to explain that Richard doesn't like people who say to him that they don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in. But I think that this is possibly touching a sore spot because you leave yourself wide open to the
makes at the beginning of his gospel. "In the beginning was the word. The word already was; all things came to be by him. God is uncreated; the universe was created by him."
The God who created the universe, ladies and gentlemen, was not created; he is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist; he did not. And this is precisely the point the Christian Apostle John
he does believe in something eternal. So perhaps the difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person.
Now, I don't know whether Richard has difficulty with the concept of the uncreated. I don't know, and I'd love to know whether he believes as a materialist that matter and energy of the laws of nature were always there because if they were,
eternal does not fend off the question "What is the explanation for why God is here?" You are saying - the universe is explained by God, and God needs no explanation. Why not just say - "the universe need no explanation"? You really do not seem to beI do not think the main issue is whether God or the universe is eternal or not. The universe is here. If you ask for an explanation of why the universe is here and say "God is the explanation for the universe," then God's being hypothetically
arguments that you have been putting forward. I am saying that the God you propose in those arguments, a God which effectively explains nothing and has no characteristics of a personal, moral God is not particularly attractive or interesting. The.......
You are saying there's no difference between God existing or not existing. How wrong that is: if God does exist, then that may or may not have eternal personal ramifications. That is a question for theology.Where did you get that from what I said? I am not arguing against God's existence, certainly not against His importance if he were to exist. I am arguing against the "God of the Gaps," or "God of the growing Gaps," or "uncaused First Cause"
explanations of 'how' are interesting but secondary. Demanding that the God explanation provide details of 'how' is a category error.An inferred "uncaused First Cause" does not "effectively explain nothing". It explains that all things were brought into existence by transcendent agency, which is a radically different explanation to the materialist hypothesis. Detailed
well say "Whatever the cause is, let's call it God." It is completely content-free.What does it explain? There are no details. An explanation helps you understand how something works, and often helps you predict how it will work in the future. Simply saying that "God is the cause" tells you nothing whatsoever. You might just as
our toes.You missed this one, Mark; "can't be filled" according toBut the God you are talking about lacks any characteristics except being the unknown cause of whatever it is (life, the universe).
I'm asking the question of how did this all happen, by God or not? You're asking the narrower question of, how did not-God make all this happen?
Accepting that answer is like accepting the explanation that morphine makes you sleepy because of its dormitive properties. It adds nothing to your understanding.
Allowing only that narrower question/epistemology is akin to searching for your lost keys only under the street lamp.
I'll say again....I am not arguing that God does not exist, only that the "uncaused cause" or God of the Gaps argument is a worthless argument for His existence.
We're talking about different categories of explanation:
- I'm talking about a "primary" explanation of who/what caused the universe and life.
- You're talking about a "secondary" explanation of how nature caused the universe and life.
My approach:
1. It appears the universe had a beginning
2. This is best explained by transcendent agency
3. Use theology/other to investigate that agent
In regards to step 3, how many Vedic texts have you studied? I assume
you are fully conversant with the Enuma Elish and Egyptian Book of the
Dead, but how about the Popol Vuh and Kalevala? You would also need
working knowledge of shamanism from at least every inhabited continent.
I'm curious just how far along you are in your use of theology.
4. Continue to vigorously do science (be slow to fill gaps with God; allow God in gaps that can't be filled)
*what* tests and/or proofs? Since science is a
never-complete process, how is that determination made?
You'll be relieved to know that, as it turns out, I didn't "miss this one". In a preceding hundred threads/posts I have discussed at length (effectively or otherwise) what you're asking for. But good of you to drop in with a one-liner to keep us all on
On 16/12/2023 11:28, MarkE wrote:
We all must make a choice. Atheism and agnosticism are still choices. Deciding "we don't know" is a choice.
Do you understand the difference between belief and profession?
On 16/12/2023 11:14, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:07:10 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/14/23 4:41 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/14/23 3:05 PM, MarkE wrote:How is it *different* from an uncaused universe?
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+11, John Harshman
wrote:
On 12/14/23 2:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 4:32:08 AM UTC+11, Ernest Major >>>>>>> wrote:You neglected to say what that other option is.
On 14/12/2023 15:45, Mark Isaak wrote:
Antecedentless events do violence to my intuition. (I write
The universe and life originated either with or without the >>>>>>>>>> action of
an agent who transcends spacetime.
Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or >>>>>>>>> without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must >>>>>>>>> be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >>>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles >>>>>>>>> all
the way down.)
antecedentless rather than uncaused as I don't have a problem with >>>>>>>> uncaused quantum events such as radioactive decay.)
Infinite regress does violence to my intuition.
Cyclical causation does violence to my intuition. (Though if you >>>>>>>> convert
that to a block universe, you're back to the first source of
violence.)
In choosing between these unintuitive options, it seems to me
that the
reasonable thing to do is apply Occam's Razor, and accept the
existence
of the universe as a brute fact.
Happily, there is another option which resolves the conundrum.
An uncaused first cause.
How is that better than an uncaused universe?
The universe had a beginning, therefore by definition an uncaused
universe is not an option.
I see at least two problems with that assertion.
Firstly the assertion that things that have a beginning must have a
cause. You are treating eternal and caused as disjunct properties; you
need to demonstrate that they are not orthogonal properties.
Secondly that the universe had a beginning is not a safe statement of
fact. Observation tells us that those parts of the universe causally connected to us were once very much denser, very much hotter, and very
much smaller. That is not the same as telling us that the universe had a beginning.
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:27:09 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:not surprised, therefore, that you call the book "The God Delusion" because created gods are by definition a delusion.
On 12/14/23 7:56 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09 PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:47:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:02:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:47:08 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:John Lennox responding to Richard Dawkins "who created God?": >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_sUy9RW-E [1:32 of 3:43]
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
Have you read Hume's "On Miracles"?Well, no. Quantum mechanics continues to follow very predictable rules
even though it may be supernatural.
As for miracles of the sort attributed to Christ, Mohammed, Krishna,
Buddha, Coyote, Santa Claus, and innumerable other religious figures, I
refer you to Hume's essay "On Miracles". You need to deal with his >>>>>>>>>>>> criticism before the supernatural can even have any relevance to the issue.
The universe and life originated either with or without the action of an agent who transcends spacetime.Such an agent who transcends spacetime originated either with or without
the action of a different, prior agent. At some point, there must be an
origin of intelligence without help of intelligence. (Or, origins >>>>>>>>>> occurred via time travel from the future; or, it really is turtles all
the way down.)
Transcript (timestamps removed and punctuation added by ChatGPT): >>>>>>>>>
I want to address the "who designed" the designer question because it's the old schoolboy question, "Who created God?" I am actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God has created, and I'm
charge. After all, you are arguing that God is a delusion, and in order to weigh your argument, I said that it is you who's arguing that God is a delusion. I'm sorry, and in order to weigh that argument, I need to know what you mean by God. And if you
Now, I know I've a lot to explain that Richard doesn't like people who say to him that they don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in. But I think that this is possibly touching a sore spot because you leave yourself wide open to the
makes at the beginning of his gospel. "In the beginning was the word. The word already was; all things came to be by him. God is uncreated; the universe was created by him."
The God who created the universe, ladies and gentlemen, was not created; he is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist; he did not. And this is precisely the point the Christian Apostle John
does believe in something eternal. So perhaps the difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person.
Now, I don't know whether Richard has difficulty with the concept of the uncreated. I don't know, and I'd love to know whether he believes as a materialist that matter and energy of the laws of nature were always there because if they were, he
eternal does not fend off the question "What is the explanation for why God is here?" You are saying - the universe is explained by God, and God needs no explanation. Why not just say - "the universe need no explanation"? You really do not seem to beI do not think the main issue is whether God or the universe is eternal or not. The universe is here. If you ask for an explanation of why the universe is here and say "God is the explanation for the universe," then God's being hypothetically
arguments that you have been putting forward. I am saying that the God you propose in those arguments, a God which effectively explains nothing and has no characteristics of a personal, moral God is not particularly attractive or interesting. The.......
You are saying there's no difference between God existing or not existing. How wrong that is: if God does exist, then that may or may not have eternal personal ramifications. That is a question for theology.Where did you get that from what I said? I am not arguing against God's existence, certainly not against His importance if he were to exist. I am arguing against the "God of the Gaps," or "God of the growing Gaps," or "uncaused First Cause"
explanations of 'how' are interesting but secondary. Demanding that the God explanation provide details of 'how' is a category error.An inferred "uncaused First Cause" does not "effectively explain nothing". It explains that all things were brought into existence by transcendent agency, which is a radically different explanation to the materialist hypothesis. Detailed
well say "Whatever the cause is, let's call it God." It is completely content-free.What does it explain? There are no details. An explanation helps you understand how something works, and often helps you predict how it will work in the future. Simply saying that "God is the cause" tells you nothing whatsoever. You might just as
In regards to step 3, how many Vedic texts have you studied? I assumeBut the God you are talking about lacks any characteristics except being the unknown cause of whatever it is (life, the universe).
I'm asking the question of how did this all happen, by God or not? You're asking the narrower question of, how did not-God make all this happen?
Accepting that answer is like accepting the explanation that morphine makes you sleepy because of its dormitive properties. It adds nothing to your understanding.
Allowing only that narrower question/epistemology is akin to searching for your lost keys only under the street lamp.
I'll say again....I am not arguing that God does not exist, only that the "uncaused cause" or God of the Gaps argument is a worthless argument for His existence.
We're talking about different categories of explanation:
- I'm talking about a "primary" explanation of who/what caused the universe and life.
- You're talking about a "secondary" explanation of how nature caused the universe and life.
My approach:
1. It appears the universe had a beginning
2. This is best explained by transcendent agency
3. Use theology/other to investigate that agent
you are fully conversant with the Enuma Elish and Egyptian Book of the
Dead, but how about the Popol Vuh and Kalevala? You would also need
working knowledge of shamanism from at least every inhabited continent.
I'm curious just how far along you are in your use of theology.
Look up a response to the quip "as an atheist, I just believe in one god less than you".
But sure, my own theological exploration is by no means exhaustive, nor evenly distributed. We all adopt a worldview based on incomplete information and capacity/willingness to assess that information.
Further confounding things is the choice between universalism and the "The Scandal of the Particular", e.g. https://cac.org/daily-meditations/the-scandal-of-the-particular-2018-03-19/
We all must make a choice. Atheism and agnosticism are still choices. Deciding "we don't know" is a choice.
The choice we make may or may not matter in the end.
On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 4:27:12 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 8:07:11 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 1:22:10 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:22:10 PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 10:57:08 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27:09 PM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:47:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:02:09 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47:09 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:47:08 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:22:05 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
On TO, by virtue of its nature and purpose, I do confine my engagement somewhat. Generally though, my interest in science (including that related to origins) is driven by curiosity and a desire to understand.
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 19:25:42 -0800 (PST)
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 4:27:12?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 8:07:11?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 1:22:10?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:17:10?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:22:10? UTC+11, broger@gmail.com:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 10:57:08 UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:27 UTC+11, broger@gmail.com:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:47:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11 UTC+11, broger@gmail.com:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:02:09?PM UTC-5, MarkE:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 UTC+11, broger@gmail.com:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:47PM UTC-5, MarkE:
On Friday, December 15, 2023, Mark Isaak:
On 12/12/23 3:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
[]
On TO, by virtue of its nature and purpose, I do confine my engagement somewhat. Generally though, my interest in science (including that[]
related to origins) is driven by curiosity and a desire to understand.
I do wish you'd not quoted 28k of text just to add this bit.
Mark Isaak "Wisdom begins when you discover
the difference between 'That doesn't make
sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Mark Isaak's unsnipped sig left in for posterity
On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 4:22:14?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism#:~:text=Metaphysical%20naturalism%20(also%20called%20ontological,studied%20by%20the%20natural%20sciences.
On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 2:17:13?PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 12:12:11?AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 10:57:03?PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
<snip old stuff>
Let's deal with the fundamental issue first. If we have no agreement on the terms of engagement, meaningful discussion is not possible.
Would you describe your own position as ontological/metaphysical naturalism or similar?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by
microevolution).ID's explanation: an intelligent agent brought space and time into existence, and created information and embodied it in organisms by some combination of direct "supernatural" intervention (e.g. OoL) and indirect "natural" processes (e.g.
I'll add one more: To consider non-natural explanations, one must first
have some non-natural explanations to consider. Simply saying "a
miracle occurred" explains nothing. An explanation has to say *why* >> > > > > something is one way rather than another way. ID actively avoids having
explanations, natural *or* non-natural.
and omnipotent. He could therefore have used any number of means to get life started. I hold it most likely that in the same way that he used the laws of nature to create galaxies, stars and planets, he similarly was clever enough to design laws of
Let me have another go at why supernatural and natural explanations are not competing hypotheses. I'll argue from the position I had when I was a Christian.
You and I agree that God caused life to get started. That is, we both agree that there is a supernatural explanation. Where we disagree is on the details of the specific supernatural explanation. In my view, and I think in yours, God is omniscient
and that He therefore had to override the natural laws He created in order to kickstart life. Given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, that seems like a strange position to have any confidence in. It seems even stranger, given that the evidence for
You, on the other hand are, if not convinced, tending towards being convinced that God could not have done it that way, and that He designed natural laws that would do a lot of great creative things on their own, but would not give rise to life,
to step in and nudge a particle here and there?You've outlined the interventionist (e.g. theistic evolutionist) and interventionist positions. Either seems possible to me in-principle, though as you note, I favour the latter based on my own reading of science.
Does the interventionist view underestimate God's cleverness? Well, both options refer to means, not ends. Therefore, if you measure God's cleverness the end products, they are equally clever.
If you want to measure God's cleverness by means, then are you suggesting that God had to work harder/smarter with the non-interventionist approach, i.e. God had to front-load the big bang so precisely that the whole thing unfolded without the need
human perspective, designing a system that does what you want it to without your having to tinker with it after you've built it, does seem more clever, than just doing a rough draft and editing on the fly. I mean if you can make embryogenesis andBill, I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
As I said; if you have an omniscient, omnipotent, inscrutable God, it's hard to say much of anything. What would it mean for an omnipotent being to work harder? - any finite amount of work is infinitely small compared to infinite power. But from a more
And the other point is that I do think you overestimate human cleverness. I see no reason at all to think that all potentially interesting scientific questions are soluble by humans, even those with entirely naturalistic answers.
To sum up:
1. Don’t prematurely insert God in a gap; don’t refuse to see the possibility of God in a gulf; we each must decide if/when a gap becomes a gulf.
2. There is a difference between an “unsolved problem” and an unsolvable problem. Again, we each must decide which is which. Dark matter would currently be in the “unsolved” category for most people. I’m arguing that OoL is approaching “unsolvable” based on my interpretation of the science (a provisional determination, without the certainty of a mathematical proof, but with sufficient evidence to make this a reasonable judgment).
I acknowledge that you not only disagree with my choice, but have adopted a position that forever excludes a determination of “unsolvable” with respect to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Your chosen options are limited to “thishypothesis/hypotheses” or “we don’t know”.
But to be clear: we both must make subjective, personal choices here. We can argue about the validity and reasonableness of our different choices, but neither is inherently, demonstrably, objectively, logically wrong.
On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 2:27:16 PM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:unsolvable” based on my interpretation of the science (a provisional determination, without the certainty of a mathematical proof, but with sufficient evidence to make this a reasonable judgment).
On 12/20/23 1:43 PM, MarkE wrote:
To sum up:"Each"? You sound like you're saying the existence or nonexistence of
1. Don’t prematurely insert God in a gap; don’t refuse to see the possibility of God in a gulf; we each must decide if/when a gap becomes a gulf.
God -- not just belief thereof, but the reality of the situation --
comes down to subjective opinion.
2. There is a difference between an “unsolved problem” and an unsolvable problem. Again, we each must decide which is which. Dark matter would currently be in the “unsolved” category for most people. I’m arguing that OoL is approaching “
this hypothesis/hypotheses” or “we don’t know”.I wonder what it take to move OoL into even a provisionally unsolvable
category. I would say minimum requirements would be, first, advances in
paleogeology to tell us exactly what conditions on Earth were like for
the ten million or so years before the origin of life; and second,
advances in computing power (and hardware architecture) to allow rapid
simulation of gazillions of potential chemical and substrate conditions,
with the ability to follow all possible outcomes and their outcomes and
their outcomes, ... x 20 or more, including events that have only a 1 in
a 10^10 chance of occurring. We're nowhere close to calling OoL
unsolvable yet.
And I wonder what your argument implies if humans did not exist. Even
for dolphins, bonobos, elephants, octopuses, and crows, figuring out
what causes tides would probably be an unsolvable problem. Can you say
for sure that, for a sufficiently advanced species, Mr. Tour
contemplating the origin of life would be like an octopus watching the
tides?
I acknowledge that you not only disagree with my choice, but have adopted a position that forever excludes a determination of “unsolvable” with respect to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Your chosen options are limited to “
You have same two options. You simply choose to include "magic" as a
hypothesis and, for reasons I don't understand, refuse to consider "we
don't know" as having any value.
But to be clear: we both must make subjective, personal choices here. We can argue about the validity and reasonableness of our different choices, but neither is inherently, demonstrably, objectively, logically wrong.There are worse things than being wrong, and I believe your approach is
one of them. It discourages research, encourages useless ideas, and,
arguably, promotes bad morals (hubris) and bad theology.
And yet, the OoL gulf grows with the march of science: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/pE9F4Lkuumw/m/WzdQ2WhvAwAJ
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:32:45 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,698 |